5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

[Neeneko]

The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.

See, what I would love to see is an option for no CFA ^_^ Though I am fully aware that Canon will probably never produce such an option...

[awinphoto]

The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.

See, what I would love to see is an option for no CFA ^_^ Though I am fully aware that Canon will probably never produce such an option...

There's nothing saying canon WONT introduce either option.  It's still early and so many things can still change up until the day it is released. 

[torger]

Well, define compete. IMO competitive doesn't need to mean undisputed best at everything. There is no such thing from any manufacturer, and if so, it never lasts long. I think even if they don't beat the D4 in high ISO, half a stop is barrely the difference between competing and not competing.

I agree. Half stop up or down is what fanboys can argue about, but won't make a difference on the whole. I don't think Canon will come out on top concerning sensor image quality this time around either, but it will not matter. Even if the sensor performs worse in terms of ISO than the 36 megapixel Nikon many users will just be happy with the fact that they don't need to deal with 36 megapixel files. Just as high megapixels attract some users (resolution for landscape/studio), a low number attract others (faster workflow, lower storage requirements). Finding out exact ISO performance is more complicated so I think most don't do that at all.

The high megapixel count may cause the D800 to look as a highly specialized camera, regardless if it performs really well at high ISOs. A more moderate count like 22 megapixels may attract more users just because it seems more all-around and sane, regardless of its actual performance.

[DzPhotography]

I don't think ISO values in a marketing brouchure tell anything. the proof will be in the raws. who's to say canon isn't just boosting too and they decided to market it as non boosted? How would we know? At the end of the day the proof will be in proper comparisons which is all that matters. Maybe Canon will be on top? not sure, , but not by much if so. certainly nowhere near 2 stops. But I'm highly skeptical... I've never shot with either but those fortunare enough to have gotten the D4 swear it is better than the D3s at low light.

I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away 

[Neeneko]

There's nothing saying canon WONT introduce either option.  It's still early and so many things can still change up until the day it is released.

It is very, very unlikely.  Canon does not even produce IR or astro camera at this point and has shown no interest in moving outside its comfortable mass market devices.  Photography oriented cameras without a CFA pretty much exist only a niche products at the high end (I think the cheapest one I have seen was 12k for the digital back alone) as MF backs, and I have not seen one in a DSLR package since the Kodak 760m.   

Conventional marketing wisdom says there is not enough market for them and that software conversion is 'good enough'.. and Canon is not really known for taking risks or serving niches at this point.

So while I agree it is, in theory, possible, and I would love Canon to introduce such a camera.. I do not see it happening.  Which makes me a sad panda....

[torger]

I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away 

I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.

[psolberg]

I don't think ISO values in a marketing brouchure tell anything. the proof will be in the raws. who's to say canon isn't just boosting too and they decided to market it as non boosted? How would we know? At the end of the day the proof will be in proper comparisons which is all that matters. Maybe Canon will be on top? not sure, , but not by much if so. certainly nowhere near 2 stops. But I'm highly skeptical... I've never shot with either but those fortunare enough to have gotten the D4 swear it is better than the D3s at low light.

I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away 

my point being, who cares how they achieved a number if the images are good. Let the pictures tell the story. Obsessing over marketing numbers is pointless. Once we see image A vs image B, let the best image win.

I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.

I agree. honestly all cameras, including the D4/D1X at that ISO setting are just playing marketing game. Nobody in their right mind would be happy with their results.

[smartysmart34]

Hm. While I do not need more than 21 or 22 mPixels I think a 5dIII/X would still need

- Better AF (seems to be on board)
- Better DR / Noise (nothing mentioned)
- Better sealing (is a must for me)
- a second CF slot (should be pretty standard in that price range now)

Compared to a D800 - even if the 5dIII has all the above it would have to be cheaper then the D800.
if the above doesn't come (means: Only AF improvement) I would not switch from my 5dII. AF on the MkII is a pain in the neck but not worth upgrading if it's the only improvement.

Cheers,
Martin

[kennykodak]

there's more to image quality than megapixals.  i'll take low noise for what i'm doing.

[blarygake]

This is GREAT.
I have the 5D II and I really would like better AF but I don't care at all about higher MP.

As somebody mentioned, better Dynamic Range would be nice.
Prettier noise would be nice.
And better color production.  I still feel like the XTi did better with flesh tones than the 5DII.

[neuroanatomist]

I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away 

I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.

I agree, but do keep in mind that for the 1D IV, ISO 102400 is the H3 setting, and the top native (non-expanded) ISO for the 1D IV is ISO 12800, vs. ISO 51200 for the 1D X.

[torger]

And better color production.  I still feel like the XTi did better with flesh tones than the 5DII.

I hope you mean skin tones ;-)

[blarygake]

haha I did indeed

[DzPhotography]

I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away 

I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.

I agree, but do keep in mind that for the 1D IV, ISO 102400 is the H3 setting, and the top native (non-expanded) ISO for the 1D IV is ISO 12800, vs. ISO 51200 for the 1D X.

Thank you Neuro (+1) I was NOT talking about boost values, as stated in my earlier post 

[jwphotography]

It seems clear to me that Canon is going with the "X" nomenclature for some new models.  I expect a 5D3 with the rumored 22mp and a 5DX or possibly 3DX with huge mp count to match or surpass the Nikon D800.  Or maybe the 22mp 5D replacement will be 5DX and then there will be another camera... like 5DXs or something with the big mp count.  Anyway, I expect another "X"!