Canon 5D Mark III Rumors

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #12270589
Please not that again. I seldom disagree with anything you say, but let's not trot out that tired old piece of disinformation. Those of us who aren't insane have no such wish. We just want a D700 equivalent with current Canon tech, that's all. Nikon showed how much they could cram into a gripless body--better-than-prosumer AF, better-than-prosumer weather sealing, etc. It'd be nice to see Canon do the same. I don't think that's an unreasonable wish to want a $30000-or-so 5DIII with at least 7D level AF.

The D700 may also have been a risky, profitless maneuver to gain Nikon back the ground it had lost during the years they claimed they didn't intend to market a 24x36mm camera.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #12270589
Please not that again. I seldom disagree with anything you say, but let's not trot out that tired old piece of disinformation. Those of us who aren't insane have no such wish. We just want a D700 equivalent with current Canon tech, that's all. Nikon showed how much they could cram into a gripless body--better-than-prosumer AF, better-than-prosumer weather sealing, etc. It'd be nice to see Canon do the same. I don't think that's an unreasonable wish to want a $30000-or-so 5DIII with at least 7D level AF.

No, I don't want to switch to Nikon. Their AF point layout with its cross-type sensors all clumped in the middle doesn't do it for me, plus I'm comfortable with my Canon lens lineup. I'd rather Canon step up to the plate and stop holding back good AF on a $2K+ body. Is that so wrong?

Man , not this again.
What is so hard to understand that canon and nikon went different path. Like you say that nikon has nice AF and weather sealing..I could also say that nikon doesn't have video, or like 5dii has an antique AF, nikon has an antique 12mp and so on.
If you want better AF just switch or go up in the 1ds series. this is exactly what a nikonian would do if he want more mp or video. He would need to pay over 5k to get video and over 7k to get more mp

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #12260412
Actually bud, the 5D has always raided the 1Ds sales. The mkI did, so did the mkII...there's little to suggest that a mkIII wouldn't.
The 5D range has had the same resolution as the 1Ds camera of the same generation, but less pro AF and build. Now that Nikon and Sony have produced serious competition in the top tier, I guess canon are re-thinking their pro range.

Have you never gone to the grocery store where there are products for sale at ridiculously low price? It's called a loss leader to get you into the store so that you will buy the products that make them money.

Computer companies like HP sell inkjet printers for $49. It costs them way more than that to make them, but they recoup the loss selling the ink cartages for $39 that actually cost them little more than $3 to make.

And then you get into the pride/market share game. Volkswagon owns Bugatti who makes the Veyron sportscar. It costs them 1.5million to make a sports car that sells for 1 million. WHY?? pride that they could make one of the fastest production sport cars out on the market.


What does this have to do with Camera's. Canon makes camera bodies that hold their lenses. Even if they make ZERO dollars on a body, they make money on the lens. How many lenses do you own?? And then you get into the 1D where they could even loose money. But consumers see the famous pro's using that brand and will buy based on it must be good as <insert name> uses it.

Why is it too much for me to ask for the 5Diii to be a money looser? I will probably buy more 'L' glass in the next few years. And upgrade my Canon flash too. They will more than easily make all the money back with the extra's so give me a camera body that will push me to part with the money.

mjmackinnon wrote in post #12271084
Have you never gone to the grocery store where there are products for sale at ridiculously low price? It's called a loss leader to get you into the store so that you will buy the products that make them money.

Computer companies like HP sell inkjet printers for $49. It costs them way more than that to make them, but they recoup the loss selling the ink cartages for $39 that actually cost them little more than $3 to make.

And then you get into the pride/market share game. Volkswagon owns Bugatti who makes the Veyron sportscar. It costs them 1.5million to make a sports car that sells for 1 million. WHY?? pride that they could make one of the fastest production sport cars out on the market.


What does this have to do with Camera's. Canon makes camera bodies that hold their lenses. Even if they make ZERO dollars on a body, they make money on the lens. How many lenses do you own?? And then you get into the 1D where they could even loose money. But consumers see the famous pro's using that brand and will buy based on it must be good as <insert name> uses it.

Why is it too much for me to ask for the 5Diii to be a money looser? I will probably buy more 'L' glass in the next few years. And upgrade my Canon flash too. They will more than easily make all the money back with the extra's so give me a camera body that will push me to part with the money.

You forget the next part of the story. Those who have bought the lenses they want already and update the body. I doubt canon is willing to make a loss on that, and I don't think they do.

hqqns wrote in post #12271099
You forget the next part of the story. Those who have bought the lenses they want already and update the body. I doubt canon is willing to make a loss on that, and I don't think they do.

Yes, but then it falls into one of the other categories of market share. The more people walking around with a Canon camera is simply promotion for the product. Just like those who will by a kit camera and never buy another lens. With everything comes a risk.

And are you going to tell me that you will never buy another lens again? So when the newer 24-105L II comes out with an aspheric lens and no barrel distortion you won't be lusting for the next best thing?

You also have to think how the camera market on whole works. The P&S camera sales are more looked at as throw away technology. That is a constant sale every 2-3 years, so they come out with new models every 4-6 months so there is always something new for the next batch of people who want to refresh there camera.

Us DSLR people tend to hold onto a body longer, and we will buy new lenses for the camera on going basis. We are more long term investment people who price is not the driving factor. So they make larger money on the lenses with the average consumer who will buy a new lens every 3-5 years over the span of average 25 years of purchasing. Yes there are some who don't buy extra lenses, and others who have an ever changing list each year. Look at averages.

But with the DSLR Canon does pay for name recognition and marketing factors. It pays them to loose a bit on some as on the whole they win more than they loose.

But that is just my thought on the matter.

DigiNon wrote in post #12248866
Canon will be alright regardless of how the 5DIII turns out.

I do agree though, if Canon doesn't make the right moves (in your opinion) and you aren't happy with how they do things, then yes, please consider making the switch.

jdizzle wrote in post #12248875
A reasonable man. There's Sony and Pentax too!

if 5D Mark III becomes a "failure" like 60D, or stays with little to no progress like T3i then I might be consider switching as well.

It's not like you're being forced to either buy the 5D3 or switch companies. As many have said, the 5D2 will still take great photos regardless.

I highly doubt the 5D3 will be anywhere near a "failure" though.

Is the 60D really a failure? I see nothing but good reviews and I am happy with mine

I don't know that the 60D is a failure. That depends totally on Canon's sales goals for it. When Canon put out both the 60D and the 7D, they were clearly re-defining the distinction between the consumer-level xxD line and the "premium" level (their term) level for cameras between "consumer" and "professional." That meant pushing the xxD level somewhat downward.

I suspect Canon spent a lot of time making this move and anticipate a certain amount of market confusion and "push back." That's always a consideration when a company makes changes to its product line. But clearly, there are a lot of people who have a better idea of how to sell cameras than Canon has, which must be why Canon went out of business years ago.

Tommydigi wrote in post #12273298
Is the 60D really a failure? I see nothing but good reviews and I am happy with mine

Yes it's a failure, it should of been able to compete with a D7000, in can't, that's why it's priced like a Rebel. Is it a good camera though? Yes it is, the same way a 550 or 600D is a good camera.

rhys216 wrote in post #12273337
Yes it's a failure, it should of been able to compete with a D7000, in can't, that's why it's priced like a Rebel. Is it a good camera though? Yes it is, the same way a 550 or 600D is a good camera.

excactly, it lowered xxD series to rebel level, instead of closing the gab between xxD and 7D and it can't compete with D7000.

DigiNon wrote in post #12273287
It's not like you're being forced to either buy the 5D3 or switch companies. As many have said, the 5D2 will still take great photos regardless.

I highly doubt the 5D3 will be anywhere near a "failure" though.

Provided you get the focus right with it

For many people, myself included, I dont argue the 5DII has great image quality, in fact thats one thing i think it has in spades...But playing with one in a store quickly told me the AF would NOT be acceptable to me....

I feel the REST of the camera is a let down, No pro sealing, Slow framerate, 9-pt AF from 6 years ago with a terrible layout to boot..etc etc etc

Consider this, the 5DII has been on the market for 3 years, Thats a loooong time for a digital camera, and when it came out, the D700 had everything I listed above...The D700's successor doesnt have to do much to still beat the 5DII on paper and in practice (Just up the megapixel count a little, Reasonably) so the real answer is whats Canon's response to this

Some of us will not be satisfied if after being patient for 3 years for the successor to the 5DII to come out they give us the same AF, the same build, the same framerate and just some more megapixels....and probubly a tilty-wilty silly screen on top of it....Why? Because Canon is obviously not listening to what the customer might actually want and instead listening to marketing...No doubt it will sell and Canon wont be in trouble for it...but if enough people elect to buy the D800 over the 5DIII I think Canon will have to take a bit of notice...

Canon in my opinion is right now overconfident, Too big, They're so big they dont even NEED to care about being innovative or truly competitive anymore...Their last few cameras delivered the bare minimum to get customers and thats about it, Nothing special, Nothing that truly makes them a fantastic buy IMHO, And their model lineup is too darn complex right now with all the Rebels in the low end market...Reminds me of Minolta in the 90s.... (Minolta had a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 series...SERIES, at the SAME TIME with multiple models, Yes, Even sales people were confused on how to sell them)

For the record, for me as a primary camera a 1 series isnt a great option simply because its got an integrated grip, That makes it simply too bulky for me to throw in my bag....I have nothing to really go to above a 7D if i want to go full frame because as i mentioned, i cant stand the 5DIIs AF system and crap framerate

The D700 has gotten a LOT of Canon shooters from what I've seen, it has that delightful combination of excellent speed, excellent autofocus and excellent build with a removable grip, its a very versatile machine comfortable shooting weddings, wildlife, sports, still life, birds..you name it it will do it, It just suits so many users...

The 5DII in my opinion is useful only for portraits, Or things that dont move very much...Or at all...

RDKirk wrote in post #12273324
I don't know that the 60D is a failure. That depends totally on Canon's sales goals for it. When Canon put out both the 60D and the 7D, they were clearly re-defining the distinction between the consumer-level xxD line and the "premium" level (their term) level for cameras between "consumer" and "professional." That meant pushing the xxD level somewhat downward.

That's the point, instead of pushing the XXD downward, they should of left it where it was, and either upped the price, or improved 7Dii. Simply put, Canon chose to downgrade instead of upgrade, which is currently in stark contrast from how Nikon is currently approaching/designing their updated cameras.

RDKirk wrote in post #12273324
I suspect Canon spent a lot of time making this move and anticipate a certain amount of market confusion and "push back." That's always a consideration when a company makes changes to its product line. But clearly, there are a lot of people who have a better idea of how to sell cameras than Canon has, which must be why Canon went out of business years ago.

History is littered with the bones of very successful companies before they made stupid decisions...

RDKirk wrote in post #12273324
I don't know that the 60D is a failure. That depends totally on Canon's sales goals for it. When Canon put out both the 60D and the 7D, they were clearly re-defining the distinction between the consumer-level xxD line and the "premium" level (their term) level for cameras between "consumer" and "professional." That meant pushing the xxD level somewhat downward.

I suspect Canon spent a lot of time making this move and anticipate a certain amount of market confusion and "push back." That's always a consideration when a company makes changes to its product line. But clearly, there are a lot of people who have a better idea of how to sell cameras than Canon has, which must be why Canon went out of business years ago.

No, Canon is just letting its marketing and number crunchers make products....

Sure, you can do it, Sure, a business can likely survive on it...for a while, But if you stagnate too long, Like Canon is doing, You're going to lose your customers, your LOYAL customers who buy your higher margin products to competetors

Nikon did it until the D3/D300/D700 launched, Then Nikon had a resurgance, a lot of Nikon users dumped ship to Canon because they were sick of waiting for Nikon to come out with a very competetive DSLR

Were Nikon's DSLRs at the time bad? Not really..But they also werent that competitive, and comparing the CCD-sensored upper level Nikons to the CMOS Canon Competition was almost a joke..Especially with Nikon's top tier D2X vs the 1Ds Mark II (Which sounds unfair, But that really was Nikon's competition for the 1DsII) then Canon launched the affordable 5D...and well..a lot of Nikon folks had it dumped camp and came over

Nikon relented and gave the people what they wanted..They actually exceeded expectations...the D300 was outstanding and defined its product segment, an affordable, Pro-quality, Pro-level crop camera, with an outstanding 51-point AF, and Canon had NO response to it at the time...it took 3 years before they fired back with their answer, the outstanding 7D (But even that, For all its awesomeness, in my book was only MATCHING the D300 in many ways and in some ways its not as good) Nikon only had to REFINE the D300 a little to create a competitive product to the 7D, That should tell you something..Though the D300s still shows its age, the sensors not the best on the block now, but keep in mind how old that sensor is....5 years now and more like 6 when its replaced

Then the D700, Which I elaborated on and the D3 for those who wanted the ultimate performance...All 3 bodies are still excellent....

The 5D Mark II in comparison was a slight upgrade to the old 5D, More megapixels, bigger screen, THe biggest feature in it was HD Video, Which i will give is an outstanding feature and as has now been proven, a smart marketing move on Canon's part

Now again, I'm no Nikon fanboy, I'm an ex Nikon shooter who switched to Canon for a lot of reasons...I'm not necessarily about to uproot and switch...

But I'll see how things are at the end of the year...it just may happen that i reevaluate my shooting at the end of the year (Like I've been doing) and decide "you know, I finally wanna go full frame" And I'll be looking for whatever is the best FF replacement for my 7D....My lenses may not be factoring into the equation

Well, can't make everyone happy. Obviously the 5D2 was not built to be a do-it-all camera. As you said, it's best used for portraits or anything that doesn't require great AF system. Which is why it's so highly popular with pro portrait/wedding photographers and the 1D line with pro sports photographers. If the problem is that you wan't the best of both worlds into one body, then I suggest looking elsewhere I guess. If Nikon seems like it would suit you best and offer better products similar to what you require then why not make the switch? I don't mean to say that sarcastically or with an attitude, that's an honest question.

If I bought a minivan for my family and another brand minivan offered same size van with more headroom, better mpg, heated seats and all the bells and whistles for the same price, I would be putting up my van for sale and making the switch.