December 06, 2016, 11:30:34 AM

Author Topic: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]  (Read 71755 times)

minestrone

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #90 on: November 30, 2011, 01:25:53 PM »
That's NOT GOOD.

I didn't wait 3+ Years for Canon to go backwards in the Megapixel count. I own a 5D Mark II and was really interested in seeing a 30MP or more 5DMIII.

All that talk about lenses not being able to handle more than 18MP right now is tech talk with no really solid evidence to back it up. I'm using a 5DMII at 21MP and shooting Macros and Landscapes and all my L-Lenses seem to be holding up just fine. Perfectly fine.

If you don't want more than 18MP just set your 5D Mark II to  a smaller RAW file.

I often have requests to do huge landscapes and wedding portaits, even the occassional product shot which can be no less than 21MP for my clients. In fact, most of my clients are use to going with guys using Medium Format. But I also work at *ony and our product shots, almost 100% of them are now shot on the 5D Mark II. And again for lenses that aren't able to handle more than 18MP of detail, these photos come out amazingly. I'm not talking about 10-20 product shots a week, *ONY has hundreds taken of upcoming products each month by industry pros using the 5DMII.

Bottom line is, I've always been annoyed by people screaming for lower megapixel and higher ISO. I'd demand BOTH instead of picking one. It can't be done? I dunno we'll see. Either way, extremely disappointed by an 18MP 5DMIII.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #90 on: November 30, 2011, 01:25:53 PM »

lol

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • My dA
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #91 on: November 30, 2011, 01:35:48 PM »
From my perspective, take the 7D sensor which is already "good enough" and scale it up for about 46MP. That'll be me done :D

And before you ask, I often need to crop the 7D output anyway, so having a bigger sensor with the same density would effectively extend the wide end of my existing lenses. And before you go there, I'm not asking for 46MP at 8fps! Just don't drop below 3fps and I'm happy.

Diffraction  - doesn't really matter. You don't get any worse a shot if you go into diffraction limiting than if you had a lower MP sensor. It's all about final output, and it is a lot easier for me to work on higher starting resolutions. Also don't forget we're using bayer colour filter sensors and anti-aliasing filters on top of that, so the actual colour resolution is far below the nominal MP count suggests. Having much more MP would help offset those effects until everyone has a foveon like sensor.
Canon 1D, 300D IR, 450D full spectrum, 600D, 5D2, 7D, 7D2, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 70-300L, 100-400L
EF-S 10-18, 15-85, MP-E 65, Zeiss 50/2 macro, Sigma 50A, 150 macro, 120-300/2.8 OS, Samyang 8mm fisheye

UncleFester

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #92 on: November 30, 2011, 01:36:08 PM »
Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war. ;)

K
oh du hast einen fehler in meinem beitrag gefunden, gratulation!
sind sicherlich noch viel mehr drin.
nächstes mal können wir uns auf deutsch, franzoesisch oder italienisch unterhalten.
natürlich nur wenn du während deiner schulzeit mehr als deine muttersprache gelernt hast. ;)

was ich bei amerikanern (?) und ihrer allgemein eher miserablen schulbildung aber stark bezweifele..... der ehemalige US oberdepp denkt ja immer noch afrika sei ein staat.

Quote
And no, my cameras just sit except for when I pick them up to pet them and dream about being a real photographer like you.

that´s what i thought.

CowGummy

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
    • www.smrphotoart.com
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #93 on: November 30, 2011, 01:48:26 PM »
Yikes... sounds like things are getting a bit too hot in here.
5DmkII   |  50 f/1.4  |  24-105L f/4  |  135L f/2  |  70-200L f/2.8 IS II  |  430exII

ghosh9691

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #94 on: November 30, 2011, 02:10:17 PM »
OK...totally confused!!! From what I am reading, I can surmise:

  • No professional photographer is using a Nikon D700 for landscape and/or wedding photography where photos need to be blown up to a large size (16-inch or larger)
  • Landscape photographers need a very high resolution because they print at really huge sizes and/or crop so much that they end up with the middle of the image only
  • People are habitually pixel peeping billboard sized prints

Maybe someone can help explain? I was always under the impression that beyond a particular size, the larger you print the lower the DPI requirement. A 5DII has just over 5000 pixels in the horizontal dimension. So, if you are printing a billboard, the typical resolution is 30DPI and that will give you an image that can be 166 inches wide. So why the need for insane MP resolutions? And if you are printing at smaller sizes, how much does 600 DPI really improve things versus 300 DPI?

Isaac

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #95 on: November 30, 2011, 02:13:43 PM »
the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um.
...
Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

don´t bother... that info is wasted on most of the readers here.
they will repeat and repeat and repeat that they need 30 or more megapixel on a FF camera.  8)

Quote from: Isaac
Go look at the Imaging Resource 645D samples and tell me again that more MP are bad. There is a completely new dimension of detail in those studio samples. They reveal textures and fine details that don't show up on any current DSLR.

makes you think if this guy noticed that the 645D has a medium format sensor......   ::)

Sorry, you quoted something I didn't say. I never made any post regarding 645D etc.

dgb

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #96 on: November 30, 2011, 02:46:33 PM »
the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um.
...
Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

don´t bother... that info is wasted on most of the readers here.
they will repeat and repeat and repeat that they need 30 or more megapixel on a FF camera.  8)

Quote from: Isaac
Go look at the Imaging Resource 645D samples and tell me again that more MP are bad. There is a completely new dimension of detail in those studio samples. They reveal textures and fine details that don't show up on any current DSLR.

makes you think if this guy noticed that the 645D has a medium format sensor......   ::)

Sorry, you quoted something I didn't say. I never made any post regarding 645D etc.

I think something got lost in all the quoting of quoting. What I originally quoted was you questioning "how many megapixels do you need anyway"

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #96 on: November 30, 2011, 02:46:33 PM »

moreorless

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #97 on: November 30, 2011, 02:50:56 PM »
the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um. Pixel size on an 18mp Full Frame sensor is about the same as on a 40mp 645D (around 7um).

Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

As I understood it though the changes in sensor size and so appatures used to get the same DOF effectively even out the effects of difftraction. That is for a given megapixel count and field of view diffraction will be at the same level at the same DOF no matter the sensor size. That doesnt of course mean that image quality will be the same given that the smaller FF lens and pixels have to work harder but difftraction isnt as I understand it an issue.

thepancakeman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 474
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #98 on: November 30, 2011, 02:57:15 PM »
After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

UncleFester

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #99 on: November 30, 2011, 02:59:29 PM »
Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours  :o

"WE'RE SINKING!!!"

ghosh9691

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #100 on: November 30, 2011, 02:59:59 PM »
After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

And those that want the exact megapixels as you are all Ansel Adams!

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 749
    • AprilForever.com
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #101 on: November 30, 2011, 03:01:43 PM »
Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours  :o

"WE'RE SINKING!!!"

It's a tough crowd out there...
What is truth?

KacperP

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #102 on: November 30, 2011, 03:12:21 PM »
Well, I'm in the camp of those pleased that Canon withdrawn from MP race and went after better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. That's where progress was slow.
IQ from higher pixel count is partially dampened by lenses, but DR and ISO performance is not.
High megapixel landscapes? I still would prefer better DR + ISO and keep stitching mulitiple photos.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #102 on: November 30, 2011, 03:12:21 PM »

mccrum

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • Jeff McCrum Photography
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #103 on: November 30, 2011, 03:37:24 PM »
After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.
Best summary ever.  Especially for a three sentence CR1 rumor.

Seriously people, it's a rumor, not a spec sheet.
5D Mark II, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8, Nifty 50 f1.8, Polaroid SLR 680, Kowa Super 66

Justin

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #104 on: November 30, 2011, 03:43:25 PM »
Thanks! Agreed this is the straight dope summary. I almost sh@t a brick at this CR1 rumor, then watched the video of the C300 below and got super excited about super high ISO. Then I remembered that I suck at video production and prefer taking stills. Back to being pissed off about how Canon are somehow now afraid of megapixels. Grrr. I smell Canon marketing sh!t and we're all about to step in it.

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.
Best summary ever.  Especially for a three sentence CR1 rumor.

Seriously people, it's a rumor, not a spec sheet.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 03:45:21 PM by Justin »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #104 on: November 30, 2011, 03:43:25 PM »