40D mark II

1. The 40D has a Mag body. My old  20D has a Mag body.
2. The 1D MkIII has two dig!c 4 processors
3. Sure they could put a 1.3x crop size sensor, but the 40D, is more consumer based, and that is what the EF-S are for. The EF-S lens do not work on the 1.3x sensor.

1.) i know the 40 has a magnesium body but the 5d's i've read is superior to the 40

2.) i know the 1d mkIII has 2 digic 4's but the 40 would probably only need one to keep the price down and keep it more "consumer based" as long as it's not shooting more than like 6 fps.

3.) so what if it can't accept ef-s lenses it would be reasonably priced (less i'm sure than the 5d) so that extra cash could go into some good lenses.

becides all that, it's not a real camera it's just something we are just speculating on so don't get your panties in a bunch over why it will never happen. if you could put together your perfect dslr body what would it be like ?

actually just noticed that the 1d has dual digic 3's not 4's

1) I'm not too sure about "Superior" but I own both a 20D and a 5D MkII and they dont fell much different at all.
2) Sure.
Although it would be depend on the megapixels. The high the number, more infomation traveling around, more processor speed the camera will need to get 6fps...
3) The "average" consumer doesn't understand a good lens from a better lens. Trust me. The lens on the camera is good enough. They just want something that zooms a lot.
4) I realize its fake. If Canon would do something like that, is might be called the 50D MkII...
5) I dont wear panties, I wear boxers.
6) I'm quite content with my 5D MkII. However the 1Ds MkIII would be nice...

i want canon to put eye control in a 1d mark 3

eye control?

while i normally agree with you on most issues, gonna have to give you a "bah!" on this one. "Your average consumer" is not necessarily what the 40D is aimed at, that's the rebel's job and it does it well. The 40D is more your hobby/borderline professional DSLR... seeing that I'm in this target customer base as a hobby shooter and a wee bit of freelance (were talkin verne troyer wee but I digress) i would love the option of having the fullframe sensor and with it the opportunity to really work with some good glass... seriously it'd make my year.

Why are you so against this proposed idea? It's  nice that you got the 5D mkII but what about me? I could scrape together 1100-1500 for a new body but really wouldn't want to shell out 2 months rent more for the 5D. So why must I be denied a full-frame sensor?

word to that and i'm not even saying full frame, a 1.3X would be awsome. i totaly see what fujative is saying though in terms of being able to sell it but on the other hand anyone buying a 40D either knows something about digital photography or knows next to nothing about digital photography and just has enough quid to afford pretty much something alot nicer than a 40D...

so all i'm saying is good mag. body, 6fps, 1.3X crop (even the same 10.1mp from the 1d but a few more mp would be sweet), digic 4, and a nice big screen on the back. i know it's a risk but that is just such a dope setup for a photo journalist, amature sports photographer, prosumer SLR. the 50D is like 1150 on b&h, I'd happily pay 1800 for one of these which is still 600 less than the 5d mkII

Yea, your right. I do agree with what you said. Haha, no offense to the very first guy, but maybe it was how he worded it or something, but with your statement I do agree.