*UPDATE* The Next 5D on March 2, 2012 [CR3]

[jrista]

Well sure, the 40D is a 10mp sensor, where as the 7D is an 18mp sensor. Were talking a 33% increase in resolution for the 7D. If we take the 18-55 at 55/5.6, assuming it was a perfect lens (and we know its far from it) it could resolve 123 lp/mm. Assuming the 18-55 kit, given how poor its IQ is (I've owned a couple of these, of differing generations, and all of them exhibit remarkably bad CA at max aperture at all focal lengths), only resolves 100lp/mm. The 40D is incapable of resolving even that much at 87lp/mm, so moving from the 40D to the 7D, which can resolve 116lp/mm, is obviously going to capture more detail.

The 300/2.8 is one of the few Canon lenses that approaches perfection at f/2.8 (and you really pay for it, too, at nearly $7000). I would say the 70-200/2.8 II is another (although based on the MTF charts, the original 70-200/2.8 I is NOT...but it would be the same situation as the 18-55 when comparing the 40D to the 7D with that lens, stacked TC's or not.) These are the reasons I try to evaluate resolution on this forum as spatial resolution...in line pairs per millimeter (vs. megapixels or line widths per picture height), as its easy to explain why you might see such an improvement when moving from a 40D to a 7D, even with Canon's bottom-barrel lenses.

Somehow I skimmed your response too quickly and thought I saw you listing 62lp/mm and 46 lp/mm limits  .
But that said you still do a little better than just comparing lens to sensor since it is the combined system that determines the final results and you do a little better than you'd expect by that and even with 300 2.8 IS I and stacked TC on a 7D you can still do better than upscaling, but a lot more of your point is taken now that I read it as 62MP and 46MP hah. Guess I was a little too tired or distracted when I skimmed the post.

No problem...things probably get lost in translation on these forums more often than not. I'd be pretty surprised myself to see someone say a Canon lens was only capable og 62lp/mm at best!

When it comes to system MTF, its usually closer to a lowest-common-denominator than anything else. Its tough to nail it down precisely given the nature of various elements, such as low pass filter strength, use of bayer color filter array sensors, etc. Its also tough because the spatial resolution of a lens is dependent upon its aperture and how well optical aberrations are corrected...and the latter is never actually specified anywhere in any reliable or usable form. Most of the real MTF charts I've seen for Canon lenses indicate lp/mm resolutions well below what one would generally expect from a Canon lens (although sometimes thats due to the imaging sensor being a limiting factor, rather than the lens.) I think I estimate too high a lot of the time. Its all rough numbers anyway though, and you can only get accurate results by actually doing legit testing with actual gear.

The goal, for me at least, is to educate people a little better about real resolution, spatial resolution, so we can all compare sensors on a normalized basis, rather than simpy comparing megapixel counts...which rapidly becomes confusing when you throw in varying sensor sizes and pixel densities into the mix. (Which is apparent when people wonder how well lenses may deal with a 36mp FF Nikon sensor...despite the fact that its less dense than the 18mp Canon APS-C.)

[mkrimmer]

maybe the thread is lost because of a regular nikon-/canon-diskussion?

[Musouka]

There is no "one size fits all" in the end. The Nikonians themselves are divided over the best resolution for the D800(E).

[NR] Poll: Nikon D800 with 36MP or with 16MP sensor?

It's extremely hard for any company to please everyone. When the 7D specs were first revealed, many complained that the 18MP was too much and will affect the ISO performance. I personally don't use all the resolution the 7D has to offer but I'm fine with its low-light capabilities. So now when Canon decided to go the other way, they are again criticized for falling behind competition with their MP count.

In the end, there is no right or wrong. A company will not release any product without thorough market research. If Canon ended up releasing a 22MP 5DIII, this must have been what their market research indicated they should do. Whether it's a right or wrong move remains to be seen. Who knows, maybe an MP monster is also in the making.

I realize that studio photographers (and maybe wild life ones) would like to see a camera with the biggest MP they could possibly get. One has to ask what percentage of Canon's potential sales does this segment make. If the bread and butter is somewhere else, that's what Canon would naturally focus on. As a publicly-traded company, Canon has the responsibility of maximizing their shareholders' value by pursuing what the company perceives as the most profitable venture.

No one should be emotionally invested in a company (unless they own a huge share of it ). I may or may not like certain decisions a company makes. If I'm highly dissatisfied, I can just take my business elsewhere. I can complain and say "the company doesn't get it" (and I may or might not be right in that regard). If enough people started complaining, the company should/would start to notice. Hmm, isn't that what actually happened with the MP and, if the specs are true, the AF? We can argue that Canon has actually listened to what their customer want in one regard. The price, as other mentioned, will be set by the market. If people perceived value in the company's offering, they will buy it. Otherwise, the product will just sit on the shelves. Remember how the price of 50D dropped quickly shortly after introduction because of the fierce competition from the D300? If people perceived that the better value is offered by the D800(E), they will just buy that and Canon will be forced to lower the price of the 5DIII in order to entice more customers to buy.

Personally, I'm completely satisfied with the the rumored specs of the 5DIII; not so much the rumored price. I will wait for the second patch to give Canon the time needed to correct any issues (remember the black dots in the 5D2?) and allow the price to drop a bit. Nikon makes wonderful cameras but I currently prefer the Canon system as a whole. Others may agree or disagree with my stance and they are free to do so. I'm sure each has his/her reasons.

That said, I appreciate all the technical details and discussions everyone brings to the table. We all should take these with a sense of humor and openness. There is no need to question other people's ethics or call them names. Just be cool and carry on 

An interesting quote:

"If  you attack people's opinions, many react like addicts" -  Bernie Siegel

[bycostello]

i likey dual slots.. not sure worth cost of upgrade though....

[bbe]

And what about a flash? Is nobody curently using a mark II missing the little popup flash?
Im in for a new body and prefere a ff. After reading hundreds of threaths and reviews i have concluded that the mark II is missing a decent af (which is important for me) but... Is it really that bad?

I want to experiment more low light so high iso and good af is neasasary. 7d sounds perfect but extends my glass so back to  5 d mark ii. This misses decent af (?) and a popup flash. So wait for mark III ?. This seems to get it all except..... The flash but for (if rumors are right) lets say € 1000,- (!) more.

I have for about € 1500 canon gear. I mention thet because nikon d700 seems to be a better option. What to do???

[GL]

And what about a flash? Is nobody curently using a mark II missing the little popup flash?

I wouldn't buy the MkIII if it had  popup flash (which thankfully it doesn't).

[neuroanatomist]

(Which is apparent when people wonder how well lenses may deal with a 36mp FF Nikon sensor...despite the fact that its less dense than the 18mp Canon APS-C.)

Fine, but don't forget that while the resolving power of a sensor does not vary spatially across the surface, the resolving power of a lens varies across the image circle, being highest in the center and lowest at the periphery.  So...I think that being concerned about how lenses will deal with a higher density FF sensor, even if not as high a density as current APS-C sensors, is valid given that the APS-C sensor is 'seeing' only the higher-resolving portion of the image circle, whereas the corners of the FF sensor extend to the edges of the image circle where lens performance is worst.  Not going to matter much for a 300/2.8, but for a 17-40mm, which is already getting mushy at the corners on the 5DII...

And what about a flash? Is nobody curently using a mark II missing the little popup flash?

I don't miss it.  Well, that's not true.  Sometimes, I get nostalgic and I miss that 'deer-in-headlights' look that an onboard flash provides, the harsh light and red-eye that a pop-up flash delivers so well.  But mostly, no, I don't miss it at all. 

[dedrick427]

I've taped down the pop-up flash on my SX200is.  Though it is nice to have sometimes, it's not concerning enough for me to care eitherway.  I just know I've set aside the money for a 5D Mark II and I'm dying of anxiety to see the Mark III.  I almost got impatient and bought the Mark II... just... need... to calm down...

[Abraxx]

"Everybody" is so concerned about MP, AF, weather sealing, Flash.

I rather want to know how the final performance of the mark III regarding DR will be....

my 2 cents

[ramon123]

due to no press invites shown yet and relative quiet... should we start worrying that the 5D3 wont' be announced on March 2nd?

[K-amps]

"Everybody" is so concerned about MP, AF, weather sealing, Flash.

I rather want to know how the final performance of the mark III regarding DR will be....

my 2 cents

Applauded: You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. 

[jalbfb]

due to no press invites shown yet and relative quiet... should we start worrying that the 5D3 wont' be announced on March 2nd?

 
I don't know.  CR seems pretty certain that March 2 is the day.  But then again so was Feb 28.  I'm still betting that Mar 2 will be it despite the press invite thing.  Has anyone on here who is privy to Canon press release got anything to add?

[CanineCandidsByL]

I wouldn't buy the MkIII if it had  popup flash (which thankfully it doesn't).
[/quote]

Alright, I'll bite.  Why not?
Most cameras have something you wouldn't use, so why would this be a deal killer?  Keep in mind, that a popup on a camera like this could almost certainly be used as a communication flash to trigger other flashes, and wouldn't necessarily be used as a functional flash.  Even if it contains an RF device to trigger the 590 (if it has RF), we won't all be upgrading our current flashes right away.

And lastly, a popup is always there...just in case.  Its almost always better, IMO, to get a bad picture than no picture.

Thanks!

[Chuck Alaimo]

There is no "one size fits all" in the end. The Nikonians themselves are divided over the best resolution for the D800(E).

[NR] Poll: Nikon D800 with 36MP or with 16MP sensor?

It's extremely hard for any company to please everyone. When the 7D specs were first revealed, many complained that the 18MP was too much and will affect the ISO performance. I personally don't use all the resolution the 7D has to offer but I'm fine with its low-light capabilities. So now when Canon decided to go the other way, they are again criticized for falling behind competition with their MP count.

In the end, there is no right or wrong. A company will not release any product without thorough market research. If Canon ended up releasing a 22MP 5DIII, this must have been what their market research indicated they should do. Whether it's a right or wrong move remains to be seen. Who knows, maybe an MP monster is also in the making.

I realize that studio photographers (and maybe wild life ones) would like to see a camera with the biggest MP they could possibly get. One has to ask what percentage of Canon's potential sales does this segment make. If the bread and butter is somewhere else, that's what Canon would naturally focus on. As a publicly-traded company, Canon has the responsibility of maximizing their shareholders' value by pursuing what the company perceives as the most profitable venture.

No one should be emotionally invested in a company (unless they own a huge share of it ). I may or may not like certain decisions a company makes. If I'm highly dissatisfied, I can just take my business elsewhere. I can complain and say "the company doesn't get it" (and I may or might not be right in that regard). If enough people started complaining, the company should/would start to notice. Hmm, isn't that what actually happened with the MP and, if the specs are true, the AF? We can argue that Canon has actually listened to what their customer want in one regard. The price, as other mentioned, will be set by the market. If people perceived value in the company's offering, they will buy it. Otherwise, the product will just sit on the shelves. Remember how the price of 50D dropped quickly shortly after introduction because of the fierce competition from the D300? If people perceived that the better value is offered by the D800(E), they will just buy that and Canon will be forced to lower the price of the 5DIII in order to entice more customers to buy.

Personally, I'm completely satisfied with the the rumored specs of the 5DIII; not so much the rumored price. I will wait for the second patch to give Canon the time needed to correct any issues (remember the black dots in the 5D2?) and allow the price to drop a bit. Nikon makes wonderful cameras but I currently prefer the Canon system as a whole. Others may agree or disagree with my stance and they are free to do so. I'm sure each has his/her reasons.

That said, I appreciate all the technical details and discussions everyone brings to the table. We all should take these with a sense of humor and openness. There is no need to question other people's ethics or call them names. Just be cool and carry on 

An interesting quote:

"If  you attack people's opinions, many react like addicts" -  Bernie Siegel

+1!

[kubelik]

Musouka, you've captured exactly how I feel about the 5D Mark III.  Thank you for observing the fact that Canon has indeed been giving us most of the things that 5D Mark II users clamored for over the last few years.  Too often, when a product is announced, we tend to nitpick at the items on our personal wishlists that weren't incorporated into a product, rather than seeing all the pieces that were integrated into a product.

I know you state you're not thrilled with the price (and that's understandable, no one - and I mean no one - wants to shell out more money if they can avoid it).  But, to put it in perspective, we used to have to drop $5K in order to get our hands on Canon's pro AF (on a cropped sensor, no less).  Now they're releasing a product with the pro AF at a projected $3.5K ... and we're complaining that Canon is stiffing us.  Personally, I'll be waiting for rebates to kick in (and yes, perhaps a slight price shift due to the pricing on the D800); if the 5D Mark III's price ticks downward to $3200 or $3300 it will sell unbelievably well.