August 27, 2014, 05:24:01 PM

Poll

What do you want most in the 5d MK III?

Better high ISO handling
30 (31.9%)
More Megapixels
5 (5.3%)
Better frames per second
11 (11.7%)
More autofocus points
36 (38.3%)
Raw video
12 (12.8%)

Total Members Voted: 94

Voting closed: April 13, 2011, 12:43:48 PM

Author Topic: What do you want from the 5D mk III  (Read 99616 times)

alipaulphotography

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #90 on: April 12, 2011, 08:49:48 AM »
This is what i think they will do.. (at least what i think they should)
It will have about 28mp, i think it deserves to have a bigger body and more of a quality feel to it, the built wuality feels like its a 50D (not as big as 1D though) because i hate using a battery grip and without it its just too small. and then they could up the price to 3500€ from 2000€ or am i the only one who thinks its too cheap??

I dont care about iso performance, i want it to look and feel like a pro camera and if they up the price maby they could make it better than 150 000 cycles, more MP will come without a question... I think Canon is working on next level sensors or somehow taking a bigger step because there is no word on the 1Ds Mark IV that im waitin for that normally would have come already.

The entire point in the 5D series - "Full frame camera in a smaller, more affordable body."

I really don't see the point in more megapixels. No professionals should be cropping their photos and 21.1mp blows up massive will no visible pixels. If you are blowing up any bigger than that (say billboards) then you should probably have a medium format.

How many 5D users have had problems with blowing up photos large and getting visible pixels? How many have had visible noise in their photos?

I some how feel that the majority is with the latter. One of the biggest reasons to upgrade from a crop to a full frame is for noise performance.

And why anyone would want a camera to be more expensive is beyond me.

WarStreet

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #91 on: April 12, 2011, 11:07:05 AM »
I really don't see the point in more megapixels. No professionals should be cropping their photos and 21.1mp blows up massive will no visible pixels. If you are blowing up any bigger than that (say billboards) then you should probably have a medium format.

I am not a pro, but I doubt that pro should not crop their photos. There are different types of photography and one might have different needs. From the books and the web articles written by pros, cropping is considered essential. I don't think that avoiding cropping makes a photographer better, it just limits the photographer and miss opportunities.

There might be the need to change the photo in different formats to fit in different media, or just to change the meaning of the photo. You might need to crop to get more reach. My friend who shoots birds, never have enough reach even with a 400mm on APS-C, and cropping is essential. For sports photography, it is very limiting to try to frame perfectly the action, since this is hectic and you end up with cut limbs, so it is much better to leave some space. Another situation in sport might be having non subject players limbs in the photos, where you just crop only the subject an leave the non important stuff out. The same is for some distracting background, there is no time to think much during action. There are other situations where one needs cropping.

For large printing, higher resolving power is not that important since bigger prints need a related longer viewing distance with a related lower dpi since we won't manage to detect more detail even if there is a higher dpi.

For cropping, higher resolving power is important since cropping just eliminates data, while still having the same intended print size.

I personally, do need a camera with low noise ability to be able to shoot indoor sports, and my first preference in the poll is FPS, but I still would like more resolution for me or for anyone who needs it. A good balance of features is more important rather than having a bottleneck, of which I think (but might be wrong) that today the bottleneck compared to film is dynamic range. 
 
   
 

torger

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #92 on: April 12, 2011, 11:17:58 AM »
I guess the 5D must be some sort of all-around camera. I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO), but for the non-flagship model I guess you need that compromise, and I guess the rumoured 28 megapixel could provide both an upgrade in MP and ISO performance.

In general I think the value of resolution is a bit underestimated, at least for tripod-mounted photography. 400 ppi for book/screen distance viewing distance is a good target, and this is what you can get with high quality printing technology. My personal experience is that there is a clear visual difference between 200 and 400 ppi in printed material. You don't really see individual pixels at 200 ppi, but the lack of micro detail leads to an unnatural pastel-like look, especially highlights are suffering. At 400 ppi at book viewing distance the image looks perfectly natural, and you get the sense that the image has resolution beyond what the eye can perceive, which is what you should strive for. Being satisfied with 200 ppi images is like being satisfied with 8 bit sound.

Also worth noting is that film images have a much more pleasing look if blown up too large than a digital image, so I would say that the resolution requirement is higher for digital than film. There's a charm to film artifacts, but there's no charm in digital ones. The ideas of what resolution is required for a certain size/viewing distance come from the film era, and it certainly needs upgrading to fit the digital era.

You cannot get high ppi count on computer screens yet (they are currently around 100 ppi), but it will come. To fill a 24 inch screen with 300 ppi or both pages of a high quality photo book you'll need around 40 megapixels, and I think that is a reasonable resolution for full-frame, but you will probably have to sacrifice ISO performance then, so every photographer not using a tripod and often shooting at high ISOs would of course want to trade megapixels for better ISO performance.

Of course you could say that high MP count should be reserved for medium format, but I think 40 - 50 megapixels is sort of ideal pixel count for unlimited time into the future (its related to the human eye limitations and normal picture sizes), and since that pixel count is technically possible with good quality for 35mm I think we should eventually get there. At least with some camera body... entry level full-frame might not be the right one.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 11:33:18 AM by torger »

alipaulphotography

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #93 on: April 12, 2011, 12:03:32 PM »
I understand the importance of megapixels in general, and I should hope in future that it will improve as full frame sensors can certainly handle more. I don't however think it should be on top of canons priority list in an upgrade for the 5D when they are lagging behind in the ISO handling area.

The Nikon D3s and D700 are superb cameras used by professionals worldwide yet are only 12.1 megapixels. They realised the majority of photographers would rather have a camera with lower noise at high ISO's than the megapixels. Yes - canon did well with the 5D mk II to get the high megapixels and also decent noise handling, but not as good as the low mp nikons. Canon already have the megapixel advantage, so I should hope that they now focus efforts on the ISO handling. Then nikon won't have much to shout about at all. I envy D3X users that can shoot ISO8000, stop down their lenses and capture sharp action in zero light.
My personal opinion is that is where canon should be aiming. But I guess that is what the poll is for - to see what the majority of other photographers opinions are.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 12:06:53 PM by alipaulphotography »

parsek

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #94 on: April 12, 2011, 12:35:43 PM »
My first post, hi everyone!

First of all I hope they keep the body the same size and kill some of the hard edges.

Secondly I hope Canon realize that they need to make a separate DSLR for the video enthusiasts before they start ruining what could become a perfect walk around high end DSLR for photographers.


My wishes and desires for this camera:

1: Dynamic range above all.
2: Dynamic range, still the most important.
3: Improved build.
4: Low light noise improvements/high ISO capability.
5: Better AF.
6: 24-26 MP range.
7: At least two f-stops of dynamic range. Please...
8: Lot´s of customization options. Kill the print button!
9: Better screen and articulated.
10: USB 3 (not happening).
11: Dual CF card shooting.
12: Build in intervalometer function.
13: Better dust removal system.


PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.

Macadameane

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #95 on: April 12, 2011, 03:28:50 PM »
PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.

1. All color is reflected light wavelengths (refracted is different though, you are right there).
2. White is a color, combining red green a blue light.  If you say it is not a color, then any other combination of light is also not a color.  Leaving only red green and blue as colors.  I can see arguing that black is not a color, but still.

pgabor

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #96 on: April 12, 2011, 03:44:40 PM »
1. All color is reflected light wavelengths (refracted is different though, you are right there).
2. White is a color, combining red green a blue light.  If you say it is not a color, then any other combination of light is also not a color.  Leaving only red green and blue as colors.  I can see arguing that black is not a color, but still.

Im pretty sure that he wanted to say that white and black are tones.
On the other hand, you are wrong, white is not a combination of red green and blue. Take a prism and try out!

White light contains every wavelength of the visible range ("White light is the effect of combining the visible colors of light in suitable proportions (the same present in solar light)" from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White)
The only reason that you register the red green and blue combination as white, because your photoreceptor cells in your retina can only detect wavelengths what we call "red" "green" and "blue".

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #97 on: April 12, 2011, 03:47:24 PM »
I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO)

Here is a little trick that anyone can do. Download the RAW photos taken with those 2 Nikons from:
* http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3ShSLI006400_NR0.NEF.HTM
* http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3X/D3XhSLI6400_NR_OFF.NEF.HTM

Load them in your RAW editor, deactivate all processing, and export them as JPEG (100% quality) or TIFF; in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness). Then load the results in your photo viewer, in full screen (NOT at 100% view / pixel level, but full screen because that's how people see photos on displays or on paper).

Then see if the difference in the noise levels from the two photos, considering the years of extra research for D3s + only half the resolution, means more than diddly squat.


Disclaimer: I believe that the photos taken by IR are taken in different amounts of light, which affects a scientific test, but since here two Nikon cameras are compared, I see no problem (despite the huge difference in exposure compensation and post-processing exposure adjustment which doesn't favor the D3x).
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 03:49:54 PM by NotABunny »

Macadameane

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #98 on: April 12, 2011, 03:48:58 PM »
Ok sure, I can handle some burn.

WarStreet

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #99 on: April 12, 2011, 04:17:58 PM »
in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness).

I think you meant to increase the 0.5 stop to the D3S.

torger

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #100 on: April 12, 2011, 05:03:01 PM »
Both images are underexposed, the D3s 0.5 stops more than the D3X, so the D3S is less favoured.

When you shrink an image, the pixels are averaged out which reduces impact of the noise. So in some circumstances a high MP sensor can with more noise per pixel can win over a lower MP sensor. On my screen the D3s wins with a little though, but not much.

When I discussed quality above I was discussing "high end" prints and limits of human vision. A bit early to dream about that perhaps, I admit. On normal viewing distance I see individual pixels on my computer screen, which is 1920x1200 @ 100 ppi. That is not satisfactory, but is what current technology can do. When the screen has 300+ ppi (like the iPhone4 has, but that screen is a bit small for a workstation :-) ) the quality is approaching the vision limit (for photos, not for line art). For the best prints, we're already there. For the screens I think we will be there within 5-8 years or so. I want to produce "future proof" photos as soon as possible...

I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO)

Here is a little trick that anyone can do.

alipaulphotography

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #101 on: April 12, 2011, 08:06:39 PM »
Well voting closes tomorrow and looks like the very aged autofocus is coming out top with ISO handling in close 2nd.

More megapixels is in last place - but I somehow reckon canon will probably boost them anyway and compromise ISO handling potential.

Wish I had dynamic range up there - would be interesting to see!

What current (digital) camera has the greatest dynamic range? What is stopping manufactures from improving it substantially?

You lot are so wise..

Grendel

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
    • Fun w/ MCUs
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #102 on: April 12, 2011, 11:16:39 PM »
[dynamic range] What is stopping manufactures from improving it substantially?

Physics. :(

branden

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #103 on: April 13, 2011, 03:16:40 AM »
PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.
You are being ridiculous. The question is not "what color are snow crystals". Snow, being by definition a large quantity of snow crystals, when pure and exposed to light, reflect back the same color as the light. This meets the definition of a white pigment. This also brings us to your second ridiculous error, where you ignore the universe that is pigments and state that white is not a color. When discussing colors of objects, it is convention that unless specifically stated otherwise, what is under discussion is the object's pigment color. The pigment color of snow is white, therefore the color of snow is white.

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« Reply #104 on: April 13, 2011, 03:24:16 AM »
in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness).

I think you meant to increase the 0.5 stop to the D3S.

Right, the image is already underexposed with 1.3 stops, so this correction gives it only 0.8 stops underexposure. (Considering that these are both Nikons from the same range are really doubt that they have an ISO sensibility that differs with 0.8 stops; I simply believe that the photos were taken in a different amount of light.)


On my screen the D3s wins with a little though, but not much.

Exactly.

When I discussed quality above I was discussing "high end" prints and limits of human vision.

Right, but if the resolution of the print / display increases, the image with fewer pixels must be upscaled more, which means that its noise is increased plus it would show blurry details because it has no real details (they are interpolated).

This example was meant to show that the theory that less pixels means less noise is an illusion. Even if we ignore the technological advancements of D3s, is it really important that tiny difference in noise that you get from halving the number of pixels (note: only in this illusory world where the better quality of the D3s is strictly given by the fewer pixels)?

I can see no practical application where fewer pixels would mean a technically better image (= not better pixels). The only advantage there is, is in terms of more FPS and less storage space per image, but if the camera (with more pixels) implements pixel binning, these advantages are very limited (it really depends how fast the camera does pixel binning).


Of course, one could always go to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 where I point to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light with a 1D4 and a D3s (the photos have the same exposure settings and brightness).

Those images have to be normalized for the physical size of the sensor (and black level). Some people ignore that comparison because they do not understand that sensor size is THE technical reason why DSLRs and medium format (and whatever other uber-sized format) exist: more light for the same exposure AND noise. When such images are seen at the same physical size as the ones coming from smaller sensors, that extra light actually clears the image of some noise.

(Alas, the guy's conclusion is wrong because he compares the noise at pixel level, not at image level.)
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 03:54:42 AM by NotABunny »