-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
5D Mark III Full Spec List?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
bigblue1ca said:
Now that I could see. I seldom use video and I never change to it on the fly. I was thinking of moving between C, M, AV, TV. It looks like Canon has solved the still mode to video problem (based on the pictures) with the addition of a video button.
[/quote]
isn't that the same button that's on the 7D? =) I'm also glad the video option isn't in the mode dial, that would have sucked haha =)
Upvote
0
G
Gravitom
Guest
Well if the specs and price are correct then I'm going to pick up a MkII. For my type of shooting the main advantages (ISO and AF) are nice but not worth the almost double price. Trust me I want to justify buying the latest and greatest but there just aren't any new exciting features, just a marginal incremental upgrade.
I really hope there is more to be revealed tomorrow.
I really hope there is more to be revealed tomorrow.
Upvote
0
Since my only shooting mode with both a 40D and 5D2 has been in manual mode, with spot metering, and single-point AF, I'm trying to wrap my brain around the whole 61-point AF, 41-cross-type AF system, as well as digest all the discussion about whether the AF and metering systems are linked.
But isnt the 63-zone iFCL metering system listed in the rumored specs the same as in the 7D? And doesn't that system integrate the AF points in to the metering alogorithm?
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/iFCL_metering.do
But isnt the 63-zone iFCL metering system listed in the rumored specs the same as in the 7D? And doesn't that system integrate the AF points in to the metering alogorithm?
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/iFCL_metering.do
Upvote
0
W
WoodysGamertag
Guest
I was thinking about how I've used my Rebel T3i in the last year.
My "Pro" Work
1) Paintball Video and Still shots: Could have used more FPS and better auto focus.
2) Indoor Conferences Video and Still shots: Could have used better low light performance.
3) Landscape Still Shots from Travels: Could have used full frame because my lenses didn't feel wide enough.
4) Surfing Stills: No complaints but weather proofing would have been nice because of blowing sand/spray.
5) Vlogs of my talking to the camera indoors: Low light issues always haunt me and traveling with lights is tough.
6) X-Games coverage: Lack of FPS made me miss a few cool sequences. (Failed snowmobile backflip missed? Dammit)
My home stuff
1) Various Family shots around the pool: Could have used more FPS
2) Small photo trips with my daughter: Full frame would have been nice for landscape stuff.
As I think about it, this camera is almost exactly what I've been hoping for. I do wish it had 60FPS or better in video mode so that I could slow things down but I guess I can use the go pro for that when the time comes. I'll almost certainly order it as soon as I can.
My "Pro" Work
1) Paintball Video and Still shots: Could have used more FPS and better auto focus.
2) Indoor Conferences Video and Still shots: Could have used better low light performance.
3) Landscape Still Shots from Travels: Could have used full frame because my lenses didn't feel wide enough.
4) Surfing Stills: No complaints but weather proofing would have been nice because of blowing sand/spray.
5) Vlogs of my talking to the camera indoors: Low light issues always haunt me and traveling with lights is tough.
6) X-Games coverage: Lack of FPS made me miss a few cool sequences. (Failed snowmobile backflip missed? Dammit)
My home stuff
1) Various Family shots around the pool: Could have used more FPS
2) Small photo trips with my daughter: Full frame would have been nice for landscape stuff.
As I think about it, this camera is almost exactly what I've been hoping for. I do wish it had 60FPS or better in video mode so that I could slow things down but I guess I can use the go pro for that when the time comes. I'll almost certainly order it as soon as I can.
Upvote
0
6.0 not 6.9 FPS???
Almost 100% VF???
Up to 41 cross type???
USB 2 ????
Weather sealing ???
Totally underwhelming. Sure it's a nice camera with a couple of extra features over the II, but there's nothing revolutionary here, and nothing at all to justify the price tag compared to the D800
Almost 100% VF???
Up to 41 cross type???
USB 2 ????
Weather sealing ???
Totally underwhelming. Sure it's a nice camera with a couple of extra features over the II, but there's nothing revolutionary here, and nothing at all to justify the price tag compared to the D800
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Canihaspicture said:
Yes. First off, Digic5+ is not the only reason for the higher frame rate - the mirror box needs to be stronger and have faster motors, even moreso for the 12 fps of the 1D X.
As stated, MP count isn't necessarily the most important factor, or even an important factor for many. The 21 MP of the 5DII was fine, the 18 MP of the 1D X is fine.
The big improvement, IMO, is the AF system of the 5DIII. It's still not 1D X AF, and as I expected the metering is the 7D's metering system (and 60D, 600D, etc.), not the 100K RGB sensor of the 1D X, and that sensor also assists the AF system.
shuttersound said:
If certainly looks to me like the camera features the same button-lock in the center of the mode dial, as on the 60D (and optional retrofit for the 5DII and 7D). I'm not happy about this 'feature' since anything that slows down a mode change is annoying.
fotoray said:
On the opposite side of the lens mount release. Possibly programmable as on the 1D X (although just one and not two).
Personally, I'm really glad they did not add a popup flash. For me, trying to use a TS-E lens on a 7D is an exercise in frustration, because the protrusion of the flash blocks access to the TS controls (even with the smaller knob included for use with crop bodies, and that little knob is even harder to turn).
Just catching up on all I missed over the past few hours and going through the pages one at a time. So, does this set of specs lean you mroe away from the D X. Just curious. I realize it would be nice to see camera tested data/examples.
Upvote
0
C
corntrollio
Guest
Tuggen said:
You can get quantum efficiency above 100% in certain applications:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6062/1530.abstract
Quantum efficiency is the number of electrons produced relative to photons absorbed. For comparison, a backside illuminated CCD can hit 90+%.
That said, 100% QE is not necessary to improve *image quality* for pictures that are 2 ISO stops higher relative to the 25% QE of the 5D. QE is about light sensitivity, which has an effect on ISO performance, but does not have a direct correlation to ISO performance for digital and is not the only factor that determines image quality.
A given camera sensor only has one QE value regardless of what ISO you are using. For digital, adjusting ISO has to do with adjusting gain, not with increasing the sensitivity of the sensor. This can be done in various ways, including using a higher-bit A/D converter.
What QE does mean is that a given sensor can collect one stop more of *light* than another sensor if it has twice the QE. For example, the Canon 5D has 25% QE, and the Nikon D3s has a QE of 57%. The D3s will collect more than one stop more light than the 5D. The 5D Mark II for comparison is about 33%, and the Canon G11 is about 60%. However, QE alone does not dictate image quality because there are other factors involved in image quality, or else we'd all be using a Canon G11.
Furthermore, sensor QE isn't the only thing that can be improved to increase image quality and performance. Bayer filters reduce light acquired by a stop or so, so we still have room for improvement there to allow more light in. QE is a factor that affects noise in an image, but there are other factors too. Obviously, we can also use noise algorithms that may reduce noise while still keeping apparent detail, although that's a separate issue. There are also different types of noise -- for example, there are ways to increase luminance noise that may increase chromatic noise.
These issues are much more complicated than trying to reduce them to one particular number as the end-all measure of image quality. It's not really accurate to say that image quality at high ISO only has to do with quantum efficiency.
At minimum, however, it looks like we could increase QE 1.5 stops above the 5D and improve Bayer filters by perhaps 1 stop, so we probably have 2.5 stops of improvement available due to those two factors alone, with other factors that could still be adjusted.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
