5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[stefsan]

Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

So would I! I'd love to get a camera like that – especially as a landscape shooter who often is in the mountains. I would happily trade in some Megapixels for very good ISO performance (clean up to at least ISO 6400) because I quite often have to shoot handheld (sturdy tripods are wonderful when you don't have to carry them through the mountains) and under weather conditions where you don't want to set up your tripod first (wind, rain, snow). For the same reasons I would not want a body with lesser weather sealing than the 7D.

 

[willhuff.net]

That is what carbon fiber tripods are for. I spent what was necessary to get a Gitzo after my 8lb tripod was too much for multiday trips up 4,000 feet of vert. It's now down to 2lbs.

Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

So would I! I'd love to get a camera like that – especially as a landscape shooter who often is in the mountains. I would happily trade in some Megapixels for very good ISO performance (clean up to at least ISO 6400) because I quite often have to shoot handheld (sturdy tripods are wonderful when you don't have to carry them through the mountains) and under weather conditions where you don't want to set up your tripod first (wind, rain, snow). For the same reasons I would not want a body with lesser weather sealing than the 7D.

 

[Justin]

Yes, but attach a good ballhead to it and you've addednearly another 2 lbs. I have a nice gitzo as well, but the ballhead, L-bracket, light tripod combo adds up on climbs.

On the other hand, maybe we all need to excercise more and then a few extra lbs wouldn't be a problem.

That is what carbon fiber tripods are for. I spent what was necessary to get a Gitzo after my 8lb tripod was too much for multiday trips up 4,000 feet of vert. It's now down to 2lbs.

Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

So would I! I'd love to get a camera like that – especially as a landscape shooter who often is in the mountains. I would happily trade in some Megapixels for very good ISO performance (clean up to at least ISO 6400) because I quite often have to shoot handheld (sturdy tripods are wonderful when you don't have to carry them through the mountains) and under weather conditions where you don't want to set up your tripod first (wind, rain, snow). For the same reasons I would not want a body with lesser weather sealing than the 7D.

 

[stefsan]

Yes, but attach a good ballhead to it and you've addednearly another 2 lbs. I have a nice gitzo as well, but the ballhead, L-bracket, light tripod combo adds up on climbs.

On the other hand, maybe we all need to excercise more and then a few extra lbs wouldn't be a problem.

That is what carbon fiber tripods are for. I spent what was necessary to get a Gitzo after my 8lb tripod was too much for multiday trips up 4,000 feet of vert. It's now down to 2lbs.

Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

So would I! I'd love to get a camera like that – especially as a landscape shooter who often is in the mountains. I would happily trade in some Megapixels for very good ISO performance (clean up to at least ISO 6400) because I quite often have to shoot handheld (sturdy tripods are wonderful when you don't have to carry them through the mountains) and under weather conditions where you don't want to set up your tripod first (wind, rain, snow). For the same reasons I would not want a body with lesser weather sealing than the 7D.

The weight is not my main concern here (I too have a carbon fibre tripod, but the ballhead adds considerably to it). For two reasons wind and weather are more of an issue as well as time: I often don't have the time to set up a tripod before shooting because I want/need to reach a summit/hut in time. And very often the places I want to shoot from are not very tripod friendly either. Therefore I shoot handheld and therefore I need higher shutter speeds and these depend on higher ISO settings…

 

[AprilForever]

Perhaps you could consider a monopod?

 

[thepancakeman]

And very often the places I want to shoot from are not very tripod friendly either.

If you can sit or stand where you are, and not fall/roll away, then you can use a tripod.

I can stand/sit on a 4" railing. Never had much luck getting a tripod to work there.

 

[jacobpays]

I have a 5dm2 and 5 Canon L lenses. If the 5dm3 were in the 28mp+ range I would place an order for it right now. Even if it cost double what the 5dm2 cost me.

I have ZERO need for high frame rates.
I have ZERO need for ISO < 3200.w

I do have a HIGH need for more megapixels.
I do gave a HIGH need for significantly faster autofocus.

Canon wants to wait and see if there if an 18mp 5dm3 s demand?

Here is my answer Canon. I will not be buying an 18mp 5dm3.
And frankly, the 1Dx is a dissapointment for a camera that's been in development for so long.

jp -- one minus vote on an 18mp 5dm3

 

[dr croubie]

And very often the places I want to shoot from are not very tripod friendly either.

If you can sit or stand where you are, and not fall/roll away, then you can use a tripod.

I can stand/sit on a 4" railing. Never had much luck getting a tripod to work there.

Gorillapod to the rescue!

 

[jrista]

This is my first post on CR forums, but I have to respond to this one. I've read a LOT of comments from people saying "18mp is GREAT, as long as I get better ISO!" Thats all well and good if you need low res shots in near darkness, but this is NOT a great solution for high-res landscape photographers who need high resolution at LOW ISO. I'm a landscape photographer, and I've held off getting a 5DII because I was hoping the 5DIII would come out with something around 26-28mp. When it comes to printing out feet x feet sized prints of stunning landscapes, low ISO and high resolution ARE KING!! Additionally, macro photographers and even perching bird photographers who need cropping power also need higher resolution sensors. A loss of nearly 17% pixel density is really going to hurt both landscape photogs and croppers.

The 5D II is the camera of choice for landscape photographers looking for a good-performing high-res DSLR, and can't afford tens of thousands of dollars for a digital MF. The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.) While I wouldn't be put off with MAINTAINING resolution at 21.1mp and improving ISO and maybe AF, this whole trend with Canon of REDUCING mp on cameras where MP is a key factor for a significant portion of their customers is RIDICULOUS! There needs to be at least one high-resolution camera in the Canon lineup to support the needs of those who print at very large sizes or crop and therefor need that resolution.

This post got a CR1 rating, and I'm not really sure whether to believe that or not. There was no mention about how reliable the source of the information was, it was simply tagged CR1. If this truly is a CR1 rumor, it really saddens me to hear Canon is reversing direction on a camera who's resolution was key to the people who used it. Sure, an endless race to 50mp without improving the other qualities of the sensor is pointless. However its been demonstrated that the 21.1mp of the 5D II seems to be at or near a sweet spot for many types of photograpers, and I don't see the need to shrink resolution to improve other aspects of the sensor. Given what I have seen with the 18mp 7D (which is great for wildlife and bird action photography), thats just not enough resolution for the other types of photography I do, and that many macro and landscape photographers do.

This is a really disappointing rumor.

 

[Loswr]

The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.)

I don't really understand this in the context of the rest of your post. The 5DII uses the same sensor as the 1DsIII, which would seem to make it a quite viable 'cheaper alternative' to the 1Ds series (whereas the 7D is the cheaper alternative to the 1D series). The uses which you mention - landscape and macro - do not require the main things that differentiate the 1DsIII from the 5DII - substantially better AF performance and better build quality. So I'd think for those usees, the 5DII would be almost the perfect cheaper alternative - instead of a 1DsIII, you could buy a 5DII and another to serve as a backup, and still have enough for a very nice L-series lens...

 

[briansquibb]

The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.)

I don't really understand this in the context of the rest of your post. The 5DII uses the same sensor as the 1DsIII, which would seem to make it a quite viable 'cheaper alternative' to the 1Ds series (whereas the 7D is the cheaper alternative to the 1D series). The uses which you mention - landscape and macro - do not require the main things that differentiate the 1DsIII from the 5DII - substantially better AF performance and better build quality. So I'd think for those usees, the 5DII would be almost the perfect cheaper alternative - instead of a 1DsIII, you could buy a 5DII and another to serve as a backup, and still have enough for a very nice L-series lens...

I think jrista was meaning the 1Dx line .....

 

[Loswr]

I think jrista was meaning the 1Dx line .....

Makes sense that s/he means specifically 1D, not 1Ds. But the 5D like is so obviously not a baby 1D that it didn't occur to me abyone would even need to state that...

 

[Rocky]

The top shelf lenses today have (give or take) been around for decades in one way or another and have always been resolving high enough for film. How could they be not good enough for 18 or 21 or whatever MP sensors? There are certainly many issues today that could see improvement. Lens quality doesn't seem to be one of them really to me (other than the fact that we're pretty much married to AF these days and that lenses aren't that haptically appealing anymore).

There is a reason by the way why Leica decided to develop M-series cameras that take all of their old lenses. Seems to work really great.

The real reason for Leica M body will take ALL old lens has got nothing to do with resolution. In fact the older lenses has less resolution than the newer lenses. The real reason behind it are the followings:

1. The older lenses are uncoated. It give certain "glow" to the B/W pictures that the newer coated lens will not provide. The M2 was delveopped in the early 50's and majority of the people are doing B/W. By the way, a screw mount to M mount adapter (specific to the focal length) is required for screw mount lenses to be used with the M body.

2. Economic reason. Leica lenses are not cheap. People do not want to layout a large amount for new lenses with the new body.

Nikon is doing the same thing. Theorectically, you can use any Nikon SLR lens on any Nikon SLR body if you can give up certain feature.

 

[sarangiman]

The only reason I can see a landscape photographer needing a 1D series (preferably full frame) camera is for its weather sealing.

Otherwise, it's just overkill. It weighs more than the 5D series & no landscape photographer should need better AF (especially w/ the advent of Live View).

More megapixels are certainly nice for lanscapes. I would probably even take more MP over higher DR for my landscapes, b/c DR can be well controlled w/ polarizers, graduated ND filters, & HDR. IMHO, a tripod is irreplaceable for landscape photography, no matter how good the high ISO performance. Landscapes/large prints just look better at the lowest ISO possible.

The point is: if you're a landscape photog, the 5D II is more than ample (just keep one of these rainsleeves handy: http://tinyurl.com/42wjd6n). You don't *need* Canon to release a new camera to take better landscape photos, which I would argue is *not* the case for wedding/portrait photographers who seriously *need* a better full-frame body that can actually focus accurately with <f/2.8 lenses for non-centered compositions. I suppose for that purpose the 1Ds III suffices, but, man that's old tech.

 

[jrista]

The 5D line is not and has never been a "cheaper alternative" for the 1D line, and it never should be (thats a void the 7D was designed to fill.)

I don't really understand this in the context of the rest of your post. The 5DII uses the same sensor as the 1DsIII, which would seem to make it a quite viable 'cheaper alternative' to the 1Ds series (whereas the 7D is the cheaper alternative to the 1D series). The uses which you mention - landscape and macro - do not require the main things that differentiate the 1DsIII from the 5DII - substantially better AF performance and better build quality. So I'd think for those usees, the 5DII would be almost the perfect cheaper alternative - instead of a 1DsIII, you could buy a 5DII and another to serve as a backup, and still have enough for a very nice L-series lens...

Sorry, I was referring to the 1D/1DX, not the 1Ds. The 1Ds is done and gone now, so I think its a moot point to compare that. The 1D and now the 1DX have always been geared towards action/sports photographers, which greatly differs from the market the 5D line caters to (or at least, DID cater too...with it getting a bunch more video features and a lower resolution sensor in the 5DIII, I think it is going to cater to an entirely different audience than the 5DII).

 

[briansquibb]

The only reason I can see a landscape photographer needing a 1D series (preferably full frame) camera is for its weather sealing.

Not all photographers specialise - although I appreciate a lot do. So on a walkabout I might take a macro, a bird and a landscape - so I take the best body that will cater for all eventualities - in this case it might be the 1d4 + 24-105 and 70-300L.

Personally I just take pictures of anything that looks interesting - I met a person that ONLY took pictures of birds flying, seems too limiting to me. Probably explains my shop levels of kit ;D

 

[mrjimmy]

jrista

One as to ask just what camera are you using now. You dont own a 5D2 and your printing out photos that a 7D can't handle at just 18MP........ wow

also in another post about the 7D you say (I think its at the limit of lens resolving power with 18mp, so there likely wouldn't be an increase in resolution) so what lens are you GOING to be using on a 30 MP 5D mk3

 

[RobertG.]

Hi,
I would like to see the new 5D III with more megapixels than better iso, videp features etc... But I'm concentrating mainly on landscape, architecture and macro, so that's natural. At the moment a pricy but good work-around for more resultion is this:

Source: http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Zu-Besuch-bei-Zoerk

I got this rear-shift-adapter today and it seems to be worth the 214€ (180 + shipping + VAT). Parallax errors are no more an issue and 3-4 verticals easily stiched together offer more than enough resolution. BTW, the 3/8 mount of the adapter is in the nodal point of the TS-E 24 II, so that's an additional plus for extra wide panoramas.

 

[jrista]

jrista

One as to ask just what camera are you using now. You dont own a 5D2 and your printing out photos that a 7D can't handle at just 18MP........ wow

also in another post about the 7D you say (I think its at the limit of lens resolving power with 18mp, so there likely wouldn't be an increase in resolution) so what lens are you GOING to be using on a 30 MP 5D mk3

I only have one camera at the moment. I would own a 5DII, but I was holding out for a 5DIII hoping it would up the resolution and improve the AF (which is truly atrocious for a professional-grade camera, used for landscapes or not.)

Regarding resolution, you forget that the 7D is an APS-C cropped sensor, while the 5D is a FF sensor. Assuming the two formats had identical resolution, a FF 35mm size sensor would need 46.7mp to reach the same pixel density as the current 18mp 7D. You can see the math in my answer here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2319.msg49501.html#msg49501

So, assuming the 5D III was 30mp, I wouldn't sweat a drop...there would still be 16.7mp of headroom before you outresolve the lens. Additionally, I'm less concerned about the diffraction limited aperture where diffraction *starts* affecting sharpness...and more concerned about where sharpness is visibly degraded...which is usually several stops later. See my answer to the following question for a visual example of how optical aberrations wide open have a far greater impact on sharpness than diffraction at much tighter apertures:

http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/8339/124

Regarding print...I like my work to be huge. When I can afford it, I prefer to print at 55" x 36", or about 4'5" x 3' (my home has a surprising amount of expansive walls in every room and down every hall that need something large to fill out. My living room wall, which is still empty, could really use something more along the lines of a 6'x4' print.) At native resolution without scaling, the 21.1mp sensor of the 5D II, which produces images 5616x3744 pixels in size, can produce a print 18.75" x 12.5" @ 300ppi in size...smaller than my preferred size three-fold (i.e. I could fit 9 whole 18x12 prints in one 55x36 print)!

If I had a 46.7mp sensor at my disposal, that would be an image size of 12430x8286 pixels in size. Thats a native print size of 41"x28" @300ppi! Much closer to my preferred print size (about 75% there), and close to the print size many of my favorite landscape photographers (who tend to use 4x5 Velvia 50 LF film printed at around 50"x40"). So, as far as I am concerned, so long as we are not out-resolving lenses and diffracting our way to fuzzieness, more resolution can only be useful, not bad. Going from 21.1mp to 18mp is a step backwards, when the physics and the math tell us that were not even close to the limit yet, and advancements in sensor fabrication keep lowering noise, improving color depth, and enhancing dynamic range all while still increasing resolution.

 

[jrista]

I got this rear-shift-adapter today and it seems to be worth the 214€ (180 + shipping + VAT). Parallax errors are no more an issue and 3-4 verticals easily stiched together offer more than enough resolution. BTW, the 3/8 mount of the adapter is in the nodal point of the TS-E 24 II, so that's an additional plus for extra wide panoramas.

So, if I understand correctly, that adapter can automatically shift/tilt the TS-E 24mm lens and create stitchable images automatically?