A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

[wickidwombat]

  How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

I would in a heart beat as long as the high iso performance was still at least as good at the mk2

[cinq1]

Hello to every one,

nice to read you from Paris.

Why question is after all

I own a 60D, which is good and not.

I start to work a lot since few week in the photo industry.

i need to get a second body.

So, i like to go on something like 7D + 5D II

when do you think one of this body will get upgrade.

I ll be able to afford for either, new 7DII plus Old 5DII or actual 7D plus new 5DIII or 6D, or eahter 3D

hard to know what canon will lunch in 2012

Cheers.

[neuroanatomist]

As for the AF, what I REALLY REALLY want is more of the center AF type placed elsewhere in the frame. That's it. AF groups, modes, and algorithms be damned, I just want a solid AF point I can choose in single point mode that lies much nearer the Rule of Thirds lines. If the 5DIII had 5 total points, one in the center and one for each intersection of the thirds lines, I'd be happy. It's so limiting to use my 85 f1.2 and 135 f2 because I either can't trust my outer points to focus well, or I can't trust my subject to stay in focus after using the focus-shift technique.

I really don't think that asking for better quality points elsewhere in the frame is asking for much of Canon, much less asking for pro level AF since that entails a lot more beyond what I've said.

I do think we'll see better quality points elsewhere in the frame - the 5DIII will almost certainly have many (if not all) its points as cross-type, and the center point will likely be the dual cross type. 

But, as much is it needs greater point spread, I don't believe that the 5DIII will get greater point spread.  Canon made a promotional statement that the lateral spread of the 5DII AF points was the same as the 1DsIII, but of course neglected to mention that the vertical spread was much less, meaning the 'corner points' get no where near the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections.  The 1D IV and 7D are about tied for maximum horizontal-vertical extent relative to frame, and both get an AF point adjacent to the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections.  Even though Canon touts the 1D X as having the most AF coverage area, while the horizontal extent is the same as the 1D IV (and thus greter than the 1DsIII), the vertical extent is actually less than the 1D IV, meaning the 1D IV is actually getting closer to (and a little beyond in one dimension) the 'rule-of-thirds' lines.  You can see the relative coverages with and without the grid in the mouseovers in this article on TDP.

AF point spread is as much of a differentiator as number/type of points, and thus is another way for Canon to differentiate lines.  I don't think we'll see greater spread in the 5DIII.

[JR]

  How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

I would in a heart beat as long as the high iso performance was still at least as good at the mk2

I would but for me ISO performance would need to be a bit better than the current 5DII.  For me ISO and AF are more important than adding a few more MP...but I would pay that kind of money for a small form factor (ie pro-body without a grip) body.

[JR]

I do think we'll see better quality points elsewhere in the frame - the 5DIII will almost certainly have many (if not all) its points as cross-type, and the center point will likely be the dual cross type. 

But, as much is it needs greater point spread, I don't believe that the 5DIII will get greater point spread.  Canon made a promotional statement that the lateral spread of the 5DII AF points was the same as the 1DsIII, but of course neglected to mention that the vertical spread was much less, meaning the 'corner points' get no where near the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections.  The 1D IV and 7D are about tied for maximum horizontal-vertical extent relative to frame, and both get an AF point adjacent to the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections.  Even though Canon touts the 1D X as having the most AF coverage area, while the horizontal extent is the same as the 1D IV (and thus greter than the 1DsIII), the vertical extent is actually less than the 1D IV, meaning the 1D IV is actually getting closer to (and a little beyond in one dimension) the 'rule-of-thirds' lines.  You can see the relative coverages with and without the grid in the mouseovers in this article on TDP.

AF point spread is as much of a differentiator as number/type of points, and thus is another way for Canon to differentiate lines.  I don't think we'll see greater spread in the 5DIII.

Is there any chance then that a new 5D III at least have a better Servo mode AF?  I mean I know it is supposed to be a studio and landscape camera, but I bet you a good portion of the current 5D buyers are amateur enthousiast and from time to time it would be nice to be also able to shoot moving targets like our children with that camera.

Currently my 5D II does not do that well at all.  I know I could buy a 7D for that or wait for the 1DX, but without a full blown pro level AF, I would be happy with a new 5D III where at least the center sections as a wider and improve Servo AF performance.

Maybe I am dreaming and maybe Canon wants me to buy two bodies (or one 1DX for this - but the problem is what is we want a small form factor for these type of shooting?)...

If I could have that with the 5D, then I dont care how many points and all, I would never complain about its AF system...

[whatta]

You can see the relative coverages with and without the grid in the mouseovers in this article on TDP.

cool, thanks

[photogaz]

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

I'll make it easy for you Canon:
Break the small form factor full frame prosumer line into 2:
1) Speed Demon (12mp, High ISO, AF, FPS, Sealing, Movie)
2) Megapixel Monster (with current AF, sealing)
Charge $3500 for each then sit back and count all your money

They won't be getting my money:

I want 18-21MP, High ISO and decent AF

[mccrum]

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

I'll make it easy for you Canon:
Break the small form factor full frame prosumer line into 2:
1) Speed Demon (12mp, High ISO, AF, FPS, Sealing, Movie)
2) Megapixel Monster (with current AF, sealing)
Charge $3500 for each then sit back and count all your money

They won't be getting my money:

I want 18-21MP, High ISO and decent AF

Um, actually, it sounds like you'd want Option 1 there.

[neuroanatomist]

Is there any chance then that a new 5D III at least have a better Servo mode AF?  I mean I know it is supposed to be a studio and landscape camera, but I bet you a good portion of the current 5D buyers are amateur enthousiast and from time to time it would be nice to be also able to shoot moving targets like our children with that camera.

Currently my 5D II does not do that well at all.  I know I could buy a 7D for that or wait for the 1DX, but without a full blown pro level AF, I would be happy with a new 5D III where at least the center sections as a wider and improve Servo AF performance.

Sure, there's a chance.  There's a chance pigs will fly, and a chance it will snow in hell, too.     Ok, I exaggerate.  Apparently, Canon did have that in mind with the original 5D.  As I mentioned, the 5DII came out after the 40D, the latter having 9 cross-type points vs. just the one of the 5D/5DII.  I recall reading a statement from Canon (not sure where) to the effect that they considered using a 40D-like AF sensor, but decided to stick with the sensor from the original 5D specifically because the 6 invisible AF assist points resulted in better AI Servo performance.  Granted, if the 5DII's AI Servo consitiutes 'better'.....  I've never used a 40D, but I wouldn't say the 5DII is substantially better at tracking subjects than the T1i which I started with, and people who've used both 5DII and a recent xxD have claimed the tracking is better with the xxD body. 

But the point is, some within Canon do recognize that a decent level of AI Servo performance is needed - after all, it's not jsut a studio/landscape camera, it's a wedding camera, too...and brides do move (just not very fast).  But it will remain a fact that if you want an AF system that will deliver the best keeper rate, you need a 1-series body. 

[jbwise01]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or  $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I  learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

[traveller]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or  $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I  learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

Even Ansel Adams moved to medium format in his latter years as film emultions improved and he got too old to lug around a huge pack full of large format kit.  Go and have a look at the weight of a large format camera system and compare it to a DSLR, not to mention the amount of set up time required for each shot (and the expense of the film).  That's not to say that the quality of large or medium format isn't better, it's a trade off of quality versus convenience (if you don't agree -why aren't you carrying around a 8" x 10" instead of mere 4" x 5"?).  There are plenty of landscape photographers out there using DSLRs or digital medium format as it allows them to be more experimental and prolific in their shooting style.  It's far better to get the shot on a smaller, faster format than to miss it messing around trying to set up large format kit.  Large format is already on the wane as more landscape photographers move to the ever improving digital medium format systems.  It's all about convenience...

[traveller]

But the point is, some within Canon do recognize that a decent level of AI Servo performance is needed - after all, it's not jsut a studio/landscape camera, it's a wedding camera, too...and brides do move (just not very fast).  But it will remain a fact that if you want an AF system that will deliver the best keeper rate, you need a 1-series body Nikon!!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

No, I don't understand the reasoning behind your statement, but I do understand that you are easily swayed by fatuous opinions and pseudofactual babble.  Ever used a tripod?  If so, KR thinks you're an idiot (yes, that's a direct quote). The clause, 'great article by Ken Rockwell' is an oxymoron.  KR himself is just the plain old vanilla sort of moron. 

[arussarts]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or  $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I  learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

You're right technically speaking.  Here is another article discussing film vs. digital that I think illustrates why us high-MP people want more MP's:  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

I think it's interesting to note that both of these articles were written in 2006.  Arguably, much has changed within the digital realm, and while technically speaking you're right, the 5d2 is incapable of producing 300dpi prints at 30x40.  I can assure you, from experience, a 30x40 from 21MP is still a beautiful print coming off of an Epson 9880.  Most consumers do not pixel-peep like we do and do not notice the difference.  Realistically, a 30+MP camera would be acceptable considering all the other variables and the ongoing obsolescence of film.

I think we, and by we I mean, REAL working pro landscape photographers, absolutely use the 5d2 for exhibition prints.  But it still isn't as good as we'd like it to be.  I'd love to have 300dpi at even 20x24.  To me this would be more than adequate for exhibition printing.  Anything over that and you're standing too close anyway.

I think it really comes down to form factor.  Why drag a ton of gear and film out when we can pop everything we need  into a backpack and really get to the rarest places on earth.  Not to mention, it's getting harder and harder to find places to process our film.

As to the Ansel/Digital question... I believe he would absolutely be shooting digitally!  Probably with a P45, but definitely digitally.  The man is best known for his beautiful landscapes but what often gets lost in his history is that he was a technological innovator.  He was literally pushing, and pulling, film and printing to its limits.

[jbwise01]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or  $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I  learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

Even Ansel Adams moved to medium format in his latter years as film emultions improved and he got too old to lug around a huge pack full of large format kit.  Go and have a look at the weight of a large format camera system and compare it to a DSLR, not to mention the amount of set up time required for each shot (and the expense of the film).  That's not to say that the quality of large or medium format isn't better, it's a trade off of quality versus convenience (if you don't agree -why aren't you carrying around a 8" x 10" instead of mere 4" x 5"?).  There are plenty of landscape photographers out there using DSLRs or digital medium format as it allows them to be more experimental and prolific in their shooting style.  It's far better to get the shot on a smaller, faster format than to miss it messing around trying to set up large format kit.  Large format is already on the wane as more landscape photographers move to the ever improving digital medium format systems.  It's all about convenience...

I don't dispute that the 5D II is a more than capable landsape camera. It is quite good at many things, which speaks to its popularity amongst photographers worldwide. The landscape photographers that use the 5D II seem to crave more MP for obvious reasons.  Canon will most certainly introduce a medium format digital in the near future to fill this void and compete with pentax and hasselblad.

My point is that the main purpose of the 5D series is to be a photo-journalism camera/event/ walk around full frame AND an HD video camera.  Many people forget that the 5D II was the digital SLR with full HD video recording capabilities. Canon sticks to its roots and will most certainly improve on the video cpabilities of the 5D in the next upgrade.  The 5D III will also be a great landscape camera, but I don't expect it to be a 30+ MP camera.  I expect the camera to greatly improve ISO perfromance which would drastically improve the cameras video capabilities and low light perfromance. I expect a minimal auto-focus upgrade, an articulating screen like the 60D (but maybe not bc of weather sealing issues), and some minor viewfinder improvements.