A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

[Loswr]

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

We're those the only features I mentioned? No. Frame rate and build are others. More 'sliders' could be viewfinder, number of card slots, and at the time, HD video with a FF sensor, etc. Also, there was a much smaller relative price difference between the D700 and the D3s than the 5DII and 1DsIII, and smaller than people are certainly hoping for in the differential between the 5DIII and 1D X. As I've stated before, Canon could bring the 5DIII feature set closer to the 1D X, but then they'd have to make up for that by raising the price. How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

 

[arussarts]

Its seems like the 5D Mk III News is all over the board... One week its definately not over 18MP, the next its it seems like 30MP... with news like this its hard to either get excited or upset over this cameras potnetial specs...

We should think of what this camera should be and wait for more credible specs to be released.

Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
- to be a sports camera
- to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
- photo-journalist type work
- wedding/event photographers
- walk around FF camera (landscape enthusiasts)
- indie videographers
- making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

I respectfully disagree with much of your post. I am a "pro" land photog and a "pro" arch photog and have used everything from LF Film to LF Digital to a D3x (begrudgingly) and my preferred camera to take out is my 5d2. It's "good enough" to make the savings in cost and the savings in weight worth leaving those other behemoths in the studio.

Could it be improved? Absolutely! Most of what I shoot (architecture) requires a LF Dig Cam, but with the new 17mm TSE I could practically stop using the LF Dig. I'd certainly like to. The only thing that stops me is that my clients demand more resolution. My landscape work, demands more resolution. I want the next 5D iteration to be more than "good enough" both in ISO and MP. AF would be nice, but I can't say it's important to me.

I can't honestly see how the 5d2, or coming 5d3, ever became so valuable to wedding/sports/journalist shooters. It's just not the camera for that and never was. The 7D I can see.

So what's my fantasy? All full frame...

- 45MP - with 1Dx specs
- 18MP - 1Dx
- 35MP - 5D3/3D - 2 + Stops in ISO - Could care less about AF
- 18MP - 7D2/6D - Full Frame, 2 + Stops in ISO

 

[MRW]

Its seems like the 5D Mk III News is all over the board... One week its definately not over 18MP, the next its it seems like 30MP... with news like this its hard to either get excited or upset over this cameras potnetial specs...

We should think of what this camera should be and wait for more credible specs to be released.

Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
- to be a sports camera
- to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
- photo-journalist type work
- wedding/event photographers
- walk around FF camera (landscape enthusiasts)
- indie videographers
- making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

I respectfully disagree with much of your post. I am a "pro" land photog and a "pro" arch photog and have used everything from LF Film to LF Digital to a D3x (begrudgingly) and my preferred camera to take out is my 5d2. It's "good enough" to make the savings in cost and the savings in weight worth leaving those other behemoths in the studio.

Could it be improved? Absolutely! Most of what I shoot (architecture) requires a LF Dig Cam, but with the new 17mm TSE I could practically stop using the LF Dig. I'd certainly like to. The only thing that stops me is that my clients demand more resolution. My landscape work, demands more resolution. I want the next 5D iteration to be more than "good enough" both in ISO and MP. AF would be nice, but I can't say it's important to me.

I can't honestly see how the 5d2, or coming 5d3, ever became so valuable to wedding/sports/journalist shooters. It's just not the camera for that and never was. The 7D I can see.

So what's my fantasy? All full frame...

- 45MP - with 1Dx specs
- 18MP - 1Dx
- 35MP - 5D3/3D - 2 + Stops in ISO - Could care less about AF
- 18MP - 7D2/6D - Full Frame, 2 + Stops in ISO

I completely agree with you. But I am also an Interiors / Arch / Landscape Pro.
I don't need a fast camera just a bit more resolution would be great. I crop to 4x5 so I always lose a bit.
Maybe less noise with long exposures. ISO 25 would be a nice feature as well.

 

[eaw213]

"...aimed at high megapixel/high ISOÂ performance."

Seems counterintuitive. That aside, the thought of the AF being less than the 7D is a downer.

I wouldn't say that. As I've mentioned in a previous answer, a 5D III with around 30mp would still be LESS DENSE than the 7D at 18mp. It would take a 46.7mp FF sensor to achieve the same pixel density as the 7D (which, while it doesn't have superb ISO performance, isn't terrible until around 3200). A 30mp sensor would be 16.7mp away from that maximum. Combine that fact with the improved design and readout electronics of the 1DX style sensor, and I don't see a 30mp sensor with better noise characteristics than any current 20mp+ sensor on the market today being "impossible" or even "implausible".

I can see what you're saying, and it's true if you approach the issue from that direction, but I prefer to approach it from the other. Yes, when compared to a 7D's relative density, the theoretical 5D MkIII density is still spaced enough to give it an advantage over the 7D's ISO, but I don't think I would call that high ISO performance. I consider it higher ISO performance than the 7D. The 1DX on the other hand has (I will assume) high ISO performance. Compared to that, the theoretical 5DIII won't have as good a performance, if only because it would lose it in the MP jump.

I don't mean to nitpick and say you're wrong, because you're not. "High ISO performance" really is a relative term based on who is hearing the comment, and as a 5DII owner looking for even better performance, all I can do is expect something relative to the 1DX.



As for the AF, what I REALLY REALLY want is more of the center AF type placed elsewhere in the frame. That's it. AF groups, modes, and algorithms be damned, I just want a solid AF point I can choose in single point mode that lies much nearer the Rule of Thirds lines. If the 5DIII had 5 total points, one in the center and one for each intersection of the thirds lines, I'd be happy. It's so limiting to use my 85 f1.2 and 135 f2 because I either can't trust my outer points to focus well, or I can't trust my subject to stay in focus after using the focus-shift technique.

I really don't think that asking for better quality points elsewhere in the frame is asking for much of Canon, much less asking for pro level AF since that entails a lot more beyond what I've said. If Canon can't muster the "courage" to at the very least give a few better points outside the center nearer the corners, then they've produced a garbage camera as far as I'm concerned. These kind of statements are always taken out of context though, so let me restate that it's as far as I am concerned. This means for me, given what I have, what I want, and where I stand on my own upgrade path, a 5DIII with AF of limited quality is garbage. This is not a "I'm jumping to Nikon" statement either, because I won't. I'll stick with Canon. That doesn't mean I can't be critical of them though. I'm an investor in them through my purchases, and I have every right to call it how I see it.

 

[Crackson]

Kinda wish there was a slightly quicker frame rate than my 2fps on the 5D. Is it so much to ask?
5-6fps would be great. :-[

 

[BaconBets]

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

We're those the only features I mentioned? No. Frame rate and build are others. More 'sliders' could be viewfinder, number of card slots, and at the time, HD video with a FF sensor, etc. Also, there was a much smaller relative price difference between the D700 and the D3s than the 5DII and 1DsIII, and smaller than people are certainly hoping for in the differential between the 5DIII and 1D X. As I've stated before, Canon could bring the 5DIII feature set closer to the 1D X, but then they'd have to make up for that by raising the price. How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

A lot.

If people have been harping on something for 3 years, that is the first clue that they are willing to pay up for it.
The 5D2 cannabalized the sales of the 1D line anyways...do you not think if Canon put a 7D-like autofocus and better sealing in the 5D2 they could have easily padded each camera $500 or more and people would have been tripping over themselves to pay it? I bet green money that if Canon had re-released the 5D2 as the 5D2s when the 7D came out and added those specs, they could have upsold the hell out of it. But alas, half the people settled for something less...and the other half still has their money in their mattress ready to buy a camera that doesn't exist (but easily could).

I'll make it easy for you Canon:
Break the small form factor full frame prosumer line into 2:
1) Speed Demon (12mp, High ISO, AF, FPS, Sealing, Movie)
2) Megapixel Monster (with current AF, sealing)
Charge $3500 for each then sit back and count all your money

 

[Blaze]

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

We're those the only features I mentioned? No. Frame rate and build are others. More 'sliders' could be viewfinder, number of card slots, and at the time, HD video with a FF sensor, etc. Also, there was a much smaller relative price difference between the D700 and the D3s than the 5DII and 1DsIII, and smaller than people are certainly hoping for in the differential between the 5DIII and 1D X. As I've stated before, Canon could bring the 5DIII feature set closer to the 1D X, but then they'd have to make up for that by raising the price. How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

My ideal camera would be something like an updated 7D with a 1DX sensor (AF and frame rate are critical for me), or equivalently a slightly downgraded 1DX in a smaller body. I'd definitely rather pay $4k for the specs you mentioned than $3k for what you are predicting (most likely correctly) for the 5DIII. I'm sure plenty of others would too. This would leave a nice price gap to introduce a 'cheap' $2000-$2500 FF for those who don't need the same speed, AF, and build quality.

I'd like to upgrade my 7D to a FF camera, but not sure if I can afford a 1DX and the 5DIII doesn't sound promising for indoor sports shooting.

 

[moreorless]

One thing to consider is that the 7D mk2 could potentially move up in the market, if its AF and FPS are advanced further then that leaves room for a 5D mk3 to improve those areas without stepping on its toes.

Really though the market for me seems to be more suited to 2 5D sized cameras than one...

Cheaper body - $2500 - 1DX sensor, 6 FPS, slightly improved AF.

More expensive Body - $4000 - 30+ MP sensor, 3 FPS, slightly improved AF, 100% viewfinder, pro level build.

 

[wickidwombat]

How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

I would in a heart beat as long as the high iso performance was still at least as good at the mk2

 

[cinq1]

Hello to every one,

nice to read you from Paris.

Why question is after all

I own a 60D, which is good and not.

I start to work a lot since few week in the photo industry.

i need to get a second body.

So, i like to go on something like 7D + 5D II

when do you think one of this body will get upgrade.

I ll be able to afford for either, new 7DII plus Old 5DII or actual 7D plus new 5DIII or 6D, or eahter 3D

hard to know what canon will lunch in 2012

Cheers.

 

[Loswr]

As for the AF, what I REALLY REALLY want is more of the center AF type placed elsewhere in the frame. That's it. AF groups, modes, and algorithms be damned, I just want a solid AF point I can choose in single point mode that lies much nearer the Rule of Thirds lines. If the 5DIII had 5 total points, one in the center and one for each intersection of the thirds lines, I'd be happy. It's so limiting to use my 85 f1.2 and 135 f2 because I either can't trust my outer points to focus well, or I can't trust my subject to stay in focus after using the focus-shift technique.

I really don't think that asking for better quality points elsewhere in the frame is asking for much of Canon, much less asking for pro level AF since that entails a lot more beyond what I've said.

I do think we'll see better quality points elsewhere in the frame - the 5DIII will almost certainly have many (if not all) its points as cross-type, and the center point will likely be the dual cross type.

But, as much is it needs greater point spread, I don't believe that the 5DIII will get greater point spread. Canon made a promotional statement that the lateral spread of the 5DII AF points was the same as the 1DsIII, but of course neglected to mention that the vertical spread was much less, meaning the 'corner points' get no where near the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections. The 1D IV and 7D are about tied for maximum horizontal-vertical extent relative to frame, and both get an AF point adjacent to the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections. Even though Canon touts the 1D X as having the most AF coverage area, while the horizontal extent is the same as the 1D IV (and thus greter than the 1DsIII), the vertical extent is actually less than the 1D IV, meaning the 1D IV is actually getting closer to (and a little beyond in one dimension) the 'rule-of-thirds' lines. You can see the relative coverages with and without the grid in the mouseovers in this article on TDP.

AF point spread is as much of a differentiator as number/type of points, and thus is another way for Canon to differentiate lines. I don't think we'll see greater spread in the 5DIII.

 

[JR]

How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

I would in a heart beat as long as the high iso performance was still at least as good at the mk2

I would but for me ISO performance would need to be a bit better than the current 5DII. For me ISO and AF are more important than adding a few more MP...but I would pay that kind of money for a small form factor (ie pro-body without a grip) body.

 

[JR]

I do think we'll see better quality points elsewhere in the frame - the 5DIII will almost certainly have many (if not all) its points as cross-type, and the center point will likely be the dual cross type.

But, as much is it needs greater point spread, I don't believe that the 5DIII will get greater point spread. Canon made a promotional statement that the lateral spread of the 5DII AF points was the same as the 1DsIII, but of course neglected to mention that the vertical spread was much less, meaning the 'corner points' get no where near the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections. The 1D IV and 7D are about tied for maximum horizontal-vertical extent relative to frame, and both get an AF point adjacent to the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections. Even though Canon touts the 1D X as having the most AF coverage area, while the horizontal extent is the same as the 1D IV (and thus greter than the 1DsIII), the vertical extent is actually less than the 1D IV, meaning the 1D IV is actually getting closer to (and a little beyond in one dimension) the 'rule-of-thirds' lines. You can see the relative coverages with and without the grid in the mouseovers in this article on TDP.

AF point spread is as much of a differentiator as number/type of points, and thus is another way for Canon to differentiate lines. I don't think we'll see greater spread in the 5DIII.

Is there any chance then that a new 5D III at least have a better Servo mode AF? I mean I know it is supposed to be a studio and landscape camera, but I bet you a good portion of the current 5D buyers are amateur enthousiast and from time to time it would be nice to be also able to shoot moving targets like our children with that camera.

Currently my 5D II does not do that well at all. I know I could buy a 7D for that or wait for the 1DX, but without a full blown pro level AF, I would be happy with a new 5D III where at least the center sections as a wider and improve Servo AF performance.

Maybe I am dreaming and maybe Canon wants me to buy two bodies (or one 1DX for this - but the problem is what is we want a small form factor for these type of shooting?)...

If I could have that with the 5D, then I dont care how many points and all, I would never complain about its AF system...

 

[whatta]

You can see the relative coverages with and without the grid in the mouseovers in this article on TDP.

cool, thanks

 

[photogaz]

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

I'll make it easy for you Canon:
Break the small form factor full frame prosumer line into 2:
1) Speed Demon (12mp, High ISO, AF, FPS, Sealing, Movie)
2) Megapixel Monster (with current AF, sealing)
Charge $3500 for each then sit back and count all your money

They won't be getting my money:

I want 18-21MP, High ISO and decent AF

 

[mccrum]

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

I'll make it easy for you Canon:
Break the small form factor full frame prosumer line into 2:
1) Speed Demon (12mp, High ISO, AF, FPS, Sealing, Movie)
2) Megapixel Monster (with current AF, sealing)
Charge $3500 for each then sit back and count all your money

They won't be getting my money:

I want 18-21MP, High ISO and decent AF

Um, actually, it sounds like you'd want Option 1 there.

 

[Loswr]

Is there any chance then that a new 5D III at least have a better Servo mode AF? I mean I know it is supposed to be a studio and landscape camera, but I bet you a good portion of the current 5D buyers are amateur enthousiast and from time to time it would be nice to be also able to shoot moving targets like our children with that camera.

Currently my 5D II does not do that well at all. I know I could buy a 7D for that or wait for the 1DX, but without a full blown pro level AF, I would be happy with a new 5D III where at least the center sections as a wider and improve Servo AF performance.

Sure, there's a chance. There's a chance pigs will fly, and a chance it will snow in hell, too. Ok, I exaggerate. Apparently, Canon did have that in mind with the original 5D. As I mentioned, the 5DII came out after the 40D, the latter having 9 cross-type points vs. just the one of the 5D/5DII. I recall reading a statement from Canon (not sure where) to the effect that they considered using a 40D-like AF sensor, but decided to stick with the sensor from the original 5D specifically because the 6 invisible AF assist points resulted in better AI Servo performance. Granted, if the 5DII's AI Servo consitiutes 'better'..... I've never used a 40D, but I wouldn't say the 5DII is substantially better at tracking subjects than the T1i which I started with, and people who've used both 5DII and a recent xxD have claimed the tracking is better with the xxD body.

But the point is, some within Canon do recognize that a decent level of AI Servo performance is needed - after all, it's not jsut a studio/landscape camera, it's a wedding camera, too...and brides do move (just not very fast). But it will remain a fact that if you want an AF system that will deliver the best keeper rate, you need a 1-series body.

 

[jbwise01]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

 

[traveller]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

Even Ansel Adams moved to medium format in his latter years as film emultions improved and he got too old to lug around a huge pack full of large format kit. Go and have a look at the weight of a large format camera system and compare it to a DSLR, not to mention the amount of set up time required for each shot (and the expense of the film). That's not to say that the quality of large or medium format isn't better, it's a trade off of quality versus convenience (if you don't agree -why aren't you carrying around a 8" x 10" instead of mere 4" x 5"?). There are plenty of landscape photographers out there using DSLRs or digital medium format as it allows them to be more experimental and prolific in their shooting style. It's far better to get the shot on a smaller, faster format than to miss it messing around trying to set up large format kit. Large format is already on the wane as more landscape photographers move to the ever improving digital medium format systems. It's all about convenience...

 

[traveller]

But the point is, some within Canon do recognize that a decent level of AI Servo performance is needed - after all, it's not jsut a studio/landscape camera, it's a wedding camera, too...and brides do move (just not very fast). But it will remain a fact that if you want an AF system that will deliver the best keeper rate, you need a 1-series body Nikon!!!

;D ;D ;D ;D