List of 5D Mark III Review Links

[justsomedude]

HELL YES!  These are the pics I was waiting for!!! 

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

[justsomedude]

Man, I'm stepping through these files and I have to say I'm totally floored!  I could easily print with the 3200 and 6400 files.  And even 12800 - while starting to get mushy - is workable at 5x7 and possibly even 8x10 prints (with some good post work).  Real granular noise doesn't present itself strongly until 25600... and that's frickin' 25600!!!!!!

Gimmeh!

[marekjoz]

Man, I'm stepping through these files and I have to say I'm totally floored!  I could easily print with the 3200 and 6400 files.  And even 12800 - while starting to get mushy - is workable at 5x7 and possibly even 8x10 prints (with some good post work).  Real granular noise doesn't present itself strongly until 25600... and that's frickin' 25600!!!!!!

Gimmeh!

When you compare it to 5d2, then you start thinking - is this really what we've been impressed with until today?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM


They have the same test with the 5D Mark II....see the difference....makes mee feel good.

Included RAW files....

After lookiing at the exif file and the exposure time /f stop, I was disappointed to find that the lighting conditions used would give low noise values not representative of actual use.

The images are really not suitable for evaluation of high ISO low light images, since they were taken under bright lighting of approx ev 10.  This will result in lower noise than you would get in low light.

So far, only DPR gets it.  Their sample images were taken in low light, about ev 3 which is a more realistic test for low light high iso shots.

[image2paint]

After lookiing at the exif file and the exposure time /f stop, I was disappointed to find that the lighting conditions used would give low noise values not representative of actual use.

The images are really not suitable for evaluation of high ISO low light images, since they were taken under bright lighting of approx ev 10.  This will result in lower noise than you would get in low light.

So far, only DPR gets it.  Their sample images were taken in low light, about ev 3 which is a more realistic test for low light high iso shots.
[/quote]

This is what I was thinking, it's a brightly lit studio environment. These may be high ISO shots, but not low lighting

[Kernuak]

Put links in this thread, there are already many repeat threads started, and I'll merge them here.  In the future, repeat threads on the same subject will be merged or removed.

Here is a Start, I'm sure that there are many more.

http://www.silentjournalist.org/news/the-wait-is-over-official-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-press-release.html

http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html

http://bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5D_MkIII_preview.html

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/brent_stirton_shooting_eos_5d_mark_iii.do

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/03/02/hands-on-preview-canon-5d-mark-iii-speedlite-radio-flash-system-and-more

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III

http://gizmodo.com/5889707/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-video-chompin-darkness-slaying-digital-single-reflex-camera-pr0n-bring-it

http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-339332802.htm

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/03/new-gear-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii

http://pdnpulse.com/2012/03/canon-launches-22-3mp-5d-mark-iii-dslr-hands-on-preview-with-photos.html

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/02/canoneos5dmarkiii-isoseries

http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom

http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/02/mk/

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/03/02/canon-launch-5d-mkiii-headphone-jack-all-i-recording-and-better-controls/

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7259/canon-5d-mark-iii-official-the-comprehensive-eoshd-guide

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/03/02/should-i-upgrade-to-the-5d-mk-iii-from-the-5d-mk-ii/

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11675-12364

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/03/01/canon-5d-mkiii-my-thoughts/

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/canon-announces-eos-5d-mark-iii-22-3mp-full-frame-sensor-6-fps/
http://avalonlightphotoart.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/first-impressions-of-the-new-canon-eos-5d-mkiii/

[Larry]

This link leads to a PDF which mentions AF Micro-adjustment at the bottom of the "focusing" section:

http://www.canon.co.uk/Images/EOS_5D_Mark_III_Specification_Sheet-v2_0_tcm14-910228.pdf

[Curmudgeon]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM


They have the same test with the 5D Mark II....see the difference....makes mee feel good.

Included RAW files....

After lookiing at the exif file and the exposure time /f stop, I was disappointed to find that the lighting conditions used would give low noise values not representative of actual use.

The images are really not suitable for evaluation of high ISO low light images, since they were taken under bright lighting of approx ev 10.  This will result in lower noise than you would get in low light.

So far, only DPR gets it.  Their sample images were taken in low light, about ev 3 which is a more realistic test for low light high iso shots.

True, this is a comparison under artificial conditions not likely to be encountered in a real-world shoot. We can't accurately judge the true high ISO performance of either camera based on the the Imaging Resource tests. However, since both cameras enjoy the same advantageous shooting conditions, might it still be possible to draw at least preliminary conclusions about their relative high ISO performance? I.e., neither camera is as good as the tests suggest, but the apparent 2+ stop difference in their performance might carry over into real-world conditions?

Are there optical/physical/electronic phenomena which would make this an invalid inference? If not, then given what we already know about the 5D2's performance, IR's "comparometer" should give us a rough handle on the low-light capabilities of the 5D3. (I think we're all hoping that's the case, because the difference in the images at comparable ISOs is fairly stunning.) Pity that DPR didn't elect to replicate their 5D3 low-light shots with a 5D2.

[Respinder]

Not sure if this one has been posted yet:
http://www.examiner.com/photography-in-cleveland/proof-high-iso-pictures-canon-5d-mark-iii-kills-nikon-d4

[pakosouthpark]

it would be ACE if someone rated all the reviews..! or say which ones have more and what kind of info..  i dont have time to open and read all of them

[well_dunno]

Not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Hands-on-Review

[tt]

Seems they're all Previews more than Reviews so far - but it's only a few days from embargos dropping left right and centre  - the continual drip drip drip of photos and previews is just stoking all the people waiting (and the 1DX folks waiting too i'd imagine)

[spinworkxroy]

I would presume actual reviews should be out very soon because in Singapore, the camera is already launched and we have all gotten our sets and many shops have already sold out their stocks.
I'm pretty sure the other countries will get theirs soon and proper reviews will be out soon.
I would like to give a review but i'm not a professional so i bet my review would be worthless anyways.