5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[V8Beast]

My old 1D mk1 AF kicked the hell out of the 5dmk2 AF

Why do I not find that surprising? My Powershot G7 focuses more quickly than my 5D.

 

[awinphoto]

I think alot of people are missing the potential for the return of eye control to be great, with the exponential increases in processing power we have seen since the elan 7e do you really think it will be just a cut and paste?

The potential for the eye control ai servo mode for say shooting a runway model or model walking towards /away from you. the eye control has the potential to make this camera own the portrait modeling arena if the AF is fast and accurate. Personally for a 5d I dont need 45 point AF anywhere from 11 to 19 would be fine as long as the points are fast accurate and have good focus tracking ability.

As far as points go with the 5d2 all you really need to do is add 2 more points in the narrow axis and space them out a bit further to make it 11. I would also be happy if they just bolted the 7D af system in as Neuro points out the spread is basically the same

Now make those 11 points all cross type and perhaps make the center 5 points f2.8 (center and 2 each side on the narrow axis closest to the golden lines and canon will have a sales hit they will struggle to keep up with I seriously doubt something like this would take sales from the 1Dx.

I would like to see increasing weather sealing to 7D levels (mainly better battery door and memory card door)
Canon need a pro build non gripped body

I really wonder what sort of sensor they will use I hope the 5D line stays as a clean high iso perhaps a high MP low frame rate lower iso performer 6D using the same body could be developed to keep the Hiigh MP crowd happy.

Currently I am very happy with the 5D body and control layout. there are a couple of things i would like. AEB activation same as 1D (ie press 2 buttons together turn the wheel and boom AEB is set) some custom program buttons would be nice. (ie so can dedicate one to iso only)

I would like the battery to stay the same for backwards comptability as I wont be selling my 5dmk2 bodies any time soon

I would welcome the eye control but as we have learned about higher MP cameras, especially higher density cameras are even more demanding on the lenses and focus becomes more critical because it is much more magnified, with the 5d, the tracking better be pretty spot on or some some sort of secondary manual selection/override in case it fails, a secondary shooter uses it and their eye isnt calibrated, etc... There's just so many what ifs, especially since I would guess more people would be shooting the new 5d camera than all the eye controlled film cameras combined. As long as its an option and not the only option, the. I'd be cool.

 

[wickidwombat]

on the elan 7 there is a switch to enable or disable the eye control pretty simple if you dont want to use it, I would guess they would put something similar on it

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Less than points than the 7D AF and less than 50D fps, i.e. same old pathetic tired old king of the hill behind the times reactive Canon.
Will the real Canon please stand up again, please?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the specs are as stated, getting the mkII now makes every sense.

+1 or better yet dumped your losses and aim for the D800

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Note also that GPS certification doesn't have to mean in-body. It could be a WFT portrait grip, too.

I find the rumored AF spec completely unsurprising.

I hope Canon finds it completely unsurprising when I stick with my 5D2 and start eying the D800 in earnest.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Maybe someone could cannibalize a 5d and a EOS 3 into one?

Canon could, heck they had the tech when the 5D2 came out, but they prefer to let marketing rule the roost of engineering and play games.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The specs coming out of this rumor may not be eye-popping or drool inspiring...but rest assured the mk3 will dazzle with it's low-light/high ISO performance. It's not going to be a body you grab to shoot sports, and Canon hasn't intended to be.

Unless you're going to spend $6k-$7k for a body like the 1D-X you aren't going to get a "do-it-all" body. If you have a sub $3500 budget, you need to buy a second body like a 7D to be able to track your moving subject and have the burst speed to not miss as many shots. And the 7D is going to have Rebel quality ISO performance.

But you definitely won't see a great AF system on a 5d body, not now, not ever....so please don't expect that. Save up for a 1D-X

I think people would rather save up for a D800 and get all that for a good deal less than the 1DX

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I wouldn't be surprised if AF was kept the same, but that wouldn't stop me from wanting to pick one up. If it gets 2 stop improvement in ISO over the mk2, that means clean shots at 6400, and would most likely be enough for people to upgrade, however its reasonable to assume that we will also see improvements in metering/dynamic range, perhaps some other minor things. But you definitely won't see a great AF system on a 5d body, not now, not ever....so please don't expect that. Save up for a 1D-X

The problem with this sort of rationalizing is that while a 5DIII with an antiquated AF system might make sense for product alignment within the Canon family, it will also be competing for market share with the Nikon D800. The D700 already crushed the 5DII in terms of AF (51 points vs. 9) and speed, but the 5DII's significant advantage in resolution was enough to win over many buyers. If Nikon comes out a D800 that maintains its AF advantage over the 5D, but then makes up for the D700's resolution shortcomings with its long rumored 36 megapixel D800, Canon runs the risk of losing market share to Nikon.

The problem with Nikon is that while the D700 "crushed" the 5dmk2 in terms of AF specs, it also crushed their own D3, which is something Canon will not do, they aren't going to over spec a 5d body to kill sales of their 1 series bodies. And Canon seems to be doing fine when it comes to share. Forget sales figures, because there isnt a breakdown between models...Just for comparison I went to B&H and had a look a the number of reviews for the 5dmk2 compared to the D700 (not scientific but fairly balanced way to look at it) and when you combine the reviews for the body only, and kit you get about 2100 reviews for the 5dmk2 and for the d700 there are just over 1000. Sure its not sales figures but I would venture to guess the rate at which buyers leave reviews is not 1:1. I dont think the d700 "crushed" anything and therefore Canon would rather have their own house in order because what they're doing works for them...share-wise and otherwise.

The 5D2 already crushed the 1Ds3 anyway. If they play a pathetic game again the D800 will start crushing them. DOn't forget that the D700 was wayyy behind in reach and detail and had no video. The D800 will not have their serious shortcomings....

 

[briansquibb]

The 5D2 already crushed the 1Ds3 anyway.

The 1Ds3 still produces better low iso images than the 5D2 - and it has a far better AF than the 5D2, plus all the 1 series benefits - such as weatherproofing

If you are happy to take pictures up to iso1600 a used 1Ds3 makes a lot of sense.

I think that cameras have moved away from a mp war to an iso war. Personally I dont take many images at 3200 or higher because by then I have usually got out the tripod of the flash.

I would love to see the focus of new cameras being on dynamic range to help cure the bette noir of photographers - burnt out highlights or lack of detail in the shadows

 

[K-amps]

Regardless for Focus points, why dont we see coverage on the 4 intersection points of the rule of thirds grid? Looking at the focus maps posted by John, I see coverahe near the grid intersections but non on the intersection points. Heck to make it simple, there should be at least 5 points in every camera, center and 4 grid intersections to start off...

There are limitations on how far from the center the AF points can be spread, especially in the vertical dimension. Basically, three reasons:

John thanks so much!! You are very helpful and generous with your time and knowledge.

Great article by the way!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 5D2 already crushed the 1Ds3 anyway.

The 1Ds3 still produces better low iso images than the 5D2 - and it has a far better AF than the 5D2, plus all the 1 series benefits - such as weatherproofing

If you are happy to take pictures up to iso1600 a used 1Ds3 makes a lot of sense.

I think that cameras have moved away from a mp war to an iso war. Personally I dont take many images at 3200 or higher because by then I have usually got out the tripod of the flash.

I would love to see the focus of new cameras being on dynamic range to help cure the bette noir of photographers - burnt out highlights or lack of detail in the shadows

I mean the 5D2 crushed the 1Ds3 in terms of already low 1Ds sales tanking, nothing about which body itself was better.

 

[GoldenEagle]

Hi all, first post here!

What I haven't seen discussed re: 5DM3 is the impact of higher useable ISO for lowlight shooters on the entire Canon L-series telephoto lens line. Currently, using Lightroom 3 noise reduction (@~35% slider), I can use 5000 ISO on my 5DM2 all day long, with very little noise impact on IQ. If the 5DM3 can get me a 2-stop ISO improvement, that equates to around 20,000 useable ISO. What that means, from a lens acquisition/ownership perspective:

A) I could work with a 70-200mm f/4L ($600/$1100 w/IS) instead of a 70-200mm f/2.8L ($2200/$2400) and still have sufficient shutter speed (1/200 or better) to freeze most subject movement, low light, no flash.

B) Similar comparison at 300mm for f/2.8L vs f/4.0L: $7300/5.2lb vs $1300/2.6lb. Savings=$6,000, plus no monopod required!

C) Even better, at 400mm focal length, with a 20,000 ISO, couldn't I get a 400mm f/5.6L for $1,200, instead of a 400mm f/2.8L for $12,000? I have neither budget nor the desire to drag an 8- to 11-lb monster around all night. With the 400mm f/5.6L, it's only 2.8 lbs, less than the 70-200 f/2.8L!

What I'm seeing potentially is the ultra-high ISO available in a 5DM3 (plus 1DX, potentially 7D2) making the incredibly expensive and heavy f/2.8L telephotos only being used by the elite/rich sports/outdoor shooters, allowing a lot of less-financially well-off shooters to produce still-great imagery using far less expensive and lighter f/4.0L-f/5.6L telephoto lenses.

Spending $1-2K on a 5D body upgrade from M2 to M3, just for the ISO alone, could/would pay for itself and then some, immediately in lens savings, wouldn't it? What am I missing?

Give me ISO! GE

 

[briansquibb]

The 5D2 already crushed the 1Ds3 anyway.

The 1Ds3 still produces better low iso images than the 5D2 - and it has a far better AF than the 5D2, plus all the 1 series benefits - such as weatherproofing

If you are happy to take pictures up to iso1600 a used 1Ds3 makes a lot of sense.

I think that cameras have moved away from a mp war to an iso war. Personally I dont take many images at 3200 or higher because by then I have usually got out the tripod of the flash.

I would love to see the focus of new cameras being on dynamic range to help cure the bette noir of photographers - burnt out highlights or lack of detail in the shadows

I mean the 5D2 crushed the 1Ds3 in terms of already low 1Ds sales tanking, nothing about which body itself was better.

+1 I think you are right from that point of view.

On paper the 5DII is much more attractive. Again I suspect that photograhers are being lead on a iso chase by the marketeers. The 1Ds3 is all about image quality with the push being studio work as it 'only' goes to iso 1600 (expanded to 3200) whereas the 5DII is good to 3200 and acceptable at 6400 (with care).

It seems to be not generally understood that the higher the iso the lower the IQ of the image (even if noise free). Obviously this varies from body to body and it starts being significant at different points - rather like diffraction starts to lower the IQ.

I have chosen to move to the 1Ds3 from my 7Ds as it will serve me as a 1DX now, so that I am ready to upgrade the body without having to go through the 1.6 to ff hoops. I suspect several of those jumping from 7D to either 5DIII or 1DX will find it very hard and there will be bad stories about the new bodies. I shoot mostly in reasonable light so iso 1600 is more than good enough for me.

This happened with those jumping to the 7D and getting soft images because they had set the AF up wrongly. I bought a so called soft focussing 7D and got nothing but sharp pictures once I sorted the AF system.

I am out shooting today with the 1Ds3 and the 400 f/2.8 - this is the equivalent of the 1.6 with a 250mm - which highlights what is going to happen when people move to ff - Canon will sell longer (and more profitable) lens.