The ultimate 5d3 poll - What's your take on the 5d3?

What's your take on the 5d3?


  • Total voters
    125
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Marsu42

Canon Pride.
Feb 7, 2012
6,310
0
39,761
Berlin
der-tierfotograf.de
kbmelb said:
The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.

I have to admit I didn't read all this troll-heave 5d3 stuff myself, but I remember one complaint: The af was said to be slow to pick up if all points are selected (like 1sec or so). It might be even Ken Rockwell who wrote this :-p .. is this true, and is it a sign that while the 5d3 has the same af as the 1dx the 5d3 is "under-powered" when it comes to af processing and needs more time to make up its mind than the 1dx will?

@v8beast: I guess there is no real argument about the 5d2's lacking af when it comes to tracking... that's why many people were raving about the 7d until now.
 
Moved up from the 40D - big jump. 5D3 is more than I could have hoped for. Best thing? MORE KEEPERS. Less poorly focused + exposed/noisy toss-outs. Sure, it's my lousy technique, most of the time, but this is a forgiving piece of equipment. I will certainly be shooting more.
 
Upvote 0
I'm not sure I understand the poll terms at all. I'm a pro, I own the 5DIII and I am happy with it. I've seen reviews that claim the ISO performance isn't any better than the markII but my unscientific observations are that it is at least a stop better. I'd almost say it's 2 stops due to the appearance of the noise. It doesn't band nearly as bad as the 5DII and what noise is there is not as ugly as the markII. I'd liken the noise pattern more like my 1DsII which I always like better than 5DII. The markIII definitely retains more detail at higher ISOs in my observations and I sure purely RAW. Dynamic range has never been an issue to me, my style of shooting is, if I can't get enough detail in shadows I put up a fill light.

The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.

With that said, with a stationary subject, well lit and properly metered shot (were I don't have to push exp), I could care less which camera I choose. If the markII has the lens I want already mounted to it I'll just grab it instead of taking time to switch lenses/bodies.
 
Upvote 0
I'm a pro photographer and love the 5D3. (I only mention that I shoot proffesionaly because my livelihood depends on it) Frankly, I'm tired of hearing all the complaining on these forums. Don't believe the hate... It's a great camera and a big improvement over the 5d2.
 
Upvote 0
kbmelb said:
The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.

True dat. I finally got to put the 5DIII's AF through its paces yesterday, and I walked away impressed to say the least. As you can see, a lot can happen in 1 second :D

_L3C1182.jpg


_L3C1183.jpg


_L3C1184.jpg


_L3C1185.jpg


_L3C1186.jpg


_L3C1187.jpg


Out of this sequence, the first three are tack sharp, the next two are acceptably sharp, and only the last one is unusable. For shots like this, a 50-80% hit rate is unbelievably good. Plus, with pan blurs, the majority of soft images you get are attributable to user error. I'm certain that with more practice and tweaking of the tracking sensitivity, even better results are possible.

With the 5D and 5DII's pathetic 9-point AF, I would have been lucky to get a 10 % hit rate, and as you can probably tell by the images, you'd can't replicate smoky burnouts too many times before the authorities crack down on you ;D When you need to get the hell in, fire off some quick and accurate frames, and get the hell out, the 5DIII is a badass tool for the job.

So yeah, I like mine :)
 
Upvote 0
kbmelb said:
I'm not sure I understand the poll terms at all.

What you describe would be "saved time" by better af, so I tried to include this scenario.

kbmelb said:
The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.

I have to admit I didn't read all this troll-heave 5d3 stuff myself, but I remember one complaint: The af was said to be slow to pick up if all points are selected (like 1sec or so). It might be even Ken Rockwell who wrote this :-p .. is this true, and is it a sign that while the 5d3 has the same af as the 1dx the 5d3 is "under-powered" when it comes to af processing and needs more time to make up its mind than the 1dx will?

@v8beast: I guess there is no real argument about the 5d2's lacking af when it comes to tracking... that's why many people were raving about the 7d until now.
 
Upvote 0
My take. I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money, nor could I afford it right now, I haven't got the gigs to support it, but maybe that would change soon and even if it did I don't think I'd be in a mad rush. It has almost everything I would have liked to see included in it. Weather sealing, decent FPS, improved ISO/dynamic range or does it (seems very nice so far, need to see more)? Wished it had 4k or at least a bit larger than 1080p capture for some safe-frame margins for re-framing/cropping editing leeway, etc. Wished the video looked even better, but to be honest it's more than I'll ever need anytime soon, so is the 5DII and the 7D, etc.. I like the dual card slots a lot, nice to have that in a non-1D sized body, would be a very nice thing to include in the 7DII which is used by some pro's. Wish it had an extra top or front scrollwheel on the right side. Wish it had a better video codec/would have really liked to be able to record RAW video even if it required plugging in an external HDD. I hope it's easily hack-able, if they managed to add even RAW video out as a hack I think that would be amazing enough on it's own, and I hope cool things get done with it. As it is, it looks like it would save day in and day out pro's a bit of work and ad some welcome functionality/pay for itself and would be worth it the upgrade. I think in the long run, the camera is going to be well received. It's not perfect, and I really think Canon could have included the features I listed above and some other's I'm forgetting and kept the price the same, but at the same time I think the forums are over-reacting about the device and often for completely different reasons than I'm listing here, but to each their own.

I'd buy one if I had more money, but I do think it's priced too highly. The nice thing about it being priced higher, is that it helped not to crash the price of 5D Mark II's which is nice for those who already own a II and I can't get too upset about the price for that reason alone. It's nice to not have your expensive equipment not just crash in value overnight more than it has to. Overall I'd give it a B or a B- and that could improve if the firmware is hacked or improved by Canon to extend extra features. Oh, one more thing, for the price, I think Canon should have payed for the European/Video camera tax so it could be without limitation for recording length, although to be fair I don't know how much that tax would be, and at least it's better than the 5DII clips (or did I get that wrong?). I don't like the mode dial lock at all, would like an option to get it with a regular 5DII/7D mode dial, probably not that hard to hack myself but would void warranty if they don't do it. Nice to see the pretty darn fast FPS for stills included, very welcome feature and with what they did ultimately include, it makes it an even better, pro-viable body in the non-1D size and I like that a lot.

I did ask for the moon, but I didn't quite get it. This was my original list when someone asked what do we want out of it before it was announced, they got a lot of it right (according to me), and some of my wish list they didn't put in.

"In order.

-Better high ISO performance (1DX esque)
-Awesome Auto-Focus (1DX/7D esque.)
-Solid weatherproofing (at least as much so it can handle getting snowed and showered on a decent bit)
-Improved video capture performance (aka, clean up rolling shutter problems, etc., even further)
-Uncompressed /Raw Video Capture or Clean HDMI out (I don't mind hooking up a separate adapter when shooting video)
-Over resolution, aka. more than 1080p (not necessarily 4k) to allow for re-cropping/panning/zooming/breathing room in editing
-Ability to capture in 60-120fps frame-rates even if it requires using Clean HDMI out and an external capture unit
-Usable auto-focus in video (this is not a pro-video feature, but there are casual times when a reasonably good version of this could come in great handy at barbeques and whatnot.) And if it is put in, I would also suggest some ability to manually over-ride it/flip it on/off, while still in shot.
-Remove Video Time-Limits (even if a fee has to be paid to digitally unlock it in the regions where that licensing matters)
-Consideration for digital adapter accessory that would allow smooth manual aperture control during shooting. (at the bottom of my list for a reason but it makes more sense than new lenses to me, though for all I know (and I don't) it may require new lenses anyways but it may not, and even still it makes more sense)
-If it's not there already and buried, a recorded measurement that tells the distance of the subject focus point from the camera. This is useful to approximately calculate the scale of a subject which is in turn helpful in roughly estimating the scale of textures for texture artists in 3D animation projects.

So basically, an amazing, 5DII sizish body with the latest stills improvements and nothing we've come to expect missing, as well as updated generation 2 DSLR video upgrades. Hit that mark and I'll grab one near launch. "
 
Upvote 0
NormanBates said:
I would have voted "the D800 is a lot better, and cheaper too, I would consider the 5D3 but only if it falls down to $2700 or less, significantly below the D800 price"

... I thought that would have been the "Nikon competition" option? I didn't include a "it's not worth it" option because "worth" is so subjective or related to various different things so it wouldn't have made sense.

The first two options are trollish, but currently how many people choose them. But maybe this reflects the heated discussion about the 5d3.
 
Upvote 0
Sorry i do not wish to stir things up but with the launch of the 5D mk3 i am thinking of getting a D800.
Maybe that should have been one of the poll options.
That said i would not mind a 5D mk3 because of the improved focus but it would have to be a lot cheaper ,
and the 5D mk2 is the best digital camera i have ever owned.

http://www.terencehogben.co.za
 
Upvote 0
To all.

The D800 is NOT a lot better.
Yes the sensor is better.

But it's not like we fill light 100% and + 5 exposure all the time.

The total package is a lot different.
Use them both and you will see the
difference between the D800 and 5D mark
iii. I can assure you very very close call.

For allround the 5D is better.
Time will tell, but there is more then only the sensor.

And I think it's about time people start taking some pictures instead of
the endless polls, whining, Nikon vs Canon, 500 to expensive, etc.
 
Upvote 0
Its really shame that canon did not solve the problem of banding and noise problems, check the images below ..bottom images are from 5d3 and tops images are from D800. this problem present in 7D too..just for the D800 raw headroom i ll buy it. this is a IQ problem they should have solved this in a first place. even for 2700$ , ill not buy.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
 

Attachments

  • nikon2b.jpg
    nikon2b.jpg
    649.2 KB · Views: 1,237
Upvote 0
TAR said:
Its really shame that canon did not solve the problem of banding and noise problems, check the images below DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html[/url]

Ugh, this is really a large difference. Maybe they got a bad 5d3, because different 7d samples are said to have variances in banding, too? However, the site says that you can compensate by ETTR'ing: "Start by overexposing by about 1 stop above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then underexpose by the same amount later in software, basically normalizing the image.". But essentially on Canon, it's more necessary to take hdr pictures than on nikon - and given a static scene, this poses no problem.
 
Upvote 0
TAR said:
Its really shame that canon did not solve the problem of banding and noise problems, check the images below ..bottom images are from 5d3 and tops images are from D800. this problem present in 7D too..just for the D800 raw headroom i ll buy it. this is a IQ problem they should have solved this in a first place. even for 2700$ , ill not buy.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

Yes yes yes.
We are not always do the 100% fill light and + 5 exposure

The guy from FM made many pictures with the 5D mark iii.
And when normal exposed and not pushed to extremes they are SUPERB NICE
IMAGES.

Check some here with the TS-E 24mm.
Nothing wrong is there !!!!

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index.html

Beautiful images.
He also wrote many positive things about the 5D mark iii.
But we don't care do we ?
We are only interested in the 100% fill light and +5 exposure.

The numbers photography what a BS
 
Upvote 0
Alker said:
We are not always do the 100% fill light and + 5 exposure

Disclaimer: I like Canon, have a Canon and will stay with Canon. That being said, the high dr sample picture taken with bright sun and shadows is not artificially engineered to make Canon look bad, but it's an average shot that will be taken million of times. And to brighten the shadows (instead of doing hdr) doesn't need excessive pp ev raise & fill light but much more moderate pp. It's a pity the site doesn't say how much ev they raised it. But imho there is no way around this: For landscape, the d800 does have a real world advantage.

Obviously that doesn't mean you cannot use anything else than the d800: With my humble 60d and magic lantern, I'm used to take 5-7 exposures with +-0,5ev and then exposure fuse them - noise problem solved.
 
Upvote 0
Marsu42 said:
Alker said:
We are not always do the 100% fill light and + 5 exposure

Disclaimer: I like Canon, have a Canon and will stay with Canon. That being said, the high dr sample picture taken with bright sun and shadows is not artificially engineered to make Canon look bad, but it's an average shot that will be taken million of times. And to brighten the shadows (instead of doing exposure fusion) doesn't need excessive pp ev raise & fill light but much more moderate pp. Imho there is no way around this: For landscape, the d800 does have a real world advantage.

True, but this is blown out of porportion.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.