How many MP would have changed your mind about the 5d3.

[Bruce Photography]

I had the D800E on order before the 5Diii came out because this site published the rumored specs which turned out to be true.  Since the D800E wasn't available until mid April (I expect it will be later than that), I felt I probably had plently of time for Canon to make the announcement just as they now have done.  I plan to go ahead and purchase the D800E now with the 14-24mm Nikor lens (I am a Landscape guy).  The next new camera cycle won't be until mid-September in Germany.  I do expect Canon to offer a 3D that is a pro-body with 40-44 MP with the built in grip for around $4500 to $5000 US dollars.  It probably will have the 1DX focus system like the 5Diii but be one really tough camera with some revolutionary features that won't have the speed of the 1dx but will probably be about 6fps, usb3, gigabit ethernet, uncompressed hdmi, radio controlled synch with stobes and best just about every Nikon feature existing at that time.   Long live the 3D!  (I'm hoping....)  Meanwhile I'll see what the D800e is made of and I'll use my Canon for my daily work until I complete my evaluation of the D800e and then I'll see.  My story is to hedge my bets.

[YellowJersey]

I'm quite satisfied with the 22mp sensor. It's a bit more resolution than I need, but otherwise the camera fits my needs extremely well.

[MrBeavis5]

1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.

Don't get me wrong I still have plans to get a 5D3. At $3500 I'm sure they will still be hard to find for the rest of the year! Funny thing is has anyone considered that Nikon under valued the D800? I mean they could price that thing at $3500 - $3700 and it would still sell.

[Actionpix]

I shoot 15 MP on crop now. I do not believe my sensor outresolves my lenses yet as thin lines are still build up of stacked, well defined, squares and not blurred out. The noise levels at 15 MP for me are acceptable, as I have no need for high iso settings for my action photography. (Actually very often I have to much light and would like lower iso settings.) 15 MP translated to full frame would be 38 MP. So everything from 38+ MP would be fine now. (When the price would be realistic.)

[gmrza]

I shoot 15 MP on crop now. I do not believe my sensor outresolves my lenses yet as thin lines are still build up of stacked, well defined, squares and not blurred out. The noise levels at 15 MP for me are acceptable, as I have no need for high iso settings for my action photography. (Actually very often I have to much light and would like lower iso settings.) 15 MP translated to full frame would be 38 MP. So everything from 38+ MP would be fine now. (When the price would be realistic.)

What you need to take into account is that a crop frame camera only uses the "sweet spot" in the centre of the lens - which usually yields more line pairs per image height than the fringes do.  Take a look at some of the lens reviews on www.photozone.de.  The 17-40mm f/4L USM is a good case in point - on the 5DII, it's performance is fairly mediocre, whereas it is quite acceptable on a crop body.

[Actionpix]

Oké, lets say it in a different way. I would like a camera with a sensor that matches my $10K+ lenses, designed for full frame. (I like the maximum possible. Going for bigger pixels because else lens and user shortcomings would become to visible is not who I am.)

[dbduchene]

At 3500 for me it would have to really meet the performance that they are stating that this one will met AND be at least 30 MP. Unless the unless it is truly 2 stops better in both ISO and DR I will not consider it and will wait. landscape and such you can use a tripod if you have to and I have not hit that point. I can use my 1st gen 5D with my 17-35 lens at f-2.8 up to 4/5ths of a sec. Give me the 2 stops of the Mark 2 that I picked up for 1200 with some people panicking and I can do a lot. If I need more than that  I will just use a tripod. For now I will be sitting this out on the sidelines.

[t.linn]

The fact that so much of the marketing spin on specs for pro cameras apply to jpg not raw bugs me. I dont care at all how many stops blah blah on jpg... I want to know for the raw. I shoot raw, I edit raw... thats what needs comparing...

I completely agree.  And add to this the hype for in-camera features like multiple exposures.  Strip out the gimmicks and stuff aimed at newbies (A+ mode, anyone?) and build in an intervalometer or something that is useful to serious users.

Having said that, I have no issues with this DSLR.  It is exactly what people have been asking for.  It is the digital EOS 3, a largely pro body and feature set in a smaller, more manageable, more affordable size.  Finally we get pro AF, five stops of exposure compensation, auto-ISO in manual, up to 7 frames of exposure bracketing, dual axis levels, gapless microlenses, and (hopefully) better weather sealing.  These aren't gee-whiz features (except for the AF!); these are features that will actually make a difference in day to day use.

The fact that people are clamoring for more megapixels is surprising given the trade off in resolution at small apertures and the inevitable reduction in low light performance.  How long have Nikon users championed the low light capabilities of the D3 and D700?  That's likely gone; certainly relative to the 5D III.  How many of us have bemoaned the prioritization of more pixels over increased IQ?  And now there is complaining because Canon has seen the light?

[yankidank]

1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.

I completely agree with all of this. I have been praying for an updated 5D to replace my 7D, but this price point is a bit too high. Take it down to $2,999 and I see it as being a fair and competitive price for what they are offering. If you go back and look at the 5D MKII initial price and adjust for inflation, I think it only works out to be ~$2,900. I feel like the changes made to this new version are only addressing issues raised about the MKII, rather than a revolutionary change that justifies a $600 bump over the previous model's price tag.

I sense that they will have a lot of initial sales from people like me who have been eagerly awaiting an updated 5D, but Canon is going to lose a lot of potential new customers to Nikon at this price. A year from now, just after the holidays, we will probably see the price drop closer to the $3,000 mark. In the meantime I will have to live with my 7D.

[Mappy]

22MP is fine, but at $3500 I'd hoped for some of these extra's (in no particular order):
- 1080p60 movie mode
- radio flash transmitter built in
- wifi built in
- articulated screen
- timelapse mode
- autofocus tracking in movie mode with 100k metering sensor

Even though photo quality should be great, in order to keep selling this cam for the next 3-4 years it would be nice to tick some boxes in the shoppers' wishlists that will match specs of cams to come

[birtembuk]

This will undoubtedly be a solid and very capable camera. For pros (photo-video) having used the 5D2 for three years or so, I guess the upgrade is worth it because it mostly addresses their concerns and wishes. Now, for me it looks like Canon did not want to make ripples, and capitalize on a successful model, especially in the video compartment. I read somewhere (sorry for the author but I can't remember where and the detailed argument) that 22 MP is the perfect number for video in terms of whatever scaling, compression, sampling etc.

Expensive, conservative, solid. But no thrill. A bit like Toyota cars. I am left with the feeling that something is brewing somewhere in the digital imaging world. New developments are coming from here and there and it looks like Canon has no immediate answer. My gut feel is that they just released conservative models to satisfy their base customers ( hence the name 5DIII). while new stuff w/ higher pixel count or whatever makes photography more thrilling is being developed.

I'll wait for comparative reviews of those recently released beasts. Since however it's my belief that we are soon going to see some 3D or 4D or even 6D with more oomph, I'll willing to wait a few more months and see.

           

[Jimmy_D]

I frequent the Gigapixel website, so for Landscapes, a 40+MP camera does produce better images (with the right lenses and sensor pixel size, etc...).  It's not to say that I can't take some perfect shots with the 21MP 5Dm2.

I do think that Canon should look into making a high MP medium format camera for the landscape and architecture photographer...

+1000 i believe it's the time for a high MP camera since:
1. canon has upgraded most of it's lenses for greater resolution.
2. canon has already announced a camera for photojournalists and for sports fans as well as a camera mainly for videomakers.
the only categories of photographers that are left without a dedicated camera are landscape/architect/studio/portrait. where all need high MP camera for better detail. the waiting time for a high MP camera begun with the announcement of the 5d mark3!!

[MaGiL]

I don't care about more megapixel. Current 21 mp from the 5DII are fine for me.

[pwp]

22 MP is plenty for most but not all photographers. I shoot double page spreads, glossy full page/full bleed plus billboards with a 16 MP 1D Mk4 and both the clients and myself are completely satisfied with the results.

Canon has built the 5DIII specced pretty close to what the majority of photographers who offered feedback on the 5DII. Better low light and better AF and no more MP's were constant requests. The new 61 point AF has exceeded expectations by a huge margin. Most of us were hoping for a 19 point 7D style AF at best.

Some landscape and architectural photographers for whom the massive financial leap to medium format would be business suicide rightly hoped for the 5DIII to be the megapixel monster that would be very suitable for their line of work.

22 MP is going to suit the greater percentage of potential 5DIII buyers, but there is definitely room for a separate 35-45 MP model.
Is this the 5DX? If it's properly put together it would steal a LOT of sales of the lower end MF and D800 market.

Frankly I'd be astonished if Canon didn't ship their megapixel monster in the near future.

Paul Wright

[XanuFoto]

1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.

Don't get me wrong I still have plans to get a 5D3. At $3500 I'm sure they will still be hard to find for the rest of the year! Funny thing is has anyone considered that Nikon under valued the D800? I mean they could price that thing at $3500 - $3700 and it would still sell.

Yes you are right. Nikon could have easily charged 3500 and got away with it. Anybody who is invested in 10000 to 20000 of  Nikon lenses would not be that bothered to spend another 500. But I think. Ikon is trying to build market share and that's why they underpriced and over engi erred the d800. IMHO.