Would you buy a new full frame camera for $1999 with the 5D Mark III sensor?

[dilbert]

Looks like Canon think that recycling the 5D Mark II's sensor technology continues to make sense.

Hogwash.

The technology in that sensor is approaching 4 years old now. Isn't it past time for something better?

Something with less read noise?

Something that is free of banding?

[Astro]

i would prefer the D600 specs and rumored price (1500-1800$) .. but i have invested to much in canon glas.

so yes i would buy it.... i have too.

[7enderbender]

Hard to say without seeing it. Given the rumored specs I'd still prefer a 5DII for that kind of money. Especially the "more plastic" part sounds very off-putting.

[lonelywhitelights]

Hard to say without seeing it. Given the rumored specs I'd still prefer a 5DII for that kind of money. Especially the "more plastic" part sounds very off-putting.

totally agree - I know they're only rumoured specs but still. Totally not excited about "entry level" FF camera so far. The 5DII will no doubt still be the better option even with it's ancient AF system

[CatfishSoupFTW]

title mentions mrk3 sensor, as does original post on the site. why the discussion of the mrk2 sensor? its not in it according to what I am reading.

[tron]

I guess when buyers get ... tired of buying the same technology again and again, then Canon will have no option but to improve their sensors significantly...

[Astro]

title mentions mrk3 sensor, as does original post on the site. why the discussion of the mrk2 sensor? its not in it according to what I am reading.

because there has not so much changed in canons sensor technology.. as it seems.
and the IQ at lower iso is the same.

[Radiating]

If you don't think there is a noticable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor then maybe you could tell me if you notice a difference between these photos:



That's a back to back comparison with the 5D3 resized to 5D2 size. The 5D3 sensor has a significantly better AA filter and so produces sharper images.

Furthermore many of the people saying that the 5D3 isn't that much better in ISO are not comparing the cameras correctly in likely two ways. Camera manufactuers generally make up their cameras ISO ratings out of thin air. There are a few acceptable ways of rating ISO but most manufacturers chose the least regulated ones which so the manufacturer can essentially make up their ISO numbers as they see fit and when the 5D2 was released the ISO ratings were very optimistic to say the least with ISO 12800 being actually around what is commonly accepted as ISO 7000. With the 5D3 Canon has been less optimistic so ISO 12800 is actually a "true" ISO of 10000. The point is that people are comparing cameras using their RATED ISO which are on different scales not ISO measured on the same scale. It's like comparing a car going 0-60 kph vs a car that's going 0-60 mph, which doesn't make sense. The other issue is that after speaking to several Canon Techs and Reps, it seems that Canon specially designed the 5D3 to produce very low noise JPG's for photographers that have to shoot in JPG. Part of the innovation that they introduced was software but they also engineered the hardware to help in the process to make the noise coming from the sensor have far less speckle noise and have a very gausian distribution. This makes computer programs able to distinguish from the noise easier so when you apply noise reduction there is a slight advantage to the 5D3 of around a quarter of a stop more than the RAW data would suggest.


In any case here's a comparison between the 5D3 and the 5D2 rendered at the same resolution with the same ACR settings applied at a true ISO of 10084 for both cameras, this is a combination of a series of exposures using a method developed in consultation with the Cambridge Signal Processing Lab. I do consulting for a few camera review websites to develop testing methods and put this together for a project, with permission from all collaborators.

In any case feel free to spot the difference between the 5D2 and 5D3.



The 5D3 sensor is actually very advanced and has 0.55 stop advantage over the D800 in noise at higher ISO. Due to the fundamental technology that Canon uses in it's sensors, they cannot improve the low ISO performance very much.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm a bit suprised at those saying the 5D MK III sensor is the same as the 5D MK II sensor, when anyone who owns one and pushes the ISO up can see a dramatic difference.
Sure, if you shoot in a studio with good lighting at ISO 100, there is no need for capability you do not use, but that does not mean the sensors are the same.  I took dark frames from my 5D MK III when I got it and compared them to my 5D MK II, 1D MK IV, and they were worlds better.  A nice smooth dark frame that was not covered with red dots and banding.  At +3 EV, the MK III was black while the MK II  and 1D MK IV looked horrible.
Its a big advance in sensor technology, with all new on chip electronics, 8 channel readout.  Sure, its the same basic technology as the MK II, the D800, and every CMOS digital sensor ever made, So far, they all use silicon.

[Canon-F1]

I'm a bit suprised at those saying the 5D MK III sensor is the same as the 5D MK II sensor, when anyone who owns one and pushes the ISO up can see a dramatic difference.
Sure, if you shoot in a studio with good lighting at ISO 100, there is no need for capability you do not use, but that does not mean the sensors are the same.  I took dark frames from my 5D MK III when I got it and compared them to my 5D MK II, 1D MK IV, and they were worlds better.  A nice smooth dark frame that was not covered with red dots and banding.  At +3 EV, the MK III was black while the MK II  and 1D MK IV looked horrible.
Its a big advance in sensor technology, with all new on chip electronics, 8 channel readout.  Sure, its the same basic technology as the MK II, the D800, and every CMOS digital sensor ever made, So far, they all use silicon.

is that because of sensor or A/D converter design?

[tron]

That's a back to back comparison with the 5D3 resized to 5D2 size. The 5D3 sensor has a significantly better AA filter and so produces sharper images.

I believe the correct wording is stronger or less strong AA filter not better, worse, etc.

Some members in this forum wrote that 5DmkIII corrects moire in video. In that case this means that 5DmkIII has stronger AA filter which to my interpetation is worse!

This is also amplyfied by the fact that in some 3rd party raw products the 5DmkIII appeared worse (less sharp) as well as Canon's DPP and Canon had to update it to restore sharpness.
All these cry stronger AA filter for 5DmkIII...

[daniemare]

Yes the price might be a bit more than the D600's rumour.  So lets wait and see (Maybe it does include the new kit lens)

Plastic = lighter
Body seems smaller
Pop up flash
Mark III sensor
Better AF than Mark II

All PLUSSES in my book - so this seems to be what I am looking for: A Rebel FF.

To me - the only dissapointment is 4 FPS, would have liked 5 >  had to find fault with one thing because God forbid Canon making a perfect cam

[Dylan777]

I'm a bit suprised at those saying the 5D MK III sensor is the same as the 5D MK II sensor, when anyone who owns one and pushes the ISO up can see a dramatic difference.
Sure, if you shoot in a studio with good lighting at ISO 100, there is no need for capability you do not use, but that does not mean the sensors are the same.  I took dark frames from my 5D MK III when I got it and compared them to my 5D MK II, 1D MK IV, and they were worlds better.  A nice smooth dark frame that was not covered with red dots and banding.  At +3 EV, the MK III was black while the MK II  and 1D MK IV looked horrible.
Its a big advance in sensor technology, with all new on chip electronics, 8 channel readout.  Sure, its the same basic technology as the MK II, the D800, and every CMOS digital sensor ever made, So far, they all use silicon.

I agreed.

[TrumpetPower!]

There's a hell of a lot more to the camera than just the sensor.

Ignore the 5DIII's sensor for a moment, and you've got a camera that, except for framerate, beats virtually every prior camera Canon had ever made on pretty much every spec -- and, similarly, save for framerate, beats virtually everything else the competition had made, to boot. And, at 6 FPS, it's hardly a slowpoke.

Now, add on to that that the sensor is the highest-resolution sensor Canon has made and is within 1/2 - 1 stop of the performance of their just-released flagship model...and remind me again why everybody is bitching that the 5DIII's sensor is "only" a significant-but-incremental improvement over the 5DII's already amazing sensor?

As to the question of the poll...well, it depends on what kind of a camera it is. If it's got the 5DIII's sensor, then we know the "film" is awesome...but what good would that do me if the camera itself is a piece of S___?

For the record, I fully expect any new full-frame camera from Canon will be of comparable value to the rest of their lineup. It'll be a fine camera, of that there's no doubt. It'll be more expensive than if there were no duopoly, but it'll still be reasonably priced for what it is.

And the fanbois will still scream incoherent bloody murder at something-or-other.

Cheers,

b&

[awinphoto]

where the option for "nope, I'm broke after buying a 5d3?!?"  anywho i'm in that camp, but I wouldn't be objective to picking up a camera like this to go as my second body if and when the time comes to retire my 7d for good.