5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance

[nitsujwalker]

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4

I take it you've used all three of these lenses? I have. The Canon 28 1.8 is crap, indeed, but it's also cheaper than the Sigma. The Sigma 30mm is inferior to the Canon 35 1.4 L and is crop-only which is a significant disadvantage and why it's cheaper.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Canon 50 1.4, but it's also more expensive.

Sigma make some great lenses. 30, 50, 85, 70-200 OS for example. Tamron's lenses are mostly cheap and plasticy, don't like them at all.

I can honestly say that I don't like the Sigma 30 1.4. Shot with it for a while and was underwhelmed by the image quality and especially the autofocus. Maybe I got a bad copy.. Who knows. Right now I'm living with two canon 50mm (1.4 and 1.8 ) and love them both while saving for Canon's 35 1.4.

 

[Pieces Of E]

I'd rather not have any video features on my DSLR whatsoever. Like some, if I wanna shoot video, I'll pull out my video camera. A still photo, shot correctly with a good camera, can have so much more impact than shaky, hand-held video anyday. I know ya'll gotta agree with me on that.
As far as Canon DSLR's being used in video production, big deal. Real Hollywood films are shot with film cameras, whereas TV shows and some feature 'movies' are shot on video or a mixture of both.
My point being, still cameras should shoot stills, motion cameras should shoot motion.
Is that 7D firmware out yet?

 

[distant.star]

Wow! Very well said!

Thanks.

You know, back in the film days, the camera contributed virtually nothing directly to image quality. If you wanted different dynamic range or color rendition or whatever, you didn't blame the camera; you popped in a different type of film.

What differentiated cameras then is exactly what differentiates the 5DIII from the 5DII -- and, not coincidentally, what makes the 5DIII a significantly better camera than the D800 as well.

Specifically, it's all those non-sensor things, like autofocus performance and frames per second and metering and ergonomics and the rest. Even more importantly is the whole system -- the lenses you can mount on the camera.

With the exception of the very last top-of-the-line pro body film camera Canon ever made, the EOS 1-V, the 5DIII blows away every single film camera Canon ever made on any spec you care to mention -- and the only spec that the 1-V bests the 5DIII on is framerate (10 FPS v 6 FPS). Not only that, the 5DIII handily bests all other pro digital bodies Canon has ever made in pretty much every spec, except for the framerate of the crop sensor models.

And, oh-by-the-way, it's got image quality that simply doesn't exist in the film world (I dare you to make a 36" x 54" 135-format film print that comes anywhere close to what the 5DIII can do), image quality that's on a par with or superior to every other camera in its format on the market save for one single model from the competitors.

And, also-oh-by-the-way, it's a high-definition large format high-speed motion picture camera.

And, did-I-mention, Canon glass stomps all over the competition, what with the TS-Es and the supertelephotos and the MP-E and on and on and on.

And yet that's somehow still not enough? Canon is holding back?

Whatever.

Say, any of all y'all complainers get your invisible pink flying unicorn ponies from B&H? I hear they were supposed to start shipping after Pesach....

Cheers,

b&

 

[unkbob]

A still photo, shot correctly with a good camera, can have so much more impact than shaky, hand-held video anyday. I know ya'll gotta agree with me on that.

You're saying a good photo is better than a bad video? That is earth-shattering news. Equally, a well-shot video can have so much more impact than a poorly exposed blurry still photo. It's easy to create something horrible either way.

 

[Pieces Of E]

Wow, was a sarcastic response really appropriate? How immature and un-professional. 'Horrible' is why they created a delete button.

 

[unkbob]

Wow, was a sarcastic response really appropriate?

Yes.

 

[Musouka]

I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.

Actually there is at least one crippled feature (of sorts). The new WT-5 only works with the D4. The D800 can only use the bulkier WT-4. Both are extremely overpriced in any case so I don't think many would get the WT-5 even if it worked and you can always use Eye-Fi (but they would be quite limited).

It seems that Nikon is overcharging for some of the accessories while keeping the body price relatively low. The MSRP for the The MB-D12 Battery Grip is a whooping $616 (it's being sold for $450-500). The MB-D11 is currently selling for $220-250. I guess one can always buy an aftermarket grip, however.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon?

Hell yeah.

Oh, sure. At the bottom of the range they go back and forth between price / value comparisons.

But Nikon has nothing that even comes close to Canon's TS-E lenses, their supertelephotos weigh twice as much, they have nothing remotely like the MP-E 65...and, should you really have a hankering, (almost) anything yow can mount on a Nikon you can put on a Canon, but not vice-versa.

Really, it's all about the glass, and Nikon isn't even in the same league.

Cheers,

b&

 

[pdirestajr]

I don't understand when people complain that Canon is "intentionally holding back" features and advancements... they put the TOP OF THE LINE focusing system into a "semi-pro" camera (making it a "pro camera" for a very affordable 3,500). The last time they did that was with the EOS-3! Also, those 18 megapixie 1Dx cams are quite a bit more pricy.

Not sure why there always has to be a Canon vs X debate. Who cares? These camera bodies are just boxes. Tools.

If a 5Diii is holding you back artistically or professionally in any way, you have bigger problems.

 

[nitsujwalker]

TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon?

Hell yeah.

Oh, sure. At the bottom of the range they go back and forth between price / value comparisons.

But Nikon has nothing that even comes close to Canon's TS-E lenses, their supertelephotos weigh twice as much, they have nothing remotely like the MP-E 65...and, should you really have a hankering, (almost) anything yow can mount on a Nikon you can put on a Canon, but not vice-versa.

Really, it's all about the glass, and Nikon isn't even in the same league.

Cheers,

b&

I agree. I love canon glass and it was the main reason I wanted to come back to Canon. Of course I mainly shoot the f4 glass but it's something that Nikon doesn't have (I'm poor and love the weight––or lack thereof). Canon has many options and most of the Autofocus lenses are fast and accurate which is something that I didn't find with Nikon's older autofocus (which are being updated very slowly. The only lens that Nikon has the I drool over is their 14-24 f2.8. Other than that, Canon has everything that I could want and more.

 

[V8Beast]

I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry.

You're right, Nikon is hungry. They've been hungry ever since Canon stomped them so badly at the dawn of the digital era. They lost a ton of market share back then, and as underdogs, they've been pushing hard to catch up. That's the nature of being the underdog. Bold situations call for bold solutions, and Nikon's products from the last 5 years proves this.

Many have accused Canon of becoming complacent. Maybe there's some truth to this, but the nature of being #1 is that it's difficult to gauge how hard you have to push the envelope to stay on top. It doesn't make it OK to lose sight of the market, but that's just the way things go.

Personally, I don't think there's as large of a gap as people suggest when comparing Nikon and Canon bodies. For your needs, the D800 is the better camera than the 5DIII, but for others, the Canon is a more well-rounded machine. I'm one of those guys that preferred the D700 over the 5DII, so the 5DIII is precisely the type of camera I wanted Canon to build. If Canon is intentionally crippling their cameras, as people suggest, they will lose market share and then get serious about earning it back. It's a pissing match all consumers benefit from.

 

[Tcapp]

I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry.

You're right, Nikon is hungry. They've been hungry ever since Canon stomped them so badly at the dawn of the digital era. They lost a ton of market share back then, and as underdogs, they've been pushing hard to catch up. That's the nature of being the underdog. Bold situations call for bold solutions, and Nikon's products from the last 5 years proves this.

Many have accused Canon of becoming complacent. Maybe there's some truth to this, but the nature of being #1 is that it's difficult to gauge how hard you have to push the envelope to stay on top. It doesn't make it OK to lose sight of the market, but that's just the way things go.

Personally, I don't think there's as large of a gap as people suggest when comparing Nikon and Canon bodies. For your needs, the D800 is the better camera than the 5DIII, but for others, the Canon is a more well-rounded machine. I'm one of those guys that preferred the D700 over the 5DII, so the 5DIII is precisely the type of camera I wanted Canon to build. If Canon is intentionally crippling their cameras, as people suggest, they will lose market share and then get serious about earning it back. It's a pissing match all consumers benefit from.

Yup.

And where do you think we will be in 20 years?

Nikon will have the "best" camera for a while, then Canon will. It will go back and forth till in 20 years both sides are putting out a 100+ MP mirror less camera with a medium format sensor in a dslr sized camera that has clean 200k iso, 4k video at 120 fps, 15 fps for stills, more dynamic range than the human eye, built in GPS, wifi, and an autofocus system with as many focus points as there are pixles. The camera will cost around 30k thanks to inflation.

I guess what I'm getting at is who really cares if one side or the other has the best camera right this second? Sit back and enjoy this ride into the future! Look at how far we have come since the first digital camera, and just imagine how far we will be able to go in the future!

 

[Martin]

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers. I own a 5D3 and a d800 and it really seems to me that the folks at Nikon really tried harder. I originally bought the d800 for a specific purpose but now I find myself using it with a nice prime that I also bought. I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.

Using my 5D3 I don't get the impression that Canon tried as hard as it might have. It really reminds me of American car makers back in the day trying to focus as much as possible on maximizing profits and not making the best cars that it could. We all know how well that went.

So anyway, Canon. Try harder. You deserve all the sh*t people are giving you. The 5D3 is a solid machine, but it's not great. There were so many missed opportunities. You probably could have made something very similar in 2010 but didn't. Try to build the best stuff you can and price it aggressively. Thanks.

I have exactly the same feeling.

 

[moreorless]

another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

The 5D mk3 doesnt looked "crippled" to me, rather I think that Canon were looking to exploit the same kind of convergence of tech as live view and video offered on the 5D mk2. 22 MP seems to offer the 5Dmk3 vastly better video ISO performance than the D800(I'd guess a bigger issue for video than stills giving that long exposures arent an option) than the D800 but it also allows them to offer 6 fps.

To me it looks as if Canon and Nikon has specifically looked to go after what they viewed as weaknesses in there previous generation, Nikon a cheaper high MP body and Canon a good all rounder. I'm guessing that alot of amatures who want high MP bought a 5D mk2 fairly recently aswell when prices dropped while the earlier sales were made up of pro's who really wanted 5D mk3 specs.

 

[briansquibb]

another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

The 5D mk3 doesnt looked "crippled" to me, rather I think that Canon were looking to exploit the same kind of convergence of tech as live view and video offered on the 5D mk2. 22 MP seems to offer the 5Dmk3 vastly better video ISO performance than the D800(I'd guess a bigger issue for video than stills giving that long exposures arent an option) than the D800 but it also allows them to offer 6 fps.

To me it looks as if Canon and Nikon has specifically looked to go after what they viewed as weaknesses in there previous generation, Nikon a cheaper high MP body and Canon a good all rounder. I'm guessing that alot of amatures who want high MP bought a 5D mk2 fairly recently aswell when prices dropped while the earlier sales were made up of pro's who really wanted 5D mk3 specs.

This is a 5D3 not a series 1.

A 22mp 1Dx would be VERY interesting and give some credibility to the statement that it was a merger of the 1D and 1Ds ranges

It will be interesting to see if the tone of the posts on this forum changes from doom and gloom to glee when the 1DX gets to the market. Personally I doubt it as everyone seems to be looking for a spec of dust on the fender and if they find it no doubt there will be a class suit raised

 

[JR]

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

+1
This is a road they've chosen to increase sales, of course. and why not?
But, they do seem to have languished behind other Mfr's who have kept still image quality as their top priority. That and the technical requirements for doing video seem to be compromizing still IQ at a hardware level.

for now it does seem like this. Maybe when the 1dx comes out for real we will change our mind but does not change the facts for the other bodies indeed...

 

[JR]

Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.

Not at all. If you read the original post price is not the issue here. The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package. Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious. Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.

 

[JR]

The 5D mk3 doesnt looked "crippled" to me, rather I think that Canon were looking to exploit the same kind of convergence of tech as live view and video offered on the 5D mk2. 22 MP seems to offer the 5Dmk3 vastly better video ISO performance than the D800(I'd guess a bigger issue for video than stills giving that long exposures arent an option) than the D800 but it also allows them to offer 6 fps.

To me it looks as if Canon and Nikon has specifically looked to go after what they viewed as weaknesses in there previous generation, Nikon a cheaper high MP body and Canon a good all rounder. I'm guessing that alot of amatures who want high MP bought a 5D mk2 fairly recently aswell when prices dropped while the earlier sales were made up of pro's who really wanted 5D mk3 specs.

...but DxO said that ISO performance is better with the D800

[sarcasm]

lol

 

[JR]

another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

The 5D mk3 doesnt looked "crippled" to me, rather I think that Canon were looking to exploit the same kind of convergence of tech as live view and video offered on the 5D mk2. 22 MP seems to offer the 5Dmk3 vastly better video ISO performance than the D800(I'd guess a bigger issue for video than stills giving that long exposures arent an option) than the D800 but it also allows them to offer 6 fps.

To me it looks as if Canon and Nikon has specifically looked to go after what they viewed as weaknesses in there previous generation, Nikon a cheaper high MP body and Canon a good all rounder. I'm guessing that alot of amatures who want high MP bought a 5D mk2 fairly recently aswell when prices dropped while the earlier sales were made up of pro's who really wanted 5D mk3 specs.

This is a 5D3 not a series 1.

A 22mp 1Dx would be VERY interesting and give some credibility to the statement that it was a merger of the 1D and 1Ds ranges

It will be interesting to see if the tone of the posts on this forum changes from doom and gloom to glee when the 1DX gets to the market. Personally I doubt it as everyone seems to be looking for a spec of dust on the fender and if they find it no doubt there will be a class suit raised

Well I hope you are right Brian. I can't wait to see how the 1DX perform. I really hope it proves us all wrong ;D

 

[altenae]

Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.

Not at all. If you read the original post price is not the issue here. The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package. Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious. Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.

Did Nikon try harder ?
Or did sony tried harder.

Without the D800 the 5D mark iii would be top notch.

It still is, except for the DR which is less then the D800.
But other things from the 5D rocks.

I think everything is blown out of proportion on many forums.

Well I am glad I am off for a 2 week wildlife trip.
And yes with my poor Canon stuff.

I think we should be realistic and stop whining.
Or be a man and buy the D800 and see if this will make your images any better.

The 5D mark III is a superb allround DSLR with a superb AF.

Grow up. The difference is not that big in real word.
And the tools from Canon and Nikon are more then most of us will ever use or need.


-----
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.scramble.nl
www.planepix.nl