Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?

[Taemobig]

The 5D mark 2 was actually good enough for me. My only gripe was the AF system. I was ready to buy the new 5D right away if it was priced $3000. But at $3500, I'm having second thoughts.

[neuroanatomist]

We only have a few rumored specifications, its the whole package that will make me decide to upgrade from my MK II.

Agreed.  Based on this limited spec list, it's impossible to make a decision. My main interest in upgrading is improved AF.  What is 61-pt AF?  The xxxD and xxD lines both have 9-pt AF, but they're quite different from a performance standpoint.

I'm upgrading, no question.  I've got the budget for the 1D X.  The question I need a real spec list to answer is, what will $3K be buying me ($6800, assuming $3500 + $300 for grip/battery). If it's just build quality and fps (with 4 fewer MP), that's less attractive but still possible. If it's also better AF and a significant improvement in ISO noise (RAW), that makes the 1D X more attractive.

[RedEye]

At 22MP.... sorry, no go.  Totally uninterested, and will likely go medium format. 

[RedEye]

don't smite me for being honest   I feel like I'm under an umbrella in a pissing contest.

[RichardW]

Quite surprised (should be disappointed) with the 22-mp spec......is it really good enough to fight with 36mp D800?
If Canon insist the (comparatively) lower megapixel = better, I am expecting its High ISO performance is astonishing, at least reach the level of D3s. 

[ajfa]

Honestly, Canon will have to do a bit better than $3500.

Considering that the Nikon D800 is out with higher MP, better AF, better white balance (for those who don't like to spend 2 hours tuning each photo in RAW), and seemingly just-as-good video for only $3k, if I was going full-frame right now I'd ditch all my Canon lenses and go Nikon. Of course, who knows, maybe the D800 will turn out to be noisy, but I really doubt it.

I was hoping the 5d3 would cause 5d2 prices to tank. But if anything they've crept up in the last month, after Canon's xmas special ended (could be though that wedding season is approaching). If I have to spend at least $2k to get a 5d2, and $3.5k for a 5d3, I might as well go Nikon. 

$2700 5d3, and a $1800 price point for 5d2's, and I'll stick with canon.

[skoobey]

It does not meet my needs at all.

I'm a fashion photographer looking to upgrade, and at this price, 22mp is just waaay to low, especially as there is no mention of the sync speed.

At that price, switching to Nikon, is also a viable alternative.

But if I had that kind of money to spend on a body only I'd go for a Hasselblad or PhaseOne, which both have great upgradable modular systems.

I'll just stick with the 5dII.

[skoobey]

Since I had unreasonable requirements and standards NO it wont be good enough
this is what i want!

100MP
60 FPS
Clean ISOs from 25-1million
128 AF points all cross type, with EYE focus AF Selection
4k video at 120fps - raw
built in USB3, wifi, bluetooth, GPS, Compass, ethernet,thunderbolt, hdmi
swivel 4" OLED screen at full HD res
Full weather sealing to 10 meters underwater
and ofcourse a single SD card slot

Im willing to pay up to $1500 for this

That isn't far from the truth if you ad a 0 to those 1500$ making it 15000. Phase ONE is the word, but it is slooow

[dbduchene]

At 22mp and 3,500 I will not think about it at all. I shoot landscape, Architecture and a little Model/Portrait. The Mark 2 will continue to be a very good camera for this and I cannot see spending 1700 to 2000 over what I could most likely sell a mark 2  for to get a mark 3 At less then 28MP I will wait it out to see what they do. I do not care about video at all. I carry a 7D as a back up and use it when I have sports the needs faster or better AF and that is only for shooting my son at water polo and swim meets. The 7D handles that very well. So it looks like after all of the time waiting I will not be spending money after all. I was so hoping that the rumors about a 5D X would be so true. I am sorry but I think that Canon is so missing the boat on this.

[Randy]

Only if it's got eye-controlled autofocus

[Arkarch]

No, the specs as stated are not ideal.

But I am trying to upgrade from a 7D so just about any FF is a step up.  I might consider more the prospects of a 5D Mark II although I absolutely *Hate* the idea of buying an old model.  But hey, sometimes the older models rock.  Price will matter some.  That little Nikon thought does enter my mind, but I just did pick up a 70-200 2.8 IS II - love it - and like the idea of upgrading to the 24-70 II.

My score -

Canon Lens Division - Heros.  They seem to be working hard to get ahead of the resolution and IQ needs of better cameras.

Canon DSLR Division - Goats.  They do not communicate and seem to be oblivious to the needs of several photo markets.  I'll just say it - its an arrogance.  And they have gotten into this obsession for video that I really do not want or need.

Damn these specs suck.   Give me 28-30 MP at least.

But yeah, I'll probably buy it.  Just not as happily as I could have been.  Maybe wait for round 2?

[bigblue1ca]

I'm upgrading, no question.  I've got the budget for the 1D X.  The question I need a real spec list to answer is, what will $3K be buying me ($6800, assuming $3500 + $300 for grip/battery). If it's just build quality and fps (with 4 fewer MP), that's less attractive but still possible. If it's also better AF and a significant improvement in ISO noise (RAW), that makes the 1D X more attractive.

Neuro what we really need is for you to buy both cameras and do some of your much appreciated in-depth testing and report back with the results.  This will allow those us who are also weighing the 1D X vs. 5DIII to make an informed decision.  I'm sure you're planning a trip at some point where you might not need the 1D X, but you'll need something a little more than your 7D or 5DII, namely the 5DIII, you wouldn't want to get caught without the right tool for the job. 

[Waterdonkey]

It easily fits my needs for photography, but I use my DSLR for video as well and I want something more than the standard 1080p @ 30/24 and 720p @ 60 fps.  It's not exactly in my budget to buy a Phantom Flex or a RED One so getting that 120 fps isn't very easy for me haha.

+1!  Look, when I get this camera it will be a step up from my 7D and for Photos, I like the 7D. So as far as "photography needs"? Well, having this camera? I think I will feel as if I've arrived
But the video (H.264) is a nightmare to work with in a world of fast turnaround.  Jello effect, digital artifacts and the dreaded moire! These can be minimized and "fixed" in post but, who has the time?
Some of us, and I believe many more to come, are looking to this for more run and gun applications: TV Magazine style. Documentary. And if you all looked close, a lot of the footage shot at the Occupy events was shot on DSLRs and the footage looked great, much better then the NEWS cameras out there (on their 1/2", or well, 2/3" chip if they are lucky)... this brings me to audio, don't get me started on audio... and no a digital recorder will not do, too much time syncing audio and too dam many connections and switches to miss, I run two wireless lavs and a camera mic, and only two channels, ok two channels I can deal with.  I'm hanging enough stuff on my camera rig as it is: wireless receiver, BeachTek, Camera light, follow focus, EVF.........  In the News TV Magazine world video and audio should live together.  I'm just saying'

So I understand if some of the purely Photography "photogs" out there are thinking "Dude its a still camera!!! leave it alone you video jockey!"  I know, I know, its just that they put sutcha' nice big sensor in that box and the things you can do with the lenses.... come on you know its addictive and its just that I want more.

[AprilForever]

No, not at all.

A FF is not going to give me the FPS I want unless it costs a WHOLE lot of money.

A FF will not give me the reach I need unless it has like 36 MP.

If this is all they can do, this is pathetic. The D800 has it WAY beat.

[dbduchene]

No, not at all.

A FF is not going to give me the FPS I want unless it costs a WHOLE lot of money.

A FF will not give me the reach I need unless it has like 36 MP.

If this is all they can do, this is pathetic. The D800 has it WAY beat.

Right now I have to agree. It almost feels like Canon is deciding that they just want to go after the sports action side of the game and hand Landscape and the likes over to Nikon. RIght now I am bummed that I have so much high end Canon Glass although like has been said the Lens side of the shop ROCKS over at Canon.