Production of the EOS 5D Mark III Finished? [CR2]

[JohnUSA]

Canon could discount the 5DIII to fill this gap until the 6DII arrives (at likely $2200).

Dream on! ;-p

Canon refurbished 5D3 cameras are often in this price range or less.

Edit: $2099.00 - http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-5d-mark-iii-body-refurbished

Refurbs are rejected units...

Geez I hope you are joking! I'm not feeding a troll... Well maybe a little!

Tell that to my problem free refurbished 5D3, after 3 years of use, that it's a reject. My 5D3 had 5 exposures when I received it. Also purchased as refurbished: 5D2, 50D and T2i all problem free.

+1

My one year old refurb 5D3 has been great, as has the 24-105 that came with it and I just picked up a refurb 16-35 f/4. Refurb doesn't mean broken, it means that it works properly - it just has been repaired by somebody with more skill than the factory line workers who messed up in the first place.

Many refurbs are new cameras that only had their boxes cosmetically damaged. Buyers want pristine boxes when buying. So stores returned items with damaged boxes to Canon for refund or exchanged.

 

[LoneRider]

My goPro can get 30 and 60 fps full HD out of 12 MP. I can't believe, Canon can't get 60fps out of 20 MP full HD with the 5DIII hardware. But i don't understand that Digic-thing.

The chipsets in the devices are fairly different. The DIGIC is designed to be able to transfer and process high quality JPEGs and RAW files, process AF and so on. There is a lot going on in the processor. As well, no offense to cannon, the ASIC DIGIC is probably relative low volume compared to the processor in the GoPro which has a highly optimized MP4 compression engine, using a TI OMAP processor or such.

As well scaling, processor like the OMAP have a dedicated scaling stage to feed into the mpeg4 codec, where the older DIGICs might not. As well, the OMAP has a DMA engine that is made to optimize putting together mpeg4 frames, really cool, again I doubt the older DIGICs do.

The new DIGICs probably have this.

As well, their is a quality difference, Canon must be very high, where the GoPro can't get away with a bit more loss.

From what I understand the 1Dx-ii is goign to have a top notch mp4 codec, no??

Anyway, from what I gather from the experts on the forums, 4k on the 1Dx is a must have that will only be a handy to have for many of the owners, who need the AF and stills on it.

I've opined that the 5D-iv will have a 25.1-26 MP minimum, to allow for a 1.5x scale down to full width 4K.

I also bet, at some point there could be a firmware upgrade to do a full width 4K on the 1Dx-ii, when they get the scaling in the pipeline proven out.

Anyway, if Canon can get 8+fps, 25MP, AF as good or better than the 7D-ii, DPAF, ***, and one chip ADC, and close to the $3K mark, I'm in. I am guessing they have the heat problems sorted out in the 1Dx, really thermodynamics in consumer electronics is a well modeling art now. Look at laptops, and tablets, stereos and such. Car stereos would be an interesting one, keep the dust out. But I digress. Just want to say tools like Solid works and the available models have come along way over the last 5 years. There is no reason that they can't do rapid mechanical design. So shame on Sony for failing that checkmark!

Anyway, I'm tired of the 50D and 7D I have. I keep on pushing up against the noise wall when I am doing indoor sports and some evening photography with moderate movement.

I want to jump to FF, but it's got to be compelling. For my video needs, the 5D-iii is not quite there. I really want DPAF.

That is my $0.02.

 

[ecka]

Is anyone using mRAW or sRAW on your 5Ds? How do those compare to normal RAW downsized in post?

 

[In-The-Dark]

How about EF 28-135 IS USM with f/4.0 constant aperture.

Careful what you wish for. Nikon has a 24-120 f/4 VR (i.e. IS) lens like the one you are referring to, but the wheels come off the bus on that thing longer than 70mm or so from what I've read. It's a constant max aperture zoom all right, but you'll still need to stop it down on the longer end.

I'm rather famously against high multiple zooms for IQ reasons (consider I am one of the weirdos who loves the 24-70 f/4L IS USM), but I do respect that folks like the versatility a larger zoom multiple offers.

- A

Point taken.
But the Nikon version was released back in 2010 I think, and with the improvement in lens technology nowadays, IMHO it may be possible for Canon to come up with a refresh that could even be better IQ-wise than the EF 24-105/4L.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

As well, their is a quality difference, Canon must be very high, where the GoPro can't get away with a bit more loss.

The thing is the DIGIC produces rather poor quality video though. Look at RAW video from ML on the 5D3, it shows the hardware can put out a very crisp, true 1080P with nice detail, but then look at the footage the camera produces after DIGIC debayer and processing, it's utter mush. And note that Canon used a much older DV chip for the C300 series instead of a newer DIGIC, probably because the DIGIC doesn't actually produce top quality. Or maybe the marketing guys guys told the engineers to use crappy settings on their DSLRs to cripple the video as further internal market segmentation. It could be that instead.

From what I understand the 1Dx-ii is goign to have a top notch mp4 codec, no??

It's never been the compression codec that has made Canon DSLR video poor. Unless you pan around and the entire frame changes and you don't use frame by frame option it barely looks any different using clean HDMI out to a high quality external compressor than just using the internal Canon compressor. But then compare ML RAW which avoids the image processing stage and the quality looks fantastic. It's as good as you can get from a DSLR for 1080P.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

For all those who poo-poo DR and say it's just fools in the lab or spec comparison obsessed and does nothing how about all the quotes along the lines of:

"After watching a lot of HDR everything not in HDR looks very flat and sometimes even quite bad. Like how could I watch this before, bad."

"Had the please of watching TFA in Dolby Vision in Hollywood. It was incredible."

"Yep. Watching Mozart in the Jungle in SDR after watching HDR just gives me a "stank face." It just seems dull."

"It was impressive:

The opening scene showed a lot of contrast between light and dark.

Rey's vision had a lot of really nice elements to it.

Space was BLACK but stars were bright. The red beams from the Starkiller against the blackness of space were stark.

The evening scene in the woods with the lightsaber battle was AWESOME. The blades were bright and very rich in color, yet everything in the darkness was still remarkably visible.

I could get very used to HDR content!"

"The most amazing presentation I saw of it was in a giant true IMAX theater (like 90'+ screen) that had the new LASER 3D IMAX system. Wow was that an amazing experience!!!! It looked amazing with the blacks so black but the brights even brighter. Everything looked so much more like real life from that alone. And then the 3D had zero ghosting and...."

from regular joe after regular joe regarding new HDR TV sets and HDR UHD discs and Dolby Cinema HDR Laser presentations of movies in theaters or Laser 3D IMAX presentations in movie theaters.

These are not people who have any team too root for any chance for fanboyism at stake and they actually, SHOCKER, don't consider high DR a bunch of nonsense for geeks in a lab.... go figure.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And all of those saying oh there is no way to ever display, well what did I say, think ahead a little, have a little vision, HDR is coming to theaters and home and everywhere in display tech soon and here it is.

 

[Jopa]

You can get a new 5DS, warranted, for $2300 USA. Why would you buy a 5D3?

Because you don't want 50MP?

Because you want usable ISO 12800 shots.
Because you want burst shooting at higher than 5 fps.
Because you want the 1DX II AF system.
Because you want better pixel level performance than a 7D2.

- A

Downsample to 23mpx and you'll get a slightly better iso performance than the 5dm3. Also not sure if 1fps makes huge difference. The 5dm3 doesn't have the 1dx2 AF.

 

[privatebydesign]

For all those who poo-poo DR and say it's just fools in the lab or spec comparison obsessed and does nothing how about all the quotes along the lines of:

"After watching a lot of HDR everything not in HDR looks very flat and sometimes even quite bad. Like how could I watch this before, bad."

"Had the please of watching TFA in Dolby Vision in Hollywood. It was incredible."

"Yep. Watching Mozart in the Jungle in SDR after watching HDR just gives me a "stank face." It just seems dull."

"It was impressive:

The opening scene showed a lot of contrast between light and dark.

Rey's vision had a lot of really nice elements to it.

Space was BLACK but stars were bright. The red beams from the Starkiller against the blackness of space were stark.

The evening scene in the woods with the lightsaber battle was AWESOME. The blades were bright and very rich in color, yet everything in the darkness was still remarkably visible.

I could get very used to HDR content!"

"The most amazing presentation I saw of it was in a giant true IMAX theater (like 90'+ screen) that had the new LASER 3D IMAX system. Wow was that an amazing experience!!!! It looked amazing with the blacks so black but the brights even brighter. Everything looked so much more like real life from that alone. And then the 3D had zero ghosting and...."

from regular joe after regular joe regarding new HDR TV sets and HDR UHD discs and Dolby Cinema HDR Laser presentations of movies in theaters or Laser 3D IMAX presentations in movie theaters.

These are not people who have any team too root for any chance for fanboyism at stake and they actually, SHOCKER, don't consider high DR a bunch of nonsense for geeks in a lab.... go figure.

And all of those saying oh there is no way to ever display, well what did I say, think ahead a little, have a little vision, HDR is coming to theaters and home and everywhere in display tech soon and here it is.

HDR in TV's is talking about adopting 10bit, and even then the standard is that they don't need to display every discrete colour, cameras set to RAW already capture way more DR than even the best HDR TV can display, so your point is what exactly, that in another two generations TV's might catch up with today's cameras?

 

[Loswr]

so your point is what exactly, that in another two generations TV's might catch up with today's cameras?

Wait, you think he had a point?

 

[privatebydesign]

so your point is what exactly, that in another two generations TV's might catch up with today's cameras?

Wait, you think he had a point?

Sorry, momentary slip, I apologize for the mistake......

 

[George D.]

What does it mean "production of the EOS 5D Mark III finished?"? For all we know they may have an inventory large enough to keep them running sales for another year. We don't even know the rate of sales in relation to inventory, they lower price but no-one tells us people are buying. So, we really can't say. The "kit lens" is a nice observation, a new popular zoom (or 50/1.4?) would be a hint of the new 5DIV/X unless they launch them together (unlikely).

 

[Etienne]

...
Because you want better pixel level performance than a 7D2.
...

The 5D3 may have bigger pixels than the 5Ds but the 5Ds has better pixels than the 5D3. This is clearly evident by the lack of pattern noise in shadow areas in 5Ds images. Bigger is not always better.

DPR specifically called out the 5Ds for having terrible banding in the shadows. By all accounts, the 5Ds is a specialty camera for those who want maximum detail at low ISO.

 

[Maiaibing]

DPR specifically called out the 5Ds for having terrible banding in the shadows. By all accounts, the 5Ds is a specialty camera for those who want maximum detail at low ISO.

Where does this come from? Have not heard about this and see no owners complaining. On the contrary people seem unanimously to agree the 5DS/R has better high iso than the 5DIII. Which fits my own expiriance as well (never saw any banding myself and being a long time 5DII owner I sure know what banding looks like).

 

[MrFotoFool]

For my purposes (note the emphasis), the 5D3 is as close to perfection as any camera can be. I cannot imagine needing another camera for many years, if ever. That being said, I just got a better paying job so we will see if my statement holds true or not!

As for high ISO on 5D3 vs 5Ds, why are you all needing ISO 12,800 or higher? Do you all shoot for the CIA or something?

 

[Etienne]

DPR specifically called out the 5Ds for having terrible banding in the shadows. By all accounts, the 5Ds is a specialty camera for those who want maximum detail at low ISO.

Where does this come from? Have not heard about this and see no owners complaining. On the contrary people seem unanimously to agree the 5DS/R has better high iso than the 5DIII. Which fits my own expiriance as well (never saw any banding myself and being a long time 5DII owner I sure know what banding looks like).

I won't get back that 30 seconds of my life that it took me to find it, so here you go: commenting on DR ... "And it's not just landscapes that suffer: the shot below contained an impossible-to-control background scene of high contrast, and exposing to retain the sky meant that shadow brightening to make the foreground anything but a sea of black resulted in noise and banding, which you can see even in the 50% crop below."

Here, I'll save you the 30 seconds : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/12

 

[Memdroid]

DPR specifically called out the 5Ds for having terrible banding in the shadows. By all accounts, the 5Ds is a specialty camera for those who want maximum detail at low ISO.

Where does this come from? Have not heard about this and see no owners complaining. On the contrary people seem unanimously to agree the 5DS/R has better high iso than the 5DIII. Which fits my own expiriance as well (never saw any banding myself and being a long time 5DII owner I sure know what banding looks like).

My guess is that he never used a 5Ds or a 5D3 and based his assumptions of online reviews sites. I read the review on DPR and that whole article was based around DR and how the competition has better sensor tech. They were really looking hard to find a fault in the camera and zoomed on a tiny little box of nothing on an otherwise great photo, just too say it had banding, pathetic! In actual real world use, the banding on the 5D3 was hardly an issue on a properly exposed image and is now barely non existent on the 5Ds. So yeah, if that is your benchmark to downplay an otherwise superb camera, than you can never ever be a satisfied photographer.

 

[Etienne]

DPR specifically called out the 5Ds for having terrible banding in the shadows. By all accounts, the 5Ds is a specialty camera for those who want maximum detail at low ISO.

Where does this come from? Have not heard about this and see no owners complaining. On the contrary people seem unanimously to agree the 5DS/R has better high iso than the 5DIII. Which fits my own expiriance as well (never saw any banding myself and being a long time 5DII owner I sure know what banding looks like).

My guess is that he never used a 5Ds or a 5D3 and based his assumptions of online reviews sites. I read the review on DPR and that whole article was based around DR and how the competition has better sensor tech. They were really looking hard to find a fault in the camera and zoomed on a tiny little box of nothing on an otherwise great photo, just too say it had banding, pathetic! In actual real world use, the banding on the 5D3 was hardly an issue on a properly exposed image and is now barely non existent on the 5Ds. So yeah, if that is your benchmark to downplay an otherwise superb camera, than you can never ever be a satisfied photographer.

I've owned both the 5DII and 5DIII (which is still an awesome all-round camera, built like a tank). And here's DP review's summary of teh 5Ds: "While the 5DS and 5DS R are solid additions to Canon's lineup, ultimately they're not really best at much save for ultimate resolution."
So, my conclusion is that you're just a bonehead.

 

[Memdroid]

DPR specifically called out the 5Ds for having terrible banding in the shadows. By all accounts, the 5Ds is a specialty camera for those who want maximum detail at low ISO.

Where does this come from? Have not heard about this and see no owners complaining. On the contrary people seem unanimously to agree the 5DS/R has better high iso than the 5DIII. Which fits my own expiriance as well (never saw any banding myself and being a long time 5DII owner I sure know what banding looks like).

My guess is that he never used a 5Ds or a 5D3 and based his assumptions of online reviews sites. I read the review on DPR and that whole article was based around DR and how the competition has better sensor tech. They were really looking hard to find a fault in the camera and zoomed on a tiny little box of nothing on an otherwise great photo, just too say it had banding, pathetic! In actual real world use, the banding on the 5D3 was hardly an issue on a properly exposed image and is now barely non existent on the 5Ds. So yeah, if that is your benchmark to downplay an otherwise superb camera, than you can never ever be a satisfied photographer.

I've owned both the 5DII and 5DIII (which is still an awesome all-round camera, built like a tank). And here's DP review's summary of teh 5Ds: "While the 5DS and 5DS R are solid additions to Canon's lineup, ultimately they're not really best at much save for ultimate resolution."
So, my conclusion is that you're just a bonehead.

Sure I am a bonehead. Just because I don't form opinions based on assumptions and a nonobjective article on the internet, but with actual experience and understanding. And my conclusion is that the 5Ds does everything better than the 5D3, save for speed and the obvious files size differences. If you get a good deal or can use one as a loaner than try it, you won't be disappointed.

 

[Etienne]

DPR specifically called out the 5Ds for having terrible banding in the shadows. By all accounts, the 5Ds is a specialty camera for those who want maximum detail at low ISO.

Where does this come from? Have not heard about this and see no owners complaining. On the contrary people seem unanimously to agree the 5DS/R has better high iso than the 5DIII. Which fits my own expiriance as well (never saw any banding myself and being a long time 5DII owner I sure know what banding looks like).

My guess is that he never used a 5Ds or a 5D3 and based his assumptions of online reviews sites. I read the review on DPR and that whole article was based around DR and how the competition has better sensor tech. They were really looking hard to find a fault in the camera and zoomed on a tiny little box of nothing on an otherwise great photo, just too say it had banding, pathetic! In actual real world use, the banding on the 5D3 was hardly an issue on a properly exposed image and is now barely non existent on the 5Ds. So yeah, if that is your benchmark to downplay an otherwise superb camera, than you can never ever be a satisfied photographer.

I've owned both the 5DII and 5DIII (which is still an awesome all-round camera, built like a tank). And here's DP review's summary of teh 5Ds: "While the 5DS and 5DS R are solid additions to Canon's lineup, ultimately they're not really best at much save for ultimate resolution."
So, my conclusion is that you're just a bonehead.

Sure it makes me a bonehead. Just because I don't form opinions based on assumptions and a nonobjective article on the internet, but with actual experience and understanding. And my conclusion is that the 5Ds does everything better than the 5D3, save for speed and the obvious files size differences. If you get a good deal or can use one as a loaner than try it, you won't be disappointed.

You blithely suggest that someone who points out a less than glowing assessment of your new toy is somehow inexperienced or unqualified to present info, and you even reject the info from a detailed review from a reputable source ... that is what makes you a bonehead.

I don't think the 5Ds is bad, but as DPR clearly demonstrates, it's not the best option in any category, save if for some reason 43 MP on the A7rII is not quite enough for you. I'll skip the 5Ds, and see what the 5D mark IV has to offer. I'll even consider the 80D as a backup video camera for it's DPAF performance if it is free of moire and aliasing before I'd get the 5Ds. And if I had to go high MP, I'd probably put an adapter on the Sony A7rII.