December 05, 2016, 08:27:03 PM

Author Topic: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]  (Read 71736 times)

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 749
    • AprilForever.com
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #180 on: December 03, 2011, 10:41:41 PM »
A few extra megapixels with a Digic 5 could make a serious 7D mk II... Cannot wait until it comes out...
What is truth?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #180 on: December 03, 2011, 10:41:41 PM »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #181 on: December 04, 2011, 02:38:35 AM »

I only have one camera at the moment. I would own a 5DII, but I was holding out for a 5DIII hoping it would up the resolution and improve the AF (which is truly atrocious for a professional-grade camera, used for landscapes or not.)


That comment alone proves you have no experience of the 5DII.

Dave Sucsy

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #182 on: December 04, 2011, 03:45:10 AM »
Regardless of all the pro/con discussion of MP, image quality, sensitivty, noise, etc:

I shoot stock for a living. It is all I do.

I started with a 1Ds2. I switched to a 5D because it gave me better IQ and made me more profitable. I thought the 5D was good enough.

I resisted the 5D2 for over a year because it made me mad. Who needs more than 13MP for stock. Max size needed is double-truck, for which a 5D does just fine. (well, not really, because now I have customers wanting to do large display prints and even small murals suitable for close viewing distances)

But I continued to inspect the 5D2 files from time to time. Finally I jumped. I wish I had not waited a minute.
The 5D2, along with today's software, gives me files that are just plain better than the 5D files. Even when I reprocess my old 5D files with new software. And the improved quailty is something I need to keep my customers happy. The improved quality is visible in the sizes used in my business. Resolution, noise, smooth tonal transitions, croppability, etc.

21MP is enough to meet the current demands of my job and customers. But just barely enough. Almost everything I shoot is with controlled lighting, so I don't need great high ISO performance except when shooting aerials from a helicopter at dusk. And for that I can rent a 1DX.

What I really need now for my work is 25-30MP. A little more resolution and a little better noise and image quality performance. Plus better lenses. Lenses that are truly good enough. I'd like Canon to re-do the 24-105, because the existing version is so marginal (I've tried 5 different copies so far).

The quality of my work would benefit by moving to MF. But the cost of the total kit (bodies, plus backs, plus lenses) would make the move NOT cost-effective. It would hurt my bottom line significantly. So MF is out.

Therefore my vote is:
  • 5D3 with 25-30MP, even if it costs up to $3k. But PLEASE give me better focusing with wider spread on the focus points.
  • Better lenses (24-105 IS and 100-400 IS) that can easily more than handle 25-30MP. Even if they have to cost $1500-$3000 to be good enough. A $1000 lens that isn't quite good enough is NO bargain.

Fleetie

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
  • Watching for pigs on the wing
    • My Facebook
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #183 on: December 04, 2011, 04:54:16 AM »
If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size.

No, it wouldn't. That would be very close to 103 megapixels. Where did you get those numbers from?

Canon 5D3  ,  70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II ,  24-105mm f/4 L IS  ,  50mm f/1.4  ,  85mm f/1.8 ,  EF 2x III
Olympus OM2-SP , 50mm f/1.2 , 55mm f/1.2 , 50mm f/1.4 Silvernose , 135mm f/2.8 , 28mm f/2.8

dr croubie

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1382
  • Too many photos, too little time.
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #184 on: December 04, 2011, 05:19:22 AM »
If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size.

No, it wouldn't. That would be very close to 103 megapixels. Where did you get those numbers from?

FYI: 10328 x 7760 is the Phase One IQ180, at 80MP it's the biggest MF sensor available, just beating Leaf Aptus' 10320 x 7752 (disregarding specialist telescope sensors and scanning backs).
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

tt

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #185 on: December 04, 2011, 06:19:55 AM »
To me, "we want to see what the actual sales numbers will be for the 1D X and so determine how many customers we might be losing if we do not introduce a higher resolution camera"
says - you ain't seeing a Higher res camera until
a) The 1DX has launched
b) They have analysed the sales numbers

but they also said  "and if the projected profitability of a higher resolution 24×36 mm format camera will justify development, marketing, and manufacturing investments"

If it was nearer ready, why would they be talking about development costs?

"or if there is a sustainable market for the even greater costs of development, marketing, and manufacturing medium format cameras and lenses – an area where we have no internal expertise."

Ie - we haven't even started much if any development for a medium format camera, we haven't really done much yet on a higher res camera, and we're waiting out the 1DX launch and feedback.


Putting that to one side  - Canon on the intro to the 1DX did say that basically the 1DX was angled more for a niche, and that whilst they had some video options, the trade offs were in order ot make the camera better (eg the ethernet port meant losing some connections useful for video work, I think they mentioned in an interview).

What if they angle the 5D Mark II more to video (through incremental upgrades)? Some side effects will be useful (ISO, grain). Watching a course on making video with the 5D it seems there were needed work arounds for things that Canon could potentially fix, eg
- For your Z-finder - a higher resolution screen would help
- Having an AV jack that could at least take headphones
- Improving Live view (eg the issues of changing output format whilst watching when filming vs playback)

As photographers would like better low light performance, less grain banding, better ISO, better AF, so the video community would presumably want - less rolling shutter, better output connections.

If Canon just bumped the 5D's low light ISO capabilities, and their AF, maybe 3-4 more MP, would people buy? Seems there's a decent enough steady stream of customers.

What'll be more interesting is maybe in a few years time, seeing the low light power of the 5D MkII trickling down to more consumer products.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #186 on: December 04, 2011, 11:52:47 AM »
If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size.

No, it wouldn't. That would be very close to 103 megapixels. Where did you get those numbers from?

Apologies, you are indeed correct. I kind of half-mathed/half-guessed the number, and I'm not sure what I did wrong. I think the correct image dimensions would be around 8382x5588 for a 46.7mp FF sensor. So certainly not as good as it sounded from a print standpoint before, but still a lot better than 21.1mp. Thats about a 30"x19" print, which is around 50% of the size I wish to print at (where as the native 21.1mp print is around 30% the size). From a scaling standpoint, scaling up to 2x is usually ok, where as scaling beyond 3x without special tools or better ways to fabricate information tends to produce terrible results.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 12:02:01 PM by jrista »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #186 on: December 04, 2011, 11:52:47 AM »

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #187 on: December 04, 2011, 12:08:07 PM »
What in god's name are you talking about jrista....

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #188 on: December 04, 2011, 02:14:24 PM »
@Jettator: Sorry, correcting a previous post. I was explaining before why I find more MP useful, as I prefer to print at very large multi-foot dimensions. I was stating how scaling post-process holds nothing to having more native resolution, hence the reason I don't think the sensor race should end at 20-some MP.

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #189 on: December 04, 2011, 02:45:35 PM »
You don't have to scale in post processing to print pictures larger.  You leave the pixel resolution (scale) alone and only tell the software what size in inches/mm's you want your print to be, and it will tell you before you print what DPI that will be.  If you are scaling the image or forcing the DPI before printing without some sort of special up-rezing technique that you have tested well to work, then you might very well be doing something wrong.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #190 on: December 04, 2011, 11:33:21 PM »
If you simply tell the printer to print at a certain size (WxH) and resolution (PPI), it will scale for you, however printer driver scaling is usually the worst kind possible. I always manually scale my images to exactly the correct PPI (not DPI, its a misnomer to use DPI to refer to printed pixels, as that refers to device units not pixel units) and physical size. I also fine tune sharpness for the specific target print size and paper (i.e. I don't care quite as much on a rough paper or canvas as I do on a smooth photo rag). I am pretty meticulous about scaling for my prints, as I prefer to keep as much detail as I can. I use the best scaling technique to eek out the best results as well, be it an iterative bicubic, s-spline or fractal approach. Despite all that, when scaling an image some 3 times or more its original size, its tough to keep it from ending up soft.

Hence the desire for more native resolution at an affordable cost. I do have to commend Pentax for their 645D medium format camera. I just hope someday that kind of technology is more within the realm of a prosumer budget.

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 749
    • AprilForever.com
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #191 on: December 05, 2011, 12:47:52 AM »
Regardless of all the pro/con discussion of MP, image quality, sensitivty, noise, etc:

I shoot stock for a living. It is all I do.

I started with a 1Ds2. I switched to a 5D because it gave me better IQ and made me more profitable. I thought the 5D was good enough.

I resisted the 5D2 for over a year because it made me mad. Who needs more than 13MP for stock. Max size needed is double-truck, for which a 5D does just fine. (well, not really, because now I have customers wanting to do large display prints and even small murals suitable for close viewing distances)

But I continued to inspect the 5D2 files from time to time. Finally I jumped. I wish I had not waited a minute.
The 5D2, along with today's software, gives me files that are just plain better than the 5D files. Even when I reprocess my old 5D files with new software. And the improved quailty is something I need to keep my customers happy. The improved quality is visible in the sizes used in my business. Resolution, noise, smooth tonal transitions, croppability, etc.

21MP is enough to meet the current demands of my job and customers. But just barely enough. Almost everything I shoot is with controlled lighting, so I don't need great high ISO performance except when shooting aerials from a helicopter at dusk. And for that I can rent a 1DX.

What I really need now for my work is 25-30MP. A little more resolution and a little better noise and image quality performance. Plus better lenses. Lenses that are truly good enough. I'd like Canon to re-do the 24-105, because the existing version is so marginal (I've tried 5 different copies so far).

The quality of my work would benefit by moving to MF. But the cost of the total kit (bodies, plus backs, plus lenses) would make the move NOT cost-effective. It would hurt my bottom line significantly. So MF is out.

Therefore my vote is:
  • 5D3 with 25-30MP, even if it costs up to $3k. But PLEASE give me better focusing with wider spread on the focus points.
  • Better lenses (24-105 IS and 100-400 IS) that can easily more than handle 25-30MP. Even if they have to cost $1500-$3000 to be good enough. A $1000 lens that isn't quite good enough is NO bargain.


I like this too, except I would like to see it in a 7D...
What is truth?

Dave Sucsy

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #192 on: December 05, 2011, 02:11:24 AM »

I like this too, except I would like to see it in a 7D...

April,
Why do you want this in a 7D instead of a 5D3 (or 1Ds4)?
Features of the 7D? Smaller size? ???

The only thing I don't like about the 7D is the small (area) sensor.
As a full-time pro, I'd really like:
  • 2 axis leveling like in the 7D
  • Better focusing like in the 7D
  • A-Dep function. (the camera's computer can handle this much better than a pro can wing it)
    (this used to be included in the 1Ds series, for the photographers who need it most, but now it is only in low-end DSLRs for amateurs who use it least)
  • built-in GPS (very inexpensive to implement, and essential for any traveling photography, available on many point-n-shoots)
    (Why??? must I take notes on where each shot is made, when my camera can and should do it for me?????)
  • built-in atomic clock (very inexpensive, and essential for accuracy for many pros)
    (Why??? must I spend half my life changing and synchronizing my camera's clock every time I change time zones , when my camera can and should do it for me?????)
  • voice memo, essential to quickly annotate shots to send back to the main office, available on almost all point-n-shoots
    (all photojournalists and most pro landscape photogs need to get this info to the office and the folks who keyword and caption the photos!!!!)
  • built-in flash: essential for almost all pros for simple fill-flash, available on almost all point-n-shoots
  • speech recognition shot annotation to embed identifying metadata and keywords into each shot, as necessary
  • and other stuff too that I can't remember now.

Whoever will implement these essential productivity features first (Canon or Nikon) will win me over to their product line.


Dave

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #192 on: December 05, 2011, 02:11:24 AM »

mathino

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #193 on: December 05, 2011, 04:14:15 AM »
I want to see 18-21 Mpx sensor in 5D-isch body with 7D AF - Ill buy it. I really dont care much about video features as I am a stills guy. But sadly, there is no camera without video and I think there will be no camera without video in the future. I think many of us need/want better DR and noise in trade off for less video features. If you wants to shoot video you need to invest even more in good rigs for camera and lenses to make it at least a bit professional (not look of you shooting but look of captured video).
6D | 450D | EF 28 f/1.8 USM | EF 40 f/2.8 STM | EF 85 f/1.8 USM | EF 135 f/2 L USM | 430 EX II | wishlist: EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II USM

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #194 on: December 05, 2011, 05:30:21 AM »
That makes a bit more sense than what you were talking about before jrista.  You were really making it sound like certain dimensions of printing were permanently linked to specific (edit:) pixel dimensions.

edit:  My language in describing this is also very bad.  I'm using DPI and PPI interchangeably even though I am always referring to PPI.  And I also often use the word resolution when I really mean pixel dimensions.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 08:17:12 AM by Jettatore »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« Reply #194 on: December 05, 2011, 05:30:21 AM »