How many MP would have changed your mind about the 5d3.

[APBPhoto]

For those who were looking for higher MP increase in the 5d3
How many MP would the 5d3 have to have for you to consider it a true upgrade to the 5d2 (32MP, 46MP, 60MP, 100MP)?

 

[randplaty]

8 megapixels

 

[mjp]

I think the 5DIII is quite a good upgrade to the 5DII. Regarding megapixels; I can't think of any reason I'd need more than 22mp. It is likely more than enough for most photographers, even if they don't think so!

Bigger files means increased storage requirements. I've already filled several 1TB hard drives with photos from my 5DII & 7D. 40+ mp would be ridiculous!

 

[Daniel Flather]

What ^^^ said. 8)

 

[V8Beast]

Bigger files means increased storage requirements. I've already filled several 1TB hard drives with photos from my 5DII & 7D. 40+ mp would be ridiculous!

I don't care too much about those factors, as disk space and computer hardware is cheap. However, for the type of shooting that I do, a low-light beast like the 5DIII gives me more flexibility in terms of practical use and creativity. Once mine gets here, I will take advantage of its high ISO performance all the time, whereas having a ton of megapixels would be nice, but for editorial work, it would only be a factor in 1 out of 10 shots that actually make it to print.

 

[Jim K]

I'm looking for a landscape body (and some lenses) as a next purchase and the 5D3 does not give me what I want right now. But considering the price of the 5D3 right now I don't know how much a 30+ MP body would cost but probably enough that I would not jump too quickly.

Thinking about a 5D2, looks like $2199 may be the new price there based on Hunt's latest email. Going to speak with two bird/wildlife pros I know who both shoot 5D2s for landscape about going with it and what they think the 5D3 improvments would do for landscape work. One guy has the full set of TS-E lenses (not much need for improved AF there) and a 17-40mm that see most of his landscape use. The other guy mainly uses a 16-35 and a little bit of the 24-105 for landscape.

 

[jalbfb]

I think the 5DIII is quite a good upgrade to the 5DII. Regarding megapixels; I can't think of any reason I'd need more than 22mp. It is likely more than enough for most photographers, even if they don't think so!

Bigger files means increased storage requirements. I've already filled several 1TB hard drives with photos from my 5DII & 7D. 40+ mp would be ridiculous!

Totally agree!

 

[APBPhoto]

I have no problem with the 22MP of the 5d3, I plan on placing my order for one in April.
But since I am seeing so many posts on boards about the Nikon D800 MP vs the Canon 5d3 MP and people threating to switch formats ( I don't believe most of them will be buying either camera, just waiting around for that dream camera with everything for $500 .

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I prefer the 2 stop better sensor over the 5D MK II, it will allow me to get images in situations that were impossible with my 5D MK II. More pixels is not bad, I just value the 2 stops more.

However, we need to confirm this with actual raw images, I am a skeptic.

 

[Caps18]

I frequent the Gigapixel website, so for Landscapes, a 40+MP camera does produce better images (with the right lenses and sensor pixel size, etc...). It's not to say that I can't take some perfect shots with the 21MP 5Dm2.

I do think that Canon should look into making a high MP medium format camera for the landscape and architecture photographer...

 

[D_Rochat]

0mp. I'm very happy with the 5D mark III specs and test images and I can't wait to get one.

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

I have already preordered the 5d3 but the sample images failed to impress me in some ways. I would have liked more megapixels. I did try comparing the D800 sample images and one of the things I couldnt get over is when pressing the 100% button how much more detail I was getting in the Nikon shots. Extra zoom in on detail, seemed sharper and clearer.

I know that the jpg samples are not anything good to go on... Some of the Canon ones improved no end with a small amount of sharpening in Lightroom for instance. Whereas perhaps the Nikons had already been severly edited.

The fact that so much of the marketing spin on specs for pro cameras apply to jpg not raw bugs me. I dont care at all how many stops blah blah on jpg... I want to know for the raw. I shoot raw, I edit raw... thats what needs comparing... I dont care if you give me 14 stops of noise better than Nikons off camera jpg in your off camera jpg, especially when your jpg production ripped out all of the details to do so...

I'm not a pixel peeper... well I am... but not for sake of it. Most of the work I have sold recently has been as 30x20 prints and I would like to go bigger. Obviously I would love a Phase One on a Hasselblad but thats probably never gonna happen... but if ff dslrs could nudge themselves towards what the medium format cameras do in some aspects that would be the way I would like to see a line or two develop.

I think, to oversimplify to illustrate a point, so please dont take offense at anything thats said that may be a little unfair)... That some of this megapixel thing comes from how long you spend with and keep selling the same image for...

For a wedding photographer, You probably will only print over 16x20 very rarely and once the bride has chosen her shots and youve supplied the prints you will rarely see those shots again, it is extremely unlikely you will come back to edit the same images in years to come.

For a landscape photographer, you will go to places that you will never return to and will end up selling and sometimes re-editing some of the same images for years. The shots a landscape photographer makes his money off arent usually the ones he took last weekend.

So for a wedding photographer smaller mp, less editing, fast throughput are great.

For a landscape photographer as much detail captured while you are there as possible, more editing is viable in a scene that is worth it, re-editing with more up to date software down the line can improve an in image. Printing techniques and formats change and can allow larger and larger pieces to be made from your work. Some of those extra pixels may come in use in years to come. Some noise introduced by making those pixels smaller may be removable in years to come and more detail retrievable... Improving software and algorithms can modify all the pixels you have but they cant help you about the ones you didnt capture.

One obvious previso there is that as the higher mp mustnt by a knock affect on other aspects of the shot add blur to your source images, that will really screw you up... though software is even starting to make inroads into that apparently... "unblur" alogorithms... but thats neither here nor there...

So basically, yeah, I want more megapixels. 30mp on the 5d3 as opposed to 22mp would have been nice. The fact that the D800 has over 1 and half times as many pixels irks me a lot more than if it had a sixth or fifth more...

 

[Wahoowa]

The current offering is perfect, just not the price.

 

[gmrza]

I prefer the 2 stop better sensor over the 5D MK II, it will allow me to get images in situations that were impossible with my 5D MK II. More pixels is not bad, I just value the 2 stops more.

However, we need to confirm this with actual raw images, I am a skeptic.

I think Canon has looked at what the majority of 5d series users want - and good low light performance is probably in more demand than more megapixels are.
One problem for Canon is that reading out the larger files of a > 30MP camera would have resulted in a slower continuous shooting rate than 6fps. Canon probably decided rather to opt for more fps than for more MP. ... And dual Digic5+ was not going to happen in the 5DIII....

 

[starnaud]

I was looking for 32 to 36 mp at $2700 to $3000, plus I was looking at lens upgrades to 16-35II, the new 24-70 and and a new 70-200. Now I am doing nothing. Cannon will have to prove some vast advantage to the 5d3 at $3500 and 22mp to move me. I'll sit on the fence and will wait for hands on tests with 5d3 and D800.

Now with 5d2 and a whole bunch of glass and 6 speedlights

 

[Bruce Photography]

I had the D800E on order before the 5Diii came out because this site published the rumored specs which turned out to be true. Since the D800E wasn't available until mid April (I expect it will be later than that), I felt I probably had plently of time for Canon to make the announcement just as they now have done. I plan to go ahead and purchase the D800E now with the 14-24mm Nikor lens (I am a Landscape guy). The next new camera cycle won't be until mid-September in Germany. I do expect Canon to offer a 3D that is a pro-body with 40-44 MP with the built in grip for around $4500 to $5000 US dollars. It probably will have the 1DX focus system like the 5Diii but be one really tough camera with some revolutionary features that won't have the speed of the 1dx but will probably be about 6fps, usb3, gigabit ethernet, uncompressed hdmi, radio controlled synch with stobes and best just about every Nikon feature existing at that time. Long live the 3D! (I'm hoping....) Meanwhile I'll see what the D800e is made of and I'll use my Canon for my daily work until I complete my evaluation of the D800e and then I'll see. My story is to hedge my bets.

 

[YellowJersey]

I'm quite satisfied with the 22mp sensor. It's a bit more resolution than I need, but otherwise the camera fits my needs extremely well.

 

[MrBeavis5]

1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.

Don't get me wrong I still have plans to get a 5D3. At $3500 I'm sure they will still be hard to find for the rest of the year! Funny thing is has anyone considered that Nikon under valued the D800? I mean they could price that thing at $3500 - $3700 and it would still sell.

 

[Actionpix]

I shoot 15 MP on crop now. I do not believe my sensor outresolves my lenses yet as thin lines are still build up of stacked, well defined, squares and not blurred out. The noise levels at 15 MP for me are acceptable, as I have no need for high iso settings for my action photography. (Actually very often I have to much light and would like lower iso settings.) 15 MP translated to full frame would be 38 MP. So everything from 38+ MP would be fine now. (When the price would be realistic.)

 

[gmrza]

I shoot 15 MP on crop now. I do not believe my sensor outresolves my lenses yet as thin lines are still build up of stacked, well defined, squares and not blurred out. The noise levels at 15 MP for me are acceptable, as I have no need for high iso settings for my action photography. (Actually very often I have to much light and would like lower iso settings.) 15 MP translated to full frame would be 38 MP. So everything from 38+ MP would be fine now. (When the price would be realistic.)

What you need to take into account is that a crop frame camera only uses the "sweet spot" in the centre of the lens - which usually yields more line pairs per image height than the fringes do. Take a look at some of the lens reviews on www.photozone.de. The 17-40mm f/4L USM is a good case in point - on the 5DII, it's performance is fairly mediocre, whereas it is quite acceptable on a crop body.