The latest on the 5D Mk3

I usually don't speculate on details like this unless I am pretty confident.

If the 5D III does not include an updated AF system similar to, or better than the current 7D, I will change my User title to reflect this mistake.

It's up to you guys to remember this and hold me to it, and decide what that title should be!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #11390554
I usually don't speculate on details like this unless I am pretty confident.

If the 5D III does not include an updated AF system similar to, or better than the current 7D, I will change my User title to reflect this mistake.

It's up to you guys to remember this and hold me to it, and decide what that title should be!

I'm pretty sure they will. The 7D is a "premium" class camera as the 5D, and an updated focusing system in the 5D body doesn't bring it anywhere near the real professional level of the 1-Series for anyone who needs a 1-Series....plus the fact that the next 1Ds will have its own improvements maintain its superiority over the 5D3.

YankeeHotelFoxtrot wrote in post #11388440
I read these comments about cannibalizing sales quite a lot here. Nikon doesn't seem to have this problem. They put the same AF in the D700 as in the D3 series. They introduced a 35/1.4 and a 35/1.8 within a couple years of each other. The introduced the D7000 with the D300s in the lineup.

Why is Nikon immune to this thinking?

I think Nikon just thinks differently. They make the best cameras they can for the money, without worrying too much which class of cameras they sell - I figure the general classes are rugged pro (D3), light weight pro body (D700), entry level pro body (D300), and consumer (D3000).

I really don't think Canon worries about this either...

How many people didn't buy a MkIII or MkIV because of the 7D?
How many haven't bought 7Ds because of the 60D?
How many won't buy 60Ds because of the T2i?
How many haven't ponied up for a 1DsMkIII because the quality of the 5DMkII is so very, very good?
For that matter, how many haven't bought a 1DsMkIII because they're sure the 1DsMkIV will be all that?

Both camps have overlapping features and performance. And both camps put a little more carrot on the stick to get you to climb the product ladder.

Everyone on the Canon side lusts for a 1DMkIV or 1DsMkIII/IV
Everyone on the Nikon side lusts for D3 or D3x

^^ well I switched after finding out how bad the 5Dii AF really was compared to the 1Div and how much I'd need to pay to get a FF camera (from Canon) with decent AF.

Therefore I think Canon really need to step up the AF on the 5Diii. Not make a FF video camera.

Has Canon ever announced anything big at CES?

your nickname will need an upgrade at some point ))

I hope so.

To "D800guy" I think.

peterbj7 wrote in post #11390492
Well, if they don't improve the AF on the 5D3 they will lose a lot of sales, and there will be quite a few desertions to Nikon. I'll probably be amongst them.

Never thought I'd say it, but I'm right there with ya.

I was planning on buying a 5DII until I heard about the AF issues. I shoot nightclubs which are always low light, and some sporting events, so I need a camera to be able to keep up. If I'm going to be spending multiple thousands of dollars on one, it better at least be able to do a reasonable job across the board.

So, for now I'm doing my best to hold out with my trusty old 40D while anxiously awaiting to hear what's in store for the 5D3. If they don't address the AF issues, bye bye Canon.

^^ dude I thought the same thing exactly, but in the end I though "fudge* it! I'll just go nikon!"

*I never swear, so insert your own expletive of choice.

TattooedAffliction wrote in post #11392985
I was planning on buying a 5DII until I heard about the AF issues. I shoot nightclubs which are always low light, and some sporting events, so I need a camera to be able to keep up. If I'm going to be spending multiple thousands of dollars on one, it better at least be able to do a reasonable job across the board.

If AF is that important to you, why not go with 1-series which would would better fit your needs?

Is that a serious question? I can tell you why I don't simply buy a 1-series, and that's $$$. Nikon already produce cameras cheaper than the 5-series that considerably outperform it in AF, and I for one will go in that direction if Canon can't get their act together. If they or anyone else think they'll boost sales of 1-series by ensuring they are the only Canon models that come up to scratch, then they are in for a severe financial shock.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11392190
I really don't think Canon worries about this either...

How many people didn't buy a MkIII or MkIV because of the 7D?
How many haven't bought 7Ds because of the 60D?
How many won't buy 60Ds because of the T2i?
How many haven't ponied up for a 1DsMkIII because the quality of the 5DMkII is so very, very good?
For that matter, how many haven't bought a 1DsMkIII because they're sure the 1DsMkIV will be all that?

Both camps have overlapping features and performance. And both camps put a little more carrot on the stick to get you to climb the product ladder.

Everyone on the Canon side lusts for a 1DMkIV or 1DsMkIII/IV
Everyone on the Nikon side lusts for D3 or D3x

The questions are--and this are the question they really did ask:

Did each camera meet its sales goals? They can't ask who bought a 5D instead of a 1Ds or who bought a 7D instead of a 5D2...nobody can know that. What they do ask is, did each of our camera models reach the sales goal we set for it? If they sold as many 1Ds, 5D2, and 7D bodies as they intended for each, they don't care who bought one instead of the other--the company still won.

The other question will be did the Canon camera division increase its market share? They do not ask, "Did the 5D2 sell more than the Nikon D3x?" They put out a spectrum of DSLRs intended to compete as a spectrum against the spectra of DSLRs sold by other companies. They aren't competing on a camera a camera basis. If Canon DSLRs as a group are increasing their overall market share, then they have more correctly determined how to meet customers' desires better across the board than the other guys, and company wins.

And for that matter, if Nikon is their only mentionable competition in the amateur market, they still win. In 1970, there was only one "professional" SLR (Leicaflex and Alpa were "niches") and five or six serious competitors in the amateur market, and Canon was only barely one of the amateur competitors. If there are now only two companies in the professional market--Canon being one--and two serious companies in the amateur market (with the others being questionable even in whether they'll still be around in five years), then Canon has great reason to be pleased with themselves.

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.

Your second paragraph I think is also wrong. Camera manufacturers ARE competing on a model-by-model basis. What other basis is there? I don't know of a single well-run business that doesn't concern itself deeply with its product mix.

And lastly, without checking dates I'm pretty sure Canon had at least one professional camera in the early '70's. They certainly did both before and after. Certainly Nikon held a far more dominant position, but they didn't have it all to themselves. Around that time (?) Olympus were also a force to be reckoned with in the professional market.