it looks like the 5D is going to be split into two lines, the 5DX and the 5D mark III (says the rumors anyhow)..   The 5DX is rumored to be the high MP camera that everyone has be waiting for and the 5D mark III will follow the 1Dx convention with 22MP.

that's at least what the rumors say   A Chinese web store has a page for the two cameras with specs for both of them.. suggesting there may be truth to the rumor.  I can't imagine Canon not putting out a big MP camera after Nikon released the D800.

http://www.togtech.com/canon-5dx/

If this is true it would make sense and be a good move by Canon.

Now, I wonder how many of the current lenses I have will actually be usable on a 45MP camera.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 20, 2012, 08:53

If this is true it would make sense and be a good move by Canon.

Now, I wonder how many of the current lenses I have will actually be usable on a 45MP camera.

Only the very best primes and I'm not even sure about that (all 85+ mm L primes).

I'd go for the 22 mpix version if I wanted to buy the new model. AF is probably going to be better (I guess the approach for the 45 mpix is going to be that it's a studio camera, with emphasis on higher resolution), not to mention Hi-ISO performance and the fact that no MS site is paying extra for anything above 20 mpix.

"L" designation doesn't automatically mean better technical results. In most tests I've seen for full frame, the 85mm f/1.8 seems to generate better overall sharpness over the f/1.2. I just noticed the new 24-70mm is supposed to be over $2,000 so I'd bet this is probably one of the new lenses around a higher MP sensor.

Quote from: wut on February 20, 2012, 09:27

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 20, 2012, 08:53

If this is true it would make sense and be a good move by Canon.

Now, I wonder how many of the current lenses I have will actually be usable on a 45MP camera.

Only the very best primes and I'm not even sure about that (all 85+ mm L primes).

I'd go for the 22 mpix version if I wanted to buy the new model. AF is probably going to be better (I guess the approach for the 45 mpix is going to be that it's a studio camera, with emphasis on higher resolution), not to mention Hi-ISO performance and the fact that no MS site is paying extra for anything above 20 mpix.

"L" designation doesn't automatically mean better technical results. In most tests I've seen for full frame, the 85mm f/1.8 seems to generate better overall sharpness over the f/1.2. I just noticed the new 24-70mm is supposed to be over $2,000 so I'd bet this is probably one of the new lenses around a higher MP sensor.

Indeed, especially when it comes to zooms. But the ones I mentioned are all superb, supertele lenses are insanely sharp and so are 85L, 135L, 200L (2.0 and 2.. You probably were looking at f8+ comparisons in the studio. It's stupid to even make such comparisons, since the L version is supposed to be used (wide) open, otherwise it makes no sense at all to pay more the 5x the price, it's also a lot heavier, bulkier and AF is slower as well (not suitable for most indoor sports). Smallest aperture value for 85L is f16, that tells a lot. 85L is a very specialized lens, with it's perfectly round aperture (at f1.2), super creamy bokeh. You really need to know what it's used for. I own a 85 1.8 lens that I use all the time for over 7 years and it's tack sharp even at f1.8. But 85L is of course even sharper at f1.8 and all the way up to f4 or so, at f5.6+ the 1.8 versions starts to gain on it. I used it for a week or so years ago. The best lens ever made IMO, it suits my needs and style perfectly. It's just too expensive. So it's only sensible to buy the L version if you use it often below f1.8, otherwise it just makes no sense, if you mostly shoot in the studio with standard apertures you're just throwing your money away and the results are not going to be impressive and you're better off with the f1.8 version

Quote from: wut on February 20, 2012, 09:27

I'd go for the 22 mpix version if I wanted to buy the new model. AF is probably going to be better (I guess the approach for the 45 mpix is going to be that it's a studio camera, with emphasis on higher resolution), not to mention Hi-ISO performance and the fact that no MS site is paying extra for anything above 20 mpix.

iStock pays extra for over 20mp (Agency files are 50 credits more for XXXL compared to XXL), the XXXL is around 21mp min.  With 22mp you have almost no room to crop an image and still get the largest size.

I meant XXXL, I have a 5D2 and super minimal crops are still "allowed" (or image rotations of 0,25 etc), so it's below 21 mpix, but it might be just a few hundred kpix

It doesn't matter that sites don't pay past XXXL, the benefit to having 45 megapixels is the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and then downsize to XXXL and get it approved, along with the ability to perform harsher post processing which can create noise and then downsize to bring back the quality and get it approved at XXXL. This is why I would be interested in such a high mp camera.

From the translation of that Chinese website, it appears that the 5D III has 19:00 focus points  , while the 5D X has 61. It also appears that the camera will have built-in flash.

45 MP for a full frame... they surely have got some new inventions regarding sensor development, to enter Hasselblad, Phase One and alikes territory with that resolution. I hope they'll include possibility to shoot raw in smaller sizes (like 20-something MP).

Quote from: contrastaddict on February 20, 2012, 12:04

It doesn't matter that sites don't pay past XXXL, the benefit to having 45 megapixels is the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and then downsize to XXXL and get it approved, along with the ability to perform harsher post processing which can create noise and then downsize to bring back the quality and get it approved at XXXL. This is why I would be interested in such a high mp camera.

This could be the biggest nonsense you've ever written . You're going to buy a camera, that crams double the number of mpix on a sensor of the same size, which leads to a lot worse Hi-ISO performance, then you'll add another step in your workflow, just to get the same (or worse) result you would get straight out the camera on the 22 mpix model. Of course you'll pay double the price, to have double the work. That's just brilliant!

Your ignoring the possibility of improved sensor technology / noise reduction. How long does it take to resize a photo. 5 seconds. Hardly doubling your work.

Quote from: qwerty on February 20, 2012, 14:32

Quote from: wut on February 20, 2012, 13:50

Quote from: contrastaddict on February 20, 2012, 12:04

It doesn't matter that sites don't pay past XXXL, the benefit to having 45 megapixels is the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and then downsize to XXXL and get it approved, along with the ability to perform harsher post processing which can create noise and then downsize to bring back the quality and get it approved at XXXL. This is why I would be interested in such a high mp camera.

This could be the biggest nonsense you've ever written . You're going to buy a camera, that crams double the number of mpix on a sensor of the same size, which leads to a lot worse Hi-ISO performance, then you'll add another step in your workflow, just to get the same (or worse) result you would get straight out the camera on the 22 mpix model. Of course you'll pay double the price, to have double the work. That's just brilliant!

Your ignoring the possibility of improved sensor technology / noise reduction. How long does it take to resize a photo. 5 seconds. Hardly doubling your work.

No, I'm not, cameras are going to be supposedly available at the same time (so the same technology). I didn't write it since I thought it was obvious

Both cameras will be released at the same time I understand that, I also understand that the 5DX will have better noise performance. But what you're missing is I'm not comparing the Mark III to the 5DX, why would I? I'm comparing it to my current studio camera which is a Mark II and I am going to assume it will have better sensor technology. So I can then take a RAW image at 45 megapixels at the same or higher ISO which I would on my Mark II and have way more freedom to post process it because of the sheer size of the image and then go ahead and downsize it to still XXXL size.

I see where your coming from where I might just be downsizing to the same quality that the 5DX would put out in the first place, but I'm banking on the noise performance of the Mark III to be decent enough at 100% to take advantage of those megapixels and downsize images. Downsizing has allowed me to get many images approved that wouldn't have stood a chance, it plays a big role in micro in my opinion. Especially when performing stronger edits when aiming for Vetta type images.

If the 5DX has that much better noise performance that downsizing from the Mark III will just equal the 5DX then yeah the downsizing would be pointless, but I don't think that's going to be the case. And again my original post was the advantages of what the Mark III would offer over my current setup.

Quote from: contrastaddict on February 20, 2012, 17:48

If the 5DX has that much better noise performance that downsizing from the Mark III will just equal the 5DX then yeah the downsizing would be pointless, but I don't think that's going to be the case

Believe me, it's going to be. I've the whole Nikon D3 range for sports, while the picture was really grainy at ISO 800 using D3x, unusable for anything but smaller prints and web usage, D3's (which is half a year older if I remember correctly) was at least as good at ISO 3200. D3s which was introduced a year later was equally good at ISO 4 or even 5k, but shots taken at ISO 800 were great, I'd say you'd have no problem getting most of them accepted at ms agencies (some darker areas could be problematic). The bottom line is, the lower res, slightly older sensor had a 2+ stop advantage over the hi res sensor. You won't achieve the same results by just splitting the resolution in half.

But since you now told you're updating 5D2, then yes, it might just be better than the mkII, if you'll downsize. I've heard D800 is not all that bad at HI-ISO. May I ask what you're shooting, I mean why do you even need good HI-ISO performance? I shoot lifestyle and I rarely go above ISO 200, usually I just stay at 100, wether I use strobes on location or just shoot outdoors using a single (although huge) reflector. I only needed good Hi-ISO performance twice, once for shooting sports and once because of heavy overcast when the reflector was useless

Good points, I haven't been lucky enough to shoot any of the higher end camera models and see their noise performance. I mostly shoot studio and lifestyle outdoors as well. I am usually around 100-200 as well, occasionally I'll get around 640 to 1200 in the magic hour. As I mentioned earlier, I think the main advantage I want is the ability to make harsher edits which create noise, fill light for example. Another big benefit I see from being able to downsize is focus, I shoot quite a bit between 1.4 and 2.0 and its hard to land good focus that shallow. Being able to downsize with bicubic sharper has saved me quite a few times.

If the 5DX ends up being incredibly better of the Mark III in the noise department I may just spring for it instead if downsizing only brings me to the same level of quality. But I still think I'm going to want the huge resolution to be able to push the editing limits and still get photos accepted.

the rumor about the split of 5d line and the specs got a bit busted

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3494.0

This struck me as nonsense from the start. Canon aren't going to have their flagship DSLR with half the Mp of their own lower-end model. If they had developed a super new sensor then it would be going on their top-of-the-range model first.

Why would they bring out the 1Dx, believing there was little demand for more Mp, only to then provide for that lack of demand with another camera a couple of months later? It makes no sense at all.

So, still no official answer on D8000 from Canon, ha?

Quote from: Tabimura on February 21, 2012, 02:26

I see the 1Dx as the successor of 1D IV, not of the 1Ds. It's not a studio camera, and I think Canon have to release a many-megapixel full frame aimed at studio (and landscape) shooters. The sensible choice would be to make a 5D "X" or whatever it's called, because it won't be so expensive like 1Ds series was. If it's for studio and landscapes, it won't need several features that 1D X has, like superfast AF, 12 fps, extremely rugged, able to withstand the most harsh weather conditions, etc. And then they can make this high MP version cheaper.

Why do you 'see' that? This is Canon's own press release announcing the 1Dx;

"LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., October 18, 2011 – Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging, is proud to introduce a completely revolutionized EOS-1D series camera, the Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR camera.* As the new leader in Canon’s arsenal of professional DSLRs, the EOS-1D X will be a high-speed multimedia juggernaut replacing both the EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS-1D Mark IV models in Canon’s lineup."

If you're sitting there awaiting a new 5D with more Mp's than the 1Dx then I think you'll be waiting a long time. I'd love you to be right though as I was very disappointed with the 1Dx's specification.

I am amazed to find myself with a main DLSR body that is now over 4 years old, has undertaken about 200K shutter operations, is no longer available to buy and nothing better is yet on the shelves.

I missed the official announcement, so you're right on the actual facts. I was talking more in the terms of high-megapixel full frame price point. 1Ds was good as studio camera but very expensive with lots of unnecessary features for studio shooters. As things move forward, I don't think Canon can afford to leave the older 5D2 as the highest MP camera in their lineup. Nikon already made the move and Canon NEEDS to do the same with something aimed at studio photogs.
Nothing on the shelf for now, but I believe we'll see something new in the near future.