August 30, 2014, 04:26:19 PM

Author Topic: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]  (Read 51561 times)

Canon-F1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2011, 09:23:30 AM »
Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?

read a few books from ansel adams and the f64 group.
after that read books about composition (foreground, middle ground and background interest).
6D, 5D MK2, 7D, 550D... a lot of Glass.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2011, 09:23:30 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2815
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2011, 09:24:24 AM »
The resolving power of many lenses wanes after about f/8 (some faster lenses even have their peak resolving power wider open), so you are trading DoF for lens image sharpness. photozine.de does nice graphs of aperture vs resolving power of lenses on various cameras. If you've already chosen a less sharp image from the lens, why would you then be worried about airy discs?

As long as the diffraction limit kicks in after the peak of the lens' resolving power, I'm happy.

well it seems you misunderstand things here.... I dont want 36MP sensors for FF cameras.

what i say is that the 21MP sensor of the 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited for f16 (and i don´t even start speaking about lenses). 

so what are 36MP FF sensors worth for landscape photographers?
they say we need more detail and more MP.... but as it seems they won´t get it from 36 MP sensors.
at least not with the usual landscape apertures......

You appear to be asserting that landscape photographers need f/16 in order to take photographs and that the airy disc problem at f/16 on 36MP sensors will make a 36MP sensor unattractive. You appear to be ignoring the fact that f/16 is already beyond the sweet spot in resolving power of most, if not all, lenses.

I'm asserting that if a landscape photographer is chasing the maximum resolution from the lens/camera combination then they will shoot at the sweet spot of the lens first and arrange the shot second so that everything that they need is in focus and thus as long as the diffraction limit is greater than the airy disc, this will not pose a significant problem for photographers.

It would seem like the 1DX would be the perfect camera for you - except for its cost, of course - right? A step down in MP allowing for more DoF due to being able to use a higher f-stop, not to mention the purported IQ raise.

Gothmoth

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2011, 09:30:41 AM »
Perhaps you should look into using tilt-shift lenses. With tilt you can optimize depth of field and in many cases use say f/8 instead of f/16 or more to get the DoF you want (or close to it). You may want to look into the techniques that large format photographers use, they have had the "problem" with too high resolution from the start.


again.. im perfectly fine with 18 MP. i don´t do billboard prints. :)

other user here say they want and need 36MP to have more details for landscape images.
all i say is, i doubt they will see a huge increase in real detail for landscape images where diffraction (small apertures) is a problem.

Gothmoth

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #63 on: November 30, 2011, 09:32:34 AM »
It would seem like the 1DX would be the perfect camera for you - except for its cost, of course - right? A step down in MP allowing for more DoF due to being able to use a higher f-stop, not to mention the purported IQ raise.

well you should take a closer look on my profile.
i have no problem to afford gear. i own a camerastore i can use demo cameras.   ;D

Quote
You appear to be asserting that landscape photographers need f/16 in order to take photographs and that the airy disc problem at f/16 on 36MP sensors will make a 36MP sensor unattractive. You appear to be ignoring the fact that f/16 is already beyond the sweet spot in resolving power of most, if not all, lenses.

no i do not.

the probelm is you don´t understand what im saying.
the diffraction limit of lenses makes it just MORE nonsense to ask for a 36MP FF sensor.  ::)

to be precise, if the sweet spot of a lens would be way higher then the diffraction limit of a tiny sensor i don´t care if i go beyond the lens sweet spot.
it´s the limitation of the sensor resolution that is ultimately the important factor when we speak about camera sensors.

lenses can make real world resolution worse but they can´t make the theoretical sensor resolution better. there is no question about that.

Quote
I'm asserting that if a landscape photographer is chasing the maximum resolution from the lens/camera combination then they will shoot at the sweet spot of the lens first and arrange the shot second so that everything that they need is in focus and thus as long as the diffraction limit is greater than the airy disc, this will not pose a significant problem for photographers.

DoF it´s not a problem?
well it´s physics.

if you want/need a certain depth of field you have to choose a certain aperture.

if you want that stone in the foreground sharp and the barn a mile away you will have no luck with f4.

sure you could drag a small stone near to the barn.... but lets be honest that´s unlikely and not what your really had in mind.   ;D

your argumentation shows the difference between gearheads and photographers.
i mean i don´t arrange my photos after lens sweetspots an MTF diagrams.
if i need f22 to make the image i have in mind and have everything sharp from foreground to background i use f22.
i look out for COMPOSITION not the most technical perfect image.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:14:08 AM by Gothmoth »

jbwise01

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2011, 09:38:03 AM »
I like the direction Canon is headed with their DSLRs. I seriously can't believe all these posts about high ISO performance not being important. The truth is, High ISO performance is simply a higher priority for DSLRs going forward. As mentioned earlier, canon proved that they can easily expand MP count.

Benefits of High ISO development:
  • Better low light performance
  • Expands capability of "Slower" lenses
  • Allows higher shutter speeds to be used at narrower apertures
  • Lens development can shift focus to increasing Sharpness overall without striving for wider apertures for low light performance
  • Video performance is increased for all lighting conditions

Let’s face it, this Move by Canon makes total sense. It’s not about increasing MP counts to appease uninformed enthusiasts; it’s about making the each pixel better. Once they have really pushed the limits of what we can expect out of each pixel, only then should they should move forward for high MP camera.

Its kinda like the car industry, they shouldn’t make cars with bigger engines with higher HP just because they can, they should be getting more out of the engines and HP they have to increase efficiency and performance of the car. The benefits increased efficiency far outweigh the benefits increased “power!”

Fandongo

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2011, 09:44:41 AM »
Quote
Pmovie mode w/optional:
  - auto 180 degree shutter (change shutter - visible frame rate indicator adjusts)
  - auto WB that doesn't change after hitting record.
  - auto iso - adjusts at variable rate depending on how dramatic the shift, staying constant whenever possible.
  - follow focus preset marks
     - you could even set approximate marks, while in record a half shutter press begins the rack...it stops once the object in that approximate location gets focus confirmed.

The follow focus is more a pipe dream.


Well if I was working for Canon as a product owner (assuming they are not living still at stone age with waterfall process, project and program management and all the unnecessary work which does not help the consumer to get the products on time the consumers want), I would surely try to include these features. Lockable follow focus to an object is in software perspective feasible. It would not be very easy feature to implement, but it would be something that would make the camera to do something revolutionary instead of evolutionary. There are plenty of other things that could be done for the picture as well, which currently nobody is doing. However, the case is that I am not working for Canon.

Sounds like features like this would be more likely to come from one Cupertino company if they would ever venture to SLR cameras.

Quote
They aren't supposed to know.

Sometimes I wonder the product decisions made by companies. Sometimes they seem to do so dumb decisions that it is incredible how they can survive such fiascos. Instead of answering to a market need or creating a new market breakthrough, they companies tend to do evolutionary products without inventing anything new innovative. And then they sell that crap to customers because customers are expected to be sheeple and not care about what they buy. Maybe at the Internet age a change might eventually happen that selling crap over and over again will not work anymore and consumers, prosumers and professionals are more aware on what they want and what they will buy. Here would be a incredible chance for some small startup to come up with a total Canon/Nikon killer that would run circles with their products at a price that would completely kill the market for the traditional camera companies. Technically it could be done but it would require some serious venture capital and investors who have some vision rather than just looking the next quarter.



It is a damn good thing us nerds use the internet.

Have you seen tech commercials these days?
I think the rule of thumb is:  If you see a commercial for it, DON'T buy.
It's old, underpowered, they made too many and they want you to take the rest off their hands.
i5??  Intel is advertising i5 processors?

Never saw a Sandy Bridge-E commercial.
Remember how much Pentium II was hyped?
I kinda wonder if we'll see a repeat with Ivy.

Red is a small startup (relative to Canon) and they are a great example of just how hard it is for a smaller company to match the consistency demanded from professionals.
You can take more risks (like throwing a totally inept video mode into a beastly 5d) buy from wholesale suppliers at a massive savings, and sell much closer to the cost per unit because you have your hand in other industries raking in big bucks.  I bet people who shoot on Canons are tempted that much more to print Canon. =)

Sigma hinted that they need to split lens lines for photo/video.
Panasonic brought the classic video camera style rocker lenses and some damn good stabilization.
I hope the need doesn't imply that a smooth electronic follow focus can not be achieved smoothly with still lenses as they currently are.  I wagered the purchase of L's on the hope that it was just a matter of time, otherwise woulda went Zeiss, sacrificing sharpness for color/bokeh/great MF.

But i agree with you certainly, someone needs to step up.
I was expecting it to be Samsung.
...Still could be.

I don't understand the new Canon Motto:  Match, don't push, never lead.
They started with the goal of "destroying film"
Man did they do a good job...
Cinema was a fluke, lets not mess with that.  WHAT?!?!


Quote
3. AF for video

Unlikely, if it follows the lead of the 1Dx. And for the HDSLR people this is much less priority item than a aliasing free image that really is 1920x1080 pixel by pixel sharp.


A lot of people jump on the "they don't want it, nobody would use it" train.
But it's an entirely arbitrary statement.

They've never had the opportunity to use it without it hunting all over the place stupidly.

It's wrong for consumer products to be better and simpler at achieving the goal while the higher end stuff lags behind.  But it happens all the time, mostly due to product cycles. 
And people in the prosumer forums saying:

"Why would we need this?"   

"That's stupid and I'm all pro!"

and of course...

"Don't advance things.  I hate when things get better.  I like my cameras like my women - old, not able to do many things, and desperate for someone to use them...preferably in the $3,000 range."

Pixel to pixel sharpness is almost an irrelevant advance (except for cropping) when people can't point out the 5d shots in a theater.

Average people can't tell the difference between:

1) 35mm film of their ass
2) m4/3rds video of their ass.
3) full frame video of their ass.
4) their ass

The advances in numbers and perfecting those that are there just feeds us stupid pixel peepers with an insatiable lust for MORE.
Hopefully the Digic 5 can at least match the gh2...
But I'd choose features over numbers with a mantra.

The power of one.
"There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it."

Yasmin

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2011, 09:45:42 AM »
We started out as a Nikon shooter.

In early 1990, we switched to Canon due to their fast USM lenses. As you can imagine, we took a huge loss.

We are photojournalists. What we need is a sensor which can deliver printable images at low light levels. And I mean low light levels (EV 2-4). FPS does matter to us but we do not need 1DX's 12fps and 5D Mark II is too slow for us.

On lenses front, almost all of us carry the usual f2.8s. The 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L and 50mm f1.2L.

We don't care about video. If we need video, we will buy a video camera.

Although almost all of our equipment is Canon, guess what else is creeping slowly into our collection over the last year or so?

Nikon D3x !

Yasmin.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 09:48:28 AM by Yasmin »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2011, 09:45:42 AM »

torger

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #67 on: November 30, 2011, 09:49:41 AM »
again.. im perfectly fine with 18 MP. i don´t do billboard prints. :)

other user here say they want and need 36MP to have more details for landscape images.
all i say is, i doubt they will see a huge increase in real detail for landscape images where diffraction (small apertures) is a problem.

Actually I don't think huge billboard prints are the main use for high res.

Medium sized (15-25 inch wide or so) fine art prints is a good application for high res. Note that the native 3:2 format is rarely used so often some of the resolution is cropped away. When you step close, and people do if it is a detailed picture, you can appreciate 300-400 ppi depending on print technology (and also on a distance high res is more easily appreciated than the usual models assume). A fine art print that looks sharp even up close gives it an extra touch of quality, just like a high quality frame, glass and paper. How important this aspect is a matter of taste of course.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 09:52:42 AM by torger »

phischeye

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #68 on: November 30, 2011, 09:50:50 AM »
Here is what I think.

Canon needs / wants a lower priced FF video DSLR (“cleaning up” the DSLR video market). To me it makes perfectly sense to reuse the 1DX sensor. That would be with a 5DM3 (or 5DX) at 18MP - video, HD and 4K, gets no advantage from a 36MP sensor.

I am thinking 18 high quality MP, good ISO, ok speed, less weather sealing, single CF slot.

Now of course, there is a high demand for high MP. This could be the introduction of a perfect studio cam - lets call it a 2D, 3D or 4D (what ever works for you) - with 36MP, good speed but no Video.  That's cleaning up the video market for me.


« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 09:54:58 AM by phischeye »

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #69 on: November 30, 2011, 09:56:30 AM »
I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but...  For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format.  Or perhaps this is the section a non-video FF DSLR could cover, reasonable ISO (not ultimate/amazing sounding words) but with massive mega-pixel and an over-all focus on entry-level FF price with video features omitted entirely.  I see improved ISO performance across the range and improved video features to be among what most 5D MKII owners would come to expect. 

Also really don't understand what amazing improvements you guys expect to get at 36mp for your landscapes.  On any size screen with the entire image in view you are going to be interpreting a scaled down version of the image, so it's unnecessary even if you got to display your work at an I-Max theater, and on any print of a poster or larger size, you are not supposed to be looking at it with your nose smudging the print, and even Ansel Adams would agree.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2815
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #70 on: November 30, 2011, 10:17:57 AM »
It would seem like the 1DX would be the perfect camera for you - except for its cost, of course - right? A step down in MP allowing for more DoF due to being able to use a higher f-stop, not to mention the purported IQ raise.

well you should take a closer look on my profile.
i have no problem to afford gear. i own a camerastore i can use demo cameras.   ;D

Quote
You appear to be asserting that landscape photographers need f/16 in order to take photographs and that the airy disc problem at f/16 on 36MP sensors will make a 36MP sensor unattractive. You appear to be ignoring the fact that f/16 is already beyond the sweet spot in resolving power of most, if not all, lenses.

no i do not.

the probelm is you don´t understand what im saying.
the diffraction limit of lenses makes it just MORE nonsense to ask for a 36MP FF sensor.  ::)

to be precise, if the sweet spot of a lens would be way higher then the diffraction limit of a tiny sensor i don´t care if i go beyond the lens sweet spot.
it´s the limitation of the sensor resolution that is ultimately the important factor when we speak about camera sensors.

Quote
I'm asserting that if a landscape photographer is chasing the maximum resolution from the lens/camera combination then they will shoot at the sweet spot of the lens first and arrange the shot second so that everything that they need is in focus and thus as long as the diffraction limit is greater than the airy disc, this will not pose a significant problem for photographers.

DoF it´s not a problem?
well it´s physics.

if you want/need a certain depth of field you have to choose a certain aperture.

if you want that stone in the foreground sharp and the barn a mile away you will have no luck with f4.

sure you could drag a small stone near to the barn.... but lets be hones that´s unlikely and not what your really had in mind.   ;D

you argumentation shows the difference between gearheads and photographers.
i mean i don´t arange my photos after lens sweetspots an MTF diagrams.
if i need f22 to make the image and have everything sharp i want to be sharp i use it.
i look out for COMPOSITION not the most technical perfect image.

I've tried f/16 and f/22 - the pictures are visibly soft when compared to f/8. I avoid them for that purpose.

If you want to shoot at f/22 and above, towards f/64, then DSLRs and the offerings from Canon/Nikon are inappropriate.

For that reason, I try to avoid photographs that require f/22 for everything to be in-focus (I'm not saying "sharp" because at f/22, the image is not going to be sharp.)

Look, this is pointless. You're claiming that the diffraction limit trumps all other issues when taking photographs, yet if you're using a 21MP camera at f/16 or f/22, you're already saying that you don't care about it. What's your argument?

torger

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2011, 10:21:59 AM »
I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but...  For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format.

Medium format is still a lot more expensive, and entry level systems are aimed at studio photo not landscape, not really good at wide angle and tilt/shift. Sure, If I could afford it, I'd use a Arca Swiss RM3Di, Rodenstock lenses and IQ160 back :-). Entry level Hasselblad or Pentax 645D is not all as attractive, due to huuuuge flange focal distance and limited lenses, and not even twice the sensor size compared to 135 FF.

Canon's wide angle TS-E lenses are quite unique. High resolving power, low distortion/abberation, more freedom of movement  than even some tech cams have (diagonal tilts/shift), large image circle. Not making full use of them is missing an opportunity. Hopefully the 45 and 90 get updated too. Then you have a decent tech cam system at a fraction of the cost and weight, and you can use the body for other types of photo too. Those using medium format usually have a 135 system too, to have the flexibility.

The best ISO improvement we can see in a new 18 mp sensor compared to 5Dmk2 is probably 1.5 stop or so, plus possibility to shoot 51200. Important to those that need it but not huge for ISO400-ISO1600 shooters. So one can argue that an ISO improvement is unnecessary too :-). Also, a modern 36 megapixel sensor would still have better ISO performance than the current 5Dmk2, and there is sRAW modes when you don't need the resolution. So you can make a good all-around camera on a high res sensor too. Not just as good as 1DX on high ISO, but definitely better than the 5Dmk2.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:28:52 AM by torger »

Zuuyi

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #72 on: November 30, 2011, 10:31:58 AM »
I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but...  For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format.  Or perhaps this is the section a non-video FF DSLR could cover, reasonable ISO (not ultimate/amazing sounding words) but with massive mega-pixel and an over-all focus on entry-level FF price with video features omitted entirely.  I see improved ISO performance across the range and improved video features to be among what most 5D MKII owners would come to expect. 

Also really don't understand what amazing improvements you guys expect to get at 36mp for your landscapes.  On any size screen with the entire image in view you are going to be interpreting a scaled down version of the image, so it's unnecessary even if you got to display your work at an I-Max theater, and on any print of a poster or larger size, you are not supposed to be looking at it with your nose smudging the print, and even Ansel Adams would agree.

They want their single purpose tool to actually progress in a manner it has since the first digital camera, in Megapixels.  Why should they have to leave Canon because they want their next generation camera to have more Megapixels then a previous generation camera.  They could just as easily tell individuals who really want more video options to go get a dedicated camcorder and stop wanting the camera to do double duty.

And regards to printing; you wouldn't need more than about 8MP for 20x30 print. So do you want to revert to 8MP cameras. 4k video isn't much more in pixel count.  So why even request 18MP might as well revert.

Photographers have different needs for whatever reasons we all choose Canon; so it's fair for them request what they need and to be upset when they feel they're being slighted.

I plan to either get the 5d3 or 5d2(when the 5d3 comes out) because I want Full-Frame but I would be disappointed if they lower the pixel count, but I will do.  But if my need was video I would just get a camcorder and not expect my DSLR to become a top-end Camcorder.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:34:10 AM by Zuuyi »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #72 on: November 30, 2011, 10:31:58 AM »

Gothmoth

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #73 on: November 30, 2011, 10:33:51 AM »
I've tried f/16 and f/22 - the pictures are visibly soft when compared to f/8. I avoid them for that purpose.

lol.. say that to david noton and other guys who earn their money with landscape photography and shoot all day with f16 or f22.   ;D

honest everyone making money with landscape photography will tell you that you use f22 when you have too. and you are bothered?

Quote
Look, this is pointless. You're claiming that the diffraction limit trumps all other issues when taking photographs

no im not...
well maybe it´s my bad english or maybe you don´t want to understand me but you still don´t get it.

so one more time....

I SAY... a 36MP sensor makes no real sense for FF cameras and landscape photography (using small apertures for huge DoF) when 21MP sensor FF cameras are already diffraction limited (by sensor design) at f13 or so.

if you are an rare landscape photographer who shoots f2.8 only then 36MP is maybe fine for you.....

but thinking that a 36MP sensor will magically break the barriers of physics will not happen.
you will not resolve more detail with more pixels once the diffraction limit of the sensor is reached.

and as you noticed... lens diffraction limits will makes things even more worse.


« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:38:49 AM by Gothmoth »

motorhead

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #74 on: November 30, 2011, 10:34:03 AM »
Lens difraction is raised a lot and it is simply assumed that its a cross we have to bear. From the reading I've done I am led to believe that is not quite true and in fact its simply a matter of "is the effort (and hence the final cost) of improving this lens going to be worth it".

So as camera MP numbers head ever higher, lens designs will inevitably improve as the shortcomings in the present designs become apparent to the users.

Given this, I am firmly in the camp that wants ever more MP please. Hearing that the 5D mk3 might only have 18MP and be a killer video machine is not good news for me. However as the owner of a brand new 5D2, by the time I will be considering switching again no doubt we will be discussing 60MP or even more.

Yes, I also want less noise and greater DR, but I see no reason why the scientists cannot manage that at the same time.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:36:03 AM by motorhead »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #74 on: November 30, 2011, 10:34:03 AM »