DSLRUsers.com

Since I work at a reputable photographic retail outlet, we get to build some good rapport with some of these big companies, so far it's been good with Canon and I have to echo some concerns about Nikon Australia, they should come in more often.

Anyway, straight from the new Canon Account Manager for the Brisbane area, no 5D successor(s) till at least September. And it's going to be a model that will sit in between either the 1D and the 5D or the 5D and 40D. I'm not too sure if he's lying but I guess he has to keep some secrets otherwise he'll be sacked. And new IXUS models, if those interest any of you at all...

EDIT: He also slipped and said something about the 1Ds2's sensor being in one of the new cameras.

EDIT2: Nikon rep came!

September? ...bollocks to that!
I would have loved a recent PMA announcement - + maybe a few lenses!

Well thats it.. I am buying the 5D now.. I was holding off a bit cause I had heard rumours of a new release but I'm not waiting till September for it..

Thanks for the info..

That's good news... I can spend my toys budget on bike stuff instead. And if they really do go with a 16MP FF successor that would be excellent news, although I'd prefer to have the newer sensor design with 14bit readout and better noise/higher ISO. Such is life though.

But I do wonder if what we're hearing is straight from the forums fed back by a rep, or more likely "informed" speculation from the rep/his boss. Canon has only once reused a DSLR sensor - the 300D - and that was very much a cut down version of the whole camera it came from. I can't see them doing that with a 5D successor unless they go for a 3V-style "compact pro camera". Which would make some of us very, very happy but I can't see it happening.

moz wrote:That's good news... I can spend my toys budget on bike stuff instead. And if they really do go with a 16MP FF successor that would be excellent news, although I'd prefer to have the newer sensor design with 14bit readout and better noise/higher ISO. Such is life though.

But I do wonder if what we're hearing is straight from the forums fed back by a rep, or more likely "informed" speculation from the rep/his boss. Canon has only once reused a DSLR sensor - the 300D - and that was very much a cut down version of the whole camera it came from. I can't see them doing that with a 5D successor unless they go for a 3V-style "compact pro camera". Which would make some of us very, very happy but I can't see it happening.

Well they were account managers for Canon Australia and in the Brisbane area, not sure if they have high(er) authorities though, but I did actually talk to them myself, if that's what you're asking.

Well the Nikon rep came with his D3 and the new 400mm VR, was great fun playing with it and when I asked him about the D3x (equivalent), he said "It's not a matter of if, only a matter of when and very possibly within this year." Vague as ever!

The D3X would have to be significantly different to the D3 to warrant them releasing it at all.

If the price dropped on the D3 then there would be a a lot of pissed D3/D300 owners out there.

Benny2707 wrote:If the price dropped on the D3 then there would be a a lot of pissed D3/D300 owners out there.

... and a lot of happy prospective owners

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:

Benny2707 wrote:If the price dropped on the D3 then there would be a a lot of pissed D3/D300 owners out there.

... and a lot of happy prospective owners

Cheers
Steffen.

And I'd be one of them as well. I doubt it'd drop enough for me to be upset though. Plus I love my D300 so at the moment I'm happy. Happy like pig in poop

moz wrote:That's good news... I can spend my toys budget on bike stuff instead. And if they really do go with a 16MP FF successor that would be excellent news, although I'd prefer to have the newer sensor design with 14bit readout and better noise/higher ISO. Such is life though.

But I do wonder if what we're hearing is straight from the forums fed back by a rep, or more likely "informed" speculation from the rep/his boss. Canon has only once reused a DSLR sensor - the 300D - and that was very much a cut down version of the whole camera it came from. I can't see them doing that with a 5D successor unless they go for a 3V-style "compact pro camera". Which would make some of us very, very happy but I can't see it happening.

Unsure of my salt-worthiness here, but the 1DS II with newer signal processing gear would be nice.

We don't know that it's "the same sensor" as the 1Ds2, but we do expect that the 3D's sensor will be around 16 Mp, which is the same in that regard. I expect it may be newer technology though (e.g. with 14-bit ADCs). For example, the 350D had an 8Mp sensor just like the 20D, but the chip was a slightly different design.
My information says that the 3D shares a lot of design with the 40D, but we'll find out about the details when it's announced. Given that it wasn't announced prior to PMA, I expect Canon is aiming for their usual August announcement (prior to Photokina). The 5D will be 3 years old.

I gather there's also another model in the works (call it a 7D) which is like a 450D but with the 5D's sensor (again, it might not be the exact same chip, but you get the idea). It would be a lot cheaper, but I'm not sure when it will be announced (or if their plans will change by then).

In the meantime the 5D's at a decent price, and is still a good camera. Personally I'm still hanging for the 3D though.

DaveB wrote:In the meantime the 5D's at a decent price, and is still a good camera. Personally I'm still hanging for the 3D though.

It is still a cracking camera.

DaveB wrote:In the meantime the 5D's at a decent price, and is still a good camera. Personally I'm still hanging for the 3D though.

I'm waiting and saving for that too. My cynical side says I will have saved enough to buy a second hand 1DsIII by the time the 3D actually comes out

Well 1Ds3 isn't that expensive. Really, 11-grand is still less that a Mamiya ZD.

Grev wrote:Well 1Ds3 isn't that expensive. Really, 11-grand is still less that a Mamiya ZD.

Is that a fair comparison? For one thing, the ZD has a sensor twice as big as the Canon. Obviously, the Canon will have other features (5fps compared to 0.8, etc), but I would question whether you can really compare one to the other. For an extra $3,900, I think I know which I would prefer

I should note that you can actually get the ZD + body + 80 2.8 for $14950 and get credit for other Mamiya gear for $2,500. With the Canon, you only get the body!

Reschsmooth wrote:

Grev wrote:Well 1Ds3 isn't that expensive. Really, 11-grand is still less that a Mamiya ZD.

Is that a fair comparison? For one thing, the ZD has a sensor twice as big as the Canon. Obviously, the Canon will have other features (5fps compared to 0.8, etc), but I would question whether you can really compare one to the other. For an extra $3,900, I think I know which I would prefer

Or 2 D3s, a 70-200VR, and a 24-70.

gstark wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:

Grev wrote:Well 1Ds3 isn't that expensive. Really, 11-grand is still less that a Mamiya ZD.

Is that a fair comparison? For one thing, the ZD has a sensor twice as big as the Canon. Obviously, the Canon will have other features (5fps compared to 0.8, etc), but I would question whether you can really compare one to the other. For an extra $3,900, I think I know which I would prefer

Or 2 D3s, a 70-200VR, and a 24-70.

I wonder what has more "pulling" power - 2 DSLR (35mm) or 1 digital MF DSLR?

Reschsmooth wrote:

gstark wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:

Grev wrote:Well 1Ds3 isn't that expensive. Really, 11-grand is still less that a Mamiya ZD.

Is that a fair comparison? For one thing, the ZD has a sensor twice as big as the Canon. Obviously, the Canon will have other features (5fps compared to 0.8, etc), but I would question whether you can really compare one to the other. For an extra $3,900, I think I know which I would prefer

Or 2 D3s, a 70-200VR, and a 24-70.

I wonder what has more "pulling" power - 2 DSLR (35mm) or 1 digital MF DSLR?

This is where this discussion potentially becomes very interesting.

To some extent, the old film argument of negative (or trannie) size is going to lose some relevance, as sensors become denser within a given frame size. While photosite size will occupy some of the discussion and will provide similar benefits (compare PHD vs DX vs FF), we have the anomaly where a D300 provides a higher resolution image than a D3.

Now, would you say that Mamiya glass is better than Canon or Nikon Glass? I'm talking at the pointy end of the spectrum here .... I think it's fair to say that 'Blad glass will be better than Canon and/or Nikon, but even so, we're really into the nit-picking and pixel peeping realm.

And as we know, we are seeing some incredible leaps in sensor technology of late, with many more to come.

While there remain obvious advantages to shooting LF vs MF vs 35mm in film, I suspect that over the next three or four years we will see the advantages that MF has over 35mm/FF start to disappear, and perhaps to the extent that MF may well be, in the longer term, a soon to be dead format.

I think there are different arguments to be had over FF vs DX, with the latter taking over the role that the lower end 35mm film SLR occupied, and perhaps FF digital becoming the replacement for MF.

gstark wrote:I think there are different arguments to be had over FF vs DX, with the latter taking over the role that the lower end 35mm film SLR occupied

Dude, the lower end film has already been taken over by P&S digital. All those instamatics are history, and even cheap single-use cameras seem to be relegated to places where people don't want to take their digicams. The real question is whether compact digital cameras have a future or whether they'll be wiped out by phone cameras.

My cow-orker has a new phone that looks an awful lot like a compact camera except that it's widescreen and slides to show a keyboard. The only thing it's missing is optical zoom and the ability to annotate photos on the spot (why else have a keyboard?) But with 5MP do you really need optical zoom... the places where the phone doesn't work are mostly places where a compact won't work any better. Except in the water, where my Oly-790 works just fine but my phones keep dying.

moz wrote:

gstark wrote:I think there are different arguments to be had over FF vs DX, with the latter taking over the role that the lower end 35mm film SLR occupied

Dude, the lower end film has already been taken over by P&S digital.

Lower end film PHD, yes.

I said lower end film SLR, which is a different market again.

Pay attention, Moz, pay attention.

gstark wrote:Lower end film PHD, yes.I said lower end film SLR, which is a different market again.

I still think that's been taken over largely by the compact market. Sure, your arts student on a budget is possibly still going for a low end DSLR, but I reckon a large number of them have digital compacts instead. Just looking around the uni students I know that seems to be the case - it's only the arty types and geeks that have DSLRs.

Pay attention, Moz, pay attention.

Every work you speak is a delight to me, Gary, to be digested at leisure and cogitated on before I respond. Hopefully I can weasel out of this one, if not I'll have to watch some politicians on TV for pointers.

moz wrote:Hopefully I can weasel out of this one, if not I'll have to watch some politicians on TV for pointers.

Oh, shit no. Don't do that!

Next we'll have you watching A Crappy Affair to get some pointers on party hosting from Corey.

I am able to supply, as a philanthropic gesture to the forum, my (for another 3 weeks) flatmate's HD recordings of ACA and loads of other quality tabloid television. We could even organise a viewing night on the big plasma if there is warranted support. PM me.

Viz wrote:I am able to supply, as a philanthropic gesture to the forum, my (for another 3 weeks) flatmate's HD recordings of ACA and loads of other quality tabloid television. We could even organise a viewing night on the big plasma if there is warranted support. PM me.

I've not banned anyone in ages .....

Viz wrote:I am able to supply, as a philanthropic gesture to the forum, my (for another 3 weeks) flatmate's HD recordings of ACA and loads of other quality tabloid television. We could even organise a viewing night on the big plasma if there is warranted support. PM me.

Only if International Dust and Jacobs Creep are on offer!

Reschsmooth wrote:Is that a fair comparison? For one thing, the ZD has a sensor twice as big as the Canon. Obviously, the Canon will have other features (5fps compared to 0.8, etc), but I would question whether you can really compare one to the other. For an extra $3,900, I think I know which I would prefer

I should note that you can actually get the ZD + body + 80 2.8 for $14950 and get credit for other Mamiya gear for $2,500. With the Canon, you only get the body!

Actually I didn't intend to say either is better value for money. Personally I'm for the ZD as well.

gstark wrote:Now, would you say that Mamiya glass is better than Canon or Nikon Glass? I'm talking at the pointy end of the spectrum here .... I think it's fair to say that 'Blad glass will be better than Canon and/or Nikon, but even so, we're really into the nit-picking and pixel peeping realm.

I was told that Mamiya glass isn't sharp enough compared to the Blad's...

Grev wrote:I was told that Mamiya glass isn't sharp enough compared to the Blad's...

Ha! From what I have seen, even my Wusthof knives aren't as sharp as a 'Blad!