AF might be way better, sensor barely at all, video mode only half fixed(?)

[Fandongo]

another video review:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

he doesn't seem too thrilled to say the least he basically out and out blasts them....
(to be fair the GH2 is a bit stair-stepped, so it's maybe not quite a 100% natural extra detail, but the 5D3 does look a bit soft though, mcuh softer than the C300, which has a great quality)

I know I get heat for blasting Canon so much in forums, but this why, so they avoid stuff like this and stop being so conservative before they blow it all. They did finally listen on AF, but as soon as they listen on that then they get even more conservative on the other elements. That is not the way to charge forward, take over and dominate markets and become THE player for the long term. You don't want to sit on leads and milk things so much.

And it is a good thing they got lots of heat on AF, because if they hadn't gone to town on that this time, finally, they'd really have been in trouble. They do seem to ahve delivered in spades on that at least and it's not a minor element by any means.

http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/22/5dmk3/

Sounds like a damn fair review, and I'm sure both will post some awesome comparison vids in the near future.

When the c300 came out with less features than I expected from the 5d3, I knew they'd stunt 5d3s video.
Sad.

Moire and aliasing are gone, cool.  They're gone with the Mosaic filter in the 5d2 as well.

Maybe the 4k dslr, maybe a FF mirrorless, maybe the GH3...
Video people without unlimited pockets are left in limbo.
But the GH2 makes for a hell of an adequate limbo.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The subject mentions "video half fixed", but I don't see any discussion of it.

How is it "half-fixed"?  If Canon didn't add at least some quick-&-dirty pixel-averaging downscaling, then they hugely missed the boat and laid an expensive turd here.

Check the links to the 2 video reviews.

They say moire and aliasing are gone but they complain that the compression quality isn't always as nice as they hoped for and that the delivered resolution stills like only 1/2 of 1920x1080 and almost more like 1280x720p.

Looking at his sheep video and adding some more sharpening I guess it probably isn't really true 1920x1080 which is quite a shame although it does look like very nice 1280x720, no weird aliasing/moire any more, it seems a bit prone to lose detail in areas where contrast isn't very high, maybe going sub 1280x720 in those areas compared to film or a really top flight videocam. Anyway it's hard to say I will try to test on myself and see how it compared to 5D2 using all the settings to try for ideal detail (low ISO, f/6.3, no NR in cam, sharpening in post, etc.)

Mostly they seem to complain about it still not delivering true 1920x1080. But it does seem to have entirely fixed color moire and aliasing. One guy was attacking the compression for making even ISO shadows look weird though.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

another video review:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

he doesn't seem too thrilled to say the least he basically out and out blasts them....
(to be fair the GH2 is a bit stair-stepped, so it's maybe not quite a 100% natural extra detail, but the 5D3 does look a bit soft though, mcuh softer than the C300, which has a great quality)

I know I get heat for blasting Canon so much in forums, but this why, so they avoid stuff like this and stop being so conservative before they blow it all. They did finally listen on AF, but as soon as they listen on that then they get even more conservative on the other elements. That is not the way to charge forward, take over and dominate markets and become THE player for the long term. You don't want to sit on leads and milk things so much.

And it is a good thing they got lots of heat on AF, because if they hadn't gone to town on that this time, finally, they'd really have been in trouble. They do seem to ahve delivered in spades on that at least and it's not a minor element by any means.

http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/22/5dmk3/

Sounds like a damn fair review, and I'm sure both will post some awesome comparison vids in the near future.

When the c300 came out with less features than I expected from the 5d3, I knew they'd stunt 5d3s video.
Sad.

Moire and aliasing are gone, cool.  They're gone with the Mosaic filter in the 5d2 as well.

Maybe the 4k dslr, maybe a FF mirrorless, maybe the GH3...
Video people without unlimited pockets are left in limbo.
But the GH2 makes for a hell of an adequate limbo.

Have you shot with a 5D2 with the video filter? Does it really do the job well?

[briansquibb]

The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%.

I strikes me that the 5DIII is the amalgam of the 5DII and the 1Ds3 and the 1DX just an upgrade to the 1D4. On this basis I feel the price is very reasonable in that they have turned a semi-pro product into a full pro product.

I suspect the spec peepers have wrongly judged the 5DIII in the same way they poo poo'd the 70-300L.

[shizam1]

I just registered so I could reply to some people who are bashing those who are questioning the "awesomeness" of the 5DIII.  Especially if someone actually bought a 5DIII and is reporting their opinions of it and they aren't up to the glowing standards others have.

There's nothing wrong with trying to know exactly what you're getting for your money.

Currently I have two 5DII's.  If I sold one for $1600, and bought a 5DIII for $3500, that's a difference of $1900.

So what do I get for that that I would actually need/use? 

Autofocus sounds better by most posters, but a couple have said that in low light it still hunts and will refuse to focus.

Viewfinder sounds better, so that's cool.

Dual card slots I'm not so interested in, but maybe it's a feature I could learn to appreciate.

Now image quality is the big one.  I shoot a mix of studio fashion/headshots and weddings/events.  Currently when doing low light work, I like the image quality up to ISO 1600.  If the 5DIII can make ISO 3200 files that look as good as my ISO 1600 files, that's a winner.

I haven't seen any reviews showing this though.  Not with RAW files.  I've only seen JPG comparisons, which is meaningless to the professional who shoots RAW.

I think everyone will agree that this camera is an upgrade.  The only question is if it's worth the price to upgrade from the 5DII.  I the image quality doesn't meet my expectations, I'll probably buy another low light prime lens, and wait for the price to come down before jumping in.

[moreorless]

The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%.

I strikes me that the 5DIII is the amalgam of the 5DII and the 1Ds3 and the 1DX just an upgrade to the 1D4. On this basis I feel the price is very reasonable in that they have turned a semi-pro product into a full pro product.

I suspect the spec peepers have wrongly judged the 5DIII in the same way they poo poo'd the 70-300L.

Indeed, you look back at previous generations of DSLR's and specs similar to the 5D mk3 were seen in the flagship models.

My guess is that if Canon was caught "on the hop" by Nikon it was not the specs of the D800(if they were rumoured a year ago I'd guess Canon knew them before that) but rather the price which has come in $1000 under the rumours. That has I'd say put them in a difficult position as the 5D mk3 is in much more direct competision with the 1DX than the D800 is with the D4, if they price it too low at launch they'll likely cannibalise 1DX sales. Unless Canon have a high MP body of their own they are going to sell at a lower price I wouldnt be supprized to the the 5D mk3 drop in price rather more quickly than the mk2 as professional demand tales off.

[Bosman]

I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html

[shizam1]

I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html

If you want to dispel the "misinformation" that the 5DIII has better image quality than the 5DII, then shouldn't you have taken RAW images from both cameras of the same thing, converted using the same settings in DPP, and then posted JPEG's of that?

Or are you talking about some other misinformation?

[V8Beast]

I strikes me that the 5DIII is the amalgam of the 5DII and the 1Ds3 and the 1DX just an upgrade to the 1D4. On this basis I feel the price is very reasonable in that they have turned a semi-pro product into a full pro product.

I suspect the spec peepers have wrongly judged the 5DIII in the same way they poo poo'd the 70-300L.

My thoughts exactly. There's nothing that the 1DsIII does better than the 5DIII, but the 5DIII is half the price, yet people are complaining. Strange. And don't even get me started on the 70-300L haters.

I wonder how the 5DIII would be received if it had a 40-45 mp sensor, same consumer grade AF, same slow 4 FPS burst rate, and same consumer grade build quality? I very much prefer the all-around capability of the 5DIII as it's currently spec'd. 

[V8Beast]

V8 did you have a look at those raws I posted?

Yes I did. They looked great, and I can't wait until my 5DIII finally shows up. WTF, B&H, where's mine at ?

I'll have to do some more shooting to compare the 5D3 and 5D2 better as those arent apples and apples
my gut feel is at ISO 100 there is going to be a negligable difference between the 2
but i was always very happy with the 5D2 low iso performance anyway.

I'm perfectly content with that I'm of the opinion that the 5DII was such a phenomenal performer at low ISO, it would have been silly to expect a substantial improvement from the 5DIII. Honestly, I never upgraded from my 5DC to the MKII because while the resolution increase and one stop improvement in ISO was nice, I didn't feel like it was a huge upgrade IQ wise, and Canon didn't address its biggest weakness (AF and FPS). With the 5DIII, I get all the benefits of the Mark II but with pro-grade AF, a fast burst rate, and pro-grade build quality. What's not to like ?

I feel the package is greater than the sum of its parts everything together is very nicely balanced I have to say i really like the 6fps 4 was a bit light but didnt bother me and 10 i felt was over the top on the 1D unless shooting fast action which i never do.
so far its looking good but i really want to do some more detailed IQ comparisons

I think 6 FPS is a good number. I covered an autocross last weekend with my 1DIIn. Even with cars changing directions abruptly on the track, its 8.5 FPS are a bit excessive for this type of use. I ended up with a bunch of redundant frames that just got deleted. For an 8-year-old body, however, the 1DII's AF is freakishly good even with only 1 cross-type sensor. With results like that, I'm very eager to give the 5DIII's 61-point system a whirl.   

[awinphoto]

For anyone questioning the 5d3 not being sharp.



http://imgur.com/EKHR8

With 135L and Strobe off camera into a reflective umbrella.
ISO 400
F 7.1
1/200th

Sorry I can't quite make it out, is that a dollar bill?     Yep, pretty sharp.

I have it on good authority if you indeed photograph a $100 bill it will be even sharper than photographing a $1 bill, but that's just me, haha.   

[risc32]

v8, it looks like we are of the same mind on some things. i too stuck with my 5d and didn't get the v2, i also use a 1dmk2, while you have the "n", and i'm also very interested about my coming 5dmk3 and think the specs sound just about right. Also i do a bit of moto racing photography as well. 

[Bosman]

I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html

If you want to dispel the "misinformation" that the 5DIII has better image quality than the 5DII, then shouldn't you have taken RAW images from both cameras of the same thing, converted using the same settings in DPP, and then posted JPEG's of that?

Or are you talking about some other misinformation?

At least i have samples and i told you exactly what i did and gave you visuals of the results. Until this camera is supported with raw conversion in LR 4 i dont need to concern myself with it. If you want to see my files I took raw and converted in CS5 then you go here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4685.0.html
It takes a lot of time and energy doing all this for people to see so if i dont do it exactly how you think it should be done then i'm sorry about that. I personally don't see diferences in the files from raw that make me think it has a clear advantage or disadvantage.

[Bosman]

I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html

If you want to dispel the "misinformation" that the 5DIII has better image quality than the 5DII, then shouldn't you have taken RAW images from both cameras of the same thing, converted using the same settings in DPP, and then posted JPEG's of that?

Or are you talking about some other misinformation?

Just to appease you event though i am tired i took these in raw and converted to jpg in DPP with no edits.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html

[shizam1]

I seriously gotta laugh at the misinformation! Check out the samples i just posted.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html

If you want to dispel the "misinformation" that the 5DIII has better image quality than the 5DII, then shouldn't you have taken RAW images from both cameras of the same thing, converted using the same settings in DPP, and then posted JPEG's of that?

Or are you talking about some other misinformation?

Just to appease you event though i am tired i took these in raw and converted to jpg in DPP with no edits.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4728.0.html

If you read the thread title, it says the 5D III has good AF, but the OP was doubting that it had any better IQ than the 5DII.  So by trying to dispell the "disinformation", you were challenging that.  The Internet is full of pictures showing the III at different ISO's, the only thing lacking is comparison of sensors between the two models, which can only be done by shooting the same stuff in RAW and comparing.

So your post shows that the 5DIII does have nice image quality, and I'm sure someone appreciates that, but trying to use that as proof that it has superior image quality to the 5DII is pretty useless.

I'm personally waiting for an example that is RAW derived that shows ISO 3200 on the III that looks like ISO 1600 on the II.  Then I'll buy one now.  Otherwise, I'll wait for the price to come down.  I will get one, it's just a question of the value proposition and how useful it is for me shooting weddings in low light.