5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance

[TrumpetPower!]

The problem that I have with Canon is that they are doing this intentionally - release incremental upgrades to their bodies. Take a look at their bodies starting from the xxD and upward.  Small upgrades that are not worth upgrading for the IQ. The 60D is a step backwards from the 40D in IQ, as an example. The 7D is a pretty nice camera, but does poor in low light conditions.

You know, back in the film days, the camera contributed virtually nothing directly to image quality. If you wanted different dynamic range or color rendition or whatever, you didn't blame the camera; you popped in a different type of film.

What differentiated cameras then is exactly what differentiates the 5DIII from the 5DII -- and, not coincidentally, what makes the 5DIII a significantly better camera than the D800 as well.

Specifically, it's all those non-sensor things, like autofocus performance and frames per second and metering and ergonomics and the rest. Even more importantly is the whole system -- the lenses you can mount on the camera.

With the exception of the very last top-of-the-line pro body film camera Canon ever made, the EOS 1-V, the 5DIII blows away every single film camera Canon ever made on any spec you care to mention -- and the only spec that the 1-V bests the 5DIII on is framerate (10 FPS v 6 FPS). Not only that, the 5DIII handily bests all other pro digital bodies Canon has ever made in pretty much every spec, except for the framerate of the crop sensor models.

And, oh-by-the-way, it's got image quality that simply doesn't exist in the film world (I dare you to make a 36" x 54" 135-format film print that comes anywhere close to what the 5DIII can do), image quality that's on a par with or superior to every other camera in its format on the market save for one single model from the competitors.

And, also-oh-by-the-way, it's a high-definition large format high-speed motion picture camera.

And, did-I-mention, Canon glass stomps all over the competition, what with the TS-Es and the supertelephotos and the MP-E and on and on and on.

And yet that's somehow still not enough? Canon is holding back?

Whatever.

Say, any of all y'all complainers get your invisible pink flying unicorn ponies from B&H? I hear they were supposed to start shipping after Pesach....

Cheers,

b&

[stevenrrmanir]

unkbob - the advantage DSLR bodies have over dedicated camcorders is that you can use whatever lens you like - thus, the shallow DOF in your video

the video is nice because of the lens, thanks to the DOF

the bitrate of the video, the frame count is nowhere close to that of dedicated camcorders - you can get the Canon HF10 and add the same lens used in the video for much higher video quality

what I want to say is that Canon DSLR should concentrate on the best bodies for image IQ, and leave the video to camcorders because they are the way to go for video

[stevenrrmanir]

TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon? Would not say that that. Both brands, including Sigma and Tamron have good lenses.  Zeiss are the masters of all glass!

Would not say that Canon has the best IQ for their lenses. I have a Sigma 105 f2.8 which is MUCH sharper than say, Canon's 24-70 mm - yeah, comparing prime to zoom is not fair, but for IQ many brands have very, very good lenses!

for example: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4

[unkbob]

the bitrate of the video, the frame count is nowhere close to that of dedicated camcorders - you can get the Canon HF10 and add the same lens used in the video for much higher video quality

You're wrong about the bitrate. The 5d2 bitrate is much higher than most camcorders, and the GH1 / GH2 can be hacked to achieve even higher bitrates.

And no, you clearly don't understand DOF either. The aperture on a camcorder can go plenty wide, but the sensor is too small for shallow DOF. You could stick an L lens on a camcorder but you'd have to shoot at such a wide angle that everything would be in focus. The prime lenses used in that video would be far too long for a camcorder - it would be like shooting with a super telephoto.

[unkbob]

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4

I take it you've used all three of these lenses? I have. The Canon 28 1.8 is crap, indeed, but it's also cheaper than the Sigma. The Sigma 30mm is inferior to the Canon 35 1.4 L and is crop-only which is a significant disadvantage and why it's cheaper.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Canon 50 1.4, but it's also more expensive.

Sigma make some great lenses. 30, 50, 85, 70-200 OS for example. Tamron's lenses are mostly cheap and plasticy, don't like them at all.

[nitsujwalker]

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4

I take it you've used all three of these lenses? I have. The Canon 28 1.8 is crap, indeed, but it's also cheaper than the Sigma. The Sigma 30mm is inferior to the Canon 35 1.4 L and is crop-only which is a significant disadvantage and why it's cheaper.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Canon 50 1.4, but it's also more expensive.

Sigma make some great lenses. 30, 50, 85, 70-200 OS for example. Tamron's lenses are mostly cheap and plasticy, don't like them at all.

I can honestly say that I don't like the Sigma 30 1.4.  Shot with it for a while and was underwhelmed by the image quality and especially the autofocus.  Maybe I got a bad copy..  Who knows. Right now I'm living with two canon 50mm (1.4 and 1.8 ) and love them both while saving for Canon's 35 1.4. 

[Pieces Of E]

I'd rather not have any video features on my DSLR whatsoever. Like some, if I wanna shoot video, I'll pull out my video camera. A still photo, shot correctly with a good camera, can have so much more impact than shaky, hand-held video anyday. I know ya'll gotta agree with me on that.
As far as Canon DSLR's being used in video production, big deal. Real Hollywood films are shot with film cameras, whereas TV shows and some feature 'movies' are shot on video or a mixture of both.
My point being, still cameras should shoot stills, motion cameras should shoot motion.
Is that 7D firmware out yet?

[distant.star]

Wow! Very well said!

Thanks.

You know, back in the film days, the camera contributed virtually nothing directly to image quality. If you wanted different dynamic range or color rendition or whatever, you didn't blame the camera; you popped in a different type of film.

What differentiated cameras then is exactly what differentiates the 5DIII from the 5DII -- and, not coincidentally, what makes the 5DIII a significantly better camera than the D800 as well.

Specifically, it's all those non-sensor things, like autofocus performance and frames per second and metering and ergonomics and the rest. Even more importantly is the whole system -- the lenses you can mount on the camera.

With the exception of the very last top-of-the-line pro body film camera Canon ever made, the EOS 1-V, the 5DIII blows away every single film camera Canon ever made on any spec you care to mention -- and the only spec that the 1-V bests the 5DIII on is framerate (10 FPS v 6 FPS). Not only that, the 5DIII handily bests all other pro digital bodies Canon has ever made in pretty much every spec, except for the framerate of the crop sensor models.

And, oh-by-the-way, it's got image quality that simply doesn't exist in the film world (I dare you to make a 36" x 54" 135-format film print that comes anywhere close to what the 5DIII can do), image quality that's on a par with or superior to every other camera in its format on the market save for one single model from the competitors.

And, also-oh-by-the-way, it's a high-definition large format high-speed motion picture camera.

And, did-I-mention, Canon glass stomps all over the competition, what with the TS-Es and the supertelephotos and the MP-E and on and on and on.

And yet that's somehow still not enough? Canon is holding back?

Whatever.

Say, any of all y'all complainers get your invisible pink flying unicorn ponies from B&H? I hear they were supposed to start shipping after Pesach....

Cheers,

b&

[unkbob]

A still photo, shot correctly with a good camera, can have so much more impact than shaky, hand-held video anyday. I know ya'll gotta agree with me on that.

You're saying a good photo is better than a bad video? That is earth-shattering news. Equally, a well-shot video can have so much more impact than a poorly exposed blurry still photo. It's easy to create something horrible either way.

[Pieces Of E]

Wow, was a sarcastic response really appropriate? How immature and un-professional. 'Horrible' is why they created a delete button.

[unkbob]

Wow, was a sarcastic response really appropriate?

Yes.

[Musouka]

I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.

Actually there is at least one crippled feature (of sorts). The new WT-5 only works with the D4. The D800 can only use the bulkier WT-4. Both are extremely overpriced in any case so I don't think many would get the WT-5 even if it worked and you can always use Eye-Fi (but they would be quite limited).

It seems that Nikon is overcharging for some of the accessories while keeping the body price relatively low. The MSRP for the The MB-D12 Battery Grip is a whooping $616 (it's being sold for $450-500). The MB-D11 is currently selling for $220-250. I guess one can always buy an aftermarket grip, however.

[TrumpetPower!]

TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon?

Hell yeah.

Oh, sure. At the bottom of the range they go back and forth between price / value comparisons.

But Nikon has nothing that even comes close to Canon's TS-E lenses, their supertelephotos weigh twice as much, they have nothing remotely like the MP-E 65...and, should you really have a hankering, (almost) anything yow can mount on a Nikon you can put on a Canon, but not vice-versa.

Really, it's all about the glass, and Nikon isn't even in the same league.

Cheers,

b&

[pdirestajr]

I don't understand when people complain that Canon is "intentionally holding back" features and advancements... they put the TOP OF THE LINE focusing system into a "semi-pro" camera (making it a "pro camera" for a very affordable 3,500). The last time they did that was with the EOS-3! Also, those 18 megapixie 1Dx cams are quite a bit more pricy.

Not sure why there always has to be a Canon vs X debate. Who cares? These camera bodies are just boxes. Tools.

If a 5Diii is holding you back artistically or professionally in any way, you have bigger problems.

[nitsujwalker]

TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon?

Hell yeah.

Oh, sure. At the bottom of the range they go back and forth between price / value comparisons.

But Nikon has nothing that even comes close to Canon's TS-E lenses, their supertelephotos weigh twice as much, they have nothing remotely like the MP-E 65...and, should you really have a hankering, (almost) anything yow can mount on a Nikon you can put on a Canon, but not vice-versa.

Really, it's all about the glass, and Nikon isn't even in the same league.

Cheers,

b&

I agree.  I love canon glass and it was the main reason I wanted to come back to Canon.  Of course I mainly shoot the f4 glass but it's something that Nikon doesn't have (I'm poor and love the weight––or lack thereof).  Canon has many options and most of the Autofocus lenses are fast and accurate which is something that I didn't find with Nikon's older autofocus (which are being updated very slowly.  The only lens that Nikon has the I drool over is their 14-24 f2.8.  Other than that, Canon has everything that I could want and more.