Discussion
LongQ said:
Those are the product ranges where the manufacturers try to pack everything into one product - whether the needs seem to conflict or not.
How does the need for 50MP AND great low light performance seem to be conflicting for a photographer? I would make a very good use of both in one camera and do not want to choose one or the otherrottie102 said:
LongQ said:
Those are the product ranges where the manufacturers try to pack everything into one product - whether the needs seem to conflict or not.
How does the need for 50MP AND great low light performance seem to be conflicting for a photographer? I would make a very good use of both in one camera and do not want to choose one or the otherThat may not be a "feature" combination as such. More likely current technology does no allow such a combination.
Even if it did it's just possible that the marketplace for that level of cost does not think the same way as you.
If you want a high res camera for mainly studio work you may not wish to have to pay for all the features that someone working in low light conditions requires. And vice versa.
I doubt that most sports and event shooters want the overhead of huge buffer filling files on a regular basis. So there's not much point in them buying something overspecced in the resolution department only to use the cropped settings when they might as well go for a smaller pixel count and gain higher ISO.
I would think that even if the different needs could be satisfied in one camera body without any compromises product marketing would still dictate that separate products would be the way to go. For now.
LongQ said:
If you want a high res camera for mainly studio work you may not wish to have to pay for all the features that someone working in low light conditions requires. And vice versa.
I doubt that most sports and event shooters want the overhead of huge buffer filling files on a regular basis. So there's not much point in them buying something overspecced in the resolution department only to use the cropped settings when they might as well go for a smaller pixel count and gain higher ISO.
Which is what Nikon did with the D3 range, D3X high(er) resolution low iso, D3 and D3S high ISO, high frame rate, all in the same familiar body, shame they didn't carry this theme over with the D4, and the prices still being asked for D3X shows there is still the demand - albeit very small in the grand scheme of thingsI doubt that most sports and event shooters want the overhead of huge buffer filling files on a regular basis. So there's not much point in them buying something overspecced in the resolution department only to use the cropped settings when they might as well go for a smaller pixel count and gain higher ISO.
Pete Baraka said:
More specifications now in the wild -
http://www.canonwatch.com/cw5-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5d...
Northlight has some leaked suggested rrp prices.http://www.canonwatch.com/cw5-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5d...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5...
Formal announcement tomorrow so we will then see if they are correct.
Pickled said:
LongQ said:
If you want a high res camera for mainly studio work you may not wish to have to pay for all the features that someone working in low light conditions requires. And vice versa.
I doubt that most sports and event shooters want the overhead of huge buffer filling files on a regular basis. So there's not much point in them buying something overspecced in the resolution department only to use the cropped settings when they might as well go for a smaller pixel count and gain higher ISO.
Which is what Nikon did with the D3 range, D3X high(er) resolution low iso, D3 and D3S high ISO, high frame rate, all in the same familiar body, shame they didn't carry this theme over with the D4, and the prices still being asked for D3X shows there is still the demand - albeit very small in the grand scheme of thingsI doubt that most sports and event shooters want the overhead of huge buffer filling files on a regular basis. So there's not much point in them buying something overspecced in the resolution department only to use the cropped settings when they might as well go for a smaller pixel count and gain higher ISO.
Maybe Canon feel they have enough serious lens developments around, and in the near pipeline, to match the big sensors and appeal to a large enough potential market to make the package viable - if they can sell them at the asking prices.
To me it still looks like a holding strategy to protect the economies of scale (such as they are these days) of DSLR manufacturing from erosion by whatever starts to develop in the lower price end of the MF market opened up by Pentax.
Could be fun to watch .... though maybe not of practical hands on interest to the general punter in the non-professional world.
markmullen said:
LongQ said:
though maybe not of practical hands on interest to the general punter in the non-professional world.
....I don't know about that.... 
That said I have a theory that the majority of top end camera sales, outside the sphere of the agencies and perhaps the news reporting freelancers that feed them, are probably bought by "keen amateurs" who are really more like collectors. They can afford to buy and update to new models but rarely put the camera to serious use. Clever pricing and marketing might well prise open a few wallets in that area. AFAIK you don't qualify for that category either ....
LongQ said:
That said I have a theory that the majority of top end camera sales, outside the sphere of the agencies and perhaps the news reporting freelancers that feed them, are probably bought by "keen amateurs" who are really more like collectors. They can afford to buy and update to new models but rarely put the camera to serious use. Clever pricing and marketing might well prise open a few wallets in that area. AFAIK you don't qualify for that category either ....
Is that really any different to a top end Porsche though? How many of them ever earn their keep?Mr Will said:
LongQ said:
That said I have a theory that the majority of top end camera sales, outside the sphere of the agencies and perhaps the news reporting freelancers that feed them, are probably bought by "keen amateurs" who are really more like collectors. They can afford to buy and update to new models but rarely put the camera to serious use. Clever pricing and marketing might well prise open a few wallets in that area. AFAIK you don't qualify for that category either ....
Is that really any different to a top end Porsche though? How many of them ever earn their keep?The line is very blurry at this level.
Many users will be semi-pro at a minimum. They will shoot and make money but it wont be their primary income.
There will also be a bunch of pro's (who are now using 6d, 5d3 and 1dx) and some wealthy amateurs who really dont care about how much it costs or even if they will use it to its best.
For me a 50mp 15 stop DR sealed body with this ISO spec could replace my a7r (or add to it) but it sounds like it wont replace my astro camera (6d).
Many users will be semi-pro at a minimum. They will shoot and make money but it wont be their primary income.
There will also be a bunch of pro's (who are now using 6d, 5d3 and 1dx) and some wealthy amateurs who really dont care about how much it costs or even if they will use it to its best.
For me a 50mp 15 stop DR sealed body with this ISO spec could replace my a7r (or add to it) but it sounds like it wont replace my astro camera (6d).
LongQ said:
Canon UK web site updated.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
They use extremely average and extremely compressed images to advertise an extremely capable image capturing device http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
To me, it's strange.
Two things.
Firstly, compared to say a 20mp 6D, if the same size sensor is now having to supply light to 50mp, then my understanding it that less than half the amount of light is getting to each pixel.
The only thing I can think is that it is simply the metric to compete with other manufacturers. To those with more money than sense and will just pick up a £2500 camera as they fly through Heathrow on the way to Dubai I guess this is a powerful sales tool.
Secondly, why have a 5Ds and a 5Dsr?
I can understand if they had alternative specs where each does a particular thing better, to give an alternative. As I understand it though, the cameras are the same except the 'R' is sharper.
So, if there's a significantly different price, then you are differentiating between a keen amateur or semi-pro and the pro where money is less of an object, as it's a tool.
However, the price difference between the two seems to be 5% of the total cost. So, why, if you were spending that amount anyway to get what is a top of the range camera, would you scrimp on the last 5% of the cost!?
Two things.
Firstly, compared to say a 20mp 6D, if the same size sensor is now having to supply light to 50mp, then my understanding it that less than half the amount of light is getting to each pixel.
The only thing I can think is that it is simply the metric to compete with other manufacturers. To those with more money than sense and will just pick up a £2500 camera as they fly through Heathrow on the way to Dubai I guess this is a powerful sales tool.
Secondly, why have a 5Ds and a 5Dsr?
I can understand if they had alternative specs where each does a particular thing better, to give an alternative. As I understand it though, the cameras are the same except the 'R' is sharper.
So, if there's a significantly different price, then you are differentiating between a keen amateur or semi-pro and the pro where money is less of an object, as it's a tool.
However, the price difference between the two seems to be 5% of the total cost. So, why, if you were spending that amount anyway to get what is a top of the range camera, would you scrimp on the last 5% of the cost!?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff