The Canon 5D is real
By Peter Rojas 
posted Aug 22nd 2005 7:35AM
posted Aug 22nd 2005 7:35AM
Turns out that the 5D is real. This morning Canon
officially announced what they claim is the world's lightest and smallest full-frame digital SLR (the full-frame thing
is a very big deal for anyone who is lots of people who are serious about digital
photography), the new 12.8 megapixel Canon 5D. Should retail for under $3,300 when it hits stores later this year.
Ohhhhh, Ahhhhhh!
"Should retail for under $3,300 when it hits stores later this year"
I'm hoping about $3000 under - damn it sucks to be poor
"the full-frame thing is a very big deal for anyone who is serious about digital photography"
Yes, as far as utilizing full wide-angle lenses goes. But sports photogs will still prefer the focal length multiplier in the EOS-1D series. As a matter of fact, Canon also announced the EOS-1D Mark II N, and also the A410, A610, A620, S80, S450, and S550, as well as some new lenses and accessories.
Via dpreview.com
Yeah, Canon went nuts with the announcements today. The 5D looks amazing but for $3,300 it's well out of my range - still, its specs for that price surely will be enticing for many people.
yea, but is packing 12mp into that full fram really gonna help over a 8mp into a porportianate frame? id rather have a 6.3mp full frame camera, thats the sweet spot for me
but im not really into the technicalities of camera, it would just make sense to me that have 12 million pixels packed into a 35mm frame wouldnt be as clear as 6 megapixels in the same space, provided that the picture isnt so zoomed in to start seeing the pixels, but if your veiwing the photos on a PC monitor, even a 30" apple cinema, you wont see any pixelation whatsoever unless zoomed in as the pixel count on the 30" is just over 4mp, and much less on any highdef tv, but i understand the 12mp if your printing out 8x10 (3.3mp looks fine as long as your not looking at it up close, and 6.3 to me looks good even at 11x14) maybe if your making posters or whatnot than 12mp would do you good
Indeed i agree with the previous poster, full frame is not that big a deal. Nikon don't even make a full frame digital SLR, and have claimed previously they have no plans to.
Full frame is mainly a big deal for old photographers with hang-overs from their 35mm days. If you choose your lenses appropriately the 1.6x crop factor in APS-C size sensor SLRs isn't much of an issue, and I find the differences in depth of field between the two negligible. And for those who argue they provide lower sensor noise, you need only look at the high ISO performance of the 20D and the 350D to see that big sensors aren't the only noise solution.
Oh my, that's full-frame? Wow.
I'm suprised there aren't more full-frame DSLRs, though. Surely the technology is there.
As an after thought, I think Canon made a smart decision developing the 5D. They've been commanding the sports photography area for quite a while now with the 1D line's motor drive, and the 5D makes perfect sense as it bridges print-resolution demands for those photogs who need their entire lineup of lenses without an aggressive motor drive. I imagine many companies that specialize in print would love to buy a few of these, instead of digital backs for medium format cameras.
Commenter #5, you're failing to take into account people with a penchant for wide-angle shots. that 1.6 multiplier severely cuts down your options when it comes to wide angles, and in fact, makes the widest angles simply impossible.
Landscape photographers will love these, while wildlife photographers will shun them like red-headed step-children.
Well, kinda. For the pros, full-frame is largely about achieving the depth-of-field effects that they've been used to from working with 35mm film. If you like the APS treatment of DoF, then you might not lust after this. But all in all, it looks like Canon did a hell of a job.
Considering that Canon is also upgrading their 8M Mark II model it makes me believe they made this one just for the wealthy prosumers. Most pros are perfectly happy with a lot less pixels.
Anyway, properly handling those huge 12MB images will require another 3K $ to upgrade the digital chain. Don't they make A3 photo printers too. :-)
#5 - People (pros) are not satisfied with the DOF level of 1.5x and 1.6x sensors. Why are many of them going towards medium format digital backs? Besides squeezing out every last bit of detail, they also have more creative options to play with DOF.
where are those people who claimed to have evidence the 5d was fake when news first leaked out huh?? yeah thats right... shut up!
Looks yummy.. but still too expensive for my taste. yes, it sucks to be poor! Im just hoping eos 1d will loose a couple hundred $$ when the 5d is released.
where is nikon? tempting to change to canon.
This thing is a let down. It is basically a 20D with a full frame sensor, bigger buffer, lighter body, and upgraded firmware. All of which is cool but doesn't justify the price difference between it and the 20D IMHO. This camera would tear up the market if it was priced at about $2500.
The price puts the D5 in the same price range as the Kodak DCS Pro which is also a full frame camera which has a better range of ISO speeds (from 6 to 1600, the slowest speed the 5D supports is 100) and a decent buffer capable of capturing 19 RAW images (17 RAW for the 5D though if it is like the 20D it can actually do better than that). The 5D probably has a better auto-focus system though and its 3fps capture rate beats the DCS's 1.7. The 5D is also lighter and more compact. Depending on what you shoot the DCS (available with Canon or Nikon lens mounts) could be the better camera considering how close the prices are.
Would be really nice to see a full frame DSLR with a more consumer friendly price point.
I don't really think it's a letdown (nr 14) as a professional photographer, this is the camera i've been waiting for. it's small, has a great resolution, full frame (so my terrific 24mm 1.4 is 24 mm again! and the DOF)and fps is only important for sports 1 or 2 fps is enough for me.
so i know what my next investment will be...
i'm hoping for 3000 euro's here in the netherlands
You're not going to see a full-frame DSLR around $2k for quite some time. What will most likely happen over at Canon is this:
The update to the EOS 20D will move to the 1.3x or stay @ 1.6x. My guess is the former, since it will move the "two-digit" EOS digital series closer to the $2k range. That way, Canon's sub-$5k DSLR line will cover a cost range of $1k to $4k in about $1000 increments. Talk about variety...
...which, is the number one reason most ex-Nikon users say they swtiched to Canon. More bodies and more lenses is a good thing.
Nikon better pick things up fast though, because if Canon controls too much of the market, we could see prices on their cameras go way up.
I hope the 5D means a lower priced 20D.
#15
Kodak doesnt make DSLR'S...anymore
it's a pretty good camera, but i will really save up for some 5D+ as soon as canon upgrades it to at least 5fps and 1/250s. flash sync or better. right now, with my kind of budget, i'm better off with the 20D.
The white paper put out by Canon would indicate their idea that the 5d is an upgrade to the 20D. See the following link for the White Paper put out by Canon:[http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_EOS_5D_White_Paper.pdf]
I was debating the purchase of the Mark II N but now the decision is even harder: 12.8mpx vs. 8.2mpx. It also looks like about a $700 delta between the two bodies after the list price gets down to street price. I do both landscape and wildlife. I remember the advantage in fps when I stepped from the 10D to the 20D. I guess I could keep the 20D and use the two bodies in tandum.
it's a pretty good camera, but i will really save up for some 5D+ as soon as canon upgrades it to at least 5fps and 1/250s. flash sync or better. right now, with my kind of budget, i'm better off with the 20D.
I am a serious landscape fine art photographer currently shooting with a 20D. I capture my own images, finesse them in Photoshop, print them on an Epson 2400, frame them myself. I am currently transitioning from serious amateur to professional, showing my work, putting up a website, etc. For me, the 5D is a dream come true because it allows me full wide-angle coverage with my Canon 16-35 mm. Further, the added megapixel punch on a full frame will give me resolution that will allow me to crop and enlarge sufficiently to compensate for the loss of the so-called magnification factor (1.6) of the smaller sensor when shooting with my Cannon 100-400 mm telephoto zoom. The price is dear and it will certainly take some months to put together the money to buy, but from my point of view, Canon scores 100% on this one.
I am a serious landscape fine art photographer currently shooting with a 20D. I capture my own images, finesse them in Photoshop, print them on an Epson 2400, frame them myself. I am currently transitioning from serious amateur to professional, showing my work, putting up a website, etc. For me, the 5D is a dream come true because it allows me full wide-angle coverage with my Canon 16-35 mm. Further, the added megapixel punch on a full frame will give me resolution that will allow me to crop and enlarge sufficiently to compensate for the loss of the so-called magnification factor (1.6) of the smaller sensor when shooting with my Cannon 100-400 mm telephoto zoom. The price is dear and it will certainly take some months to put together the money to buy, but from my point of view, Canon scores 100% on this one.
I'm an amateur photographer. Recently retired and revisiting my photography interests.
I bought a Canon D30 when it first came out, giving up a lot of very old Nikon film bodies and lenses. Then got a D60, skipped the 10D (too soon after I got the D60), and then jumped to the 1D Mk II, which I love dearly. Incredibly fast shooting for moving subjects, and great for journalism-type snapshots. (I'm definitely not yet ready to go to the 1D Mk II n; it doesn't float my boat enough to spend the significant $ to upgrade.)
But I have wanted a full-frame, high-resolution body for landscape use. I've been thinking about saving up for a 1Ds Mk II, but the price is beyond my budget. Perhaps the 5D will do what I want. I'll be watching the reviews.
This is a big deal. I'm a Nikon D70 user and would love a full frame. If I wanted a 1.5x factor I'd buy a 1.5 tele-converter.
Wildlife/sports, so what, I could use a converter there too.
Sold my 20D, 17-40mmL the minute i heard the 5D was coming. Keeping my 70-200f4L, tho. Fine art photographer. Cant wait to rfiv al film and get wide angle back. Full frame is what i grew up on in the late 70's. Is it October, yet???????????!!!!!!!!
The Full frame is very much a big deal. The 12.8 megapixels is NOT being crammed into the same space as a 6.3 sensor. The sensor is literally larger, allowing larger receptor sites which allow better resolution. Compare an 8mp point and shoot to an 8mp prosumer camera such as the 20D and you will notice better pictures from the 20D at the same resolution due to a larger sensor. Do your research, a larger CMOS=better print quality. Also for those of us who started out with thousands in wideangle on our film cameras we are quite happy not to have to invest more money in ridiculously wide lenses that have not been tested to the extent the older glass such as the 16-40 2.8
I'm looking for a camera to do product photography in studio and later use the photos to print in large format. But would also love to have it on others levels, like fine art, architecture and portrait, matters i care about.
I started to read about the Nikon D2X, and it is amazing, but now the Canon 5D bring me again some doubts. Any of you guys can help me a bit on this choose?
Perhaps I am older, but the full frame issue affects a lot more than wide angle lenses. It does in fact impact DOF, and though this is not a huge issue, the issue of requiring 50mm for portature is. It is simply too wide, and going to 85mm at cropped frame means pulling the camera back to uncomfortable distances and further increasing DOF. 50mm just is not as pleasing a focal length as traditional 85mm or 105mm lenses were; facial features distort.
Further, the joy of the fast 50mm lense is gone. Sure, everyone is into the larger (and slower) zooms, and they are nice, but FF allows you to move with your feet and position your very fast 50mm with enough frame to get a decent shot. Further, it is a more natural way to shoot as the 50mm FF viewfinder matches your vision and you can keep both eyes open for framing, timing and watching the action. I truly miss that.
I wish also that Nikon would at least offer a FF sensor and let us choose. I also would like to see a lower res FF at a more reasonable price. 50mm has been around for a long time and is successful because it is well concieved. Changing it has worked, but lets not pretend at no sacrifice.
One last point. Autofocus is nice (when you can actually get one of the focal points on the subject), but I miss the old split prism as a focus aid. Sure, there is an LED indicator to show a focus lock, but it is at the frame edge which takes your eye off the subject, wastes time and is fatiguing. Focus lock should show on the frame as a HUD image. Audio also might work in certain situations, but I prefer a visual indication at the appropriate focal spot.