5D Mark III [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/05/5d-mark-iii-cr1-4/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/05/5d-mark-iii-cr1-4/"></a></div>
<strong>Spec rumors

</strong>I haven’t heard much about a 5D Mark III in a while, but I did receive some specs this AM. Might as well post them!</p>
<p>It was stressed that below is one prototype, and two others exist.</p>
<p><strong>Specifications

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;">32mp</span></li>
<li>ISO 100-25600 (L1, H1, H2, H3)</li>
<li>DIGIC V</li>
<li>4.2fps</li>
<li>19point AF</li>
<li>CF Card</li>
<li>Slightly larger LCD (new ratio)</li>
<li>New autofocus while filming, performance unknown.</li>
<li>All the standard video stuff.</li>
<li>RAW video still unknown</li>
</ul>
<p>This is apparently coming before any 1Ds replacement.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>

 

[hlphoto]

Only because of the high-ISO settings it already sounds like a bunch of crap to me.
Why would Canon create a new sensor that wouldn't go past a native 3200 ISO after having one that does a very nice ISO 6400 (5D Mk2)?

I would bet a few dollars on the 5D Mk3 having 19-point autofocus and native ISO 12800 (with at least H2 for 51200 ISO).

I'm hoping we'll get RAW video and maybe even 2K or 3K, but do realise most dreams won't come true

 

[alipaulphotography]

Specs sound good for me.

I want to know ISO performance and cross type AF points.

And for it to have a bloody release date!

 

[Ricku]

I like all the specs except 32mp. Please no..

And also "New autofocus while filming."

Ok, new autofocus is very wanted. But only while filming?!?

 

[Wahoowa]

32MP? Where am I gonna put all these images into? I just went to Rome for 6 days and I've taken over 64 GB of images! I guess I will need two new 3TB hard disks along with this 5DIII (one for original and one for backup).

I don't mind if Canon will keep it at around 24-27 MP range. I would like to see the noise performance of the current 5DII at ISO 3200 at, say, 6400 or 12800 of the new 5DIII.

 

[endigo]

I like all the specs except 32mp. Please no..

I struggle with this too, here are my thoughts...

If large file size is an issue then maybe a full frame is not the right option. In order to get the same pixel density as the 7D, the file size has to be larger.

Also,
You don't have to always shoot with the full size image.

 

[Loswr]

It was stressed that below is one prototype, and two others exist.

Translation: "I made this up and emailed it to CR, and I'm covering my butt in case my wild-ass guess is completely off base."

 

[motorhead]

Unlike others, I'm all in favour of as many mp as possible. Storage is cheap and getting cheaper by the day. No, the only problem I have with this rumour is the very last line. I've been holding my breath long enough for the 1Ds mk4 and it's waaaaaay past it's replacement date. The only good news for me is that if the 5D gets 32MP, the IDs will get more. So the 40MP plus rumour is looking possible.

But if Canon wait much longer, they will have to withdraw it yet again because by that time even 40MP will be old hat. I fully understand the current problems in Japan, but don't understand why Canon had not finalised the specs for the 1Ds4 long before that and got it to market.

 

[torger]

Why would Canon create a new sensor that wouldn't go past a native 3200 ISO after having one that does a very nice ISO 6400 (5D Mk2)?

When you start having more than one value in the raw file per electron in the sensel, it does not make much sense to increase the amplification further, you can just scale in software. Unity gain (1 raw value = 1 electron) happens quite early, say around ISO 1600 or so. Why some cameras still do "native" amplification past unity gain I don't really know, perhaps there are some read noise advantages or something.

 

[torger]

Unlike others, I'm all in favour of as many mp as possible.

Me too . I think 40 - 60 megapixels would be ideal for full-frame 36x24mm sensors. Past that the sensor is too small to support it well, and resolution will be higher than needed for most applications. I'd like to be able to produce pictures that can fill a book spread at glorious 400 ppi, which current full-frame cameras can't because resolution is too low. If you shoot detailed landscapes today you'd want a medium format system, which of course are way too expensive for hobbyists. Anyway 32 megapixels is a step in the right direction from my point of view.

 

[pedro]

Re: 5D Mark III [CR1] @torger: Unfortunately ...

english is not my native language. and as I do not understand too much of technique and physics I'd like to ask you if you could translate your obviously intresting post into a more comprehensible one for a non anglo? Hope you don't mind.

So, intuitively I'd take a guess: Even though the native ISO remains ISO 3200 (once read that there is no so called native high ISO beyond that value) it must be a lot cleaner than all what has been seen before.
Is that correct?
If so, is it likely as ISO's remain the same, that ISO 3200 looks pretty much like ISO 400 on my current 30D? In this case, I wouldn't care too much about not being able to shoot above ISO 25600 as there exist the +1 or + 2 EV possibility. Don't know the term...Is that exposure value compensation?

Thanks and regards
Peter

 

[unruled]

32MP? Where am I gonna put all these images into? I just went to Rome for 6 days and I've taken over 64 GB of images! I guess I will need two new 3TB hard disks along with this 5DIII (one for original and one for backup).

I don't mind if Canon will keep it at around 24-27 MP range. I would like to see the noise performance of the current 5DII at ISO 3200 at, say, 6400 or 12800 of the new 5DIII.

64gb in a few days?

excuse me?

besides, there is always sRAW if you want.

 

[pgabor]

Translation: "I made this up and emailed it to CR, and I'm covering my butt in case my wild-ass guess is completely off base."

My first thought was exactly the same

 

[J. McCabe]

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but ...

1) Some software packages, like DxO, can't process sRAW & mRAW, so some photographers would be forced to use the full sized raw even though they don't want or need the full resolution.

2) The APS-C sensors today are pretty close in resolution to the 5DmkII - the 600D, 60D, and 7D are all 18MP. It seems Canon is increasing the resolution on the APS-C sensors as well. I don't think 5DmkII owners would be happy to replace it with a 1100D.

 

[zerotiu]

hmm I like this news.. :

 

[hlphoto]

Why would Canon create a new sensor that wouldn't go past a native 3200 ISO after having one that does a very nice ISO 6400 (5D Mk2)?

When you start having more than one value in the raw file per electron in the sensel, it does not make much sense to increase the amplification further, you can just scale in software. Unity gain (1 raw value = 1 electron) happens quite early, say around ISO 1600 or so. Why some cameras still do "native" amplification past unity gain I don't really know, perhaps there are some read noise advantages or something.

Not sure what this means exactly, can you explain further? >> My experience is that when you pitch up in software you lose lots of dynamic range, same as when you pitch downward. ISO 50 on the 5D Mk2 gives me exactly one stop less headroom then the same picture has at ISO 100. If they would make a 5D Mk3 with native ISO 1600 which would go up to ISO 25600 (=H4), that would mean I lost 4 stops of DR in my image. Not very nice..

Of course, if I am missing something technically, please do explain! Always willing to learn

 

[motorhead]

Unlike others, I'm all in favour of as many mp as possible.

Me too . I think 40 - 60 megapixels would be ideal for full-frame 36x24mm sensors. Past that the sensor is too small to support it well, and resolution will be higher than needed for most applications. I'd like to be able to produce pictures that can fill a book spread at glorious 400 ppi, which current full-frame cameras can't because resolution is too low. If you shoot detailed landscapes today you'd want a medium format system, which of course are way too expensive for hobbyists. Anyway 32 megapixels is a step in the right direction from my point of view.

I read an interesting article on medium format sensors the other day. In it was a discussion on how many mp would be needed before the sensor outperformed the lens. Apparently Canon are said to be working on lenses for 36x24 "full frame" that will work happily up to 60mp, while on the Pentax 645 sensors would need to exceed 110mp before it becomes an issue. Basically, I believe that manufacturers will simply offer better lenses as the MP count creeps ever higher.

That same article was saying that in prints of A3 or bigger, the large MP sensors on good quality medium format systems produced a very obvious quality improvement over the 36 x 24mm "full frame" size sensors. Basically, bigger is still always better.

 

[torger]

Why would Canon create a new sensor that wouldn't go past a native 3200 ISO after having one that does a very nice ISO 6400 (5D Mk2)?

When you start having more than one value in the raw file per electron in the sensel, it does not make much sense to increase the amplification further, you can just scale in software. Unity gain (1 raw value = 1 electron) happens quite early, say around ISO 1600 or so. Why some cameras still do "native" amplification past unity gain I don't really know, perhaps there are some read noise advantages or something.

Not sure what this means exactly, can you explain further? >> My experience is that when you pitch up in software you lose lots of dynamic range, same as when you pitch downward. ISO 50 on the 5D Mk2 gives me exactly one stop less headroom then the same picture has at ISO 100. If they would make a 5D Mk3 with native ISO 1600 which would go up to ISO 25600 (=H4), that would mean I lost 4 stops of DR in my image. Not very nice..

Of course, if I am missing something technically, please do explain! Always willing to learn

In photography, you want to gather as much light as possible to get the best image quality. "Expose to the right" is the concept used when you are not restricted with the shutter, that is you can saturate the sensor (without overexposing important features of course).

The reason why more light equals better image quality is because light contains noise naturally (photon shot noise), but the stronger the light the smaller part of it is noise. If you reduce light with 1 stop, photon shot noise increase with 0.5 stop - the less light the lower signal-to-noise ratio.

ISO setting does not alter the sensor in any way, it only changes the amplification at readout. If we had readout electronics that precisely could count the number of electrons in each pixel/sensel, we would not need to have a ISO setting at all. It may happen in the future that the cameras will be "ISO-less".

Anyway, when you shoot high ISO it is because you need to have short shutter speeds and then we will not fill up the pixels with light, so we get more photon shot noise. Actually, the noise you see in high ISO pictures is typically dominated by shot noise, not noise from the electronics.

The sensor pixels are not perfect either though, not all photons that hit it becomes translated to electrons, so with improved efficiency of that (quantum efficiency), noise levels would be reduced for low light photography.

Yes if you multiply in software you lose dynamic range. But past unity gain it makes no difference, you've already lost the range. If your RAW value is in the range 1 - 16384 you still cannot represent 16385 electrons if your gain is >1. It could be some practical difference anyway, there must be some reason why they usually amplify past unity gain, but I don't really know why. Perhaps someone else can help us on that...

 

[Sdiver2489]

Only because of the high-ISO settings it already sounds like a bunch of crap to me.
Why would Canon create a new sensor that wouldn't go past a native 3200 ISO after having one that does a very nice ISO 6400 (5D Mk2)?

I would bet a few dollars on the 5D Mk3 having 19-point autofocus and native ISO 12800 (with at least H2 for 51200 ISO).

I'm hoping we'll get RAW video and maybe even 2K or 3K, but do realise most dreams won't come true

Uh, I'm pretty sure the way its written is showing its native ISO range. It then states there is the typical "expanded" ISO range. L1 = ISO 50 H1 = ISO 51200 H2 = 102,400 H3 = 204,800

Of course this could still be a random rumor made up by a fan, but I don't think he was implying the camera would only go natively to ISO3200

 

[Justin]

32MP? Where am I gonna put all these images into? I just went to Rome for 6 days and I've taken over 64 GB of images! I guess I will need two new 3TB hard disks along with this 5DIII (one for original and one for backup).

I don't mind if Canon will keep it at around 24-27 MP range. I would like to see the noise performance of the current 5DII at ISO 3200 at, say, 6400 or 12800 of the new 5DIII.

Sounds like a great trip, but I don't understand why people who want to take a thousand pictures on a trip don't do so with an s-raw setting or a smaller jpg format.

For every 100 shots I take, I immediately trash half (composition, exposure, focus are all factors). A day or two later I trash half of the half (sorting for something memorable or artistic). Then a year later I'll kill another half (looking for something I haven't shot before, in a way that says something). So about a dozen shots for every hundred, and that's probably being generous with the quality of my work.

I welcome 32 mpx files. Hell I wish I could afford an 80 mpx back and camera system. You cannot have too much detail. You CAN take too many photos.