Who thinks this is an ANTI-CLIMATIC product? As in, the 5DIII

[Astro]

I already have 5dII. I wanted more MP (more than D3X at 24MP)

for what?  your 500px flicker images or you ocassional A3 print?

give me a rest all you pixelpeeper....

[D.Sim]

Anti-Climactic? Hardly.

On paper thus far it smashes the D800 in every category other than MPs, and even then thats one area thats not exactly as great as its made out to be.

Whats even more hilarious is that most of the people who are currently posting and whinging about it being bad, more megapixels pl0x, etc, are mostly making their first post...

[AdamJ]

In as much as "anti-climatic" means anti-climate, or "weatherproof" if you will, then yes the 5D3 has better anti-climatic sealing.

[Radiating]

I really don't see how people are dissatisfied with 22 megapixels. Until just recently 21-24 megapixels was the absolute maximum you could get with a DSLR and people weren't rushing to buy medium format cameras.

99% of photographers don't need more than 16 MP. I'm one of the few people that needs at least 16 MP because I'm a photoshop artist and my craft degrades images to an extreme extent and I extensivly crop. Even so 16 MP is enough.

22 MP is enough to do 4 foot wide prints. It's an absurd amount of resolution that is already typically overkill. I'm really glad that Canon deeply improved everything but megapixels, the other issues needed much much more attention and the results are amazing.

[hoousi]

On paper and in the first hands on it just seems to be the perfect camera at a reasonable price, the more I look at it the less the itch for a end of this year-1DX is lurking, this could be the perfect step from my 5dII which will make for a magnificent 2nd body. Great times at Canon and still happy I invested in their FF system and not Nikon! But let's wait for the reviews anyways.

[BornNearDaBayou]

I really don't see how people are dissatisfied with 22 megapixels. Until just recently 21-24 megapixels was the absolute maximum you could get with a DSLR and people weren't rushing to buy medium format cameras.

99% of photographers don't need more than 16 MP. I'm one of the few people that needs at least 16 MP because I'm a photoshop artist and my craft degrades images to an extreme extent and I extensivly crop. Even so 16 MP is enough.

22 MP is enough to do 4 foot wide prints. It's an absurd amount of resolution that is already typically overkill. I'm really glad that Canon deeply improved everything but megapixels, the other issues needed much much more attention and the results are amazing.

I love Canon's system. I know the handling of their bodies, I know the strength of their lens lineup -- all 4 solid 70-200 choices. Add in the 70-300L, the new 24-70 (said to be astonishing), and the IS primes (24/28mm) and you have much to be happy about. No one is capable of understanding my statements obviously.

The 1Dx and 5d3 are close in terms of the same camera--save for the extremely high FPS on the flagship, metering, and.... a few more things. But why make the 5d3 have IQ so similar to the 5d2, which I suspect it most definitely WILL. And this is not a bad thing. It's just kind of an old thing. I guess no one can grasp this.

I don't have envy for Nikon at all. Heck, I own some Nikon glass and the D7k--which NEVER gets used. I know its a far cry from FF, even the "ancient" 5d2 (read stark sarcasm here), but I could be praising Nikon more.

I don't need 6FPS or 61 AF points. I don't need 36 MP either. For me, and only me, it's a little disappointing that I will have the same camera, more or less, if I upgrade. That is, it will still get the same use. For me, that is. Only for me, so don't get your undies in a bunch Canonites.

[Kernuak]

It is no where near enough to get me to drop 3500. In 6 years I have NEVER put ether one of my DSLR cameras in burst mode. I have truly not had enough ISO to get the shoots that I want once. The DR has been a issue and I will wait to see the hard facts on that and if when it all washes out I may think about this when the price drops and I really think that after the first crop of I have to have the latest out there they will not make anywhere the numbers that they are looking for.

I do use burst on occasion for wildlife, which is why I use the 7D and switch to the 5D MkII for landscapes, macro and low light. However, even with the MkII, I still run into situations where I could do with higher (clean) ISO. With the added much improved AF (assuming it works as expected of course), it will essentially replace both my cameras for most shooting, but I will keep the 7D for when I need more reach or if I'm likely to need the extra 2 fps and as a second camera, so I don't miss shots when something turns up unexpectedly. There's probably a fairly good chance that the DR could be improved too. I'll probably wait to see if there are any price drops, but it is essentially a camera I have looked for to access areas of photography I couldn't achieve with my current kit, at least not easily.

[mb66energy]

MP is one of the least important criteria if it is
above 10 MP for crop cams and above 16 MP for full frame cams.
So I don't see any principal disadvantage of the choice of 22 MP
by Canon.

I am not excited about a camera if I haven't

• seen the images of it,
• tested its ergonomics.

So let's decide about our excitement AFTER having the
full data about this TOOL.

Perhaps it's the time for EVOlution in the digital camera
departments, not the time for REVOlutions!

[MaGiL]

Based on specs the 5DIII is the perfect allround FF camera for me. The only doubt I have so far is the introduction price of approx. EUR 3500.

Lets wait for the real live pics

[Grum]

Based on specs the 5DIII is the perfect allround FF camera for me. The only doubt I have so far is the introduction price of approx. EUR 3500.

Lets wait for the real live pics

+1

[kraats]

I see lots of people cry about the 5d III. In my opinion this is a great camera and a great upgrade from my 50D. Only in a technical way not in a photographical way. I don't care a lot about the price. I did when I started out with photography but then i bought my first L lens and I thought 'well this a a hell of an expensive hobby'. Now i will just buy the equipment that i think i need for my hobby. I am sure this camera will make fantastic pics or wait .... Is it me that makes the pics?

[keithfullermusic]

Who cares about megapixels... only uncle bobs.  I'm glad the price is a bit above what it was before.  I see too many people who don't know anything about photography with mkIIs.  Now hopefully less of them will buy the mkIII.

Why does it matter that people who don't know how to use it have it?

According to you, you'd rather only really good photographers with high amounts of disposable income have this camera than really good photographers with high disposable income along with really good photographers without too much money and n00bs.

Its not like other people having it makes your pictures any less good.

I'm not complaining about the price necessarily.  Maybe it is worth what its being priced for - although it seems a little steep for a progression of a model.  I just don't buy the argument that you're glad its expensive, so it will be a little more exclusive.

p.s. - there are still plenty of rich people out there who don't know squat about photography who will still buy this thing.

I believe he's talking more about teenagers/college students who use dslr's to take mirror photos. As a college student, this is a huge pet peeve for me when I see rich kids get expensive cameras but use them like point and shoots.

I have no problems with adults who buy the cameras and have no idea how to use them. These people have a job and work for their money. They are entitled to spend it however they please.

I do however, have a problem when it is a person my age who has a good camera only because their rich parents bought it for them. They don't have jobs, so they didn't work for the camera. They flaunt it around and act as if having a good camera means they are a good photographer.

I know it doesn't affect my abilities, but it just annoys me when I worked hard to get something that other people can get just by asking their parents. One of my roomates is a prime example of this 

i understand your pain.  it would annoy the you know what out of me as well to see something like that.  however, i'd rather them and me have that camera as opposed to just them!

like i said before - i'm not complaining about the price because i am mad at canon.  just complaining about my lack of dough!!!

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I already have 5dII. I wanted more MP (more than D3X at 24MP), much better ISO performance, and better AF.

Why did Canon play this so foolishly? I am invested in Canon somewhat, and don't care about this new announcement. What a monumental letdown. I don't know how any current 5d owner could get very excited about this "ground-breaking" new DSLR.

I would rather have the 1dX. Even at over $3k more, you will have similar IQ at low ISO. I can't believe the resolution went up by 1 measly MEGAPIXEL!!!!!

I hope I am wrong. This is like the ending to Saving Private Ryan. An old man crying is all I see.....

I'm not as negative on it.

Granted I had hoped for about 30MP at 6fps or 22-24MP at 7-8fps and they delivered neither. It is a bit unfortunate that after 3.5-4 years the IQ might be more or less the same. and the speed not quite truly there for sports. And if it would be neither than surely for the old price and not $800 more or at least the D800 price.

BUT

I had hoped for fully sampled video and it sounds like they may have delivered that. 

I had hoped beyond all hope for 1D AF and it seems they have delivered that and not just some older 1D AF but the newest of all.     

I hope they have somehow managed to match Exmor technology and jump from 11 or so stops to the near 14 stops of the D7000/D3x/D800. And that the SNR is up 2/3 to 1-1/3 stop in RAW. I hope banding is gone. That would temper the lack of MP a bit since at least we'd have much better DR than than the 5D2 and a decent SNR improvement at high ISO. I have a feeling we might get more like only 1/3-1/2 stop better SNR and little to no low ISO DR increase. So we might end up with only slightly better SNR at high ISO than the D800 and much less low ISO DR.  High ISO banding appears to be much better. Anyway nobody knows yet. In a few more weeks it will be become more clear.

[Neeneko]

I could see the argument that the camera is disappointing.. as with any new model the designer picks winners and loosers, market segments that are considered important and ones that are not, BUT the specs are pretty close to what has been predicted for some time now, thus I would not call it anti-climatic.  It fits the narrative well.

*goes back to looking at used MF backs*

[minestrone]

As a professional photographer I'm going to have to disagree with many of the people posting on this forum. Many of us need more than 16MP and some of us need even more than 22MP. But with that said, I understand why Canon decided to make the 5D Mark III those specs. Its pretty much everything that a majority of the 5D Mark II users were asking for. An improved AF, better ISO noise reduction, better weather sealing, more FPS. I've also read that HDR option allows 3 photos to be merged within the camera. I think this will be awesome for landscapes and timelapses.

I'm so frustrated by reading post where people say things like "99% of photographers don't need Megapixels". Below I'm going to give you a few examples of why people like me (and there are MANY OF US) need higher Megapixel count.

I currently shoot weddings, product photography and landscapes.

1.) I've had couples ask me for 20x30" print outs, I've even had couples ask me for copies large enough so that they can make wall size canvases out of the final output files. More Megapixels give engagement and wedding couples more options as to what they can do with their photos.
 
2.) From time to time I'm asked to shoot product photography ranging from electronics to fashion accessories. Currently the 5D Mark II is acceptable for these jobs but I can see clients moving away from what I have to offer eventually if Canon doesn't update pixel count. More Megapixels offers more flexibility in how clients can showcase their products.

3.) I love photographing landscapes. This one is a no-brainer. More megapixels the better. Yes I post my photos on flickr BUT I also sell them and galleries often want these blown up to wall size canvases.

Yes, the obvious answer is to go Medium Format. But in today's economy not all of us can afford a $45,000 Hasselblad H4D and nearly $5000 per lens. I've got a mortgage and car payments so that's out of the question. What I can afford is a $4000 Canon that will offer 45MP and one or two $2000 lenses that will be able to handle the resolution output. I don't need 6 FPS. Better AF, HDR and ISO are definitely welcomed and I'm glad to see it in the new 5D Mark III but that's about it for me. The 5DMIII is still somewhat underwhelming.

If someone wants to call me stupid or a "pixel peeper" because I want more megapixels feel free to email me personally at canon.cps1982@gmail.com