The latest on the 5D Mk3

peterbj7 wrote in post #11394416
I think that's wrong in several areas. Firstly, you've omitted to ask HOW Canon determined their sales targets. THAT will have been based on model-by-model comparisons.

But not on a model versus model basis. When Canon first released the 5D, their then-current president of the imaging division stated that the 5D was created to draw film-using "enthusiasts" to digital cameras. That goal would obviously not have been set vis-a-vis the 20D or the 1D.

If they were competing on a model-by-model basis, there would be a model-by-model correlation across companies...and there is not one.

Nope, Canon did not have a professional camera in 1970 (I said "1970" not "the 70s"). The F-1 was their first, released in 1971. The Ft and other Canon cameras of the 60s were nice for what they were, but they weren't professional cameras.

Olympus--as well as Minolta and Pentax--dallied briefly with professional-quality cameras, but none of them stayed serious in that area. They never provided the level of support and the range of lenses and accessories necessary. For that matter, it took Canon more than a decade of serious effort with the F-1 the before they became truly a "force to be reckoned with" compared to Nikon.

dFreezy wrote in post #11393946
If AF is that important to you, why not go with 1-series which would would better fit your needs?

Simple, it doesn't better fit my wallet. I'm not going to be strong-armed into shoveling out an additional $3,500 for full-frame capabilities because Canon made their cheaper alternative with a garbage AF system.

TattooedAffliction wrote in post #11395798
Simple, it doesn't better fit my wallet. I'm not going to be strong-armed into shoveling out an additional $3,500 for full-frame capabilities because Canon made their cheaper alternative with a garbage AF system.

It can't be "garbage." 'Way too many professionals are earning a living with it.

RDKirk wrote in post #11395853
It can't be "garbage." 'Way too many professionals are earning a living with it.

Well, perhaps garbage wasn't the right word. Substandard might describe it better.

All I'm saying is, for spending several thousand dollars you should get a camera that performs decently for whatever you use it for. I'm not saying it should perform as well as the $6,000+ 1Ds Mark III, but at least give it an AF system similar to the 7D.

None of the consumer cameras had an AF system similar to the 7D until the 7D. The 5D2 had Canon's best consumer focusing for its time. The 7D was released over a year later.

The 5D2 performs perfectly for the purpose Canon designed it--to wean film users to DSLRs. It has weaned thousands of medium format film users to it, and it focuses better than any medium format camera.

It doesn't do what you want it to do. That's why Canon makes other cameras and why there are other camera manufacturers. I can never understand why people act like Canon is doing something despicable. People who don't like the 5D should buy another camera and be happy. Life is too short to gripe about unsuitable things when there are plenty of options.

RDKirk wrote in post #11397015
None of the consumer cameras had an AF system similar to the 7D until the 7D

Correction - none of the CANON cameras had it. Several of the Nikon range had much better AF.

I don't believe the 5D2 was primarily designed to woo film users. Perhaps the 5Dc was, I don't know, but by the time of the 5D2 things had moved on. Nikon had released their D700 which took what the 5Dc offered, including a very similar resolution, and moved it on considerably. It is a mystery to many people, including me, why Canon didn't take a lesson from their book on AF (in particular). The 7D was released sufficiently soon to show that they had already developed a superior AF. They just chose not to put it on the 5D2, which was a gross miscalculation that I believe has lost them quite a few potential users to Nikon.

I have no interest in a Canon vs. Nikon contest. But nor do I have any intrinsic brand loyalty to Canon, only the inertia caused by owning several lenses etc. I have no doubt the replacement for the D700 will be a stonking camera, with resolution much closer to the 5D2; if the 5D3 doesn't effectively address the perceived deficiencies with the 5D2 there will be many more people going to Nikon. And that is likely to be a one-way journey.

5d II still outsold everything Nikon has. end of story.

5d II is a slow pace shooting style camera. I had never had any problems with its AF. Would get a 7d to shoot weddings? Sure. I'd get a Nikon d3 for that even sooner. But for getting the bet possible IQ for under 2500 - it is the best the 35mm digital can offer today.

It's just you guys are using it for not the things it had been designed for.
I had never had a problem with my cameras (5dc,5d II) not focusing well. Go figure...
Honestly, I'm rather surprised, there's SO much complaining about the AF or the camera in general. "House" series is shot on that. Lots of pros use it daily for editorial stuff... Heck, I used it to shoot for advertising campaigns for clients like Audi, Maxim and Boeing.. They were super happy with the results and not even once that cam let me down... Try to shoot with an Hasselblad H3d - the cam has only ONE AF point, and - it's not that difficult to get used to...

Yes the Nikon is great, but I will rather bite my leg off then pony up 8 grand for a Nikon d3x (ridiculous price), and the IQ is just slightly better than a 3 times cheaper 5d II)...

8 grand is 2k shy of a Pentax 645D, Mamiya DM22 and the likes. Both of these cams' IQ is in a completely different league.

I don't see any point of jumping into the Nikon's arms unless they make something that will completely blow Canon out of the water.

5d III will have a better AF. There's been way to much complaining. I want more MP. I'll take 28 better noise and a free year supply of chocolate in box

The 7D was released to (finally) compete with the D300. The 7D IMHO is a bit better than the D300(s). But the D7000 is almost as good as the 7D. So I guess Nikon will beat the 7D with the D400. Then the 7D mark II will come out to beat the D400. Nikon will release a D400s...

I think you get the point.

korrektor wrote in post #11397346
5d II still outsold everything Nikon has. end of story.

Selling more makes it a better camera?

I think a lot of Canon people got a 5Dii because of the status of the (legendary) 5D classic. I know that's why I got one.

It's a good camera too, apart from AF being a bit restrictive for active uses.

peterbj7 wrote in post #11397163
Correction - none of the CANON cameras had it. Several of the Nikon range had much better AF.

I don't believe the 5D2 was primarily designed to woo film users. Perhaps the 5Dc was, I don't know, but by the time of the 5D2 things had moved on. Nikon had released their D700 which took what the 5Dc offered, including a very similar resolution, and moved it on considerably. It is a mystery to many people, including me, why Canon didn't take a lesson from their book on AF (in particular). The 7D was released sufficiently soon to show that they had already developed a superior AF. They just chose not to put it on the 5D2, which was a gross miscalculation that I believe has lost them quite a few potential users to Nikon.

I've worked on a lot of development projects before, and I seriously doubt a feature as totally new as the 7D focusing system was ready the 30 months to two years earlier (than it actually appeared) that would have been needed to approve it for the 5D2.

The average camera owner doesn't do nearly the brand leaping that some people on these forums apparently do. Canon is still selling every 5D2 they can make...how much better could they do?

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #11397351
The 7D was released to (finally) compete with the D300. The 7D IMHO is a bit better than the D300(s). But the D7000 is almost as good as the 7D. So I guess Nikon will beat the 7D with the D400. Then the 7D mark II will come out to beat the D400. Nikon will release a D400s...

Completely models are in planning, development, testing, and piloting at least three years before they're released. If camera manufacturers tried to develop models to "answer" to a particular model of a competitor, they would forever be three years behind the power curve. The last time Canon let that happen was when Minolta produced the Maxxum 7000.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #11397361
Selling more makes it a better camera?

To the stockholders, yes, selling more makes it a better camera.

To the managers, yes, selling more makes it a better camera.

To the development team, selling more means the model gets to continue development, and perhaps with the next version they will be able to add features that weren't ready or were considered too expensive earlier, so selling more enables them to produce a better camera.

selling more means that more people consider it a better camera for the money. it would be really strange if a better camera, while having a similar price, would sell less.

korrektor wrote in post #11397521
selling more means that more people consider it a better camera for the money. it would be really strange if a better camera, while having a similar price, would sell less.

EDITED TO BE "nice".

The 5Dii is a great camera, that sold really well the following are some of my observations and don't take it as an attack against Canon. Canon are great etc.

It could mean it's better for the money... or Canon users don't/didn't have much else tO choose from.

I think at the time it was released, a lot of Canon users just were waiting for it. Since then it's the only real choice for a lot Of people who want FF (1DsIII costs too much).

With Nikon you have more choice. A D700 is a toned down D3 for example a D300 is a crop version of the D700.

Until the 7D came along, Canon had no real "pro-crop" camera to tease people away.

All that said, the 5Dii is a nice camera and a camera worth getting if your a Canon guy (I got one).

Nikon guys have had th choice of D3/D700/D300 for years now.

Oh and to those who say the 7D isn't a response to the D300 because it takes too long to develop. Why do you think it came out so many years after the D300

So I'll remind you, I think it's a great camera, let down by so-so AF. If the AF was decent, I would have stuck with Canon.

Mods will close this thread down if it keeps going on the track of Nikon vs Canon, so it's probably best to drop it, or at least play nice.