Are you happy with the 5D III Specs?

[nightbreath]

Sure, if that's what you'd rather have then Canon have made the perfect camera for you (and for a lot of other photographers too, I might add). However I believe that there are also enough people that are prepared to accept the increased complexity of a high megapixel camera with a smaller pixel pitch. Sure, your diffraction limited aperture will increase (i.e. f/number reduce), which could be a problem in certain shooting situations. Your choice in these cases would be to stop down and accept loss of resolution from diffraction, or use a perspective control (tilt-shift) lens to control the plane of focus. This is a problem that large format (and now increasingly medium format) users have experienced for years. I'm sure that there is a 'sweet spot' after which it is not worth increasing resolution because the diffraction limited aperture becomes unworkably large, but I don't think that this is 22MP. As for the drawbacks of smaller pixels at higher ISOs, this is pretty irrelevant for landscape and studio work, in fact it might be nice to have a sensor optimised for low ISOs that is native ISO25 (a la Dalsa MF backs).

You also mention borrowing (or hiring) a medium format camera, which is great if you only need it occasionally. If it is the mainstay of your business or hobby, then you'd need to buy one; UK medium format prices range from £10,000 - £35,000, which is not really in the same league as a D800.

I am 100% agree with you, but my point is that the topic we have this discussion under should have been called differently. Forum threads are full of complaints about the 5D Mark III price / MPx count / DR / ISO performance / whatever, and it would be nice to see suggestions of a camera that has not been yet created rather than complaints about current one that many people liked spec-wise.

 

[traveller]

Sure, if that's what you'd rather have then Canon have made the perfect camera for you (and for a lot of other photographers too, I might add). However I believe that there are also enough people that are prepared to accept the increased complexity of a high megapixel camera with a smaller pixel pitch. Sure, your diffraction limited aperture will increase (i.e. f/number reduce), which could be a problem in certain shooting situations. Your choice in these cases would be to stop down and accept loss of resolution from diffraction, or use a perspective control (tilt-shift) lens to control the plane of focus. This is a problem that large format (and now increasingly medium format) users have experienced for years. I'm sure that there is a 'sweet spot' after which it is not worth increasing resolution because the diffraction limited aperture becomes unworkably large, but I don't think that this is 22MP. As for the drawbacks of smaller pixels at higher ISOs, this is pretty irrelevant for landscape and studio work, in fact it might be nice to have a sensor optimised for low ISOs that is native ISO25 (a la Dalsa MF backs).

You also mention borrowing (or hiring) a medium format camera, which is great if you only need it occasionally. If it is the mainstay of your business or hobby, then you'd need to buy one; UK medium format prices range from £10,000 - £35,000, which is not really in the same league as a D800.

I am 100% agree with you, but my point is that the topic we have this discussion under should have been called differently. Forum threads are full of complaints about the 5D Mark III price / MPx count / DR / ISO performance / whatever, and it would be nice to see suggestions of a camera that has not been yet created rather than complaints about current one that many people liked spec-wise.

In a way you are correct, but topics do tend to wander a bit! The problem with fora is that if you start a thread with a sensible and reasonable 'subject' line, they tend to get ignored in the blitz of recriminations from the more controversial topics. I've found that quite often people are now posting a subject line such as "Canon are finished, move to Nikon!" and then making a more reasonable assessment of new developments once they've grabbed people's attention.

I guess it's the way of the world! :

 

[ak47]

No, I’m totally disappointed with 5DIII ... I'm staying with my 5DII.

5DIII is a very conservative update to say the least ... as if the clock has stopped over the past 3 years …

Yes, the AF system is substantially upgraded (why drawfed 5DII with that crappy 9-point AF in the first place?) … but why are we not getting tracking AF in movie mode? If Pannny/Oly, Sony and Nikon can do it, I can’t see why Canon cannot. Canon may rightfully argue that pros don't need it, but this is a prosumer body! Lots of people were buying 5DII just to take pictures of their kids, me inclusive. Don't just think about the production houses (I know they bough lots of 5DIIs). Wake up, Canon!

And since 5DIII is supposed to be video-oriented (given that the sensor’s vertical resolution is now a multiple of 1920 ... which should have been used in 5DII, btw), why hold back raw output from HDMI?

Last but not least, why retain that stupid AA filter? Leica, Nikon and Fuji are all taking it out, and one doesn't need to pixel-peep to appreciate the effects!

Canon marketing guys must be blind or brainless or crazy ... they have the full spec. of D800 right b4 them, and they still come up with a crappy spec like this? and want to charge customers $500 more? is that a joke?

As the matter stands, I’m reserving my funds to upgrade my D700 instead. I don't switch systems any more ... parallel running, but I've been using 5DII very rarely ever since I got D700 a year after I got 5DII (I actually compared both b4 jumping into 5DII for the sheer resolution advantage and movie capability ... then, my kids start running around so fast that 5DII's crappy AF fails to catch them).

Canon guys, if you're listening, pls. give us 3D/5DX b4 everybody else here head for the superior D800. By superior, I don't mean the crazy MP count (which does show up as a huge advantage under good light when viewed 100% on-screen or when monstrous size prints are required, btw). It'd be fine if you release the same 22MP sensor, go up to 33MP or even beyond, but pls. give it a tracking movie AF that at least equals that of D7000, if not drawf it; take out that Stone-Aged AA filter; add global shutter to eliminate (not minimize) the jello effect; give it Raw video output (nevermind the interface); and price it reasonably (say, $4k). Is that too hard?

Almost forgotten about 1 stupid thing which I'm not sure whether 5DIII has inherited from 5DII, "Auto ISO" means the body chooses ISO values automatically for the photographer when he/she shoots in Manual mode, not ISO400 or any magic figure. Look at D4, it even allows for zooming and shutter speed +/- biasing now. At least do it the D700 way, pls. Many people would like to set the aperture and shutter speed by themselves and let the camera do the calculations ... because they're fully occupied with tracking their subjects.

Back to the questions:-

1. What type shooting do you do? child photography ... my 4-yearolds
2. Are you a Professional ... (Make the major portion of your income with your camera)? Yes ... but not in the photography/video field ... I'm an engineer
3. How do you feel about the 5D III? an over-priced piece of junk
4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't? pls. see the above

BTW, D800E fulfills virtually all my upgrading requirements - >12MP, movie AF, no AA filter, raw video output, lighter than D700. What it misses - too high MP count (file size, high ISO noise, low fps ...) and not multiples of 1920. Had it been a 22/33MP body at >=5fps, it would be perfect.

*****************************************************************************************
posted to the wrong thread by mistake yesterday - re-posted here

 

[rocketdesigner]

This camera is trying to please EVERYONE with one camera and that just cannot be done.

I guess if people agreed to this point above there would be no point to these types of forums which give end users the opportunity to vent, complain, wish, and lecture about their wants and needs .

Any here is an amusing take on the subject of criticism of the new MkIII:
http://bit.ly/zZdYKp

 

[XanuFoto]

1. What type shooting do you do?
Everything. Events -Weddings and smaller events. Landscapes. Small home studio and a bit of sports.
2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
Yes.
3. How do you feel about the 5D III ?
From where I am coming MKII its just what the doctor ordered.
- For events its going to provide me the versetality to capture the moment. I could silence the shutter and use ISO upto 25000+ to get pictures that I could only dream before.
- Landscapes - On a Tripod I am more then satisfied with the 22 pixels. If I need larger prints I just pass it t the pro to do their magic.
- Home Studio - Head shots, Beauty shots, Glamour shots and fashion. I am not a Joe McNally or a Melissa Rodwell. But if they could do with 22-24 then I guess I can if I trive to improve the skill to their level.
- Sports - Occassional soccer and basketball shots of children. It gives me the speed and ISO capabilities for both outdoors and indoors.
4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?
Its perfect.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I'm somewhere between advanced prosumer and semi-pro, if you can figure that out! Most of my serious photography is portrait, glamour and boudoir. I currently use a 5D classic and a 7D.

I prefer the images from the 5D when shooting people (when the images are in focus), because the higher res of the 7D makes a lot more work for me in post. I shoot mostly real people, not models, so I don't want every pimple and pore to pop out of the photo at me. Seriously, it is a real problem with the 7D and takes up a lot of time with the spot removal tool, among others.

I also love the ability to create shallow DOF with the 5D - I have several prime lenses that I use when possible.

My only two complaints about the 5D classic are the erratic focus system that lacks microadjust and slow writing-to-the-card.

I skipped the 5D Mark 2 since it did not seem like enough of an improvement, but I am definitely going to pick up a Mark 3 sometime this year.

I'm overjoyed at the new focus system and it might occasionally be fun to have better high-ISO performance. I'm hoping that the increased dynamic range will allow me to make larger exposure adjustments in Lightroom when I screw up and underexpose an otherwise good image.

I am also very pleased to see that Canon did not give us a megapixel monster. I have no use whatsoever for anything more than roughly 15 megapixels. And I do consider myself a pixel peeper!

I'm a motorcyclist as well as a photographer. There are riders who insist that their machine must be a "torque monster" or it just isn't worth owning. I've never been able to understand that, since even a modest motorcycle will give you far more performance than you can use in the real world. I think photography is like that. Hopefully Canon will give the "pixel monster" guys what they want, even if I don't understand their desire. In today's market, there is no need for a one size fits all product line.

Mike in Portland

 

[skoobey]

Spec yes, price not so much.

I think it'll chase away many buyers getting into FF that don't have the lenses.

I love my lenses, and I don't care about getting used to Nikon at this point, as I am happy with the 5dMKII.

That being said, I don't care about the 5dmkIII either. As, I said, if I were upgrading from a crop to a full frame, and if I weren't limited by lens collection, I'd go for a Nikon.

Current 7d/5dmkII wedding photographers rejoice! And some sports shooters too. A light body with everything you wanted, and with versatile yet manageable file size, and both the more professional CF, and the laptop-friendly card slots...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

it's simple:
100% with the AF specs

95% with the general body and UI and all

85% with the 2/3 stops better high ISO (if that is the actual number in the end, a full 2/3)

80% for stills options (it still needs EC in AutoISO M, NR is a bit gone wild for the jpg engine and sharpening algo not the best but in cam jpgs, not the biggest deal anyway, i bet the histogram is still not outline and you still won't be able to see where it ends when out in the sunshine, etc.)

40% for video options (come on at least give it zebra bars to show when stuff it blown! ML was a struggled hack and they put 30x more options in, although the 2 compression options are a plus at least)

40% with the MP count (hoped for 28-32MP, 36MP ain't bad either and maybe they could have still gotten top video quality by grabbing it in the same 3x3 blocks just out of a bit of a cropped section)

0% with the zero improvement to low ISO DR (if this stands) :'(

0% with non-inbuilt flash



it's complicated:

100% with the fps IF it had had 28-30MP at 6fps but since it is still 22MP....
65% for 6fps at 'only' 22MP, the rumored 6.9 or 7.5 would have made it 100% at 22MP (if it had been 6fps and 22MP and come out a year or year and a half earlier also 100%)

it remains to be seen how much better the movie mode is, it seems like aliasing and moire are much better maybe give it a 90%? but sharpness and natural film look are in question and it could be 10% it could be 90%, not sure yet


The price seems a bit high considering it has a less advanced sensor than the D800 (by all accounts so far), no built-in flash or intervalometer and worse metering than the D800.

BUT

If the AF proves to blow away the D800 AF then it helps the price become more tolerable (although you might say it merely makes it equal for not having as good dynamic range and fewer MP) and if the video mode ends up doing a lot better than the D800, in addition, then the price also becomes a lot more reasonable.