Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?

[distant.star]

I'm impressed you could shoot 125 faces and not have at least one blinking the eyes. Congratulations! Sounds like a really tough shot.

i did a group shot of executives (125) looking on them standing on a deco staircase.  i shot a few with a Hasselblad 39MP and some with a Canon 5D2.  the client selected the 5D2 image for distribution.  the 22MP Canon was tight and 125 smiling faces were tack.  i have a 1Dx on order and will most likely update my 5D2 with the 5d?.  and those of you considering medium format, consider converting raw compressed images into raw images to convert again to a usable format. fast computer and a lot of storage...

[BL]

the rumored specs are everything I hoped for in a 5D Mark II successor.  I could shoot this camera for a very, very long time, and not worry at all about what comes after.

+2

I've been shooting with a 5D classic since 2005 and am still amazed at what can be produced given the age of the technology.  My only limitation with the classic is that AI servo is essentially useless when I've tried to photograph moving subjects.

With the rumored/confirmed AF upgrade, this feature alone makes it upgrade worthy.  I see no reason to retire the veteran classic however - the 5D classic just *works* for me.

[Chuck Alaimo]

While I love to shoot landscapes, cityscapes, HDr, etc, etc, etc ---- More of my income comes from events, and hopefully soon, weddings.  So to that end, 22 MP, high ISO and good quality, yeah, that sells me.  If I was making enough on art sales to justify an art only camera, then higher MP with less options for high ISO would be awesome, but I'd rather have a camera that can produce good images for art, while also being  versatile enough in low light to get the "wow" shots.

side bar note, I love all the cross comments from nikon users over here, who knows, maybe all the we want the MP people will jump ship to nikon, while all the we want high ISO performance folk will jump over to canon ---the more of this the merrier - I'll be glad to buy all this used equipment when it hits the market!

[7enderbender]

If this is really what will materialize in a few days then I wouldn't feel an immediate urge to buy a second 5DII right now. Looks like this may be a logical and useful successor that one day, when my 5DII stops working or when I have a need for second DSLR body I'd be comfortable to buy/add. Other than that I don't see anything in the specs where I feel like I have to run out and spend additional money. I'm really more curious about the 40mm lens and the 590 flash to be honest.

[distant.star]

While most of these projected "specs" will satisfy my photography needs, the most glaring one surely does not. I'm not sure I have either $3500 for a camera body or the NEED for a $3500 body. Since it's all speculation, I'll remain open to the facts as they are revealed.

For me, this may definitively answer that question about why some of us don't want video in our still cameras. I'd suggest Canon sold boatloads of the 5D2 based on video performance alone (probably to their surprise), and some buyers (commercial) probably bought them in bundles. So, Canon marketing satans decided if they improved upon that video performance, they could increase the price dramatically and sell even bigger boatloads to the video crowd. So, adding video to my still camera now adds a $1000 premium for something I don't need or want. Yet I'm also resigned to the fact that still photography is going the way of, as one prior poster suggested, painting.

Anyway, I've been waiting a long time for the facts; hopefully the wait is nearly over.

Oh, and as an aside, I'm not convinced Canon sees Nikon as quite as big an influence on their products as many here appear to think they do. Competition is always a factor, sure, but Canon has differentiated themselves just enough to make some competitors less pesky. They may even focus more on Sony as competition at this point. Just a thought -- I have lots of them!

[psolberg]

So, adding video to my still camera now adds a $1000 premium for something I don't need or want.

the market is saturated with video dslrs. they know this. the phenomenon of the 5DII will not repeat itself. high end video is moving away to the big boys like sony, red, canon cinema, and others where the gear is designed for video that isn't possible at the 5D line price point. I would be surprise if the video specs on this camera aren't a carbon copy of the 1DX. These cameras are returning to focus on stills and the video guys will go their own way.

[Neeneko]

the market is saturated with video dslrs. they know this. the phenomenon of the 5DII will not repeat itself. high end video is moving away to the big boys like sony, red, canon cinema, and others where the gear is designed for video that isn't possible at the 5D line price point. I would be surprise if the video specs on this camera aren't a carbon copy of the 1DX. These cameras are returning to focus on stills and the video guys will go their own way.

Sadly I suspect Canon marketing has not caught on to this yet.  Right now they seem to have a 'video in everything' requirement, as does Nikon.  The only companies that are not investing in video are the MF camera makers since their customers are not even vaguely interested, thus the increased R&D/manufacturing costs are not worth it.

I would not be surpised if, in another generation, Canon starts making still cameras again after the 'multimedia' thing looses steam and people go back to dedicated devices on the medium end.

[Actionpix]

Like with the previous 5D and 5D II I am absolutely not impressed. Looking at the years between the models I think the improvement is not very convincing. (Note! This is only my opinion and no more.) I, for myself, still very much would like a 45MP camera (FF) with ISO starting at 25 or eventually 50. For my action shots I very often just have to much light to really show the action. I also would like more detail in the name of driver or pilot on the fuselage, as this is what matters to them. Having lenses of $10.000 and no camera to let these lenses excel is frustrating. I do not care for video or high iso. Just give me more pixels and FF for shallower DoF.

[psolberg]

the market is saturated with video dslrs. they know this. the phenomenon of the 5DII will not repeat itself. high end video is moving away to the big boys like sony, red, canon cinema, and others where the gear is designed for video that isn't possible at the 5D line price point. I would be surprise if the video specs on this camera aren't a carbon copy of the 1DX. These cameras are returning to focus on stills and the video guys will go their own way.

Sadly I suspect Canon marketing has not caught on to this yet.  Right now they seem to have a 'video in everything' requirement, as does Nikon.  The only companies that are not investing in video are the MF camera makers since their customers are not even vaguely interested, thus the increased R&D/manufacturing costs are not worth it.

I would not be surpised if, in another generation, Canon starts making still cameras again after the 'multimedia' thing looses steam and people go back to dedicated devices on the medium end.

I hope so. I'm sure video will remain built in forever but hopefuly they'll focus on making better still images. We're still shooting with sync speed limiting physical shutters, prisms, darn noisy slapping mirrors, and same old point based AF. And all I hear is 4K, 4K, 4K. Jez, I haven't even seen a freaking 4K tv in my life or a tv channel that has that. Meanwhile I have to put up with 250ms sync speed because nobody has cared to get rid of the noisy shutter. All the RD is video video.

[dtaylor]

Nope.

* Better AF and faster fps are welcome improvements, but it doesn't have the MP to make up for the loss of crop factor which is important for my action shots. So it can't help there.

* For landscapes it doesn't have any more resolution than the current 5D2. If I can't tell the difference in 24" landscape prints between the current 5D2 and my 7D, then why would I be able to tell with a 5D3? Upgrading my crop UWA glass to FF glass would be a substantial investment and would only be worth it if I can get significantly more resolution for larger, more detailed landscape prints.

I don't begin to understand Canon's reasoning here. It's like they positioned the 5D3 closer to the 1Dx and further away from the landscape / studio / wedding camera it's supposed to be. They're going to cannibalize their own 1Dx sales on one end, while Nikon eats into their sales on the other with the D800. And I have to wonder: how many 5D2 users will consider upgrading? 5D2 AF is a sore spot, but for many the center point works good enough to get the job done. Are they really going to drop $3k for an AF update?

I don't have money burning a whole in my pocket right now, so I'll sit tight with my 7D for the moment. But if Canon doesn't have an answer for the D800 this year, there's a good chance I will be adding Nikon to my lineup.

Canon's crop bodies all look good against the competition right now. But Canon seems to be falling behind in FF even though they were the first ones there.

[kenraw]

Before the D800 was announced everyone want no more than 18mp in the 5dIII as this was the " sweet spot "
Now all of a sudden 22mp isn't good enough?? What are you shooting and how big do you want to print?
If you people now need huge mp fot their work how were they managing with a measley 21mp?

I think it's simple. If all you are interested in is 36mp buy a Nikon D800 who cares its only as camera just get one.

For me 22mp is easlily enough. I currently use 7D's for weddings and most peole would be surprised how well the images print at 24" x 36" at iso 1600. Actually printing gives a totally differnent result than looking at your images at 100% on your monitor that cant display the true resolution.

The reason I will be upgrading immediately to the 5dmk3 is for better noise so I can shoot at 6400 or maybe above and to give me that extra shallow DOF. If it was 36mp I don't think I'd be too happy with 75mb raw files.
If you run the D800's sample images through plugins in CS5 there is a big difference in the time it takes to process them so god only knows what it will be like handling 2000 raw images from a wedding. My pc would go into meltdown and I've got a high spec machine.
I think canon are going to announce a high mp camera anyway aswell so if u need to stick with your glass just hold out a bit a longer, the 5d2 and 7d are still awesome cameras anyway.

The new one one in my opinion will be the 5dx and the high mp one could have a different model numer altogether.

And one last thing. Canon hasn't actually announced the spec's or price anyway so It could still shatter all our dreams 

[Radiating]

As others have said, it doesn't make sense to bring this highly anticipated camera to market without major improvments.

I think the most dramatic improvement we'll see is in noise. The 5D Mark II had some of the worst quantum efficiency (portion of photons collected) possible in a camera, it only collects 25% of the photons that strike the sensor. That number is so low that it is only equaled by medium format cameras, or some of the very very early DSLR's which only had 2-6 megapixels. Canon litelrally put one of the least advanced sensors they could make in the 5D and 5D II. It's stone age technology of the cheapest caliber. What is very possible and what I am hoping is that Canon bumps the camera to at least the "average" light gathering in it's range, if not making it the king of low noise.

At the least I'm speculating a 1 stop increase in light gathering, which is an epic difference, no more low iso noise and nikon quality dynamic range,  pro grade AF and a major bump in continuous RAW shooting as well as major improvements in video. This would pretty much make it the go-to camera for practically anything. THE killer app - a 22 mp D3s in other words.


I'm also speculating that Canon will then release another 5D like camera with 30-50 megapixels which will have a 'soviet era' sensor design.

If you take a 5D III with the specs I outlined, a 5DX with extreme resolution but poor performance otherwise and the 1DX you have the best bodies out there in this segment.

If the 5D III is anything like I'm speculating it will be perfect for most photographer's needs including my own.

[ghstark]

As a Pro Wedding & Portrait Photographer i think 22mp is ok as long as it has twin card slots(for me this is the most important) and improved AF.Most of us want great low light quality and i can't see the d800 being as good as a 22mp 5d mk3 in low light.

[Quasimodo]

I am sure that whatever specs would leak or be announced, there will be many who are dissatisfied. Many of you and I are focusing on specs, and we get worked up about them. However, I believe (having a 5D mkII myself and having my eyes fixed on a 1DX) that the cameras that Canon have now and are about to be launched are more than sufficient to take stellar shots that will outlive all of us. I have the Canon Lens book, and looking at some of the classic old pictures taken there one is struck that these photographers were stuck with way worse equipment than we have at our disposal today. I believe that if these specs does not satisfy your needs, you should invest in a Leica or Hasselblad. On the other hand, few people are skilled enough as photographers to outgrow the current Canon high end cameras.

Just a humble thought...

[neuroanatomist]

I believe (having a 5D mkII myself and having my eyes fixed on a 1DX) that the cameras that Canon have now and are about to be launched are more than sufficient to take stellar shots that will outlive all of us.

A simple rangefinder camera and a 50mm lens were more than sufficient to take stellar shots that will outlive all of us.  Glass plates in a large, cumbersome view camera were more than sufficient to take stellar shots that will outlive all of us. 

Having said that, I like tools that make what I do easier and more enjoyable.