Will canon put out a camera comparable to Nikon D700?

I switched over to canon a bit over a year ago b/c i much prefer canon lenses to nikon, but nikon has a much better camera selection

D700: full frame, 8fps with grip, low noise, 45 point autofocus

closest canon has is 1DMk3 but is cropped sensor

---->Will canon make a full frame 1dmk3 (not 1dsmk3 b/c too low fps)

THIS IS NOT A CANON VS. NIKON THREAD WAR... please only respond with any insight into what would be comparable from Canon

I don't think anyone would place the D700 ahead of the 1Dmk3, regardless of 1.3x vs FF. So in answer, yes, Canon has made a camera like the D700, only better, and called it the 1Dmk3.

^It's also twice the price. I don't think Canon will make the 5D a sports camera like the D700; it's always been aimed towards wedding and landscape photographers. Their way of thinking is, if you're a pro sports shooter, you need a 1D3.

RyanM wrote in post #7945539
I switched over to canon a bit over a year ago b/c i much prefer canon lenses to nikon, but nikon has a much better camera selection

D700: full frame, 8fps with grip, low noise, 45 point autofocus

closest canon has is 1DMk3 but is cropped sensor

---->Will canon make a full frame 1dmk3 (not 1dsmk3 b/c too low fps)

THIS IS NOT A CANON VS. NIKON THREAD WAR... please only respond with any insight into what would be comparable from Canon

Not going Canon vs Nikon...but the D700 has limitations on that 8fps speed..

Namely its only 12-bit that can manage this, 14-bit slows that 8fps down to about 5-6fps...without the grip thats down in the same neighborhood of a 5D Mark II...the D700 will only go for 20 shots, Not 30 like a 1D as well...

The 5D Mark II is also a lot higher resolution than the D700...

As for noise performance, I honestly cant say I've seen absolute proof Nikon > Canon...I've seen tests go both ways, the way I see it its too close to truely call..with some tests favoring Canon and others Nikon

Think of it this way, the 1DM3 is a specific tool for specific usage, Sports and Wildlife, the crop sensor is actually an advantage for both of those usages, you can hold a burst for 30 frames versus 20 with a D700...

KenjiS wrote in post #7945667
Not going Canon vs Nikon...but the D700 has limitations on that 8fps speed..

Namely its only 12-bit that can manage this, 14-bit slows that 8fps down to about 5-6fps...without the grip thats down in the same neighborhood of a 5D Mark II

The 5D Mark II is also a lot higher resolution than the D700...

As for noise performance, I honestly cant say I've seen absolute proof Nikon > Canon...I've seen tests go both ways, the way I see it its too close to truely call..with some tests favoring Canon and others Nikon

Most likley what you're looking for is a 5D Mark III....or a used 1Ds Mark II

Is that true about 14-bit? I know the D300 can only do its full fps in 12-bit mode, but AFAIK the D700 is unrestricted--it's just one of those things that sets it apart. If that is true, there's no point to using the grip in 14-bit because without it it will get 5fps anyway. However, when you're talking about sports, it's more about the AF system than the fps (for me at least). The D700 has insane tracking abilities.

I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise. The 5D2's sensor is remarkable but there will always be limitations coming from 21MP vs. 12.

i dunno, at $3000 would be closest to the 5D mk 2 (2700), which definately has way more pixels, and 5fps out of the box is still only a little better than 3.9....

i cant see canon making a similar camera though, the next 1Ds is going to have like 40MP and that wont be able to handle much fps, and the next 1D might have 17fps, but not full frame

foxesamu wrote in post #7945689
Is that true about 14-bit? I know the D300 can only do its full fps in 12-bit mode, but AFAIK the D700 is unrestricted--it's just one of those things that sets it apart. If that is true, there's no point to using the grip in 14-bit because without it it will get 5fps anyway. However, when you're talking about sports, it's more about the AF system than the fps (for me at least). The D700 has insane tracking abilities.

I shot a EOS-3 with a older version of the 45-point AF that equips all the 1D series, and honestly? They're both equal...But Canon has more high speed focusing lenses in its lineup than Nikon does..

[qupte]I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise. The 5D2's sensor is remarkable but there will always be limitations coming from 21MP vs. 12.

True, but I still feel people at that point are perhaps splitting hairs a bit...or maybe im just envious because my poor POOR 30D cant go above 800 with sketchy results

Thanks for the input. I really like the 1Dmk3 but just wish it was full frame... that would be icing on the cake for me....

RyanM wrote in post #7945840
Thanks for the input. I really like the 1Dmk3 but just wish it was full frame... that would be icing on the cake for me....

1DMk4 might be from the current indications.....

About 16mp, 10fps, FF...

In the 1D3 domain, FF is a clear DISADVANTAGE...

RyanM wrote in post #7945539
D700: full frame, 8fps with grip, low noise, 45 point autofocus

closest canon has is 1DMk3 but is cropped sensor

---->Will canon make a full frame 1dmk3 (not 1dsmk3 b/c too low fps)

THIS IS NOT A CANON VS. NIKON THREAD WAR... please only respond with any insight into what would be comparable from Canon

...Nikon's true direct competitor to the 1DMarkIII is the D3 (not the D700). Furthermore, and once you are on the field, everything gets longer/heavier/bulkier optically-speaking (and not IQ-better though) with a FF sensor, whereas with Canon's APS-H 1.28x sensor you cream the best of your lenses, you can user shorter (and more state of the art ones) or simply get even further ahead without changing your 300mm or 400mm, and all this with same (or better IQ).

For the above reason, the 1D3 proposal is inherently more efficient and better engineered for the core tasks... unless, of course, you most likely need to go wider, still with poor light, and that is an area where a FF sensor would excel.

Don't be surprised if the next 1D4 comes with a FF sensor but a crop-mode that offers same resolution/density than current 1D3, though.

PIX

if you look at both lines, canon and nikon rarely make cameras that line up head to head perfectly....

you want FPS on the canon side you either settle with 6.5 with a 40D or 50D or you go 8 with a 1Dii or 10 with a 1Diii. Yes the x0Ds are cropped, but that's not always a bad thing. The 1 series (non 'S') is the happy medium crop most people will say works for anyone. Wide enough for wide guys, it had the ISO performance, and adds a bit to teles for the people who need reach. if you NEED FF and FPS then you're out, but there's FF with MP on a budget which Nikon DOES NOT offer.

This is all very much intentional, they don't offer heads up choices so you have to pick what you want. Same with the lenses (no f4 zooms on the other side etc). So you want FPS and speed, you need a nikon. Case closed (which is a bit funny since Nikon themselves bashed FF for a long long time). But do you really need FF -vs- 1.3? Will you really see the difference?

That said, Nikon has done A LOT of great things with the D700. Had canon made it I'd at least have one as my second body, but probably my primary. I'm just hooked on wide fast primes. The rest of canon's lenses are better for what I do as well (100-400 is rad, not that the 200-400 f4 isn't, it's just Texa$ and heavy).

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7946089
if you look at both lines, canon and nikon rarely make cameras that line up head to head perfectly....

So true... too bad nobody pays attention to this fact.

foxesamu wrote in post #7945689
Is that true about 14-bit? I know the D300 can only do its full fps in 12-bit mode, but AFAIK the D700 is unrestricted--it's just one of those things that sets it apart. If that is true, there's no point to using the grip in 14-bit because without it it will get 5fps anyway. However, when you're talking about sports, it's more about the AF system than the fps (for me at least). The D700 has insane tracking abilities.

I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise. The 5D2's sensor is remarkable but there will always be limitations coming from 21MP vs. 12.

Even if it isn't true, you're stuck using a special battery and grip to get the 8fps, so that 2700 price is over 3k only 700 less than 1dmkiii, nowhere near half the price. Better yet, you could get two 5ds and get 6fps at no cost over a single d700.

Even if those tests don't say it, I can assure you that 5dmkii is much better. Simply coming close enough to the d700 so that nobody can say one is better than the other means that when you reduce the 5dmkii to a d700 size, 5dmkii wins hands down.

basroil wrote in post #7946143
So true... too bad nobody pays attention to this fact.

Indeed, they very rarely overlap each other, especially with the bodies. They do seem to come closer with lenses but even there you can find plenty of examples of them avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

Dooms_day wrote in post #7945706
i dunno, at $3000 would be closest to the 5D mk 2 (2700), which definately has way more pixels, and 5fps out of the box is still only a little better than 3.9....

It's 30% better, more than "a little" in my book.

KenjiS wrote in post #7945853
1DMk4 might be from the current indications.....

About 16mp, 10fps, FF...

Yea, its going to be interesting to see whether Canon sticks with the 1.3X crop or goes FF with the 1DMk4.