*UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

[K-amps]

22MP is really horrifying news. I will not buy that. Compared to my mk2 I need higher dynamic range, better high ISO performance and higher resolution. I think 48 MP would have been a good choice. Perhaps I will have to consider to switch to D800 if it is really 36MP.
I have no understanding what so ever for those who wants better dynamics and ISO performance but not higher resolution when it's clearly better with the better dynamics, ISO performance AND higher resolution. You must be stupid if you want 2 of 3 improvements instead of all 3.

The specification also doesn't make sense. I don't see the market segment between 1DX and 7D. What we need is high resolution, high dynamic range, high ISO performance and no banding. Of couse also improved AF compared to mk2. High speed isn't important since that area is covered by 1DX and 7D. Anyway with 48MP (or 36MP) there would have been possible to make a crop mode with higher speed.

+1 Applaud to you too for making me laugh. I nearly fell off my chair.

 

[well_dunno]

Phase one IQ140 digital back - solution (for £10K)

 

[Picsfor]

Blimey - what do you lot do for fun?

It's a bloody camera that takes pictures.

Would some one please set up a Pixel Peepers Rumours so you can all go and argue a toss all day about matters almost as difficult to understand as Stephen Hawkins take on a Quantum Universe.

Issues such as AF, Ergonomics, Practical value of more MP's or higher ISO range and so on - these should be what we're talking about - not whether any discernable difference can be found in noise between 2 different sensors under an electron microscope! :-X

 

[Kernuak]

The 7D outperforms the 5Dmk2 at high ISO image quality per area sensor.
A 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46MP would have better image performance than 5Dmk2 in every aspect.

You keep saying that, where's your proof? I think it's clear that the 7D gave up ISO performance to hit the DR numbers it did. DxO labs is probably the most respected independent lab out there, and their tests show that the 7D is not even close to the 5DII in ISO quality.

Again, the 5DII hits 1815 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D is only able to hit 854 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D does a decent job, but it in no way "outperforms" the 5DII in ISO quality.

So show me the proof, or I write you off as a troll.

And, no, at best a 46mp FF sensor based on the 7D would perform at the level of the 7D, possibly more noise issues cropping up from the larger size. It would still be subpar to the image quality of the 5DII in every category. The trade off might be ok for you, but some of us actually want better quality at high ISO, and a 7D equivalent FF sensor doesn't cut it.

Sensor Scores 5DII 7D Bold type denotes winner in each category

Over all Score 79 66

Color Depth (bits) 23.7 22

Dynamic Range 11.9 11.7

Low Light ISO 1815 854

Edit - to include other DxOMark scores for the 5DII and 7D

Please educate yourself before you write about things you dont understand. Look at the nosie dxomark SNR graph and you will se that the 7D sensor outperforms the 5Dmk2 sensor per area unit.

Photography isn't just about technical specifications. I just read an article on Luminous Landscape that someone linked to in one of these threads and it reaffirmed some of my thoughts over the years. Lens reviews often don't show the real world, they may comment on how sharp lens x is compared to lens y, but they don't always look at real world images and other equally (sometimes moreso) important aspects of lens characteristics, such as bokeh and contrast (especially where it counts). To paraphrase the article, why have a sharp lens, if it makes the out of focus areas look even worse than they are already. Ok, it isn't the sharpest lens in the Canon arsenal, but the bokeh on the 100-400 makes me feel ill when I look at certain backgrounds (green woodland for example), that is rarely mentioned in the reviews and you find out when you try it for yourself. That is the important thing. Taking that onto the differences between the 7d and the 5d MkII, the facts and figures don't always match what I see and I think even the DxO stats don't do the 5D justice. To my eye, the usable dynamic range is significantly greater in the 5D MkII than the 7D. What the stats don't show, is that when the highlights on the 7D are blown, they start to get a colour cast, granted, it was improved by an early firmware update, but it isn't completely fixed. Likewise, the shadow detail might show lower noise in the stats, but the detail is greater on the 5D MkII. Conversely, the DxO technical data shows that the 5D MkII has a greater usable ISO, however, it doesn't show the quality of the noise. Yes, the 7D is noiser to my eye, but up to a point (i.e. when there is a lot of it or the detail is being lost), that noise is more pleasing to the eye. Many have described the noise on the 7D as more film like and while not completely accurate, it does have some truth. On a related note, when the noise gets too high on the 5D MkII, you get banding, which has been pretty much eliminated on the 7D. Banding looks pretty awful and is unusable, it was something I used to hate about the 40D, which suffered from the same problem. Again, when compared to the 1D MkIV, this is missed on the technical data. DxO shows that the 5D MkII has less noise than the 1D MkIV, yet many reviews when the 1D MkIV was released indicated there was little in it. Again, while I haven't used the 1D MkIV, so can't comment personally, the technical data doesn't seem to indicate what is seen in real life, based on those reviews.
In summary, what I'm basically saying is, don't always believe the technical data that is available, it may not tell the whole story or it may be of little relevance in the real world. Look at the technical data by all means as a guide, but then see things for yourself to see if a) it matters to you and b) your eyes see the same problem (or advantage) that the technical data might show.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

per area
not talking per entire sensor

all the DSLR blow away P&S per entire sensor area, but some P&S are better per area, the thing is they have wayyyyyy less total area to collect light

But again...so what? We're taking pictures - the summed output of all the pixles - not looking at the output of individual pixels. Some of the detectors I use in the lab have read noise and DR that completely blow away any CCD or CMOS sensor - but those are PMTs, essentially one giant pixel. So, who cares?

You do a good job of refuting your own argument - if a P&S is better than a dSLR per unit area but that 'advantage' is negated by the smaller area, the same logic holds when comparing the 7D to the 5DII - the larger sensor area trumps the putative better per-pixel performance.

Unless you can wave a magic wand and 'grow' the 7D sensor to FF size, the 5DII is the winner.

Duh what do you think a 36MP 5D3 would be? A higher density FF than the 5D2. And what magic wand? There is plenty of talk that SOny/Nikon have 'grown a high density APS-C sensor' to FF size, the scale difference there is no so crazy that you need a magic wand to make it happen. The simple point is that high photosite density doesn't mean any terrible loss of DR or SNR so long as you don't go to crazy extremes.

And even now the 5D2 isn't the winner when you are 100% reach limited, that may be rare for many photographers but a not uncommon circumstance for others. I have both and use the appropriate one for the job as required.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 7D outperforms the 5Dmk2 at high ISO image quality per area sensor.
A 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46MP would have better image performance than 5Dmk2 in every aspect.

You keep saying that, where's your proof? I think it's clear that the 7D gave up ISO performance to hit the DR numbers it did. DxO labs is probably the most respected independent lab out there, and their tests show that the 7D is not even close to the 5DII in ISO quality.

Again, the 5DII hits 1815 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D is only able to hit 854 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D does a decent job, but it in no way "outperforms" the 5DII in ISO quality.

So show me the proof, or I write you off as a troll.

And, no, at best a 46mp FF sensor based on the 7D would perform at the level of the 7D, possibly more noise issues cropping up from the larger size. It would still be subpar to the image quality of the 5DII in every category. The trade off might be ok for you, but some of us actually want better quality at high ISO, and a 7D equivalent FF sensor doesn't cut it.

Sensor Scores 5DII 7D Bold type denotes winner in each category

Over all Score 79 66

Color Depth (bits) 23.7 22

Dynamic Range 11.9 11.7

Low Light ISO 1815 854

Edit - to include other DxOMark scores for the 5DII and 7D

Please educate yourself before you write about things you dont understand. Look at the nosie dxomark SNR graph and you will se that the 7D sensor outperforms the 5Dmk2 sensor per area unit.

Photography isn't just about technical specifications. I just read an article on Luminous Landscape that someone linked to in one of these threads and it reaffirmed some of my thoughts over the years. Lens reviews often don't show the real world, they may comment on how sharp lens x is compared to lens y, but they don't always look at real world images and other equally (sometimes moreso) important aspects of lens characteristics, such as bokeh and contrast (especially where it counts). To paraphrase the article, why have a sharp lens, if it makes the out of focus areas look even worse than they are already. Ok, it isn't the sharpest lens in the Canon arsenal, but the bokeh on the 100-400 makes me feel ill when I look at certain backgrounds (green woodland for example), that is rarely mentioned in the reviews and you find out when you try it for yourself. That is the important thing. Taking that onto the differences between the 7d and the 5d MkII, the facts and figures don't always match what I see and I think even the DxO stats don't do the 5D justice. To my eye, the usable dynamic range is significantly greater in the 5D MkII than the 7D. What the stats don't show, is that when the highlights on the 7D are blown, they start to get a colour cast, granted, it was improved by an early firmware update, but it isn't completely fixed. Likewise, the shadow detail might show lower noise in the stats, but the detail is greater on the 5D MkII. Conversely, the DxO technical data shows that the 5D MkII has a greater usable ISO, however, it doesn't show the quality of the noise. Yes, the 7D is noiser to my eye, but up to a point (i.e. when there is a lot of it or the detail is being lost), that noise is more pleasing to the eye. Many have described the noise on the 7D as more film like and while not completely accurate, it does have some truth. On a related note, when the noise gets too high on the 5D MkII, you get banding, which has been pretty much eliminated on the 7D. Banding looks pretty awful and is unusable, it was something I used to hate about the 40D, which suffered from the same problem. Again, when compared to the 1D MkIV, this is missed on the technical data. DxO shows that the 5D MkII has less noise than the 1D MkIV, yet many reviews when the 1D MkIV was released indicated there was little in it. Again, while I haven't used the 1D MkIV, so can't comment personally, the technical data doesn't seem to indicate what is seen in real life, based on those reviews.
In summary, what I'm basically saying is, don't always believe the technical data that is available, it may not tell the whole story or it may be of little relevance in the real world. Look at the technical data by all means as a guide, but then see things for yourself to see if a) it matters to you and b) your eyes see the same problem (or advantage) that the technical data might show.

It is true that despite all the banding naysayers things like banding differences are often real world noticeable before the often minor SNR and DR differences between models of reasonably similar technology.

Even taking entire sensor area into account the 7D will sometimes produce more pleasing photos at ISO3200 than the 5D2, when most of the image consists of very, very, very dark areas because then most of the image lies in teh very depths and the fact that the 5D2 bands more at high iso than the 7D, can in a few cases, make the 7D do better even taking the entire identically framed images into account.

The 7D often has vertical banding though which hurts it's SNR ratings a bit and kinks the SNR curve oddly. THis does vary quite a bit copy to copy some have this a lot more than others and it tends to vary in degree in different parts of the frame on any given body. I've never seen a bigger copy to copy difference with the CAnon bodies than with the 7D and vertical banding. It's gain rather than offset banding.

The 5D2 has more offset banding in deep low iso shadows than 1Ds3. Converters tend to handle it muchbetter than when the camera was first introduced though.

SOme of the recent sony/nikon sensor has less read noise and banding and not just a lot more low iso DR but a lot more usable low ISO DR. You can also see that it depended not at all on teh MP count but only on whether the new column ADC system was used or not.

 

[Loswr]

There is plenty of talk that SOny/Nikon have 'grown a high density APS-C sensor' to FF size...

Ah yes, there sure is plenty of talk. So...you've seen this sensor in use? You've tested it's performance? You know that the theoretical scaling of increased pixel density and application of other signal processing circuitry will yield performance gains relative to a FF sensor with fewer MP? Or is this just all just more of that warm, moist mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and trace gases being modulated by vocal folds as it's exhaled?

 

[briansquibb]

There is plenty of talk that SOny/Nikon have 'grown a high density APS-C sensor' to FF size...

Ah yes, there sure is plenty of talk. So...you've seen this sensor in use? You've tested it's performance? You know that the theoretical scaling of increased pixel density and application of other signal processing circuitry will yield performance gains relative to a FF sensor with fewer MP? Or is this just all just more of that warm, moist mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and trace gases being modulated by vocal folds as it's exhaled?

;D ;D ;D ;D Or methane from a bovine source ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[moroz]

Hello,
someone told me that the 5DMIII sensor will be shift stabilized in order to accomodate people who use non-stabilized prime lenses for handheld video...
is it possible?? it would be a great advantage for documentarians!!

 

[JR]

Hello,
someone told me that the 5DMIII sensor will be shift stabilized in order to accomodate people who use non-stabilized prime lenses for handheld video...
is it possible?? it would be a great advantage for documentarians!!

Do you know what was their source for this info moroz? Like which website or magazine this info comes from? I never heard of such thing but I am curious...

Jacques

 

[moroz]

no he just told me that he read it somewhere on the net...

 

[thatguyyoulove]

Hello,
someone told me that the 5DMIII sensor will be shift stabilized in order to accommodate people who use non-stabilized prime lenses for handheld video...
is it possible?? it would be a great advantage for documentarians!!

Having just switched from the Pentax line to Canon (due to video needs really, I prefer Pentax for photography) I would love to have this feature back. However, I doubt we will see it come to fruition with all that Canon has invested in lens IS. Lens IS does work slightly better than sensor IS, but paying for it every time you get a new lens (if you want that feature) really sucks.

That being said if you are a documentary shooter you should be using a shoulder rig NOT holding it handheld. I even use a glidecam + vest sometimes for that extra bit of smoothness.

 

[mathino]

Am I the only person who is actually sick of waiting ?

I've read northlighting-images post, and there they say this mythical new body will not be available until october. I doubt it is ready for sale or even announcement according to Canon's last year announcements (I know of natural disaster and other stuff) and everything. Look at 8-15 F/4 L USM - it took 11 months to start shipping.

...I'm thinking of selling my Canon gear and switching to Nikon if there won't be anything announced this month.

 

[K-amps]

Am I the only person who is actually sick of waiting ?

I've read northlighting-images post, and there they say this mythical new body will not be available until october. I doubt it is ready for sale or even announcement according to Canon's last year announcements (I know of natural disaster and other stuff) and everything. Look at 8-15 F/4 L USM - it took 11 months to start shipping.

...I'm thinking of selling my Canon gear and switching to Nikon if there won't be anything announced this month.

I am quite in pain as well.... and there are times I think about shill switching.... but thats an emotional response, not a rational one. Canon has some great lenses at great prices... Nikon is overpriced. In the long run, for me Canon is a better prospect. Not to mention I have accumulated most of the ammo I will need (lenses); all I need to do is sit tight and wait. The 5D2 is a great Camera... can't wait to see what the 5D3 turns out to be.

 

[mathino]

I am quite in pain as well.... and there are times I think about shill switching.... but thats an emotional response, not a rational one. Canon has some great lenses at great prices... Nikon is overpriced. In the long run, for me Canon is a better prospect. Not to mention I have accumulated most of the ammo I will need (lenses); all I need to do is sit tight and wait. The 5D2 is a great Camera... can't wait to see what the 5D3 turns out to be.

Yeah, definitely an emotional response but, you know And ofc Canon is cheaper in way of lenses (and we can get 70-200 f/4 for 600€ - no need to buy 70-200 VR2 like Nikon), for example my 85 f/1.8 is amazing and price was also nice. I want 28 f/1.8 to have something wide for possible FF use (nice value for price).

But, I have just one EF lens and 450D so switching will not be that hard. I've allready saved money to buy FF and one wide angle lens. Hmm, dark toughts I have - I know :-D

 

[Picsfor]

Here's an interesting thought for those thinking of switching...

If the 5D2 had an ok focusing system, would any of us even be looking for a 5D3?
Really - think about it?

The MP brigade make it clear that they will never be happy until they have sooooo many MP's that they can produce a print the size of London. But none of them swapped to the 3DX or Sony to get them extra few MP's.

The ISO brigade want to shoot a badger in its den in the dead of night - but none of them have swapped over to D3s's...

The FPS brigade have all got 7D's or 1D's.

The Portrait brigade are happy, the wedding brigade would like 'better AF' - of the AF thing again.

The DR brigade want to over ride physics - but then i wouldn't mind performing a bit of time travel either - then i could go forward and get me a 1DX34 with all our needs on it!

So, all in all - who's really screaming for a 5D3? Apart from those who would like a 5D2 with improved AF?

 

[mathino]

A little fun I made at memegenerator

 

[BDD]

Here's an interesting thought for those thinking of switching...

If the 5D2 had an ok focusing system, would any of us even be looking for a 5D3?
Really - think about it?

The MP brigade make it clear that they will never be happy until they have sooooo many MP's that they can produce a print the size of London. But none of them swapped to the 3DX or Sony to get them extra few MP's.

The ISO brigade want to shoot a badger in its den in the dead of night - but none of them have swapped over to D3s's...

The FPS brigade have all got 7D's or 1D's.

The Portrait brigade are happy, the wedding brigade would like 'better AF' - of the AF thing again.

The DR brigade want to over ride physics - but then i wouldn't mind performing a bit of time travel either - then i could go forward and get me a 1DX34 with all our needs on it!

So, all in all - who's really screaming for a 5D3? Apart from those who would like a 5D2 with improved AF?

If the 5D2 had a good AF system and a much better native ISO range (e.g. 100-12,800 as with the D3s). Then no. The 5D2 is currently selling for 2k in Toronto. Great deal. But since it has questionable AF speed (or so I've heard) and is not known for shooting in low-light...I'm hoping Canon will make those two changes in the 5D3.

Plus, I think Canon has the best selection of quality lenses. Another reason why I'm considering jumping ship (I've been a Nikon shooter since the early 80's). That and I don't like the rumoured specs for the D800. And should the 5D3 not address the lackluster AF performance and make the 5D3 a low-light shooter...guess I'm going to have to consider either the D3s or D4 (1D-X is pushing it cost wise at 7K).

And I highly doubt Canon is going to wait till October to announce the 5D3...and let Nikon get the jump in this market segment with the D800 which is likely to be announced next week. I'd assume we will hear something from Canon this month. Soon after Nikon's announcement.

 

[briansquibb]

So, all in all - who's really screaming for a 5D3? Apart from those who would like a 5D2 with improved AF?

I would get one if it had

- The ability to render skin tones as well as a 1Ds3
- The DR of asa 100 film

Then the 1Ds3 would become the backup

 

[wickidwombat]

Just some advice to anyone seriously considering switching to Nikon.
Nikon are not without their faults, before switching make sure you are happy with the controls and button layout. Once I got used to the canon system I found the Nikon system more clunky and hate some of the button placements. also that dpad on the back they have is really crap, The canon wheel and joystick blows Nikon out of the water here. Also have had the controller wheels become intermittently faulty in the past and hence making it really hard to change things like shutter speed and aperture.
As others have mentioned lenses tend to be a little more pricey however they do have a few stunning lenses
14-24, 50mm f1.4, 105 f2.8 Micro, 70-200 f2.8VR and the 200-400 to name a few