Just checked dpreview's forums and noticed that both the Nikon and Canon forums have been spammed with this new so-called Canon 5D. Managed to download this pdf file with specs - it would appear that this body is slated for announcement in late August. Looks like the 20D from the outside.
What I could gather from reading the forums:
12.8mp FULL-FRAME digic II CMOS!!!!
2.5" LCD preview screen
9-point AF
Monochrome mode with options for filters and toning effects (!!!)
3 fps
1/200 flash sync (no pop-up flash)
Summary: Canon's razzle dazzle!!
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Canon 5D (12.8mp full-frame)Moderators: gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this. Canon 5D (12.8mp full-frame)
I doubt that it's full frame.
Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
Am I missing somthing here?? Is it a hopped up P&S?? For 3500 it better come with a 6' blonde. 12MP I understand, but why step down in other areas just to add ...monochromatic (black and white???) 3 fps WooHOO... 1/200 flash sync....I don't get it. Is there a market for this? For 3800 you can have a 1D MarkII
Just go buy a Large format camera instead, like this!! 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=381008&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation oh wait, thats 12500! A D70, 70-200VR, 18-70, 50 1.8, SB800
Blackberry PIN: 2029497E
Not if the Canon is full frame. 12.8MP FF sounds exactly right to me, exact that there's no Canon sensor with that specification. The EOS 1Ds MkII is FF and 16MP, and maybe it's time to spread the cost of that technology further afield? g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
I don't think it'll be FF, if it's then the Canon EOS D1s MK II is dead, Canon guys still can't get the full stock of the 1Ds MKII, order today, still be on waiting list.
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
There is no way that so many FF sensors will be made. Canon is struggling keeping up with orders on the 1ds 2. I expect Canon will keep their lower models DXish to compete with the Nikon equivalents on price. FF are more expensive and more difficult to make.
HB
You're exactly right, Perhaps Canon has something new which nobody knows. Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
It will be interesting to see what Canon actually do bring out. As usual, speculation and the usual crap will be spread across every forum before what is really inside the camera will be revealed.
I can't believe that people still frequent dpreview.... 90% on that forum is misinterpretation & the other 10% is bulls#@t Me personally, I hope they bring out something that is absolutely fantastic - I want the price of the D2X to drop  Not that it would though...
All in good time ! Dave
Nikon D7000 | 18-105 VR Lens | Nikon 50 1.8G | Sigma 70-300 APO II Super Macro | Tokina 11-16 AT-X | Nikon SB-800 | Lowepro Mini Trekker AWII Photography = Compromise
It won't happen locally with Maxwell stock but price will be lot competitive with O/S stock. Your patience is the reward  Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
All this talk of "full frame" is starting to get to me. So I'm going to finally make a comment here.
What the hell is "full frame" anyway? Who determined that 35 mm is "full frame"?? Why then isn't a 5" x 7" print a cropped version of a 10" x 8" "full print"? Isn't the Cannon's senor a cropped 120mm? No. Is a D70 a cropped 35mm? No. The D70 is a "FULL FRAME" camera because it was designed and manufactured with a particular sensor size - and it uses 100% of its sensor. The "full frame" bizo comes from a reference to the useability of 35mm lenses to the destination sensor sized cameras. Just as you would say if you were referring to trying to work out the crop factor when fitting a 120mm lense onto a Cannon 35mm. There is also one little tiny thing that seems to be overlook, and this is the actual size of the sensor pixels. Did you know that the D2x has pixels 1.3 x smaller and tighter than the pixels in the so called Cannon "full frame" DSLR? This still makes the Cannon capabale ot capturing technically more detail, but in reality only by a whisker. As sensor pixel sizes get smaller and if they continue to elminate high noise (usually associated with smaller pixel count), then its pretty clear to me the 35 mm sensors will be monsters from the past pretty soon. Ahh, I feel better now I've finally aired my opinion.
Jumbuck,
I take my hat off to you - the truth well told!! Coming as I do from the world of large format the so-called crop factor means 4/5ths of Sweet FA to me. I can fit a reducing back to my 8x10 and shoot any smaller size of my choosing. Crop factor never enters the equation. I have an adjustable roll-film holder that can be set to 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12. While I seldom go smaller than 6x7 I use the adjustment in order to fit the aspect ratio of the image closely to the anticipated aspect ratio of the page layout. As the format gets smaller so i have to use shorter focal length lenses to get a similar angle of view, but crop factor - it is never a consideration. Each format is full-frame as you contend. In the realm of the DSLR I am of the school that believes that the notion of a 24x36 chip may well be a transitory and short-lived phenomenon - a marketing ploy to appeal to those coming from 24x36mm film and with an inventory of glass that will cover that size. In a few years time any new purchasers will possibly never have used film (it is already the case in many instances) and the APS sized chip will be seen as 'normal'. As the range of smaller image circle DX style lenses increases and research into larger image circle lenses decreases it will be less feasible for manufacturers to support two ranges of lenses. We have already witnessed the disappearance of many manual focus lenses in most marques (Nikon being an exception). Medium format manufacturers and some 35mm SLR manufacturers have already discontinued duplication of their ranges in the belief that sufficient product exists on the second-hand market to satisfy present and future need. What I say about the DSLR APS format also holds true to the Medium Format backs where the universal size of capture array seems to hover around the 6x4.5 mark despite the crop factor experienced by 6x7 users. Add to this the issues of lens performance (particularly short focal length) with the periphery of the digital capture array and I think it is a pretty far indication of where everything is headed. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
Hi Jumbuck
I believe full-frame refers to the 35mm negative size, which was considered a standard size. Yes, every size could be considered as "full-frame", but I believe this name has been made as a reference to the 35mm size. You could also argue that a medium coke at McDonalds is a large (because it is bigger than the small - and large in it's own right), but in reference to each other, it is not large, but a medium. Perhaps a case of semantics here..... ??? The D70 and the like use what is known as a DX sensor, and P&S cameras use even smaller sensors. You make a very good point, that alot of people overlook, regarding pixel size, and how many are crammed onto a particular sized sensor. This is far more important than MP count, IMHO. The smaller P&S sensors are packed with 6, 8 or 10MP....whereas the DX sensors (albeit larger) have 4, 6 or 8 (usually), which helps with keeping the pixel size & spacing larger. This will no doubt change in time, along with the sensor's size (going full-frame, equivalent to 35mm neg size). Is there an advantage to having a bigger sensor ?? Probably, but only where the pixel sizes are kept to a reasonable size. Trying to cram 60MP on a full-frame will more than likely result in the P&S sensor effect...so it will eventually also run it's course and technology will evolve to cope with the need for more MP... Dave
Nikon D7000 | 18-105 VR Lens | Nikon 50 1.8G | Sigma 70-300 APO II Super Macro | Tokina 11-16 AT-X | Nikon SB-800 | Lowepro Mini Trekker AWII Photography = Compromise
Dave,
Your point is well illustrated by the Olympus 8MP cameras (E-300 and 8080) which cram an incredible number of pixel sites into a very small array and the difference in image qulaity is proof of what you propose. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
The stupid thing is that the standard 35mm frame size is actually a DOUBLE frame compared to the original filmstock it was designed for.
Film cameras run the film vertically and the standard frame size was 24x18. Barnack at Leica flipped the film horizontal and doubled the frame length to keep the 3:2 ratio, using the 24mm film width (previously the long side) as its basis. The approx APS sensor size on the D70 (15.6mm x 23.7mm) brings it back to a size much closer to the original 35mm film camera frame size. Smile; it makes people wonder what you have been up to.
Jumbuck, I totally agree with you. I hate that Canon specific nomenclature seeps into everyday photography jargon as if it's the truth.
Nikon has always stuck to one digital sensor size, across the product lineup and through successive generations. As far as Nikon shooters should be concerned, there is ONLY ONE size, and "full frame" it is. It also has the additional benefit that means the same lens won't behave any differently on different bodies, as is the case with the copier company. Those that have invested in DX glass - I don't think you've much to worry about. However those that have "invested" in EF-S, you knew from the start they would only ever be compatible with low end bodies, as there are a multitude of other sensors sizes in the product lineup in your chosen system that are incompatible with EF-S. IMO going to 36x24mm sized sensor is a step backwards. It is quite likely that the 5D does have this size sensor, as I believe Xerox's competitor are hoping to capitalise on the aura of "full frame" from their flagship model. To have a sensor the same physical dimensions (which adds as much to image quality as the colour of the strap on the camera IMHO) as their flagship 1Ds II would no doubt entice the entry level 'dribble' crowd to upgrade and hence boost their sales. Once people get over the theoretical advantages or lack thereof of "full frame", then it's back to business as usual. Perhaps adding more EF-S lenses to their lineup...
You need to understand the history of these devices. The basic design, and many components and nomenclature, all derive directly from 35mm film photography. The bodies look like 35mm film SLRs, and in a great many cases, the lenses from a 35mm film SLR camera will fit a DSLR. Case in point: we have a gaggle of 35mm film SLRs (look at my signature line) and a shelf full of lenses for those cameras. Some of the lenses are 35 years old (or thereabouts) but they will fit my shiny (almost-)new D70. But whereas the image I will get with those lenses, on a 35mm film camera, will occupy a certain physical size within the camera and on the light sensor (in this case, a piece of film), if i put that exact same lens onto my D70, I will lose a whole lot of image information from the edges of what I might otherwise be seeing in my film camera. The image, therefore, is just a partial rendition of what the 35mm lens and camera is capable of, and thus often referred to as "cropped", and with a Nikon DSLR, the crop factor is 1.5, which basically means that if I treat the cropped digital image as if it were full frame, I would something 150% magnification of the (smaller) image area in comparison to the full 35mm frame area as defined by the film camera.
No. While I don't understand most of your questions here, this is not a question that relates solely to the sensor. It's to do with the lenses that are available for the camera, and in fact, when the first Canon and Nikon digital SLR cameras were released, the only lenses available were the standard 35mm lenses, with a full 35mm aspect ration and field of view. A large portion of which is wasted when used in a DSLR.
Er, no. If the 120mm lens was designed for a Canon 35mm film EOS body, then its image area would be optimised for a frame size appropriate to a 35mm film frame. That same lens would then have the Canon crop factor of 1.6 applied to it when used on, say, a 20D, because that's a description of how much of the image area that the lens is designed to produce (in 35mm terms - always the reference point) that it loses when a smaller light sensor (be it film - sauch as an APS camera, or digital) is brought into play.
Who says that we have overlooked that point? FWIW, Nikon are already on record as saying that, within the context of a DX sensor, they can go to about 24MP. That's suggestive of something like a 50MP Nikon full frame sensor at some point in the future. But there's a hell of a lot more to the quality of an image than just the MP rating, and all other things being equal, a higher number of smaller photosites on any given sensor should be capable of producing a higher resolution - and higher quality - image. That means that a Coolpix 8800 should produce a better image than a D70, yet that's not the case. Why is this so?
No. Higher noise is generally related to the size of the photosites in play. Larger photosites are less noisy. That's why the PHD cameras, with sensors about the size of your pinky's fingernail, rarely go beyond ISO400. The photosites in use are just too small to amplify to the point where a useful image can be produced. Compare the actual (physical) sensor sizes between any Canon or Nikon DSLR and any any PHD camera, and you'll see that there's a difference there of more than an order or magnitude. That's a part of why, for instance, you can get DoF control on a DSLR, something that's lacking on PHDs.
You're welcome to your opinion. You're welcome to be wrong on so many counts, too.
That's why we're here. You can air your opinion, and hopefully, you can listen to those of others, and perhaps even learn a few things into the bargain. Welcome to the forums; please put your location into your profile, so that we can be better placed to help you with any questions you may have in the future. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Anybody shooting wide angle landscapes would have to disagree with you there. Also, having the same MP count on both a full frame and an APS sized sensor and using the same technology will produce lower noised images on the full frame sized sensor. Having said that, full frame doesn't really interest me as I don't shoot wide angle much, and the center portion of the lens that is used due to smaller sensor is generally the sweet spot anyway. Canon 1D III
Not just landscapes.
Exactly. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Wouldnt it be fair to say that we are generally getting the best out of the '35mm orientated' lenses, given the fact that we are cropping on the Nikon dSLR's and thus cropping out the worst parts of the image circle (ie the edges). From what I have read, the EOS1D MarkII suffers quite heavily with poor corner sharpness on ultra-wide-angle lenses due to the micro-lenses on the sensor that re-angle the incoming light more directly into the photosites around the edges of the sensor? Smile; it makes people wonder what you have been up to.
-->robboh
>From what I have read, the EOS1D MarkII suffers quite heavily with poor > corner sharpness That is true, but than they can always use Photoshop to chop off blured edges and final image will end up at 12Mpx size (from 16Mpx). Exactly in the same fashion how it is done in D2X - crop factor 1.5. The difference is that they still have this extra bit of information. Whatever, it is softer or not, whereas with D2X and full frame lens this information is gone forever. You may like it or not. Depends. -->petal666 > center portion of the lens that is used due to smaller sensor is generally > the sweet spot anyway. Note, that this way of thinking brings you to the extreme of using sensor from P&S camera. Then you use even sweeter part of the lens and your 100mm becomes, lets say, 500m. That is great
-->general I my opinion the whole thing is about size of single detector in sensor. Physics are clear and equal for both Canon (full frame) and Nikon (1.5 crop). Whole point is that with the same single detector size (and the same noise level, and dynamic range and anything else related to that) bigger sensor will provide larger number of pixels, which mean larger level of details (assuming that both systems equals in any other field ie. lens resolution). Therefor, one day, if Nikon will keep with its 1.5 crop policy, will end up as the second on pro market, because of image quality (again assuming that every other features for both systems will be pretty close). And anyway, this will be beaten by full frame sensor for medium format
Regards, K.Polak
For many lenses, absolutely. But if I want to use my 24mm for a true wide angle shot on my D70, I cannot. While the edge information might be a tad softer were I shooting on a mythical Nikon FF DSLR (or my F801) that information is simply not there when I use my D70. If I consider that information to be vital data for the shoot, but at the end of the day it's not there, then (a) the point is moot, and more significantly, (b) the shoot is as good as trash!
That may or may not be true; I have no factual knowledge to either accept or challenge what you're saying here. It does sound somewhat plausible however, but I would not be surprised if the D2x (and the D100, D70, and D50) also sufferred from similar issues. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Yeah but those are 1cm diam. pieces of plastic Canon 1D III
-->petal666
I was rather talking about putting this sensor into slr body. Then you have effect I said. Or, more realistic way of doing that would be to make even further crop from actual Nikon DSLR image, which already has 1.5 crop from full frame lens. Then virtually you dont have any vineting, no soft egdes etc. Your cheap 100m lens is perfect 300mm performer! Yeah... the only problem is that you end up with 1000 piksels wide image. Try to use it to make a decent print BTW this is why Ken Rockwell makes me laught in some his opinion. He is a good photographer and he has good knowledge in film photography. But in digital he is in kindergarden.
Regards, K.Polak
Just to shatter the myth that the Cannon full frame leaves others for dead, here is a graphic that dramatically illustrates why Cannon lovers don't talk much about actual pixel sizes....
Er, What's the myth? Please fill us in? Have you had a chance to have a personal head to head comparison of these very high-end cameras with their very high resolution sensors? Pixel size .... sensor MP counts .... what really matters is how well the camera handles, for you, and the results that you are able to produce. The bottom line is very simple: these cameras are very capable tools, and the typical limitiing factor will be the capabilities of the dolt driving the unit. A competent master of their craft will be able to produce stunning results regardless of what the tool that they're using is, whereas, with me driving, I'm quite sure I can produce shit of equally poor quality regardless of whether I'm using a D2X or a 5D! g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Jumbuck, interesting comparison on the above link betwwen the D2X and the Canon 1Ds MK11 http://wolfeyes.com.au Tactical Torches - Tactical Flashlights Police torch rechargeable torch military torch police military HID surefire flashlight LED torch tactical torch rechargeable wolf eyes flashlight surefire torch wolf eyes tactical torchpolice torch
Thank You
Why do I want a smaller pixel size? Canon 1D III
Or - bigger is not always better
Or, more precisely, it’s not not what you have got but how that you use it that matters  Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
I'm not an engineer so I can't answer that question.
However, I would have thought there is a direct relationship between sensor pixel size and resolution. This all started with me trying to find out why the D2x gives a better resolution for a given area compared to the full frame Canon. It didn't seem to make sense to me because one would have thought the Canon's full frame sensor would produce higher resolution images, i.e. capturing more and finer detail per given area. However, in relation to image quiality when all things are equal (lenses) the D2x, from what I've read, produces superior images in this respect. But I must admit I'd be happy with either.
I haven't bought 19" TFT monitor because of pixel size a little while ago. Both 17" and 19" have native resolution 1280x1024. The only differense is pixel size and 19" with it's huge pixels looks just unpleasant Mikhail
Hasselblad 501CM, XPAN, Wista DX 4x5, Pentax 67, Nikon D70, FED-2
And how monitor pixel size relates to sensor pixel size and moreover to recoreded image quality, because I really dont understand
Regards, K.Polak
I dunno, I could be wrong here. But if you look at say a single horizontal row of light, it's an analog waveform. Now could it be something to do with wider spacing intervals of the photosensitive transistors (at each pixel - 4 calibrated for red, green x 2 and blue light) resulting in poorer sampling of this analog data?
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
kipper! kipper! wake up! Are you still a Nikon fan? heading to and grab a D2x mate! + 500mm AF-S II + Wimberley gimbal head and move on!!!!!!  Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
Yes, I am Birddog, the D2X is a great camera
Although there is still something about Canon that I like
One is there long tele lenses have IS, plus the teles have the foot the right away around unlike Nikon with the reverse foot 
You know one of the techniques that they use for hand held is to poot the foot into a plier pouch on a utility belt (with back support). The guy who came up with is actually runs with it in his belt
Can't do that with Nikon as the foot is reversed. Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
kipper,
Yes, I agreed, one or the other way they all have pros and cons, we can't have all perfect in one system, just happy with what we have and enjoying what you can afford, there's alway a bright future. Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
By-passing the lusty notions and returning to Kipper's conundrum, I feel you are on the right track but at this stage I am still researching the matter myself and cannot proffer a definitive explanation - mind you, I doubt that anybody can because we quickly get into the realm of 'trade secrets' and patents.
To date my understanding is that to assess the resolution or perfarmance capabilities of a digital capture device based on pixel count alone is a little like older sweeping statements like 400ISO film is more grainy than 100ISO film. It comes down to a whole leap of factors such as: which film, which developer, developed to what Contrast Index, with what agitation etc., etc. Now, the EOS1DS MkII has 16.613376 pixels in an array covering an area of 36mm x 24mm. Each pixel is about 7 microns and the pixel density is 19,228 pixels/sq. mm. A native TIFF from RAW will print to 422.6 mm @ 300 dpi. Compare that to the Nikon D2x: 12.203648 pixels in an array covering an area of 23.7mm x 15.7mm. Each pixel is about 6 microns but the pixel density is a whopping 32,798 pixels/sq. mm. And a native TIFF from RAW will print to an only slightly smaller size 363.05 mm @ 300 dpi. Added to that mathematical conundrum is the stronger low-pass filtration of Canon plus the fact that single-shot capture, unlike multiple shot capture, samples and must not only produce colour data through an algorithm but must also add edges. I am bewildered by much of this and am as amazed as all get-out that any of it happens at all. Overiding the maths and algorithms is Nyquest Theory which deals with frequencies - in this case the frequency of the resolution of the image formed by the lens. Can we simple mortals hope to find an answer? I doubt that I can but in typical form I'll give it a damned good try. Thus far I have shot a test using a Canon 20D. I used a 24mm T/S lens since this would be my most critical need to shoot architectural interiors - rectilinear with no perspective distortion. I now need to access a D2x and 12-24 to replicate the test and determine which set of veriables work best to meet my needs (as opposed to my lust or passion or prejudice). Will it be a bigger image area with better performing larger pixels (the EOS5D has 8 micron pixels similar to the D70s and given that 9 micron is about the optimum in terms of dynamic range and low-noise it shoud perform well in these regards) in concert with a lower density and a longer prime lens that delivers the good? Or will it be greater density of smaller pixels over a smaller array that will pull enough information out of a more tele-centric DX 12-24mm zoom lens at about 15 or 16 mm? If you are interested, stay tuned. It could be a big weekend ahead. _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
Sheetshooter I have the D2x and 12-24 at your disposal
The sample shots from the 5D over on DPreview are pretty damn good
 Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Chris, All the sample are always good or superb but they're all difference when in real shooting.Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
These photos are real life, taken by Phil around the city where he lives. Canon 1D III
Something I will commend Canon on is the placement of the AE/AF lock button that can be reprogrammed. Much better location then the Nikon, as I've said in the past to people that I know it'd be nice to have a button close to the shutter release either a trigger or thumb actuated. The Nikon is just too far over to the left.
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
Maybe that’s why I liked the shots - London - my old home city Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Well home after a busy day been flat out since a bit after 5am but anyhow i sat and read Phils review on the 5 D last nite and seems to be ok. i tell you it looks good and well canon are 1 up on Nikon in some way as in the Vertical grip etc... as they had 1 for the 20D where Nikon didnt bother for the D70, so yeh like i have said beforewould have broght the canon if i had the money at the time 20D that is and well i wouldn't mind the EOS 1d markII 8.2 mp 8.5 fps but spose close to Nikon price. I like my camera but i think Nikon maybe a bit behind the ball at somethings and well i have seen a bloke 20D and shoots in jpg and i liked the pics so yeh maybe even a better AF system. like buying a Ford and Holden if you ask me. Make me think as well when i know a pro Photog who was a nikon guy now shoots canon. Anyhow lets see what Nikon does with the elusive D200.
D3,D2x,D70,18-70 kit lens,Sigma 70-200mm F2.8EX HSM,Nikon AF-I 300m F2.8, TC20E 2X
80-400VR,SB800,Vosonic X Drive,VP6210 40 http://www.oz-images.com
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
