5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[thepancakeman]

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]

Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours 

"WE'RE SINKING!!!"

[ghosh9691]

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]

Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours 

"WE'RE SINKING!!!"

It's a tough crowd out there...

[KacperP]

Well, I'm in the camp of those pleased that Canon withdrawn from MP race and went after better dynamic range and better high ISO performance.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.

[mccrum]

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.

[Justin]

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.

[AJ]

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.

I didn't wade through all of it.

I'm skeptical of an 18 mpix sensor for 5D3.  Why would Canon put its new flagship 1Dx sensor in a lower class body right away?  Doesn't make sense to me.  I'm still thinking 36 Mpix.  Canon will respond to Nikon in this regard.

FWIW, the diffraction thing.  36 mpix is the same pixel density as 14 mpix on crop.  So from my experience with 18 mpix and 10 mpix crop sensors: you're good at f/6.3, okay at f/8.  At f/11 you start to see degradation and f/16 is for smaller prints only.

People have fretted about the diffraction thing every time a new crop sensor has come out.  IMHO 36 FF (and 14 mpix crop) is just about optimal, and beyond that, you start to get into diminishing returns.

[Gothmoth]

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.

sure 18 MP for a FF sensor is not too much.
21-24 MP would be fine for me too.

but 36MP and above on a FF sensor.... as i wrote makes no sense for me when using small apertures.

i guess canon engineers know it better then forum members and thats why they choose 18MP.

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.
Either way, extremely disappointed by an 18MP 5DMIII.

and i want to travel faster then light.

and i want a sensor that is not affected by lousy physics.
i mean who make this rules for nature anyway?
why do we have a diffraction limit?

i want a FF sensor with 60MP that has a better resolution then what is physical possible at f16.
dissapointed by the law of physics.....

 

[Gothmoth]

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.

well but you don´t get any better either. when you reached it.
you only waste storage space then.

[Gothmoth]

Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.

vietnam?
or the war against saudi arabian airplane pilots?
 
and who is "we"?

and what has it to do with canon?

[Window Frame]

What does "cleaning up" mean? As far as video is concerned, I am a bit lost as to what they're going to do with the 5D MKIII. Maybe it will be like the 1DX?

[Canon-F1]

Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.

tu non hai capito un sola parola.....idiot.. giusto?

[lol]

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.

well but you don´t get any better either. when you reached it.
you only waste storage space then.

If you always shoot diffraction limited, that might be the case. But who does that? You have more potential most of the time.

[arussarts]

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.

AWESOME summary!  Thanks for the truth and levity.