What do you want from the 5D mk III

[skitron]

Having not used the predecessors and just based on hearsay:

Stills:

Better ISO performance
Better focus and metering
Built in wireless flash controller

Video:

Selectable crop zoom for ratios that can maintain full HD res.
Fix rolling shutter issues
Full res HDMI out

General:

SDxx card support
Better LCD with some sort of articulation
USB 3 connectivity

[torger]

Uhmm... yeah you're right, I've done a FF/APS-C crop mixup. Doh! *blush*.

Of course there are other quality advantages, build quality, eveness in sharpness, usefulness of available apertures and such that the L lenses usually excel in, but under ideal circumstances the EF-S lenses does indeed seem to have good sharpness just as you say. A bit embarrassing I missed that, I usually is quite thorough when analyzing data, but obviously not this time around. I have some bad personal experience from an EF-S lens which probably contributed.

Anyway, with this in mind I tend to think that the current 18 megapixel of the 7D is about as high as we can go in pixel density (4.2 um pixel pitch). With bayer arrays and antialias filters there is some merit in slightly outresolving the lenses though, but it seems like that is exactly what we do now. Probably not much value in outresloving them more, and you'll get diffraction issues coming along. This puts 18 x 2.6 = ~46 megapixels on fullframe, which I think happens to be an ideal resolution.

A suitable viewing distance of an image is the same as the width of it, and you need about 6000 - 8000 pixels to (kind of) reach the eye's resolving limit, and with 46 megapixels you get 8300x5533. More resolution than that is only required if you need to crop or want to be able to be so close to the image that you don't see the whole image at once (a large panorama for example).

The EF-S lenses are all zooms (except the macro 60mm), and as far as I know none of them is as sharp as the good old 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom even at f/8.

Really?  Sure, the 24-70mm will completely outresolve the EF-S lenses when you compare the L zoom on FF to the EF-S on crop.  But, if you look at photozone.de's Imatest results for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 on a the same camera - a 350D - you'll see that the 17-55mm outresolves the 24-70mm L across the zoom and aperture ranges.  Before you argue that it's because of the relatively low resolution 8 MP sensor, check out the DxOMark lens data for those same lenses on a 7D, and you'll see that on the 7D, the 17-55mm also delivers greater resolution than the 24-70mm (and even the 'lowly' EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS slightly outresolves the L lens).

[WarStreet]

Anyway, with this in mind I tend to think that the current 18 megapixel of the 7D is about as high as we can go in pixel density (4.2 um pixel pitch). With bayer arrays and antialias filters there is some merit in slightly outresolving the lenses though, but it seems like that is exactly what we do now. Probably not much value in outresloving them more, and you'll get diffraction issues coming along. This puts 18 x 2.6 = ~46 megapixels on fullframe, which I think happens to be an ideal resolution.

No need to be embarrassed, learning it's the idea of the forum. I have learned a lot from here.

Regarding the MP count limit, luckily for all of us, we did not reached it yet and we are far from reaching it.
The total resolution from camera/lens combo can be improved if either a sharper lens is used or a higher MP count sensor used. They don't limit the improvement of each other (with exception of extreme limits). DXO measurements match with theory too.

Pick a lens and see the resolving power when used on a low MP and high MP sensor of the same size, and also pick the high MP sensor and compare when used with a poor and very good lens.  It will show that the lens is not limiting a high MP sensor while the sensor is not limiting a very good lens. Using extreme small apertures will limit the performance of the lens and there you should see some limitation.  Use DXO - resolution - profiles

[yellowbull]

What about Exposure Bracketing improvements? Nikon will go up to 9 increments!

[yeldarb]

DO NOT NEED:
-better AWB or Metering - C'mon guys, you should all be shooting RAW by now, and you should understand how your metering mode works. This doesn't need to improve. YOU DO.

I disagree.   Sure, AWB is not relevant if shooting RAW, but that doesn't mean Canon shouldn't improve AWB (or why offer it at all, why offer JPGs?)   For advanced amateurs such as myself, whose primary reason for using this camera is its low light performance, "pro" quality and ruggedness, it may be the case that shooting RAW all the time just isn't practical.  This is not my day job, and often when I'm shooting kid's events, etc, I barely have time to transfer the photos to the computer, make minor tweaks and upload them to a web album.   Taking the time to work with larger RAW files and do more post-processing is just not a luxury many of us have these days.  I'd love to "improve" my skills, as you suggest, but I'd also love for Canon do deal with the fact that their AWB doesn't work very well in today's climate of varied cruddy light sources (different brands of compact fluorescent bulbs in the same room, etc).

[endigo]

...I barely have time to transfer the photos to the computer, make minor tweaks and upload them to a web album.   Taking the time to work with larger RAW files and do more post-processing is just not a luxury many of us have these days.  I'd love to "improve" my skills...

I have found a huge difference in the quality of an image that was retouched from a RAW and saved as a JPG from an image that was retouched from a JPG and saved back as a JPG. After experimenting with this, I no longer retouch images from JPG. If the JPG that the camera produces it good, I don't mind using it, so I agree with you on the AWB, but try looking at the difference between retouching a RAW and a JPG, I think this exercise may help improve your results.

[pedro]

Better high ISO, pixel binning...

[neuroanatomist]

This doesn't need to improve. YOU DO.

I disagree....I'd also love for Canon do deal with the fact that their AWB doesn't work very well in today's climate of varied cruddy light sources (different brands of compact fluorescent bulbs in the same room, etc).

Prestonpalmer is right - Canon doesn't need to fix this.  YOU just need to learn to appreciate orange-tinted pictures...   

[yeldarb]

I have found a huge difference in the quality of an image that was retouched from a RAW and saved as a JPG from an image that was retouched from a JPG and saved back as a JPG. After experimenting with this, I no longer retouch images from JPG. If the JPG that the camera produces it good, I don't mind using it, so I agree with you on the AWB, but try looking at the difference between retouching a RAW and a JPG, I think this exercise may help improve your results.

I said tweak, not retouch.   By tweak I meant tasks such as: discard ones I don't want, crop some, maybe slight exposure adjustment.  I'm doing this directly in iPhoto, it needs to take less than a few seconds per photo.   Anyway, I'd agree with your technical points, but my point was TIME.  I don't have the luxury to spend hours every time I need to sit down to transfer some event photos to a web album where other people can download them.  If I did this professionally, or was retired or something and had lots of time, I certainly would shoot everything in RAW and make every photo a work of art in Photoshop.  And yes, adjusting color temperature on a JPEG produces worse results, this is an argument for having better AWB in the camera in the first place!

People seem to really like what I offer (for free),  I enjoy shooting, and was willing to spend the money on a "pro" camera to capture really good shots.   The camera and lenses are truly phenomenal and I've captured some great moments with them.

The question was about what I'd like to see improved in the 5DmIII.  One of my biggest problems has been interior existing light situations (I find flash distracts kids).  Anecdotally, I'd say the problem has gotten worse with the proliferation of cheap CF bulbs in the marketplace.   Most interior places are becoming a disaster in terms of variations of lighting sources and color temperatures etc.   I realize this is a really tough nut for Canon to crack, but improved AWB would allow me to shoot better photos in the camera and not have to spend time at the computer.   

I guess I distinguish between "taking" photos and "making" them.   When my intent is to make photos, I'll shoot RAW and spend time at the computer perfecting images.    A lot of the time, I just need to "take" the best photos I can in the first place, and get them out to people in a hurry.  Improved AWB would help do that.   All I'm saying. 

[mreco99]

Theres only three things that will determine whats on the 5dmk2 replacement.

1. what the competition is doing
2. what is the minimum upgrade canon can get away with to make users buy or upgrade their equipment
3. retail cost point, what will the market place accept. Too expensive, and there will be little sales.

Nothing else comes into it.

Work out those three things and you will have a fair guess as to what it will be.

[J. McCabe]

Theres only three things that will determine whats on the 5dmk2 replacement.

1. what the competition is doing
2. what is the minimum upgrade canon can get away with to make users buy or upgrade their equipment
3. retail cost point, what will the market place accept. Too expensive, and there will be little sales.

Nothing else comes into it.

Work out those three things and you will have a fair guess as to what it will be.

I would think what people want, e.g. as expressed in this thread, would influence ...

1. What the competitors are doing.
2. what is the minimum upgrade which would make users buy or upgrade their equipment.
3. How much money would people pay to get #2, or switch to a competitor.

[Headshots]

"Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III"

Want/Need
Faster Sync Speed 
1/250 on 1DS MKIII
Can Canon get the mechanical shutter to sync up to 1/400 ?
At the very least give us 1/250 because you can.
I am a Headshot Photographer in Los Angeles
I shoot headshots with studio strobe outside using sun/available light as fill and/or background. Some times there is slight motion blur from the natural light mixing in at 1/200 with the subject moving during the shot and no it is not fast action sports just people standing and moving with natural energy and yes I am a human tripod and sorry IS is not the solution.
1/400 would be perfect and definitely increase sales...

Actors Headshots Los Angeles

5D MKll 85Lll 135L 50Lll

[endigo]

Can Canon get the mechanical shutter to sync up to 1/400 ?

The 580 EX II in FP Flash mode works great for me. The flash will sync with all speeds (see page 17 in the Manual)

[epsiloneri]

The flash will sync with all speeds (see page 17 in the Manual)

That's pretty cool. I didn't know you could change the flash duration with modern flashes. Thanks for the tip!

Some more background is available in this blog entry.

[Rob]

The few things I would like improved for the next 5D installment are pretty much the same as everyone else.

1. 7d Autofucus or better
2. Better ISO  (D3s or better)
3. Pop up flash for wireless flash control and also for the occasional time when you don't want to carry a flashgun  e.g Family holidays etc
4. 60p video
5. Don't really want more resolution, but if they introduced pixel binning that was a benefit to the ISO, that would be cool.
6. Also want Canon to use same grip as the Mark 2 or at least allow it to still fit.
7. Would like a Crop funtion 1.3 & 1.6 for creative in camera croping. Also a funtion that allowed you to crop a photo in the camera after it has been taken. But I wouldnt be anoyed if they didn't do this as its not a big deal.

I know this is a bit of a repeat of what has been said but felt I had to add my list, just in case Canon is watching as this topic is getting a big response. I hope they are as there has been some great ideas and suggestions on this topic.