5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[jbwise01]

I like the direction Canon is headed with their DSLRs. I seriously can't believe all these posts about high ISO performance not being important. The truth is, High ISO performance is simply a higher priority for DSLRs going forward. As mentioned earlier, canon proved that they can easily expand MP count.

Benefits of High ISO development:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Better low light performance
[*]Expands capability of "Slower" lenses
[*]Allows higher shutter speeds to be used at narrower apertures
[*]Lens development can shift focus to increasing Sharpness overall without striving for wider apertures for low light performance
[*]Video performance is increased for all lighting conditions
[/list]

Let’s face it, this Move by Canon makes total sense. It’s not about increasing MP counts to appease uninformed enthusiasts; it’s about making the each pixel better. Once they have really pushed the limits of what we can expect out of each pixel, only then should they should move forward for high MP camera.

Its kinda like the car industry, they shouldn’t make cars with bigger engines with higher HP just because they can, they should be getting more out of the engines and HP they have to increase efficiency and performance of the car. The benefits increased efficiency far outweigh the benefits increased “power!”

 

[Fandongo]

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.

It is a damn good thing us nerds use the internet.

Have you seen tech commercials these days?
I think the rule of thumb is: If you see a commercial for it, DON'T buy.
It's old, underpowered, they made too many and they want you to take the rest off their hands.
i5?? Intel is advertising i5 processors?

Never saw a Sandy Bridge-E commercial.
Remember how much Pentium II was hyped?
I kinda wonder if we'll see a repeat with Ivy.

Red is a small startup (relative to Canon) and they are a great example of just how hard it is for a smaller company to match the consistency demanded from professionals.
You can take more risks (like throwing a totally inept video mode into a beastly 5d) buy from wholesale suppliers at a massive savings, and sell much closer to the cost per unit because you have your hand in other industries raking in big bucks. I bet people who shoot on Canons are tempted that much more to print Canon. =)

Sigma hinted that they need to split lens lines for photo/video.
Panasonic brought the classic video camera style rocker lenses and some damn good stabilization.
I hope the need doesn't imply that a smooth electronic follow focus can not be achieved smoothly with still lenses as they currently are. I wagered the purchase of L's on the hope that it was just a matter of time, otherwise woulda went Zeiss, sacrificing sharpness for color/bokeh/great MF.

But i agree with you certainly, someone needs to step up.
I was expecting it to be Samsung.
...Still could be.

I don't understand the new Canon Motto: Match, don't push, never lead.
They started with the goal of "destroying film"
Man did they do a good job...
Cinema was a fluke, lets not mess with that. WHAT?!?!

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.

A lot of people jump on the "they don't want it, nobody would use it" train.
But it's an entirely arbitrary statement.

They've never had the opportunity to use it without it hunting all over the place stupidly.

It's wrong for consumer products to be better and simpler at achieving the goal while the higher end stuff lags behind. But it happens all the time, mostly due to product cycles.
And people in the prosumer forums saying:

"Why would we need this?"

"That's stupid and I'm all pro!"

and of course...

"Don't advance things. I hate when things get better. I like my cameras like my women - old, not able to do many things, and desperate for someone to use them...preferably in the $3,000 range."

Pixel to pixel sharpness is almost an irrelevant advance (except for cropping) when people can't point out the 5d shots in a theater.

Average people can't tell the difference between:

1) 35mm film of their ass
2) m4/3rds video of their ass.
3) full frame video of their ass.
4) their ass

The advances in numbers and perfecting those that are there just feeds us stupid pixel peepers with an insatiable lust for MORE.
Hopefully the Digic 5 can at least match the gh2...
But I'd choose features over numbers with a mantra.

The power of one.

 

[Yasmin]

We started out as a Nikon shooter.

In early 1990, we switched to Canon due to their fast USM lenses. As you can imagine, we took a huge loss.

We are photojournalists. What we need is a sensor which can deliver printable images at low light levels. And I mean low light levels (EV 2-4). FPS does matter to us but we do not need 1DX's 12fps and 5D Mark II is too slow for us.

On lenses front, almost all of us carry the usual f2.8s. The 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L and 50mm f1.2L.

We don't care about video. If we need video, we will buy a video camera.

Although almost all of our equipment is Canon, guess what else is creeping slowly into our collection over the last year or so?

Nikon D3x !

Yasmin.

 

[torger]

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.

Actually I don't think huge billboard prints are the main use for high res.

Medium sized (15-25 inch wide or so) fine art prints is a good application for high res. Note that the native 3:2 format is rarely used so often some of the resolution is cropped away. When you step close, and people do if it is a detailed picture, you can appreciate 300-400 ppi depending on print technology (and also on a distance high res is more easily appreciated than the usual models assume). A fine art print that looks sharp even up close gives it an extra touch of quality, just like a high quality frame, glass and paper. How important this aspect is a matter of taste of course.

 

[phischeye]

Here is what I think.

Canon needs / wants a lower priced FF video DSLR (“cleaning up” the DSLR video market). To me it makes perfectly sense to reuse the 1DX sensor. That would be with a 5DM3 (or 5DX) at 18MP - video, HD and 4K, gets no advantage from a 36MP sensor.

I am thinking 18 high quality MP, good ISO, ok speed, less weather sealing, single CF slot.

Now of course, there is a high demand for high MP. This could be the introduction of a perfect studio cam - lets call it a 2D, 3D or 4D (what ever works for you) - with 36MP, good speed but no Video. That's cleaning up the video market for me.

 

[Jettatore]

I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but... For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format. Or perhaps this is the section a non-video FF DSLR could cover, reasonable ISO (not ultimate/amazing sounding words) but with massive mega-pixel and an over-all focus on entry-level FF price with video features omitted entirely. I see improved ISO performance across the range and improved video features to be among what most 5D MKII owners would come to expect.

Also really don't understand what amazing improvements you guys expect to get at 36mp for your landscapes. On any size screen with the entire image in view you are going to be interpreting a scaled down version of the image, so it's unnecessary even if you got to display your work at an I-Max theater, and on any print of a poster or larger size, you are not supposed to be looking at it with your nose smudging the print, and even Ansel Adams would agree.

 

[torger]

I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but... For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format.

Medium format is still a lot more expensive, and entry level systems are aimed at studio photo not landscape, not really good at wide angle and tilt/shift. Sure, If I could afford it, I'd use a Arca Swiss RM3Di, Rodenstock lenses and IQ160 back . Entry level Hasselblad or Pentax 645D is not all as attractive, due to huuuuge flange focal distance and limited lenses, and not even twice the sensor size compared to 135 FF.

Canon's wide angle TS-E lenses are quite unique. High resolving power, low distortion/abberation, more freedom of movement than even some tech cams have (diagonal tilts/shift), large image circle. Not making full use of them is missing an opportunity. Hopefully the 45 and 90 get updated too. Then you have a decent tech cam system at a fraction of the cost and weight, and you can use the body for other types of photo too. Those using medium format usually have a 135 system too, to have the flexibility.

The best ISO improvement we can see in a new 18 mp sensor compared to 5Dmk2 is probably 1.5 stop or so, plus possibility to shoot 51200. Important to those that need it but not huge for ISO400-ISO1600 shooters. So one can argue that an ISO improvement is unnecessary too . Also, a modern 36 megapixel sensor would still have better ISO performance than the current 5Dmk2, and there is sRAW modes when you don't need the resolution. So you can make a good all-around camera on a high res sensor too. Not just as good as 1DX on high ISO, but definitely better than the 5Dmk2.

 

[Zuuyi]

I don't mean to be rude, or to throw gas on the fire but... For the folks that need/could benefit from absurd mega-pixel, why not just go for the lower end of the price spectrum on Medium Format. Or perhaps this is the section a non-video FF DSLR could cover, reasonable ISO (not ultimate/amazing sounding words) but with massive mega-pixel and an over-all focus on entry-level FF price with video features omitted entirely. I see improved ISO performance across the range and improved video features to be among what most 5D MKII owners would come to expect.

Also really don't understand what amazing improvements you guys expect to get at 36mp for your landscapes. On any size screen with the entire image in view you are going to be interpreting a scaled down version of the image, so it's unnecessary even if you got to display your work at an I-Max theater, and on any print of a poster or larger size, you are not supposed to be looking at it with your nose smudging the print, and even Ansel Adams would agree.

They want their single purpose tool to actually progress in a manner it has since the first digital camera, in Megapixels. Why should they have to leave Canon because they want their next generation camera to have more Megapixels then a previous generation camera. They could just as easily tell individuals who really want more video options to go get a dedicated camcorder and stop wanting the camera to do double duty.

And regards to printing; you wouldn't need more than about 8MP for 20x30 print. So do you want to revert to 8MP cameras. 4k video isn't much more in pixel count. So why even request 18MP might as well revert.

Photographers have different needs for whatever reasons we all choose Canon; so it's fair for them request what they need and to be upset when they feel they're being slighted.

I plan to either get the 5d3 or 5d2(when the 5d3 comes out) because I want Full-Frame but I would be disappointed if they lower the pixel count, but I will do. But if my need was video I would just get a camcorder and not expect my DSLR to become a top-end Camcorder.

 

[Gothmoth]

I've tried f/16 and f/22 - the pictures are visibly soft when compared to f/8. I avoid them for that purpose.

lol.. say that to david noton and other guys who earn their money with landscape photography and shoot all day with f16 or f22. ;D

honest everyone making money with landscape photography will tell you that you use f22 when you have too. and you are bothered?

Look, this is pointless. You're claiming that the diffraction limit trumps all other issues when taking photographs

no im not...
well maybe it´s my bad english or maybe you don´t want to understand me but you still don´t get it.

so one more time....

I SAY... a 36MP sensor makes no real sense for FF cameras and landscape photography (using small apertures for huge DoF) when 21MP sensor FF cameras are already diffraction limited (by sensor design) at f13 or so.

if you are an rare landscape photographer who shoots f2.8 only then 36MP is maybe fine for you.....

but thinking that a 36MP sensor will magically break the barriers of physics will not happen.
you will not resolve more detail with more pixels once the diffraction limit of the sensor is reached.

and as you noticed... lens diffraction limits will makes things even more worse.

 

[motorhead]

Lens difraction is raised a lot and it is simply assumed that its a cross we have to bear. From the reading I've done I am led to believe that is not quite true and in fact its simply a matter of "is the effort (and hence the final cost) of improving this lens going to be worth it".

So as camera MP numbers head ever higher, lens designs will inevitably improve as the shortcomings in the present designs become apparent to the users.

Given this, I am firmly in the camp that wants ever more MP please. Hearing that the 5D mk3 might only have 18MP and be a killer video machine is not good news for me. However as the owner of a brand new 5D2, by the time I will be considering switching again no doubt we will be discussing 60MP or even more.

Yes, I also want less noise and greater DR, but I see no reason why the scientists cannot manage that at the same time.

 

[Jettatore]

Less noise even at ISO 800 and 1600 further, which are all already quite use-able, but do have noise... Improving that towards noiseless is HUGE.

I do understand what you are saying about the medium format points though. I just don't know enough about it to respond. I do know however, that you can make a super nice 400DPI magazine paged prints from 18MP, and as you start getting into poster sizes and larger, you cannot tell the difference in DPI at recommended increases in viewing distance that the larger sizes begin to command. Even a smaller 24 inch poster should be viewed at least 1.25-1.75 feet away, one could make a good argument that the reduction in DPI of an image printed at that size and viewed at a recommended distance would leave the viewer with no less impression of clarity and image quality, our eyes can't see detail that small from that far away. Super high resolution beyond 18 makes the most sense for being able to do large re-crops and for weird, scientific-like images that are intended to be just as interesting with your face buried in them as they are viewed at a normal distance. I'll take the 1DX ISO improvements in the smaller FF body over that for the time being. And to boot, if bigger mega-pixel is where 5D is headed and not ISO improvement I might just stick with the Mark II model.

 

[arussarts]

What i don't understand about these "debates" is how no one is stating the obvious. Higher MP and ISO performance would be great together! Yeah Yeah, diffraction limits... But seriously, most of the pros I know need both high MP and ISO

I photograph both architecture and landscape and I DO make 40x50" prints. (Notice the 4x5 proportion... thus I'm cropping a little) I also do a lot of work at night, so what I need is higher MP and ISO.

I'm happy to shoot at F8 on my 17tse or 24 because it's SHARP and I can control DOF with my tilt if I need to. Although, I tend to shoot a more selective focus aesthetic these days.

I suppose the real reason I want Canon to come out with a higher MP and ISO performer is because I'm tired of taking my ARCA and P1 back out with a laptop and a bunch of batteries and cables. My 5d2 and lenses and laptop fit in a medium sized backpack!

Also worth mentioning, the 5d2, gives me way better/easier RAW files at high iso than the P1. I actually think it's a better capture device than the P1 and have grown tired of P1 producing mediocre backs with RAW files that require a ton of post at a ridiculous price point with terrible high ISO performance.

Overall, if I had a camera that was functional in low light and gave me files that printed at 40x50 at native resolution, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[Gothmoth]

Lens difraction is raised a lot and it is simply assumed that its a cross we have to bear. From the reading I've done I am led to believe that is not quite true and in fact its simply a matter of "is the effort (and hence the final cost) of improving this lens going to be worth it".

well you still have the sensor diffraction limit then. :
even when you have a perfect lens. you are bound to physics.

 

[Jettatore]

Aren't your 40"x50" prints after cropping viewed at least 2 - 3 feet away? You aren't going to notice the difference in resolution at those distances.

 

[Gothmoth]

honest everyone making money with landscape photography will tell you that you use f22 when you have too. and you are bothered?

since you are/were concerned about your english, I'll say that I don't understand your last question - I don't know what you're trying to ask.

it´s a rethoric question... when guys like david noton who earn their living with landscape photography (and earn good money) use f16 or f22 .... why don´t you?

But obviously people such as yourself and others are already shooting at f16 and higher on 21MP or greater FF cameras, so obviously this is not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

it´s no deal for me at all .... because I DON´T CARE ABOUT MORE DETAIL!!
I DONT NEED 36MP.... I CARE ABOUT OTHER THINGS.

but if you one of those who think 36MP will give you more detail then i tell you DIFFRACTION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL LIMIT RESOLUTION and it does already with 21 MP cameras and small apertures.

sorry for caps but at some point you have to get it.... ;D

what are 15MP more worth for landscape photography when diffraction of the sensor limits the resolution?
in the end you get 15MP more of useless data when using f13 and above.

it´s this specific scenario i speak about.
in landscape i can´t always choose f4 or f5,6 because that is limiting my DoF.

 

[arussarts]

Aren't your 40"x50" prints after cropping viewed at least 2 - 3 feet away? You aren't going to notice the difference in resolution at those distances.

I totally agree... except that people (non-photogs and photogs alike) always walk up on the print to take a closer look. If you've ever seen a print from an 8x10 neg, a la Ansel, then you know much of the beauty is in seeing the richness of detail up close. Can anyone honestly say that they always view and consume a photograph at the optimum viewing distance?

 

[Jettatore]

Here's a funny idea. Wouldn't improved performance of ISO 800 and right on through allow landscape photographers to get super creative in the shade.... We might actually get new photographs from the same lenses that weren't fully feasible before.

 

[Sunnystate]

Considering apparent money frenzy culture at Canon, I see something entirely different emerging from all recent events.
Canon is setting stage to offer ultra pro high res camera at the price point of medium format camera.
Yes we will get 40 MP camera similar like the C300, with some huge announcement at Metropolitan Museum Of Art in the photography department or something.
Be prepare, they may even produce couple Super Wide angle "Terra" lenses $20,000- $60,000 a piece.
Our expectations for entry level FF camera body will look so silly soon...
I will have to research who is really behind all of this. It does not look very Japanese to me.
Welcome to the globalism.

 

[Gothmoth]

You don't care about detail but you care about diffraction.

What does diffraction do, if not limit the detail in a picture?

sorry but you seem to be unable to get what i care about.
i don´t "discuss" with you any longer.
read my postings again and read them carefully... maybe you will get it.

 

[Canon-F1]

You don't care about detail but you care about diffraction.

What does diffraction do, if not limit the detail in a picture?

sorry but you seem to be unable to get what i care about.
i don´t "discuss" with you any longer.
read my postings again and read them carefully... maybe you will get it.

ROTFL... i get what you mean and you are right.

it´s no deal for me at all .... becasue I DONT CATE ABOUT MORE DETAIL!!
I DONT NEED 36MP.... I CARE ABOUT OTHER THINGS.

but if you one of those who think 36MP will give you more detail then i tell you DIFFRACTION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL LIMIT RESOLUTION and ist does already with 21 MP cameras and small apertures

i mean what is so hard to understand?

resolution of a sensor will increase with more pixels as long as diffraction does not kick in as limiting factor.
once diffraction limits the resolution more pixel will not result in more detail.
because the pixels are then smaller then the airy circle.

while the diffraction limit is not reached on todays fullframe cameras when using big apertures it is an problem with small apertures.
unfortunately when you shot landscapes you often want small apertures (see ansel adams when you don´t know why ).

so if a 21 megapixel sensor is already diffraction limited at, lets say, f16.
then it begs the question what is a 36 megapixel sensor worth for you when you need small apertures?