5D Mark III [CR1]

[OnteoEOS]

I still Think The 5D Mark III will go all the way up to ISO 102K

My Crystal Ball Says:

32 MP Sensor
19 Cross sensor AF
ISO up to 102K but native up to 25K (no more ISO 50 perhaps?)
Same Screen as 550D
4.5 FPS
98% Viewfinder
CF + SD card bay
RAW video and continuous AF

$3000

 

[minestrone]

A lot of people on this post have issues with Canon increasing its MP count. I personally would love more Megapixels. Below I want to vent my feelings, but just know that I respect other people's wishes as well. Sorry if it sounds aggressive.

When the 5D Mark II came out with 21MP so many people said that Canon glass couldn't handle the pixel count and images would be blurry. WRONG, my images came out crisp and tack sharp beyond what my wildest expectations.

Then there are people who say, "No one needs 21mp, 8 is all you need for a good print." Yea, not true. My clients have asked me for 20x30s, 24x36s, etc. Good luck with 8MP on that one.

Improved ISO would be awesome. But I've shot some really dim lit weddings and sometimes for fun I take my 5DmII with me to very dim lit restaurants and shoot upwards of IS0 1600 with no problems. Honestly, if a camera can shoot 21MP RAW at 1600 and give me great image quality I'm happy.

I don't know when or why I would ever used ISO 6400 or higher. And the expanded ISO ranges in 12800 and 25600 are useless (to most).

Sure, if Canon's 5DmIII can shoot ISO 3200 with as much noise as the Mark II's ISO1600 I'll be stoked. I'm all for better ISO/less noise.

Auto Focus was my BIGGEST gripe about the 5D Mark II. I've missed many amazing shots because my 5DmII would hunt back and forth. I really hope they can improve on this. I'm not really too thrilled about the 7D's AF system but if that's the best they can do for the 5DMIII I'll give it a shot. I have both cameras and when they're not hunting back and forth to find the object they're slow to figure things out at low light.

Priority List
Improved AF (I think that's on most everyone's list)
Better ISO/Less Noise
Better Dynamic Range
Better Video Quality+Different Codec
More Megapixels (I don't need more but it wouldn't hurt. I'm definitely NOT ok with decreasing the count)

 

[davebean]

No dual card slots?!??!!? Even Nikon's prosumer models are coming out with dual card slots. I'm assuming that the AF will be fixed and the ISO will improve, that's a given. However, for the "once-in-a-lifetime" weddings, I need dual card slots!!!

I'm afraid that, if the 5Dm3 doesn't come with dual slots, that would be the deal-breaker for me, I'm switching to Nikon.

If you're a pro with a good selection of Canon glass, wouldn't switching to a 1Ds series camera be a whole lot cheaper? What do you do at the moment?!

I have a decent selection of glass, not everything I want. The 1Ds bodies are much heavier than a 5Dm2. I shoot with a 1D3 now and it's killing my wrists, carrying that around is like carrying a 15 pound barbell for 10+ hours. Any weight savings is a miracle now... but I'm not willing to compromise my client's pictures. My hands have become numb because I'm holding close to 15 pounds of equipment... to the point where my finger could not press the shutter when I wanted to do it because it's lacking blood due to the death grip needed to hold that much weight without shaking.

I don't need 10FPS or weathersealing... my brides are not running a sprint and will not take pictures in the rain. What wedding folks need is double fail-safe systems. The weak link in my workflow (if I went to a 5D family) is the single card.

 

[Admin US West]

There are a lot of things I want in a camera, but what I expect in a 5D MK III is a relativelyminor upgrade. A few more pixels, slightly better ISO, a few video improvements, and upgrading flash card speeds, perhaps adding a second slot.

The 5d MK II is not a sports camera, and it will not be turned into one. It has about the best low light autofocus and the most accurate autofocus of the Canon prosumer cameras.

I would value higher DR and lower noise.

I doubt, however, if there will be any features that would make a upgrade from the MK II a must do thing.

You only need look at Canon's history of model upgrades to see that they upgrade in increments, not huge leaps. A huge leap will become a new model. If Canon wants to expand to three FF models, for example, there might be a new middle model with lots of additional features.

 

[unfocused]

what I expect in a 5D MK III is a relatively minor upgrade.

Exactly. I've been thinking the same thing ever since I read the latest rumored specs.

I think this will especially be the case if the 5D MKIII is upgraded before the 1Ds. It seems logical that these two lines will diverge, with the 5D MK III serving as a basic full-frame camera for enthusiasts, portrait and wedding shooters and as a creative alternative for video shooters. I think they'll reserve the 1Ds for the high-end of the market. It will have the latest and greatest of everything and continue to be built like a tank. I expect the 1Ds will also have sufficient resolution to compete with medium-format cameras.

This gives Canon the ability to trickle-down some of the higher-end features into the next generation of the 7D. Again, creating further divergence between their top three cameras. (I am assuming that the APS-H format will be dropped when the new 1Ds launches.)

 

[fotoray]

what I expect in a 5D MK III is a relatively minor upgrade.

Exactly. I've been thinking the same thing ever since I read the latest rumored specs.

I think this will especially be the case if the 5D MKIII is upgraded before the 1Ds. It seems logical that these two lines will diverge, with the 5D MK III serving as a basic full-frame camera for enthusiasts, portrait and wedding shooters and as a creative alternative for video shooters. I think they'll reserve the 1Ds for the high-end of the market. It will have the latest and greatest of everything and continue to be built like a tank. I expect the 1Ds will also have sufficient resolution to compete with medium-format cameras.

This gives Canon the ability to trickle-down some of the higher-end features into the next generation of the 7D. Again, creating further divergence between their top three cameras. (I am assuming that the APS-H format will be dropped when the new 1Ds launches.)

Interesting outlook. I think the 5DIII must have an AF system at least as good as the 7D - I think this is a major 5D upgrade, even though it is existing technology. I have a 7D and recently used a 5DII and really missed the 7D AF performance.

 

[Admin US West]

Interesting outlook. I think the 5DIII must have an AF system at least as good as the 7D - I think this is a major 5D upgrade, even though it is existing technology. I have a 7D and recently used a 5DII and really missed the 7D AF performance.

The 5D gives accurate autofocus, while the 7D gives fast but less accurate autofocus. For weddings and portraits, I want accurate over fast.

 

[zerotiu]

Interesting outlook. I think the 5DIII must have an AF system at least as good as the 7D - I think this is a major 5D upgrade, even though it is existing technology. I have a 7D and recently used a 5DII and really missed the 7D AF performance.

The 5D gives accurate autofocus, while the 7D gives fast but less accurate autofocus. For weddings and portraits, I want accurate over fast.

until know, I'm confused about the middle cross type focus and the other focuses at 5d2. Are the outer focuses can't be reliable? Because I don't like recomposing when I shoot human, especially a moving subject. It's too slow. From10 photos, my 550d gives me 6 sharp photos by using outer focuses.

 

[Loswr]

The 5D gives accurate autofocus, while the 7D gives fast but less accurate autofocus. For weddings and portraits, I want accurate over fast.

The 5DII center AF point gives accurate autofocus. But, I don't find it to be any less accurate than the center point of the 7D. Also, the 5DII often focuses the same lens faster than the 7D. For example, with my 85L (where the lens elements move relatively slowly), the 5DII seems to move from wherever it is focused right to the new focal plane, while the 7D seems to overshoot slightly then move back - as a result, the 5DII is a little faster (but both are equally accurate).

The off-center points of the 5DII are not very good (less accurate and they fail in low light), whereas the 7D's off-center points are just about as good as the center point. The 5DII's center point does better in low light than the 7D, but the 5DII's off-center points do worse than the 7D in low light. The 7D trumps the 5DII for moving subjects.

So overall, if you're shooting static subjects and you are using the center point only, the 5DII has better AF. But if you're shooting anything moving, or want to use an off-center point (for example, to minimize the effect of focus/recompose with fast lenses, where that results in missed focus), the 7D's AF is better.

What I want from the 5DIII AF is a few more points (although the 15 that the 5DII has is probably enough), and for all of them to be cross-type and all of them having the low-light sensitivity of the 5DII's center AF point.

 

[zerotiu]

The 5D gives accurate autofocus, while the 7D gives fast but less accurate autofocus. For weddings and portraits, I want accurate over fast.

The 5DII center AF point gives accurate autofocus. But, I don't find it to be any less accurate than the center point of the 7D. Also, the 5DII often focuses the same lens faster than the 7D. For example, with my 85L (where the lens elements move relatively slowly), the 5DII seems to move from wherever it is focused right to the new focal plane, while the 7D seems to overshoot slightly then move back - as a result, the 5DII is a little faster (but both are equally accurate).

The off-center points of the 5DII are not very good (less accurate and they fail in low light), whereas the 7D's off-center points are just about as good as the center point. The 5DII's center point does better in low light than the 7D, but the 5DII's off-center points do worse than the 7D in low light. The 7D trumps the 5DII for moving subjects.

So overall, if you're shooting static subjects and you are using the center point only, the 5DII has better AF. But if you're shooting anything moving, or want to use an off-center point (for example, to minimize the effect of focus/recompose with fast lenses, where that results in missed focus), the 7D's AF is better.

What I want from the 5DIII AF is a few more points (although the 15 that the 5DII has is probably enough), and for all of them to be cross-type and all of them having the low-light sensitivity of the 5DII's center AF point.

I see..thanks for the explanation

 

[WarStreet]

The 7D trumps the 5DII for moving subjects.

So overall, if you're shooting static subjects and you are using the center point only, the 5DII has better AF. But if you're shooting anything moving, or want to use an off-center point (for example, to minimize the effect of focus/recompose with fast lenses, where that results in missed focus), the 7D's AF is better.

the 7D trumps the 5DII in servo center point ? Does this happens in both good and bad light ? Does it happens with all lenses ?

My 500D center point servo gives me very good results during rugby in good light with the 70-200 2.8 IS II @ 2.8, even when players are running towards the camera. It also works well with 1.4 TC @ f4 too. I do get some frames out of focus, but it happens only for a small number of photos and never considered the focus a limitation although not 100% perfect.

In very low light five-a-side games with 85 1.8 @ 1.8, about 80% of my photos where out of focus, but @ 1.8, and very low light you do expect this. This is one of the many sports situation where the low noise ability of the 5D will be helpful since my APS-C has too much noise. Do you think that the 5D center servo focus will give me a higher number of focused photos in such situations? I might manage to use the 70-200 @ 2.8 if i can bump up the ISO of the 5DIII as much as I am estimating, which should give me a good AF advantage.

 

[ReyMorlu]

If Canon has developed a aps-h sensor (a trial almost) with 120Mpx... They have Hi-tech enough to make a FF sensor with more than 40Mpx for sure, as a matter of fact, only doubling the size of aps 18 Mpx you`ve got 36 at least. 32Mpx sounds not bad but 36 to 40 sounds better... I think they won't done it, they like to dosage slightly any kind of improvement, but I actually don't know in this specific case (5-D) what kind of camera use is it designed for??
Me, I'm a technical and studio photographer that personally (after having some) do not like 1D series by many reasons...
I work nowadays with 5D-II and it has de "minimum" to me in orther to be used as a real tull for my job, medium format cameras has no market enough and versatillity to be invested money on them (cloudy future...)
So, I'd like to find a camera to be used as a medium format resolution sistem mixt to a 35mm small body, whith the optional vertical grip nor like 1D massive full time bodies. For editorial photography mainly (art work repro, architecture, people groups pictures, landescapes, fashion-model work, etc BUT... never for sports and such!!
For these kind of pictures there are many other cameras yet build, in the both prosumer and professional ranges. 7D , 1D IV / III ,
Then is imposible to have a perfect all round use camera, all those who have the needs for a fast speed sportive camera try in other place.
The real base of 5D series have being IMAGE QUALITY, COLOR RENDITION, NOISE, D.O.F. FULL FRAME LIKE, AND PRESERVING THE 35mm lens focals like in the PAST AND HISTORY of reflex 135 format (I don't like to mount my 14 / 2,8L and turn into a 24...)

 

[Loswr]

the 7D trumps the 5DII in servo center point ? Does this happens in both good and bad light ? Does it happens with all lenses ?

In all the situations in which I've tried the two, yes (including bright and dim light, and with various lenses). The 5DII's AI Servo performance just isn't that great. I think it does a little better than a Rebel. The inner ring of 'invisible' AF points are specifically for AI Servo), but the 7D is definitely better. My 7D managed to keep my toddler's eyes in focus as she ran diagonally toward me across the frame - with the 85L at f/1.2, where the lens is relatively slow and the DoF is very thin. My 5DII couldn't manage that.

 

[WarStreet]

In all the situations in which I've tried the two, yes (including bright and dim light, and with various lenses). The 5DII's AI Servo performance just isn't that great. I think it does a little better than a Rebel. The inner ring of 'invisible' AF points are specifically for AI Servo), but the 7D is definitely better. My 7D managed to keep my toddler's eyes in focus as she ran diagonally toward me across the frame - with the 85L at f/1.2, where the lens is relatively slow and the DoF is very thin. My 5DII couldn't manage that.

Thanks for the info. The 85L situation you described is very severe. I think we can say that the 7D servo is fantastic , rather than 5DII being bad. I hope they improve the center point servo on the next model.

 

[Loswr]

I think we can say that the 7D servo is fantastic , rather than 5DII being bad.

I'd say the 5DII is adequate, for the most part. The 7D is 'very good' but the moniker of 'fantastic' would have to go to the 1-series bodies.

 

[NXT1000]

keep hearing 5d3 and 1ds4 have very high MB, was very happy until sigma release 9700 dollars next generation slr, i think next canon very high MB camera will be very expensive. Not many will be able to afford it
.

 

[Admin US West]

keep hearing 5d3 and 1ds4 have very high MB, was very happy until sigma release 9700 dollars next generation slr, i think next canon very high MB camera will be very expensive. Not many will be able to afford it
.

The Sigma camera is not $9700, but at $6899, it is still plenty expensive ( http://photorumors.com/2011/05/24/sigma-sd1-retail-price-6899/ ). It is a totally different technology sensor, and with low production rates, is likely super expensive to manufacture. Sigma has to recover the development costs plus try to make a profit over a relatively small number of sales.

For standard CMOS cameras, higher MP probably do not reduce yield in the manufacturing process. 30 MP is not that much more dense than 21MP, and less dense than the 18mp sensors in the T3i.

The issue is improving the sensor characteristics to get lower noise and higher DR that photographers want, plus fast video readout with less heat generation.

 

[Dom Bolton]

I look forward to get this camera for filming purposes, but I expected (and i think still expecting) a competition with RED.

I want to shoot 4k camera.

Even YouTube a year ago began streaming certain videos at a resolution of up to 4096 x 2304 (in the 16:9 aspect ratio) to 4096 x 3072 (4:3). Registered users at YouTube are allowed to upload videos with a resolution higher than 1080p.

Users now don't have cameras shooting higher than 1080p. Canon may be first having provided this.

If Canon has given DSLR so good video, let it make it to the fullest with all technologies at hand. I'm sure technologies let Canon make 4k DSLR for the same price for user or close.

Appropriate autofocus - is obvious expectation. As well as all other shortcomings.

I look forward to see Canon 5d more professional in video meaning first of all. They can do it. How do you think?

 

[ReyMorlu]

I would like to know if people actually has any idea of what means resolution!?
I have read lot of times "no more Mpx, I don't need them" And some people saying (LOL) 24Mpx or so... is quite enought!
I would like to ask you: How many pixels has a 40D? ...about ten, isn't it? and to double the resolution (that everybody knows is not good enough for pro-work) of this camera how many Mpx do you have to have?...
FORTY Mpx my dear!!!
In fact the 5D-2 machine has only one & a half the resolution of the 40 D.

In an optical sistem the resolution determines how can be dintiguished two diferent closest points turning one single point into two, for exmp. with a telescope watching the sky. The resolution is being given in arc seconds, and can be calculated dividing the number 10,5 by the aperture of telescope (in cm). this is the linear resolution for astronomical use... (and it has the name of Dawes Limit)
In a bitmap you have two dimensions height and widht, then if you double widht resolution you need to double the height res too! 1 pixel turns into 4 !!

Then are you sure, photographers do not need higher res in there machines? LOL.
Why then medium format sistems use 40 to 60Mpx in there backs and larger format cameras even 1Gb in a single shot!

Amateurs please; go to TOYSRUS, to ask for your dreams.

 

[Bob Howland]

I would like to know if people actually has any idea of what means resolution!?
I have read lot of times "no more Mpx, I don't need them" And some people saying (LOL) 24Mpx or so... is quite enought!
I would like to ask you: How many pixels has a 40D? ...about ten, isn't it? and to double the resolution (that everybody knows is not good enough for pro-work) of this camera how many Mpx do you have to have?...
FORTY Mpx my dear!!!
In fact the 5D-2 machine has only one & a half the resolution of the 40 D.

In an optical sistem the resolution determines how can be dintiguished two diferent closest points turning one single point into two, for exmp. with a telescope watching the sky. The resolution is being given in arc seconds, and can be calculated dividing the number 10,5 by the aperture of telescope (in cm). this is the linear resolution for astronomical use... (and it has the name of Dawes Limit)
In a bitmap you have two dimensions height and widht, then if you double widht resolution you need to double the height res too! 1 pixel turns into 4 !!

Then are you sure, photographers do not need higher res in there machines? LOL.
Why then medium format sistems use 40 to 60Mpx in there backs and larger format cameras even 1Gb in a single shot!

Amateurs please; go to TOYSRUS, to ask for your dreams.

And, of course, you can point to single or double blind tests indicating that more resolution is critical to image quality. The only one that I know of indicated that people couldn't differentiate between 13"x19" prints made from images taken with a Canon G10 P&S and, I think, a Hasselblad 40MP MF digital camera.

For most of us, it isn't that we don't want more resolution. It's that, above 12MP to 21MP, more resolution is so far down the list of priorities that it is largely irrelevant. My personal obsession is with high ISO (i.e., 51200) image quality and lots of dynamic range. Other people have other obsessions.