I'm hoping Canon's 5DX/3 is not like the D800

[specialman]

......Canon's glass is so much nicer (although I'll admit that that's a subjective opinion)....

I think the key difference between the two brand's lens range is that on face value, there's more modernity in the Canon range because they all meet a basic spec of all being EF and therefore based around built-in motors. I've read many threads about potential Nikon users being confused and sometimes put off from going with Nikon because there's still a real mix of lenses that are either AF-D or AF-S and then with all these other affixes like DX, ED, G etc. It's not hard to understand once you look at the glossary on the Nikon site, but Canon's is more accessible, partly because there is a much wider range across more key price points, plus there's a distinct 'pro' range in the L-series lenses*. Okay, they have some AF-S lenses that throw a small cat amongst the pigeons but nothing as confusing as Nikon's

However, I think that with its massive leaps forward in aiming for market share in DSLRs, there has to be some large-scale up[grade of glass at some point to bring lenses up-to-date. We now have a 'G' 50mm f/1.8 and there are some really exciting and useful lenses in the Nikon range, but there are still oddities that many see as just being plain weird; 200mm f/4 macro being one. Supposedly a brilliant lens but because many people are 'conditioned' to believe that f/2.8 is the holy grail in terms of zooms, it's looked on as too specialised and old fashioned, not helped by the AF-D focussing system.

There is a general theme that Nikon needs to 'do a Canon' and bring out a range of 'budget' pro lenses that ape lenses like the 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. In some instances I think that true - a 400mm f/5.6 would be great teamed up with a modern body that can quite easily make up for a slow maximum aperture by having very high ISOs to call on. Plus, Nikon lenses do seem expensive, especially when you're buying AF-D technology. Another point is that unlike Canon, not every lens in the Nikon range can be used in AF mode on every Nikon body.

That said I have more faith in my Nikon lenses performing in all conditions than some canon lenses. I shot Canon for a decade or so and although the lenses were good, they never gave me that feeling of workmanlike performance and ruggedness that my Nikons give. That is of massive importance to me. I don't mind certain sacrifices (AF-D as opposed to AF-S for starters) if that lens will just keep on going forever and a day. My 60mm macro is a prime example of that; I've never once felt that a spot of rain (or whatever) would phase that lens, whereas I had loads of problems with Canon's 100mm macro, seeing a couple dying on my out on shoots. Yes, these are isolated examples and it's not a watertight argument at all, but I believe as a pro, I need to feel confident that the camera and its accessories will work without hesitation. I feel that way with all the mid-to-top end stuff I own from Nikon but can't say the same of the Canon kit I've owned, not 100 per cent anyway.

Anyway, I digress

*Nikon has its 'gold ring' lenses but there's much less said and written about these as a higher level of lens in the same vein as L-series glass.

 

[Moreorless]

I'm sure most of us hover around the canon rumours site, but If you don't, here is a cut n paste from their site.


Interesting thought
A split in the 5D line has been*rumoured*for a while now. This rumor was not submitted to me, instead it was sent to [NL]. It’s consistent with some things I have heard, however take this one with a large grain of salt.

5D X

45MP (With a pixel size similar to the power shot G1X)
61 points AF (Similar to the 1DX but simpler)
3.4 fps, 100-6400 (50-12800)
1 Digic 5+ Digic 4
5D Mark III

22MP
61 points AF (Similar to the 1DX but simpler)
6.9 fps, ISO 100-25600(50-51200)
1 Digic 5+ Digic 4
Best HD video quality of any EOS camera
Both over $3k

Source: [NL]

It'll be interesting to see if the reverse is true for Nikon aswell, personally a D800/5DX body has much more appeal to me but the 5D mk3 specs seem like they'd have the much boarder appeal.

 

[vaizki]

If Canon puts out even one more £1000+ camera with that 9pt AF I'm going to reconsider my sanity in sticking with them...

 

[simonblue]

I've been tempted by the D800 but like you, I think that Canon's glass is so much nicer (although I'll admit that that's a subjective opinion)!

I'm going to be very interested to see what Canon's answer will be.

It is lens,i perfer Nikon lens,as those their a couple in Canon range,i wouldnt mine coming to Nikon

Sensor 50millon anybody

 

[LCPete]

Ki

I think the key difference between the two brand's lens range is that on face value, there's more modernity in the Canon range because they all meet a basic spec of all being EF and therefore based around built-in motors. I've read many threads about potential Nikon users being confused and sometimes put off from going with Nikon because there's still a real mix of lenses that are either AF-D or AF-S and then with all these other affixes like DX, ED, G etc. It's not hard to understand once you look at the glossary on the Nikon site, but Canon's is more accessible, partly because there is a much wider range across more key price points, plus there's a distinct 'pro' range in the L-series lenses*. Okay, they have some AF-S lenses that throw a small cat amongst the pigeons but nothing as confusing as Nikon's

However, I think that with its massive leaps forward in aiming for market share in DSLRs, there has to be some large-scale up[grade of glass at some point to bring lenses up-to-date. We now have a 'G' 50mm f/1.8 and there are some really exciting and useful lenses in the Nikon range, but there are still oddities that many see as just being plain weird; 200mm f/4 macro being one. Supposedly a brilliant lens but because many people are 'conditioned' to believe that f/2.8 is the holy grail in terms of zooms, it's looked on as too specialised and old fashioned, not helped by the AF-D focussing system.

There is a general theme that Nikon needs to 'do a Canon' and bring out a range of 'budget' pro lenses that ape lenses like the 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. In some instances I think that true - a 400mm f/5.6 would be great teamed up with a modern body that can quite easily make up for a slow maximum aperture by having very high ISOs to call on. Plus, Nikon lenses do seem expensive, especially when you're buying AF-D technology. Another point is that unlike Canon, not every lens in the Nikon range can be used in AF mode on every Nikon body.

That said I have more faith in my Nikon lenses performing in all conditions than some canon lenses. I shot Canon for a decade or so and although the lenses were good, they never gave me that feeling of workmanlike performance and ruggedness that my Nikons give. That is of massive importance to me. I don't mind certain sacrifices (AF-D as opposed to AF-S for starters) if that lens will just keep on going forever and a day. My 60mm macro is a prime example of that; I've never once felt that a spot of rain (or whatever) would phase that lens, whereas I had loads of problems with Canon's 100mm macro, seeing a couple dying on my out on shoots. Yes, these are isolated examples and it's not a watertight argument at all, but I believe as a pro, I need to feel confident that the camera and its accessories will work without hesitation. I feel that way with all the mid-to-top end stuff I own from Nikon but can't say the same of the Canon kit I've owned, not 100 per cent anyway.

Anyway, I digress

*Nikon has its 'gold ring' lenses but there's much less said and written about these as a higher level of lens in the same vein as L-series glass.

Spot on that's exactly why I went for the 350d rather than the D40 when I started the problem of which nikon lens works with which body put me off
It wouldn't now but it must be confusing for new starters like I was
Edit sorry about the thumbs down smiley I posted from my phone

 

[redhed17]

A 5DII replacement 'should' have more pixels, because there are now higher MP sensors that have better ISO performance, so it is not like the Canon G series which drew a line and said we're going for better ISO performance and the only way to do it at the time was to stay with the same pixel countbut better processing. One of the reasons people have chosen the 5D over the D700 is because of more MP, now that the D800 has appeared, if it's MPs equal quality, then the 5DII replacement would have to get closer to the D800 so as not to lose similar buyer who are chasing MPs. Number of pixels isn't everything to everyone, but it is important to many.

Auto Focus has been an area where Canon seems to have lagged behind Nikon for quite a few years. As has been said, how many cameras have had the 9 point AF system? Which would have been fine if it was a great system, but I don't think it is. Is it? :shrug:

With the Nikon D3 Nikon made a huge jump in high ISO performance which Canon, and everyone else, has been playing catch up.

If you want good AF, and low light performance then the 5D/II may have not been the best choice.

The video has been one the major successes of the 5DII, and so there doesn't seem to be any good reason why it wouldn't be there with enhanced features. Some of the connectivity options of the 1DX/D4/D800, USB3, Live HDMI, possibly a Network connection. Now that Canon has a video range for the TV/Movie industry they may not go as far as they maybe should do.

The 5D/II haven't had flash, and neither have any FF Canon, so I can't see a new camera going down that route.

I can't see why there couldn't be two card slots. If Nikon can do it in a D7000/D300S, then Canon can do it in a 5D sized body. Duel cards slots are more useful to Professionals whose images have a £$ value, so to not give that option would be a mistake imho.

Hopefully a new camera would have 100% viewfinder, which the previous cameras have not had.

I've never found the Nikon lens range confusing, :shrug: but then I know what I want and am not appraising the whole range of each manufacturer just in case I need, or 'may' need a certain lens with such and such spec. The Canon range of lenses is larger, and so if lens options is the reason you choose one brand over another, then Canon would have all the market to themselves.Lens wise, each brand has there own quality options, whether that matches what you are after, the choice made. If lenses are the only criteria for the choice of camera.

These are just my thoughts looking from the outside. Canon are not averse to offering less features with a replacement, as with the 50D to 60D for example.

I didn't think Nikon would have done what they have done with the D800, so there maybe could be some surprises with the 5DII replacement. Hopefully there will be some good things that people are not expecting. It's always good to have a nice surprise.

 

[vaizki]

There have been many versions of the 9 point AF with differing amounts of cross type sensors and different max aperture sensitivities. Not very easy to keep up with the versions..

It's ok for a 9 point AF but it's not going to track moving objects like the 1-series, 7D or Nikon AF. I only ever use the center point on it and I seem to be in the majority.

I don't care if the 5D2 successor has 12, 19, 45 or 61 points as long as they're mostly f/2.8 cross type and I get spot AF like on the 7D.