They have proven several times in a row now, that they will try for
the minimum upgrade that will preserve their product heirarchy and
margins regardless of what customers think.
I don't know that I would really call anything they've done aside from the 20D-30D transition a minimum upgrade.
The '5DII' (7D - whatever) will be a 40D with larger sensor and lower
frame-rate.
Possibly if they wanted to do a dual level prosumer camera, one with 1.6x and one with FF, but I don't suspect they're interested in pursuing that product lineup. It didn't work with the APS SLRs they made several years ago (which happened to be some of the nicest consumer level cameras they were making at the time), and it's difficult to recoup investment if you target two cameras to the same group of consumers.
There is still room for a 3D, but Canon have shown already that they
have no intention of making such a cam.
Canon only has the very first incarnation of the 5D; it's pretty difficult to discern their intentions from that. When they speak of it, they treat it as though it were a professional camera, so it leads me to believe that this level of camera will continue to be thought of as a professional level camera internally, and will therefore have certain professional level features. Certainly there's a lot of people that would consider the 5D to be a 30D with a FF sensor, but Canon clearly puts the 30D at the prosumer range and the 5D somewhat higher.
What's odd is that Canon did once see a place for the Eos 3 film camera.
But, it came only when film-cam sales had largely stagnated
pre-digital - perhaps as a way to tweak those last few $ from users.
It did not, it came at a time when there was a lot of new and very useful technology being developed, and when film sales were very strong. It was the first professional level camera to offer E-TTL, the first camera to offer the Area AF, it was the only professional level camera to ever offer ECF, and focus tracking and accuracy was greatly improved over previous cameras. Compared to the EOS 3, the EOS-1n was a fairly antiquated camera, but the EOS 3 shared it's dust and weather resistence.
Really though, the EOS 3 was the direct replacement for the EOS 5/A2/A2e, and it was not only technologically a big step up, it was almost a totally new level of camera. However, the EOS-1v which came out a couple of years later would take everything the EOS 3 had to the next level, and sales of both models were quite good.
Of course, both EOS 3 and EOS-1v were essentially responses to Nikon's F5. So the potential for the 5D replacement to be a response to Nikon's D3 (which I'm sure Canon had a good, if rough, idea of what it was going to be) I don't think is out of the question. I don't in my wildest dreams expect the 5D replacement to compete with the same market as the D3, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see a much more professional quality camera replace the 5D. Even without knowledge of the D3, there was sufficient criticism of the 5D not being enough D200-like that it would seem to me that Canon--with their apparent greater willingness to listen to reviewers--may have already been planning a better camera.
Would be v sad if the 3D that so many would buy today, has been
strategically reserved for a final money-grab when the market has
already slowed down.
I've never seen any of the major manufacturers do anything that I'd consider to be a "money-grab." Besides, Canon doesn't even need to make "money-grabs" as their camera division creates only a small portion of their overall profit.
I'm liking Nikon's attitude at the moment a lot better. More of a
build the best products we can, than a build the worst products we
can still sell.
You mean except for the D40s? But yeah, it's nice that they've finally decided to compete in the professional camera world again.
Canon's rigid product line has painted them into a corner imho.
Well, I do think Nikon's new cameras have taken a lot of the wind out of Canon's sails, at least value-wise. And honestly, I think it's a little silly for Canon--or anyone else for that matter--to attempt to compete with medium format cameras for studio use. The 1Ds mkII served its place as a high end print journalism camera for rugged environments when full page spreads were potentially needed. I know a lot of National Geographic photographers were using them, along with some of the photogs for some of the nicer luxury magazines. But honestly, I don't see that the mk III is needed.
The only thing Canon
have that Nikon don't is the 1Ds, so Canon won't want to mess with
that. However, Nikon can kill that too with a D3x next year.
I don't think Nikon's going to do a D3x, otherwise the D3 would be the D3h; think of the speculative marketing potential they missed out on if that was the plan. And besides, a D3x is largely unnecessary, and would simply be for bragging rights like the new mk III.
Leaving Canon with what? A new drebel?
And probably a new 5D early in the year. So what's Nikon going to have? A new D40 and D80, and probably some new consumer lenses. Next year's not going to be as exciting for the major players, but maybe there'll be some news from Olympus, Pentax, and Sony.
Yeah, the D3 looks to be quite a camera, and a well targeted one at that.
