What do you want from the 5D mk III

[endigo]

To those wanting the ability to change crop sizes, Nikon does this with its 'dx' lenses similar to Canon's 'EF-S' lenses. The problem with Canon doing this, is that EF-S lenses allow the rear element to stick farther into the body because a crop sensor camera uses smaller mirrors (according to what I have read about this). That being said, one would not be able to put an EF-S lens on a FF camera because it could hit the mirror. Cropping the sensor might make it seem like you are getting a tighter shot, but all you are doing is changing the image before you get it to the computer to do the exact same thing...

I have faith that Canon could redesign the mirror mechanism to avoid this issue. Yes it would be a major departure from the simple hinge design that they have used since day one. What is the point of coming out with new cameras if you don't incorporate new designs and ideas?

If they allowed the use of crop lenses on full frame cameras, then they could spend more effort on EF-S L Lenses that would have a larger market. It would also eliminate one more hurdle for people with several EF-S lenses to move up to a full frame camera.

 

[WarStreet]

How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?

 

[J. McCabe]

How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?

Some users buy an APS-C camera before buying a 5D, and allowing them to use EF-S lenses while they save money for EF lenses makes for an easier upgrade path than forcing them to switch lenses when buying the body.

EF-S lenses cover ~40% of a FF sensor, and 40% of 21MP gives 8.2MP - and I've seen people going around this month with a Canon 20D (in a store, possibly upgrading to 7D), 1000D, or just upgrading from 350D / 400D, all having 8MP or 10MP sensors. Some people buy DSLR even though they don't print A4 and larger on regular basis.

 

[DuLt]

How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?

Some users buy an APS-C camera before buying a 5D, and allowing them to use EF-S lenses while they save money for EF lenses makes for an easier upgrade path than forcing them to switch lenses when buying the body.

EF-S lenses cover ~40% of a FF sensor, and 40% of 21MP gives 8.2MP - and I've seen people going around this month with a Canon 20D (in a store, possibly upgrading to 7D), 1000D, or just upgrading from 350D / 400D, all having 8MP or 10MP sensors. Some people buy DSLR even though they don't print A4 and larger on regular basis.

Some people replace their dslr because the new model has 2 more megapixels...

 

[Admin US West]

Some people replace their dslr because the new model has 2 more megapixels...

I did that ... replaced my 1.1mp Fujii with a Nikon CP990 that had 3.2 mp. It was a huge improvement. Its all relative.

 

[drummstikk]

How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?

I would, especially presuming the 5DIII will have higher megapixels on the full frame. If the APS-C section adds up to 12MP or more, that's more than adequate if I wanted a second crop body to use in addition to the 7D.

I'd actually prefer if it did APS-H. Maybe it could do both. Or maybe it could also do the 24mmx24mm square segment I've been craving for so long.

I'll continue to stand pat on my original 5D Mark Nothing unless the 5D III adds focus points (parity with 7D) and gets the frame rate up to at least 6-7fps. It would even be fine with me if the higher frame rates were only available in "crop mode" or in the full-frame mRaw and sRaw modes.

Regarding the survey, only the higher fps and increased focus points would be compelling to me. It's not as important to me, but I'd be extremely surprised if better high ISO and more megapixels weren't part of the deal as well. I wouldn't bet either way on articulating screen or RAW video. I'm sure it would be nice for some folks, just not a big deal for me.

It's more of a sideline/hobby for me, but if they would improve the auto-bracketing options (at least 7 frames at adjustable intervals), that would make HDR work much less tedious. The 1D's are overpriced for my taste and overbuilt for my needs (with reasonable maintenance, my 5D and 40D are still going strong), so I'm never going to get a 1D just for HDR work.

 

[J. McCabe]

How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?

Some users buy an APS-C camera before buying a 5D, and allowing them to use EF-S lenses while they save money for EF lenses makes for an easier upgrade path than forcing them to switch lenses when buying the body.

EF-S lenses cover ~40% of a FF sensor, and 40% of 21MP gives 8.2MP - and I've seen people going around this month with a Canon 20D (in a store, possibly upgrading to 7D), 1000D, or just upgrading from 350D / 400D, all having 8MP or 10MP sensors. Some people buy DSLR even though they don't print A4 and larger on regular basis.

Some people replace their dslr because the new model has 2 more megapixels...

Which means some do not. Note that the survey at the top of this thread says MP is the least important feature for it's participants.

 

[lol]

Note that the survey at the top of this thread says MP is the least important feature for it's participants.

Not exactly... it says more MP is the least important FIRST choice. It would be important to me, but it isn't my first choice since I can only make one here.

 

[WarStreet]

Some users buy an APS-C camera before buying a 5D, and allowing them to use EF-S lenses while they save money for EF lenses makes for an easier upgrade path than forcing them to switch lenses when buying the body.

EF-S lenses cover ~40% of a FF sensor, and 40% of 21MP gives 8.2MP - and I've seen people going around this month with a Canon 20D (in a store, possibly upgrading to 7D), 1000D, or just upgrading from 350D / 400D, all having 8MP or 10MP sensors. Some people buy DSLR even though they don't print A4 and larger on regular basis.

Yes I understand that users switching from APS-C to FF is the reason for this feature, I am one of those users, but I think some of them might already have FF lenses, and others will get the 5DIII with kit.

I am not against this feature since there will be more happy users, and I am not saying lower resolution cameras are not good either, there are award photos from 20D cameras.

My point is that if you have a 20D it is fine, but if you have a 5DIII and use it as a 20D it is a waste. I don't know how they could implement this feature, but I think it will also effect the framing with the 1.6 crop factor and the depth of field.

The question raised is if it is worth for Canon to do it. I think it's not.

 

[torger]

On the megapixel issue I think many people debate from the viewpoint of low end cameras. The megapixel issue in compacts and APS-C is not the same as in fullframe and medium format.

Even the good EF-S glass has fairly low resolving power - the optics is designed for good price/performance. For fullframe, you have professional glass with considerably better resolving power, and you have ~2.5 times larger sensor area. Getting the same pixel pitch as a 7D on fullframe would mean 45 megapixels.

Considering that EF-S glass generally has low resolving power and the pixel pitch is much smaller, the megapixel count has been pushed much farther on APS-C than on fullframe. Compact cameras even more so.

Fullframe is still rather conservative on the megapixel count. The reason why we have not yet seen 40+ megapixels on fullframe is probably more due to issues handling the file sizes (tough requirements on processing and storage) rather than limits in sensor technology. There's been some limits in glass too, but some important upgrades have been made.

If a photographer doesn't need high end resolution, there's APS-C. I see little reason to make a fullframe camera that does not aim at maximizing performance with high end glass, since fullframe sensors are due to their size a lot more expensive to manufacture than APS-C, and you could satisfy lower resolution requirements with APS-C.

 

[J. McCabe]

On the megapixel issue I think many people debate from the viewpoint of low end cameras. The megapixel issue in compacts and APS-C is not the same as in fullframe and medium format.

Even the good EF-S glass has fairly low resolving power - the optics is designed for good price/performance. For fullframe, you have professional glass with considerably better resolving power, and you have ~2.5 times larger sensor area. Getting the same pixel pitch as a 7D on fullframe would mean 45 megapixels.

Considering that EF-S glass generally has low resolving power and the pixel pitch is much smaller, the megapixel count has been pushed much farther on APS-C than on fullframe. Compact cameras even more so.

Fullframe is still rather conservative on the megapixel count. The reason why we have not yet seen 40+ megapixels on fullframe is probably more due to issues handling the file sizes (tough requirements on processing and storage) rather than limits in sensor technology. There's been some limits in glass too, but some important upgrades have been made.

If a photographer doesn't need high end resolution, there's APS-C. I see little reason to make a fullframe camera that does not aim at maximizing performance with high end glass, since fullframe sensors are due to their size a lot more expensive to manufacture than APS-C, and you could satisfy lower resolution requirements with APS-C.

If an EF-S lenses, including those that cost >U.S.$1,000, can't resolve 8MP (40% at the center of a 5Dmk2's sensor), it certainly can't resolve neither 10MP on an EOS 1000D nor 18MP on an EOS 7D. If this is true, it sounds bad for the Canon brand - either Canon spends too much on megapixels or it doesn't spend enough on low end glass.

 

[WarStreet]

If an EF-S lenses, including those that cost >U.S.$1,000, can't resolve 8MP (40% at the center of a 5Dmk2's sensor), it certainly can't resolve neither 10MP on an EOS 1000D nor 18MP on an EOS 7D. If this is true, it sounds bad for the Canon brand - either Canon spends too much on megapixels or it doesn't spend enough on low end glass.

Even the worst lenses can resolve without any problem any current SLR cameras and can resolve even higher detail with a new higher mp sensor. There are some myths out there which unfortunately confuse people which could lead them take wrong decisions on their purchase.

I think what torger meant is that a 12MP FF will resolve more detail than a 12MP APS-C since the FF camera is using more glass and therefore more resolving power. This is true even if the same FF lens is used on these cameras. It's not that APS-C lenses optics are weak, there are some which have a better resolving power than L lenses when both compared on an APS-C camera.

Luckily, DXOmark lens/camera data can show that real life measurements match perfectly with theory.
When using DXO, don't use their indexes such as DXO scores etc.. it confuse even more, just use the detailed raw data such as resolution - profiles or MTF. Their indexes is what caused the internet getting flooded with D7000 better than 5DII !

 

[torger]

Well, actually I did mean that EF-S glass is poor . I did not however mean that EF-S is not good enough for 8 megapixels. Much of the glass show resolution limits on the 18 megapixel 7D though, such that if you put in a lens with known high resolving power you see a clear improvement.

EF-S glass is not poor because there's some law of physics that makes it so (oh well the smaller image circle and the need for shorter focal lengths may make it a bit more difficult), but because in general it is expensive to manufacture high quality optics, and EF-S is made for APS-C, and APS-C is in the low cost segment so the lenses should be cheap too. Of course, some of the EF-S lenses are not exactly cheap, such as the 17-55mm f/2.8, but still cheaper than the corresponding full-frame glass.

If only looking at resolving power there are indeed low cost lenses that are very sharp, such as the 50mm. Some focal lengths are easier to make sharp than others, just because you there's a cheap 50mm it does not mean you can make a sharp cheap 24mm (it's about the distance to the image plane and other factors).

With the 50mm, the cheap ones are actually sharper than the L version on small apertures, so they are great landscape lenses. There are a fair amount of less-than-sharp L lenses, but those are not so much optimized for maximum resolution at f/5.6-f/8 but some other aspect such as ok sharpness and very nice bokeh at largest apertures. Afterall, really high resolving power is somewhat of a niche inhabitated by landscape photographers and others that don't shoot a single photograph without a tripod and a remote shutter release .

The EF-S lenses are all zooms (except the macro 60mm), and as far as I know none of them is as sharp as the good old 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom even at f/8.

What you do if you want to get full use of the 7D's 18 megapixels is that you use some of the high resolution full-frame lenses. The larger image circle gives you the advantage of less vignetting and better corner performance. I'm quite sure that the "pro" APS-C models are intended to be used together with pro full-frame glass, so therefore it is ok with 18 megapixels.

However, 18 megapixels on an entry-level camera where the users will most likely use EF-S zooms is somewhat overkill, but probably unavoidable for marketing reasons -- resolution-as-a-number probably sells in the low end.

If an EF-S lenses, including those that cost >U.S.$1,000, can't resolve 8MP (40% at the center of a 5Dmk2's sensor), it certainly can't resolve neither 10MP on an EOS 1000D nor 18MP on an EOS 7D. If this is true, it sounds bad for the Canon brand - either Canon spends too much on megapixels or it doesn't spend enough on low end glass.

Even the worst lenses can resolve without any problem any current SLR cameras and can resolve even higher detail with a new higher mp sensor. There are some myths out there which unfortunately confuse people which could lead them take wrong decisions on their purchase.

 

[Loswr]

The EF-S lenses are all zooms (except the macro 60mm), and as far as I know none of them is as sharp as the good old 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom even at f/8.

Really? Sure, the 24-70mm will completely outresolve the EF-S lenses when you compare the L zoom on FF to the EF-S on crop. But, if you look at photozone.de's Imatest results for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 on a the same camera - a 350D - you'll see that the 17-55mm outresolves the 24-70mm L across the zoom and aperture ranges. Before you argue that it's because of the relatively low resolution 8 MP sensor, check out the DxOMark lens data for those same lenses on a 7D, and you'll see that on the 7D, the 17-55mm also delivers greater resolution than the 24-70mm (and even the 'lowly' EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS slightly outresolves the L lens).

 

[skitron]

Having not used the predecessors and just based on hearsay:

Stills:

Better ISO performance
Better focus and metering
Built in wireless flash controller

Video:

Selectable crop zoom for ratios that can maintain full HD res.
Fix rolling shutter issues
Full res HDMI out

General:

SDxx card support
Better LCD with some sort of articulation
USB 3 connectivity

 

[torger]

Uhmm... yeah you're right, I've done a FF/APS-C crop mixup. Doh! *blush*.

Of course there are other quality advantages, build quality, eveness in sharpness, usefulness of available apertures and such that the L lenses usually excel in, but under ideal circumstances the EF-S lenses does indeed seem to have good sharpness just as you say. A bit embarrassing I missed that, I usually is quite thorough when analyzing data, but obviously not this time around. I have some bad personal experience from an EF-S lens which probably contributed.

Anyway, with this in mind I tend to think that the current 18 megapixel of the 7D is about as high as we can go in pixel density (4.2 um pixel pitch). With bayer arrays and antialias filters there is some merit in slightly outresolving the lenses though, but it seems like that is exactly what we do now. Probably not much value in outresloving them more, and you'll get diffraction issues coming along. This puts 18 x 2.6 = ~46 megapixels on fullframe, which I think happens to be an ideal resolution.

A suitable viewing distance of an image is the same as the width of it, and you need about 6000 - 8000 pixels to (kind of) reach the eye's resolving limit, and with 46 megapixels you get 8300x5533. More resolution than that is only required if you need to crop or want to be able to be so close to the image that you don't see the whole image at once (a large panorama for example).

The EF-S lenses are all zooms (except the macro 60mm), and as far as I know none of them is as sharp as the good old 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom even at f/8.

Really? Sure, the 24-70mm will completely outresolve the EF-S lenses when you compare the L zoom on FF to the EF-S on crop. But, if you look at photozone.de's Imatest results for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 on a the same camera - a 350D - you'll see that the 17-55mm outresolves the 24-70mm L across the zoom and aperture ranges. Before you argue that it's because of the relatively low resolution 8 MP sensor, check out the DxOMark lens data for those same lenses on a 7D, and you'll see that on the 7D, the 17-55mm also delivers greater resolution than the 24-70mm (and even the 'lowly' EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS slightly outresolves the L lens).

 

[WarStreet]

Anyway, with this in mind I tend to think that the current 18 megapixel of the 7D is about as high as we can go in pixel density (4.2 um pixel pitch). With bayer arrays and antialias filters there is some merit in slightly outresolving the lenses though, but it seems like that is exactly what we do now. Probably not much value in outresloving them more, and you'll get diffraction issues coming along. This puts 18 x 2.6 = ~46 megapixels on fullframe, which I think happens to be an ideal resolution.

No need to be embarrassed, learning it's the idea of the forum. I have learned a lot from here.

Regarding the MP count limit, luckily for all of us, we did not reached it yet and we are far from reaching it.
The total resolution from camera/lens combo can be improved if either a sharper lens is used or a higher MP count sensor used. They don't limit the improvement of each other (with exception of extreme limits). DXO measurements match with theory too.

Pick a lens and see the resolving power when used on a low MP and high MP sensor of the same size, and also pick the high MP sensor and compare when used with a poor and very good lens. It will show that the lens is not limiting a high MP sensor while the sensor is not limiting a very good lens. Using extreme small apertures will limit the performance of the lens and there you should see some limitation. Use DXO - resolution - profiles

 

[yellowbull]

What about Exposure Bracketing improvements? Nikon will go up to 9 increments!

 

[yeldarb]

DO NOT NEED:
-better AWB or Metering - C'mon guys, you should all be shooting RAW by now, and you should understand how your metering mode works. This doesn't need to improve. YOU DO.

I disagree. Sure, AWB is not relevant if shooting RAW, but that doesn't mean Canon shouldn't improve AWB (or why offer it at all, why offer JPGs?) For advanced amateurs such as myself, whose primary reason for using this camera is its low light performance, "pro" quality and ruggedness, it may be the case that shooting RAW all the time just isn't practical. This is not my day job, and often when I'm shooting kid's events, etc, I barely have time to transfer the photos to the computer, make minor tweaks and upload them to a web album. Taking the time to work with larger RAW files and do more post-processing is just not a luxury many of us have these days. I'd love to "improve" my skills, as you suggest, but I'd also love for Canon do deal with the fact that their AWB doesn't work very well in today's climate of varied cruddy light sources (different brands of compact fluorescent bulbs in the same room, etc).

 

[endigo]

...I barely have time to transfer the photos to the computer, make minor tweaks and upload them to a web album. Taking the time to work with larger RAW files and do more post-processing is just not a luxury many of us have these days. I'd love to "improve" my skills...

I have found a huge difference in the quality of an image that was retouched from a RAW and saved as a JPG from an image that was retouched from a JPG and saved back as a JPG. After experimenting with this, I no longer retouch images from JPG. If the JPG that the camera produces it good, I don't mind using it, so I agree with you on the AWB, but try looking at the difference between retouching a RAW and a JPG, I think this exercise may help improve your results.