5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[dtaylor]

Did you even read the entire post?

yeah yeah your workarounds are nice.

They're not just nice, they work. If I could buy a 36 MP DSLR and a T/S lens and consistently produce larger, more detailed prints then I can now for less then I would have to spend on a MF body alone, why wouldn't I?

And again I will point out that diffraction does not hit any format more than any other, and I don't often jump through special hoops to get the full 18 MP out of APS-C. That means I could be getting 45 MP out of FF if it was available.

f/11 should work actually.

that would be a near limit of 1.62m if my tables are correct.[/quote]

DoF calculator shows f/11 would just work with a focus distance of 5.7 ft. In the field it's not always possible to be so precise so you would probably be at f/13 for that example. But it is an extreme example.

what i think is that the "leaves counter" are to enthusiastic when it comes to more MP.
it´s not as if you get the 36MP for free.

I'm not counting leaves. I want larger prints and I'm on a budget.

 

[UncleFester]

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

tu non hai capito un sola parola.....idiot.. giusto?

Name callin' now, eh? Tsk tsk.

Not a word of it, to answer your question. Let me guess...23, 24ish?

 

[dealaddict]

Although I like it to be 18MP, I find it hard to believe. In fact, i don't think Canon will "go backwards" to put a sensor with less resolution than today. I think at the minimum, they will keep it the same. Unless they want to reduce the resolution to increase the burst rate, which also unlikely IMO. I think the weakest link of the 5D2 compared to Nikon D700 is the AF. If Canon can keep resolution the same, improve the high ISO noise further, and improve the AF, then it is good for me.

 

[samueljay]

I still don't understand the people who are saying that putting Auto Focus into movie mode will make it's way into Hollywood, and make the role of a focus puller redundant. In films you need to have someone pulling focus because the focal point often changes within the one shot, how can auto focus know when to pull from person A to person B when it's their turn to be in focus? Unless it all becomes electronic and you can pull focus without actually turning the focus ring, you would still need someone to select the focal point, which wouldn't get rid of a focus puller, just change the way they do things.

 

[gene_can_sing]

There's no substitue for a good manual focus pull, especially in Cinema. It would be hard for a computer to replicate

With that said, Auto focus in video has it's place also. For example, I was doing this macro video shot of these little crabs running around. It was really had to manually focus because they were moving so fast. That's when autofocus might be a benefit.

 

[AprilForever]

I usually shoot my 7D around f1.4-5.6. If shooting landscape, I may shoot 8-11. But that is it. I really don't need to shoot super high f-stops unless I want to (waterfalls at day time with a polarizer...)

The point very simply is, that I really do need cropping power, and the more the merrier. 24-28mp would be the jam! Those who don't want that big a file can shoot mRaw! And those who want smaller mp count do have a D300s available... ;D

 

[AprilForever]

If I were a photojournalist, I would be interested in the 1Dx. If I were a wedding phorographer, I would be interested in the 1Dx. Since I am a wildlife and nature guy with a cheap bent and a love for hand-holding, I love my 7D and its crop sensor. I hope that the megapixels grow evermore and ever more. I would lose My 300 2.8 would be much shorter on a 1Dx...

 

[moreorless]

I'm skeptical of an 18 mpix sensor for 5D3. Why would Canon put its new flagship 1Dx sensor in a lower class body right away? Doesn't make sense to me. I'm still thinking 36 Mpix. Canon will respond to Nikon in this regard.

The 1DX is in rather a different situation to the 1Ds mk3/5D mk2 though, the flagship body this time is being marketed more to a sports/jurno/wildlife crowd with both FPS and AF being big selling points aswell as the sensor

A 5D mk3 with 18 megapixels, and maybe marginal improvements in AF and FPS sold relatively cheaply wouldnt really be much of an alternative to the 1DX for those users. I could see it being very sucessful at the lower end of the market aswell since combined with a 24-105 it would provide a very versatile system without the need for large appatures.

I do have trouble believing that Canon will just give up on megapixels though given that they've released a number of lenses clearly geared to the studio/landscape market(and indeed to coping with the effects of difftraction) in recent years such as the new versions of the 14mm and the TSE's. The problem I'd say might be that trying to please former 1Ds users and FF newbies with a single body is simpley not possible. If Canon were to fudge it then they could end up with a camera too expensive to appeal to the lower end of the market and not high spec enough for the higher end.

The 1DX to me seemed like less an effort to merge the 1D userbase and more an effort to merge the sports, jurno,wildlife userbase onto one body(and get them all buying more expensive lenses). I could see Canon doing the same thing with the landscape/studio market aswell, ditch the dual grip and high end AF from the 1Ds that most of those users don't need and give them a 5D sized body with 1D build, a 100% viewfinder and high megapixel count that they do at a cheaper price, but still one significantly more than tradisional 5D levels.

 

[Gcon]

I wouldn't be surprised if the 5DIII is just a incremental bump in AF, weather sealing and a "downgrade" to the 18MP sensor to save costs rather than developing a whole new sensor.

The only fly in the ointment with this theory is the purported 36MP in the Nikon D800. Really though is video that big a market that they need dedicated video cameras and bang on about video in the stills cameras? As a stills-only landscape shooter I'm not feeling the love from Canon - seriously thinking of going the Nikon way with a D800 if they don't look after me.

 

[AprilForever]

I wouldn't be surprised if the 5DIII is just a incremental bump in AF, weather sealing and a "downgrade" to the 18MP sensor to save costs rather than developing a whole new sensor.

The only fly in the ointment with this theory is the purported 36MP in the Nikon D800. Really though is video that big a market that they need dedicated video cameras and bang on about video in the stills cameras? As a stills-only landscape shooter I'm not feeling the love from Canon - seriously thinking of going the Nikon way with a D800 if they don't look after me.

What is hilarious is that Nikon was the low MP one (D700 only 12MP!!! D300s only 12MP!!!). Now Canon wants to jump on the bandwagon Nikon is leaving!?!?!

Technology advances. And will continue to advance. And hopefully, the pixel count will decide to advance in the next offings instead of fail backwards. A 5d mkII is interesting to me. An 18 MP 5D would be boring and useless to me. And a less than 18 MP 7D anathema!

So, anyway, it will be interesting to see where this will go... But, seriously, I can totally see a whole lot of people jumping to the darkside if the 5D3 has only 18MP...

 

[Jettatore]

What I find clear from this conversation is that two 5D sized cameras are needed. And not because they are actually needed IMO, but because that's what people seem to be demanding.

One group wants 36mp FF images, and are saying they care about that more than bleeding edge ISO performance, which became possible by keeping the pixel size larger which requires lower mp total. This same group doesn't seem to care about video features either. Makes perfect sense then to just give them what they want... Maybe this can be done cheaper, perhaps not. I suspect there is very little if any actual cost savings here but perhaps there is a way.

Smaller form factor 5D sized body with ISO improvements and improved generation 2 video, in FF, and you have the other group covered nicely and I suspect this is also what all the 'new' customers that gathered to the 5D out of no-where during the video boom and others as well have come to expect out of a next-gen replacement.

Between the two, I'll take the second one. I don't care if it comes out in early 2012 or not for another year, that bit really doesn't make or break anything for me.

Problem solved, close the conversation. lol.

 

[UncleFester]

Not everybody shoots the same. Some could use more data, others find they could use better iso performance.

I, for one, don't see an iso problem with the current model. It's an incredible performing cam, even w/o lights, and even better with.

However, the way I shoot, more megapixels really frees up my creativity in pp. I'm now used to it and more will take me a step further. Providing IQ follows.

 

[torger]

What I find clear from this conversation is that two 5D sized cameras are needed.

I agree. Or they could make a "1DXs", a high res version of 1DX, and make 5Dmk3 more consumer-like, smaller body etc. I don't think they can in the long term ignore the professionals that seek a 135 system that can fulfill their medium format needs, if Nikon will provide. There are 1DsIII users (studio, landscape ,architecture) out there wondering if Canon are abandoning their market just because their share is smaller. There is a value in being a complete provider of camera equipment, that is having a product for all segments and uses, rather than just the best selling categories (I guess then they would only do compacts...).

For me personally (I'm an amateur) I'd like to see a high res camera a bit higher end than current 5Dmk2 (which I find a bit toyishly built, I like the 7D build more), but less than 1DX to not make it too expensive. Say a price around $3500 - $4000, the extra dollars would pay for build quality and ergonomics.

 

[dr croubie]

One group wants 36mp FF images, and are saying they care about that more than bleeding edge ISO performance... This same group doesn't seem to care about video features either.

Smaller form factor 5D sized body with ISO improvements and improved generation 2 video, in FF, and you have the other group covered nicely and I suspect this is also what all the 'new' customers that gathered to the 5D out of no-where during the video boom and others as well have come to expect out of a next-gen replacement.

So which will be called the 5D3, and which the 2/3/4D? (i'd say 5D3 should be the high-iso see in the dark, 3D should be the Megapixel monster). And which will be priced as what? (More importantly, what happens if the 36MP shrinks to a better-looking file than the 18MP at the same ISO?)

Speaking of which, has anyone shrunk a 24MP D3X photo to the same size as a 12MP D3s and made any comparisons?

 

[torger]

Speaking of which, has anyone shrunk a 24MP D3X photo to the same size as a 12MP D3s and made any comparisons?

You can look at dxomark and select "print" in comparison mode to get that type of comparison. D3x is then better at base ISO, and about 2/3 stop worse at high ISO. The real use of high ISO performance is however generally not slightly less noise in the range ISO200-ISO3200, but that you can get useful pictures at and above ISO6400. D3s can produce decent pictures at ISO25600, which is valuable for photojournalism etc.

 

[EOS 5D Mark III]

"The camera will be no more than 18mp. It was mentioned not to expect a big mp camera from Canon in the immediate future."

So what is "immediate future" for Canon? I don't see a launch of the EOS 5D Mark III until september-october 2012. I don't call that "immediate future".

 

[Jettatore]

I don't care which is called what myself, no matter, various names can be anywhere from 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D or even something like 5.5D or 5Ds depending on where they want to stick it. I really am geared up for a body in a 5D size though, I don't appreciate the 1DX size, at all, (but I do like dual card-slots), otherwise the 1DX features are more or less what I am after, but the price and size is not. Prices can come down, the size is permanent... I do need both stills and video in one camera, if I didn't, I wouldn't even be here. I also need two cameras, but both of which do stills and video, and work with one set of lenses. I also want the build quality to be good on both bodies but I imagine this can be customized (voiding warranty) after the fact but that seems kind of, not so much fun. It's going to be interesting seeing what they finally come up with, my guess, is that there is too much money for them to be making overall, lens sales included, to want to disappoint anybody and I'm hesitantly getting some confidence back after the C300 announcement that Canon won't disappoint with the new product announcements in 2012. One thing, if they do make two 5D sized cameras, they should probably let both camps know at the same time or people are going to flip out and this thread has made that obvious.

 

[te4o]

We can make this thread even 20 pages and there will still be NO CAMERA announced... :-\
And we can argue about the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in MPs and ISOs and landscapes but there are many gusto's and still NO CAMERA... :-\
So, better discuss more real things which make sense and have a teaching impulse, Canon will do their job some day and deliver a low light DSLR AND a High MP DSLR so we can all have one of each .

 

[KeithR]

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of less megapixels and better iso

Even though the one has sweet FA to to with the other...

 

[7enderbender]

i personaly dont really mind more megapixels however seeing the lenses at the moment cant deliver enough detail for the 18+ mp sensors its a good point to stick to 18MP sensors for a year and perfect those.
maby if they find a way to imporve lenses further there is a point in adding more megapixels for this cheapass cropfreak.

I've heard this before and find it hard to believe. Do you have any data to back up that claim? 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.