What do you want from the 5D mk III

[Lawliet]

What I want is better AF - hopefully, we can all recognize that more AF points does not mean better AF.

A wider spread of AF points would be nice, transplant the 7D module and you get a very sophisticated large center point.

"More" comes almost for free. f/2,8 cross sensors tend to require intersecting sensor lines with those of the surrounding points. Change the readout patterns and you have an additional point inbetween.

 

[AlicoatePhotography]

I would like to see the 5D continue to be a game changer.
5d Affordable Full Frame, incredible image quality
5dII 1080P video
5dII raw video

I can't see anything else being such a big deal.
But I still want more:

• I would like to see the dedicated video button, but that is a given.
  6FPS
  28MP
  Wider AF points (this is required) this can't come from the 7d. an APS-C AF isn't large enough.
  7d like AF features
  The ability to use a crop of sensor for higher magnification video.(and much less moire)
  Higher resolution video than 1080P 4K maybe.
  

 

[prestonpalmer]

In all honesty this is what I would really like to see included in the 5DIII.

1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.

I really don't think this is too much to ask from Canon.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

A removable AA filter

 

[alipaulphotography]

In all honesty this is what I would really like to see included in the 5DIII.

1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.

I really don't think this is too much to ask from Canon.

Let's hope canon are listening. I don't like disappointment

 

[endigo]

1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.

This is totally absurd, There is no way Canon will make a charging dock for their DSLRs!

 

[NotABunny]

In all honesty this is what I would really like to see included in the 5DIII.

1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.

I really don't think this is too much to ask from Canon.

And what is 5D4 supposed to do then?


I want it to have a sensor split in 4, where every second (RGGB) pixel (vertically and horizontally) can be exposed with different settings (ISO or shutter speed), so that we can take HDRs at any moment.

 

[Cannon Man]

This is what i think they will do.. (at least what i think they should)
It will have about 28mp, i think it deserves to have a bigger body and more of a quality feel to it, the built wuality feels like its a 50D (not as big as 1D though) because i hate using a battery grip and without it its just too small. and then they could up the price to 3500€ from 2000€ or am i the only one who thinks its too cheap??

I dont care about iso performance, i want it to look and feel like a pro camera and if they up the price maby they could make it better than 150 000 cycles, more MP will come without a question... I think Canon is working on next level sensors or somehow taking a bigger step because there is no word on the 1Ds Mark IV that im waitin for that normally would have come already.

 

[azf]

I guess I'm quite easy to please. If these three things are met, I'm getting one:

- Better high iso performance. Two stops' improvement would make it on par with nikons, and I'd be delighted with that.
- About the same price Mk2 was as new
- Available
- (Not worse than Mk2 in any major way)

As long as they keep CF slot and the same battery that is already in Mk2, I'm all set. I haven't been in situations where my shots would've had any technical quality problems due to gear, so there's not much point in craving for more pixels or anything.

And my Mk2 is starting to show some wear and tear, so I probably have to retire it to being spare real soon now.

 

[alipaulphotography]

This is what i think they will do.. (at least what i think they should)
It will have about 28mp, i think it deserves to have a bigger body and more of a quality feel to it, the built wuality feels like its a 50D (not as big as 1D though) because i hate using a battery grip and without it its just too small. and then they could up the price to 3500€ from 2000€ or am i the only one who thinks its too cheap??

I dont care about iso performance, i want it to look and feel like a pro camera and if they up the price maby they could make it better than 150 000 cycles, more MP will come without a question... I think Canon is working on next level sensors or somehow taking a bigger step because there is no word on the 1Ds Mark IV that im waitin for that normally would have come already.

The entire point in the 5D series - "Full frame camera in a smaller, more affordable body."

I really don't see the point in more megapixels. No professionals should be cropping their photos and 21.1mp blows up massive will no visible pixels. If you are blowing up any bigger than that (say billboards) then you should probably have a medium format.

How many 5D users have had problems with blowing up photos large and getting visible pixels? How many have had visible noise in their photos?

I some how feel that the majority is with the latter. One of the biggest reasons to upgrade from a crop to a full frame is for noise performance.

And why anyone would want a camera to be more expensive is beyond me.

 

[WarStreet]

I really don't see the point in more megapixels. No professionals should be cropping their photos and 21.1mp blows up massive will no visible pixels. If you are blowing up any bigger than that (say billboards) then you should probably have a medium format.

I am not a pro, but I doubt that pro should not crop their photos. There are different types of photography and one might have different needs. From the books and the web articles written by pros, cropping is considered essential. I don't think that avoiding cropping makes a photographer better, it just limits the photographer and miss opportunities.

There might be the need to change the photo in different formats to fit in different media, or just to change the meaning of the photo. You might need to crop to get more reach. My friend who shoots birds, never have enough reach even with a 400mm on APS-C, and cropping is essential. For sports photography, it is very limiting to try to frame perfectly the action, since this is hectic and you end up with cut limbs, so it is much better to leave some space. Another situation in sport might be having non subject players limbs in the photos, where you just crop only the subject an leave the non important stuff out. The same is for some distracting background, there is no time to think much during action. There are other situations where one needs cropping.

For large printing, higher resolving power is not that important since bigger prints need a related longer viewing distance with a related lower dpi since we won't manage to detect more detail even if there is a higher dpi.

For cropping, higher resolving power is important since cropping just eliminates data, while still having the same intended print size.

I personally, do need a camera with low noise ability to be able to shoot indoor sports, and my first preference in the poll is FPS, but I still would like more resolution for me or for anyone who needs it. A good balance of features is more important rather than having a bottleneck, of which I think (but might be wrong) that today the bottleneck compared to film is dynamic range.

 

[torger]

I guess the 5D must be some sort of all-around camera. I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO), but for the non-flagship model I guess you need that compromise, and I guess the rumoured 28 megapixel could provide both an upgrade in MP and ISO performance.

In general I think the value of resolution is a bit underestimated, at least for tripod-mounted photography. 400 ppi for book/screen distance viewing distance is a good target, and this is what you can get with high quality printing technology. My personal experience is that there is a clear visual difference between 200 and 400 ppi in printed material. You don't really see individual pixels at 200 ppi, but the lack of micro detail leads to an unnatural pastel-like look, especially highlights are suffering. At 400 ppi at book viewing distance the image looks perfectly natural, and you get the sense that the image has resolution beyond what the eye can perceive, which is what you should strive for. Being satisfied with 200 ppi images is like being satisfied with 8 bit sound.

Also worth noting is that film images have a much more pleasing look if blown up too large than a digital image, so I would say that the resolution requirement is higher for digital than film. There's a charm to film artifacts, but there's no charm in digital ones. The ideas of what resolution is required for a certain size/viewing distance come from the film era, and it certainly needs upgrading to fit the digital era.

You cannot get high ppi count on computer screens yet (they are currently around 100 ppi), but it will come. To fill a 24 inch screen with 300 ppi or both pages of a high quality photo book you'll need around 40 megapixels, and I think that is a reasonable resolution for full-frame, but you will probably have to sacrifice ISO performance then, so every photographer not using a tripod and often shooting at high ISOs would of course want to trade megapixels for better ISO performance.

Of course you could say that high MP count should be reserved for medium format, but I think 40 - 50 megapixels is sort of ideal pixel count for unlimited time into the future (its related to the human eye limitations and normal picture sizes), and since that pixel count is technically possible with good quality for 35mm I think we should eventually get there. At least with some camera body... entry level full-frame might not be the right one.

 

[alipaulphotography]

I understand the importance of megapixels in general, and I should hope in future that it will improve as full frame sensors can certainly handle more. I don't however think it should be on top of canons priority list in an upgrade for the 5D when they are lagging behind in the ISO handling area.

The Nikon D3s and D700 are superb cameras used by professionals worldwide yet are only 12.1 megapixels. They realised the majority of photographers would rather have a camera with lower noise at high ISO's than the megapixels. Yes - canon did well with the 5D mk II to get the high megapixels and also decent noise handling, but not as good as the low mp nikons. Canon already have the megapixel advantage, so I should hope that they now focus efforts on the ISO handling. Then nikon won't have much to shout about at all. I envy D3X users that can shoot ISO8000, stop down their lenses and capture sharp action in zero light.
My personal opinion is that is where canon should be aiming. But I guess that is what the poll is for - to see what the majority of other photographers opinions are.

 

[parsek]

My first post, hi everyone!

First of all I hope they keep the body the same size and kill some of the hard edges.

Secondly I hope Canon realize that they need to make a separate DSLR for the video enthusiasts before they start ruining what could become a perfect walk around high end DSLR for photographers.


My wishes and desires for this camera:

1: Dynamic range above all.
2: Dynamic range, still the most important.
3: Improved build.
4: Low light noise improvements/high ISO capability.
5: Better AF.
6: 24-26 MP range.
7: At least two f-stops of dynamic range. Please...
8: Lot´s of customization options. Kill the print button!
9: Better screen and articulated.
10: USB 3 (not happening).
11: Dual CF card shooting.
12: Build in intervalometer function.
13: Better dust removal system.


PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.

 

[Macadameane]

PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.

1. All color is reflected light wavelengths (refracted is different though, you are right there).
2. White is a color, combining red green a blue light. If you say it is not a color, then any other combination of light is also not a color. Leaving only red green and blue as colors. I can see arguing that black is not a color, but still.

 

[pgabor]

1. All color is reflected light wavelengths (refracted is different though, you are right there).
2. White is a color, combining red green a blue light. If you say it is not a color, then any other combination of light is also not a color. Leaving only red green and blue as colors. I can see arguing that black is not a color, but still.

Im pretty sure that he wanted to say that white and black are tones.
On the other hand, you are wrong, white is not a combination of red green and blue. Take a prism and try out!

White light contains every wavelength of the visible range ("White light is the effect of combining the visible colors of light in suitable proportions (the same present in solar light)" from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White)
The only reason that you register the red green and blue combination as white, because your photoreceptor cells in your retina can only detect wavelengths what we call "red" "green" and "blue".

 

[NotABunny]

I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO)

Here is a little trick that anyone can do. Download the RAW photos taken with those 2 Nikons from:
* http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3ShSLI006400_NR0.NEF.HTM
* http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3X/D3XhSLI6400_NR_OFF.NEF.HTM

Load them in your RAW editor, deactivate all processing, and export them as JPEG (100% quality) or TIFF; in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness). Then load the results in your photo viewer, in full screen (NOT at 100% view / pixel level, but full screen because that's how people see photos on displays or on paper).

Then see if the difference in the noise levels from the two photos, considering the years of extra research for D3s + only half the resolution, means more than diddly squat.


Disclaimer: I believe that the photos taken by IR are taken in different amounts of light, which affects a scientific test, but since here two Nikon cameras are compared, I see no problem (despite the huge difference in exposure compensation and post-processing exposure adjustment which doesn't favor the D3x).

 

[Macadameane]

Ok sure, I can handle some burn.

 

[WarStreet]

in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness).

I think you meant to increase the 0.5 stop to the D3S.

 

[torger]

Both images are underexposed, the D3s 0.5 stops more than the D3X, so the D3S is less favoured.

When you shrink an image, the pixels are averaged out which reduces impact of the noise. So in some circumstances a high MP sensor can with more noise per pixel can win over a lower MP sensor. On my screen the D3s wins with a little though, but not much.

When I discussed quality above I was discussing "high end" prints and limits of human vision. A bit early to dream about that perhaps, I admit. On normal viewing distance I see individual pixels on my computer screen, which is 1920x1200 @ 100 ppi. That is not satisfactory, but is what current technology can do. When the screen has 300+ ppi (like the iPhone4 has, but that screen is a bit small for a workstation ) the quality is approaching the vision limit (for photos, not for line art). For the best prints, we're already there. For the screens I think we will be there within 5-8 years or so. I want to produce "future proof" photos as soon as possible...

I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO)

Here is a little trick that anyone can do.