5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[torger]

Professional landscape photographers do care about diffraction optimum detail etc. What they don't do is to let it take over, that is not taking a great picture because it cannot be made at the highest possible resolution.

When working with a high res system not all of the pictures you make get to the peak what the system can do resolution-wise. Technically it's all about making the "perfect compromise", how to get the best possible technical quality out of the composition you have chosen. Sometimes the composition (and weather conditions) does not allow the system to work at its peak, but if it will be a great picture, just shoot.

About the diffraction discussion -- it is not a gating limit it is a soft onset and can be reversed to some extent with deconvolution. Tilting and focus stacking is other ways to fight the problem. Also high res photographers are rarely fundamentalists when it comes to DoF -- rather have one important part of the picture tack sharp and let the rest be reasonably sharp, but at close range detectable less sharp. This way you don't need f/32 on all your pictures , and the resolution is appreciated anyway.

 

[Gothmoth]

Professional landscape photographers do care about diffraction optimum detail etc. What they don't do is to let it take over, that is not taking a great picture because it cannot be made at the highest possible resolution.

right, that´s what im saying.
when david noton or ansel adams need(ed) a small aperture they use(d) it.

in the end the motive matters not the best possible resolution.

For all we know, he's shooting at f/22 with a MFDB. A quick browse of his website does not show any mention of gear.

well i know all his books and videos and he is shoothing 35mm most of the time and some MF.
nikon film then canon digital.

from his website:

Over the years I’ve used all sorts of cameras and formats. On the 35mm front I started with the Olympus OM system, which was a delightfully compact set up with good optics. Olympus abandoned the professional market though and the later OM 3 & 4s were not reliable. When my OM3 locked up on me whilst trekking in northern Thailand in 1992 I made the decision to switch to Nikon. My Nikon F4 and lenses took a swim in the sea off Godrevy Point in Cornwall in 1995 when a monster wave engulfed me so I took the opportunity to update to the F5. This camera was my workhorse for 10 years; I had two bodies, which never missed a beat in my countless journeys to the four corners of the globe. In my opinion it’s the best film SLR ever made; tough, reliable, with excellent metering and simple to use. In March 2005 I made the big change to digital capture and so followed a reluctant switch to the Canon EOS 1Ds mkII, (see Despatches August 2005). When I was a student virtually all pros used Nikon, but over the last 10 years Canon seem to have stolen a march on them. Nikon have been playing catch up to Canon’s trailblazing, particularly with digital cameras. Nikon’s insistence on using a ‘half frame’ image size in their DSLRs lost them many loyal customers, myself included. The EOS 1Ds mkII has proved to be a phenomenally flexible and reliable camera over the last 3 years of travel. I am now a complete digital convert. The quality the full frame Canon has produced is very impressive, superior to medium format film in my opinion. I’ve now upgraded to the 21.1 megapixel EOS 1Ds mkIII.

 

[King Conquer]

sticking with MKII.

 

[UncleFester]

It's than and not then. And no, my cameras just sit except for when I pick them up to pet them and dream about being a real photographer like you.

Picture this (no pun): you shot your model from the waste up but you want just a head shot for what ever reason. But you're effed because your camera is no longer a 21 but an 18. That would suck.

have you ever taken photographs or are you just talking about gear?

how much (in theory) difference in resolution are 18 vs. 21 MP?
do the math you may be suprised! and now keep in mind that this says nothing about the real difference, who is influenced by more thenjust math.

i mean what i read here is often so much nonsense.... i can´t believe you guys actually go out and take pictures. ;D
and if you make picture are you just pixelpeeping on a 30" monitor or are you printing the images?

it´s more like these PC overclocking websites where people tune PC´s but never ever actually DO something with them.

i read from "landscape photographer" who talk about cropping and how it will affect them to crop a 18 MP image vs. a 21 MP image.
well i rather crop a 12.8MP canon 5D image then a 16 MP image from a point and shoot camera.

what counts is real world resolution .. not MP.
you can have a 20MP sensor that has less resolving resolution then a 12MP sensor.
and cropping that worse 20MP image or downsampling will not help you gain resolution.

image quality is determined by much more then just a single and simple MP number.
and even resolution is affected by more then the number of MP.

 

[Loswr]

Picture this (no pun): you shot your model from the waste up but you want just a head shot for what ever reason. But you're effed because your camera is no longer a 21 but an 18. That would suck.

I bet all those photographers using a D700 are doubly effed, right? I guess it must be true that Nikon photographers are just better, because with only 12 MP they can never, ever crop a shot... :

 

[dgb]

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.

the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um. Pixel size on an 18mp Full Frame sensor is about the same as on a 40mp 645D (around 7um).

Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

 

[Bruce Photography]

I'm glad to see how much interest the 5DIII still seems to be getting. I am not forcasting or even expecting. What I am doing is stating what will make be buy a new Canon camera. I have all the x0D bodies except the 30D, and both the 5D and 5DMK2. I was hoping that the 1DX was at least 21 MP but that is not to be yet. I do lanscapes, sea scapes, and wildlife photographic prints up to 2x3 feet. I want to use digital and don't want the hassle of medium format backs. I've made a significant investment in Canon lenses so I'm not planning on jumping ship but I have started shooting with a Nikon for test purposes. Of course Canon will do whatever it feels is right for their business but I want two things from the next 5D ???? that I will buy. 30+ MP so I can crop wildlife and print even larger wall sized prints. I would like noise to be somewhat better than the current 5D2 but for me, the 5D2 is very good right now. But I would like focusing like the 7D and since they have already produced it with the 7D I couldn't understand technically why this shouldn't be a base requirement for the new 5D ????. These are my requirements. I will wait as long as I have to. For my compact I have the G10 for my pocket that I only shoot at ISO 80 and I can make very nice 16x20 prints. Message: I skipped the G11 and G12. As long as what I have works I will use what I have and not wait for Canon. I am very pleased with the 5DMK2. I look forward to an "Improved" 5DMK3. I may have a long wait - time will tell.

 

[Canon-F1]

the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um.
...
Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

don´t bother... that info is wasted on most of the readers here.
they will repeat and repeat and repeat that they need 30 or more megapixel on a FF camera. 8)

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.

makes you think if this guy noticed that the 645D has a medium format sensor...... :

 

[Fandongo]

[The follow focus is more a pipe dream.
Canon will never be influenced by Hollywood to perfect a feature so incredibly intuitive that it would put every focus puller on the street.

why not?
if it reduces cost for the studios... they will want and use it.

we saw other professions disappear.

Americans are on a ridiculous jobs kick.
Not to be confused with the Jobs kick.

They don't care how much better a computer can do the same job.
They want jobs so bad they're willing to lose their jobs to protest the lack of jobs.
Jobs jobs jobs, I created 2,000 jobs.

It doesn't make sense, people should protest the existence of inverse pyramid organisations - particular those of the government's own making and managing.
Not reward with praise the existence of fundamentally flawed futile jobs.

Studios spend cash like it's candy.
Arri knows this, and charges accordingly.
In DSLR replacing 35mm film land, $3500 for a follow focus is not OK.
In the scope of their absurd expenditures, an extra body to focus is nothing.
It's easy to see how it snowballs. If a camera costs more than a house...several houses with all the film once it's all done, just for the technical ability to roll film.
Everything has to be perfect along the way, and they all get hired to do their one thing.
Don't even look into permits anywhere near LA... Outrageous.

Cutting the focus, and keeping ridiculously fancy catering, tons of grips, and 100 PAs would be unlikely.
If they switch to these cameras they might start cutting all of the slack...
It'll get the snowball rolling the other way.
People might start screaming "off with their heads"
I don't see Hollywood dropping the focus puller or any set slaves, even after it becomes commonplace.

Because of the inherent advantage that kind of functionality would give the indy...
There's no way they'll release it any time soon.
It puts too many jobs in danger.

Of course, they're more than welcome to prove me wrong.
Hopefully with the 4k DSLR.

Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Scorsese are producing kids movies.
G movies pull almost unfair profits.
They're preparing for rocky waters that the imminent over-saturation will cause, while making things an indy CAN'T do by himself with a 5d.
Of course, nobody with just a 5d and some cfls/leds has proven that they can do Scorsese or Jackson.
Yet.

Consider how absurdly easy editing has become... And so smooth.
Millions of dollars couldn't get 3 years ago what kids have on their quad core Macbook Pro with Adobe.

"What's it like to ONLY be a director?"
- a 12 year old kid asks Scorsese in 2014 after shooting a movie in 2 days that generates blockbuster revenue.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

18-24mp is enough for a FF body with todays technology. However, better DR and higher ISO performance can be achieved, and I'd pay for that. I don't take video, I've done that, and know the professional level video takes a lot more than just a camera body and lenses, its only 20% of the cost.

If they had good autofocus during video so that it could be used more like a camcorder, it would be useful for informal videos like shooting the kids soccer games, or other quickly moving subjects.

I admire those with the patience to master Canon DSLR video capabilities, and, I use them occasionally, but my primary use is still images.

 

[minestrone]

That's NOT GOOD.

I didn't wait 3+ Years for Canon to go backwards in the Megapixel count. I own a 5D Mark II and was really interested in seeing a 30MP or more 5DMIII.

All that talk about lenses not being able to handle more than 18MP right now is tech talk with no really solid evidence to back it up. I'm using a 5DMII at 21MP and shooting Macros and Landscapes and all my L-Lenses seem to be holding up just fine. Perfectly fine.

If you don't want more than 18MP just set your 5D Mark II to a smaller RAW file.

I often have requests to do huge landscapes and wedding portaits, even the occassional product shot which can be no less than 21MP for my clients. In fact, most of my clients are use to going with guys using Medium Format. But I also work at *ony and our product shots, almost 100% of them are now shot on the 5D Mark II. And again for lenses that aren't able to handle more than 18MP of detail, these photos come out amazingly. I'm not talking about 10-20 product shots a week, *ONY has hundreds taken of upcoming products each month by industry pros using the 5DMII.

Bottom line is, I've always been annoyed by people screaming for lower megapixel and higher ISO. I'd demand BOTH instead of picking one. It can't be done? I dunno we'll see. Either way, extremely disappointed by an 18MP 5DMIII.

 

[lol]

From my perspective, take the 7D sensor which is already "good enough" and scale it up for about 46MP. That'll be me done

And before you ask, I often need to crop the 7D output anyway, so having a bigger sensor with the same density would effectively extend the wide end of my existing lenses. And before you go there, I'm not asking for 46MP at 8fps! Just don't drop below 3fps and I'm happy.

Diffraction - doesn't really matter. You don't get any worse a shot if you go into diffraction limiting than if you had a lower MP sensor. It's all about final output, and it is a lot easier for me to work on higher starting resolutions. Also don't forget we're using bayer colour filter sensors and anti-aliasing filters on top of that, so the actual colour resolution is far below the nominal MP count suggests. Having much more MP would help offset those effects until everyone has a foveon like sensor.

 

[UncleFester]

Yeah, that's touching and all, but we still won the war.

K
oh du hast einen fehler in meinem beitrag gefunden, gratulation!
sind sicherlich noch viel mehr drin.
nächstes mal können wir uns auf deutsch, franzoesisch oder italienisch unterhalten.
natürlich nur wenn du während deiner schulzeit mehr als deine muttersprache gelernt hast.

was ich bei amerikanern (?) und ihrer allgemein eher miserablen schulbildung aber stark bezweifele..... der ehemalige US oberdepp denkt ja immer noch afrika sei ein staat.

And no, my cameras just sit except for when I pick them up to pet them and dream about being a real photographer like you.

that´s what i thought.

 

[CowGummy]

Yikes... sounds like things are getting a bit too hot in here.

 

[ghosh9691]

OK...totally confused!!! From what I am reading, I can surmise:

[list type=decimal]
[*]No professional photographer is using a Nikon D700 for landscape and/or wedding photography where photos need to be blown up to a large size (16-inch or larger)
[*]Landscape photographers need a very high resolution because they print at really huge sizes and/or crop so much that they end up with the middle of the image only
[*]People are habitually pixel peeping billboard sized prints
[/list]

Maybe someone can help explain? I was always under the impression that beyond a particular size, the larger you print the lower the DPI requirement. A 5DII has just over 5000 pixels in the horizontal dimension. So, if you are printing a billboard, the typical resolution is 30DPI and that will give you an image that can be 166 inches wide. So why the need for insane MP resolutions? And if you are printing at smaller sizes, how much does 600 DPI really improve things versus 300 DPI?

 

[Isaac]

the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um.
...
Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

don´t bother... that info is wasted on most of the readers here.
they will repeat and repeat and repeat that they need 30 or more megapixel on a FF camera. 8)

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.

makes you think if this guy noticed that the 645D has a medium format sensor...... :

Sorry, you quoted something I didn't say. I never made any post regarding 645D etc.

 

[dgb]

the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um.
...
Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

don´t bother... that info is wasted on most of the readers here.
they will repeat and repeat and repeat that they need 30 or more megapixel on a FF camera. 8)

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.

makes you think if this guy noticed that the 645D has a medium format sensor...... :

Sorry, you quoted something I didn't say. I never made any post regarding 645D etc.

I think something got lost in all the quoting of quoting. What I originally quoted was you questioning "how many megapixels do you need anyway"

 

[moreorless]

the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um. Pixel size on an 18mp Full Frame sensor is about the same as on a 40mp 645D (around 7um).

Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

As I understood it though the changes in sensor size and so appatures used to get the same DOF effectively even out the effects of difftraction. That is for a given megapixel count and field of view diffraction will be at the same level at the same DOF no matter the sensor size. That doesnt of course mean that image quality will be the same given that the smaller FF lens and pixels have to work harder but difftraction isnt as I understand it an issue.

 

[thepancakeman]

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

 

[UncleFester]

Hey, my karma has dropped 6 points in less than 24 hours

"WE'RE SINKING!!!"