5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[catz]

My guess for 5D Mark III:

How did you guess these because these do not make much sense.

1. Single DIGIC 5+ supporting up to max 6 raw pictures in sec. (+1 for JPG)
2. Very usable ISO 6400 for stills, max ISO for video 12800, camera max ex. ISO 51200

How would you have a camera with different ISO for stills and video while 5D mark II can do 25600 ISO for video. Where did you come up that with better sensor + bigger pixels + better DIGIC it is going to be worse than 5D mark II? This does not make slightest sense. I have been shooting some night scenes at 25600 despite it admittedly sucks especially now that I have couple of hot pixels which become visible at high ISO video.

I am expecting ISO 102400 at least and it would be usable for both stills and video. 18 mpix sensor + full frame + more sensitive sensor than previous generation + better processing in DIGIC V your prediction sounds low.

I am expecting ISO 25600 to be still usable (comparable to 5D2 ISO 6400) based on assumptions on improvements on sensor technology, pixel size and DIGIC.

3. AF for video

Unlikely, if it follows the lead of the 1Dx. And for the HDSLR people this is much less priority item than a aliasing free image that really is 1920x1080 pixel by pixel sharp.

4. Audio control - same as 1Dx

This has been already in 5D2. Having that in 5D3 would be no news. Of course the new audio meters of 1Dx are nice.

5. Articulated LCD screen (trust me, this is very usable in real life situations)
6. Double CF slot (same as 1Dx)
7. Weather sealed body (slightly different than 1Dx)
8. Improved AF in 19 points for stills (better than 7D)
9. Price range - from 2.990,00$ - 3.490,00$ body only.

With these I could agree. However, how did you came up with these? Wish list/speculation?
I am looking forward to seeing more than CR0 level information about spec list.

 

[catz]

Pmovie mode w/optional:
- auto 180 degree shutter (change shutter - visible frame rate indicator adjusts)
- auto WB that doesn't change after hitting record.
- auto iso - adjusts at variable rate depending on how dramatic the shift, staying constant whenever possible.
- follow focus preset marks
- you could even set approximate marks, while in record a half shutter press begins the rack...it stops once the object in that approximate location gets focus confirmed.

The follow focus is more a pipe dream.

Well if I was working for Canon as a product owner (assuming they are not living still at stone age with waterfall process, project and program management and all the unnecessary work which does not help the consumer to get the products on time the consumers want), I would surely try to include these features. Lockable follow focus to an object is in software perspective feasible. It would not be very easy feature to implement, but it would be something that would make the camera to do something revolutionary instead of evolutionary. There are plenty of other things that could be done for the picture as well, which currently nobody is doing. However, the case is that I am not working for Canon.

Sounds like features like this would be more likely to come from one Cupertino company if they would ever venture to SLR cameras.

They aren't supposed to know.

Sometimes I wonder the product decisions made by companies. Sometimes they seem to do so dumb decisions that it is incredible how they can survive such fiascos. Instead of answering to a market need or creating a new market breakthrough, they companies tend to do evolutionary products without inventing anything new innovative. And then they sell that crap to customers because customers are expected to be sheeple and not care about what they buy. Maybe at the Internet age a change might eventually happen that selling crap over and over again will not work anymore and consumers, prosumers and professionals are more aware on what they want and what they will buy. Here would be a incredible chance for some small startup to come up with a total Canon/Nikon killer that would run circles with their products at a price that would completely kill the market for the traditional camera companies. Technically it could be done but it would require some serious venture capital and investors who have some vision rather than just looking the next quarter.

 

[Jettatore]

I'm fine with 18mp and better ISO across the entire range. Peak ISO performance is at the top of my wishlist. Would like to see ISO 50 included. I'd say that a close second would be improved video performance (fixed rolling shutter and similar head-ache inducing capture issues). Too bad the 18mp and ISO is still just a rumor. 18mp works fine for me, I don't shoot or print any style of photo atm that would benefit from Poster Sized and larger images and expect them to be viewed as you would the distance one views a wallet photo. There's also enough editing play room inside of 18mp for me to aggressively re-crop and print high-quality images at any size under optimal viewing distances. And if the info about the resolution of current lenses in this thread is true, even more reason to hope they do this and not go chasing a white rabbit just so they can print larger numbers in ads and specs.

 

[torger]

Wishing for higher resolution from a fullframe camera is not insane . While APS-C may be close to what can reasonably be resolved with current lenses (Sony's new 24 megapixel APS-C does not provide much real resolution compared to say an 18 megapixel), fullframe cameras have so far had HUGE pixels, and fullframe lenses are not *that* bad.

Of all formats out there, 135 fullframe is probably the must underutilized concerning resolution, because ISO performance is usually of higher interest (photojournalism, sports, street, handheld in general). For us that shoot from a sturdy tripod and want as much resolution possible, somewhere 35 - 45 megapixels is suitable for fullframe. If the manufacturers want to they can take yet a chunk from the medium format market by pushing 135 fullframe as far as the lenses allow. Yes, you would need the best lenses working at limited apertures to get all the resolution and still accept a bit worse corner performance, just as in the medium format world.

I do make prints, and I use stitching now and then just to get more resolution. Say having 36 mp instead of 18 would make a great difference for me, it would get me over the "decency level" in several cases when I otherwise would need to stitch or compromise. Reducing from 21 to 18 would not be a great loss of course, but I also doubt that increase in DR will provide significant better results in practice at ISO100, which is the ISO I shoot at 99% of the time for landscapes. That is there would be little reason for a landscape photographer to upgrade from 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk3 if it comes with an 18 megapixel sensor.

Canon's TS-E 24mm II and TS-E 17mm are great lenses that would work well with a high resolution sensor, providing a very good system for architecture and landscape photographers, an cost-effective alternative to medium format. I would be somewhat surprised if Canon does not aim to provide at least one camera that make use the potential in the still-life oriented lenses they do have.

For those that shoot handheld, it is a whole different story. Actually I think 10-12 megapixel is enough for handheld, and ISO performance at 3200+ is a priority -- totally different needs than for a landscaper. A 40 megapixel camera which has a 10 megapixel bin mode perhaps could be the perfect all-around fullframe camera .

 

[dtaylor]

given the rumors are true and nikon is releasing a 36MP D800 im curious what new DSLR customers will buy. for years canon was raising MP and nikon was saying less MP are better.

now it seems the positions have suddenly changed.

If this is true then for the first time I will be considering adding Nikon to my setup. Sometime in the next year or so I would like to improve my ability to make large landscape prints from a single frame. An 18 MP 5D3 will offer me nothing in this regard over my 18 MP 7D. Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.

The bummer is that Canon has the best T/S lenses and they scream for more MP. I couldn't care less about movie mode Canon! You need a high pixel count FF body for landscape and studio use.

most amateurs who have no clue still think more MP will make a better image.
even after years this is still stuck in their heads.

For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.

 

[Zuuyi]

I don't need ultra high iso in my studio camera. They removed the top end studio camera, now they are attempting to remove the second tier pro studio camera. I know people will just buy used 5d2 for the extra pixels and deep discounts.

I can see them keeping the 7D2 at 18mp but not the 5d3. I just want some new camera announcements. And if Nikon pushes pixels with the rumored 36MP camera; Canon will have to compete.

 

[dtaylor]

3. How many mp does someone really need truthfully?

If I had the money I would be shooting a 40 MP 645D. If I had my wish the 5D3 would be 36 MP. It may not be quite as good as the 645D, but it would allow me to produce substantially larger landscape prints at a much lower price point than MF.

Go look at the Imaging Resource 645D samples and tell me again that more MP are bad. There is a completely new dimension of detail in those studio samples. They reveal textures and fine details that don't show up on any current DSLR.

36 MP FF is still a lower pixel pitch then the 7D. I'm fine with large (i.e. 24") 7D prints to at least ISO 800. I don't need to shoot black cats in dark coal mines. I would like to get even more detail from the landscapes I wish to shoot.

 

[torger]

If this is true then for the first time I will be considering adding Nikon to my setup.

I've thought about the same thing. My major cost is in lenses, not in camera body. Unfortunately due to flange focal distance there is no Nikon to Canon adapter (the other way around exists though), that is you cannot for example use a 36mp Nikon D800 (if it appears ) with a Canon TS-E 24mm. But you can use a Canon 5D with Nikon lenses. For landscape having total manual control of the lenses is no problem... but as said Nikon body with Canon lenses won't fly :-\.

 

[torger]

Problem is, folks that shoot low-iso are in a minority these days.

Everyone wants to take hand-held, flash-less photographs of their children, pets, etc, around the house/sporting events/parties/etc.

Yes, I've thought about that too, that maybe us high res folks are just too few. On the other hand, a genre like landscape photography does seem to be very large among "serious amateurs" (judging from competition entries), perhaps even the largest when it comes to amateur photography, and there are surely more amateurs than professionals.

Also, those recent and great TS-E lenses indicate that they have some interest in this genre. Canon may also think that they cannot let down the 1DsIII professional customer segment, that is that they must provide a competitive product in all genres, not only in the most profitable ones.

 

[lol]

Since the 1D X was announced I thought it likely they would recycle the sensor into another body. So I wouldn't expect less than 18MP, just 18MP.

I'm still hoping for a future high MP body though. The shake up in the 1D space seems to leave a gap to me.

 

[Canon-F1]

For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.

so you prefer shooting landscapes with a 16MP point and shoot compared to a 12MP canon 5D for example?

if only image quality was as easy as MP counting...

 

[Gothmoth]

Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.

yeah but only those who ignore airy discs and other phenomens would make such a across the board statement.

A typical setting for use on an overcast day would be f/8.[8] For blue visible light, the wavelength λ is about 420 nanometers.[9] This gives a value for x of about 4 µm. In a digital camera, making the pixels of the image sensor smaller than this would not actually increase image resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

for FF 36MP are ok until around f10 i think.

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

im not sure if a 36MP FF camera would help me gain more real detail.
but i sure will try the 36MP D800 when (and if) it´s released.

 

[Stu_bert]

given the rumors are true and nikon is releasing a 36MP D800 im curious what new DSLR customers will buy. for years canon was raising MP and nikon was saying less MP are better.

now it seems the positions have suddenly changed.

If this is true then for the first time I will be considering adding Nikon to my setup. Sometime in the next year or so I would like to improve my ability to make large landscape prints from a single frame. An 18 MP 5D3 will offer me nothing in this regard over my 18 MP 7D. Cry noise and DR all you want. For low ISO landscapes printed big (>30") it's all about the pixel count.

The bummer is that Canon has the best T/S lenses and they scream for more MP. I couldn't care less about movie mode Canon! You need a high pixel count FF body for landscape and studio use.

most amateurs who have no clue still think more MP will make a better image.
even after years this is still stuck in their heads.

For some applications it is absolutely true. A 36 MP sensor will produce larger, more detailed low ISO landscape prints then an 18 MP one. No if's, and's, or but's.

Have you used the TS/E to produce a 3 shot landscape which you can easily merge into a pano which is close to a 36MP equivalent? For landscapes I have used this quite a bit. Not in every situation of course, but it works well, is quick to do the 3 shots and the stitching tends to be very clean just because of the way it is taken. No need for a pano-head...

I came across a photographer at the weekend, IIRC using a 5D. He shot a single photo using both 3 shot exposures and multiple focus distances and ended up doing focus stacking and HDR in Photoshop. I think the single shot was made up of 33 individual pictures. Again, does not cater for every scenario, but does illustrate that there could be some solutions that could work without the need for a higher res sensor. Horses for courses...

Ultimately, Canon has to chose what it thinks will be best for the majority of it's customers (current and future), and there will always be fallout. Given the D3X and the D3S, I am suprised that Canon has concluded that 18MP is the ceiling, but I guess people will decide when the dust has settled, the reviews are in, and we've hand hands-on experience with the new bodies.

 

[J. McCabe]

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?

 

[Gothmoth]

The resolving power of many lenses wanes after about f/8 (some faster lenses even have their peak resolving power wider open), so you are trading DoF for lens image sharpness. photozine.de does nice graphs of aperture vs resolving power of lenses on various cameras. If you've already chosen a less sharp image from the lens, why would you then be worried about airy discs?

As long as the diffraction limit kicks in after the peak of the lens' resolving power, I'm happy.

well it seems you misunderstand things here.... I dont want 36MP sensors for FF cameras.

what i say is that the 21MP sensor of the 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited for f16 (and i don´t even start speaking about lenses).

so what are 36MP FF sensors worth for landscape photographers?
they say we need more detail and more MP.... but as it seems they won´t get it from 36 MP sensors.
at least not with the usual landscape apertures......

 

[Gothmoth]

Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?

obviously you do.

 

[torger]

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.
and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

im not sure if a 36MP FF camera would help me gain more real detail.
but i sure will try the 36MP D800 when (and if) it´s released.

Perhaps you should look into using tilt-shift lenses. With tilt you can optimize depth of field and in many cases use say f/8 instead of f/16 or more to get the DoF you want (or close to it). You may want to look into the techniques that large format photographers use, they have had the "problem" with too high resolution from the start. The modern version of this is medium format tech cameras, such as Arca Swiss or ALPA with Phase One IQ180 digital back, but these systems are insanely expensive and thus not accessible to amateurs.

It is true though that often you cannot make a "mathematically perfect" all-is-sharp picture when you have really high res, you need to make a compromise and learn to master this, make the picture sharp where it counts. For example if the foreground has large structures and the background small (common), you may have the close foreground slightly out of focus. Sometimes focus stacking is used too.

 

[Canon-F1]

Do you often have something close to the camera when shooting landscape, or am I missing something ?

read a few books from ansel adams and the f64 group.
after that read books about composition (foreground, middle ground and background interest).

 

[Gothmoth]

Perhaps you should look into using tilt-shift lenses. With tilt you can optimize depth of field and in many cases use say f/8 instead of f/16 or more to get the DoF you want (or close to it). You may want to look into the techniques that large format photographers use, they have had the "problem" with too high resolution from the start.

again.. im perfectly fine with 18 MP. i don´t do billboard prints.

other user here say they want and need 36MP to have more details for landscape images.
all i say is, i doubt they will see a huge increase in real detail for landscape images where diffraction (small apertures) is a problem.

 

[Gothmoth]

It would seem like the 1DX would be the perfect camera for you - except for its cost, of course - right? A step down in MP allowing for more DoF due to being able to use a higher f-stop, not to mention the purported IQ raise.

well you should take a closer look on my profile.
i have no problem to afford gear. i own a camerastore i can use demo cameras. ;D

You appear to be asserting that landscape photographers need f/16 in order to take photographs and that the airy disc problem at f/16 on 36MP sensors will make a 36MP sensor unattractive. You appear to be ignoring the fact that f/16 is already beyond the sweet spot in resolving power of most, if not all, lenses.

no i do not.

the probelm is you don´t understand what im saying.
the diffraction limit of lenses makes it just MORE nonsense to ask for a 36MP FF sensor. :

to be precise, if the sweet spot of a lens would be way higher then the diffraction limit of a tiny sensor i don´t care if i go beyond the lens sweet spot.
it´s the limitation of the sensor resolution that is ultimately the important factor when we speak about camera sensors.

lenses can make real world resolution worse but they can´t make the theoretical sensor resolution better. there is no question about that.

I'm asserting that if a landscape photographer is chasing the maximum resolution from the lens/camera combination then they will shoot at the sweet spot of the lens first and arrange the shot second so that everything that they need is in focus and thus as long as the diffraction limit is greater than the airy disc, this will not pose a significant problem for photographers.

DoF it´s not a problem?
well it´s physics.

if you want/need a certain depth of field you have to choose a certain aperture.

if you want that stone in the foreground sharp and the barn a mile away you will have no luck with f4.

sure you could drag a small stone near to the barn.... but lets be honest that´s unlikely and not what your really had in mind. ;D

your argumentation shows the difference between gearheads and photographers.
i mean i don´t arrange my photos after lens sweetspots an MTF diagrams.
if i need f22 to make the image i have in mind and have everything sharp from foreground to background i use f22.
i look out for COMPOSITION not the most technical perfect image.