Who thinks this is an ANTI-CLIMATIC product? As in, the 5DIII

[keithfullermusic]

Who cares about megapixels... only uncle bobs. I'm glad the price is a bit above what it was before. I see too many people who don't know anything about photography with mkIIs. Now hopefully less of them will buy the mkIII.

Why does it matter that people who don't know how to use it have it?

According to you, you'd rather only really good photographers with high amounts of disposable income have this camera than really good photographers with high disposable income along with really good photographers without too much money and n00bs.

Its not like other people having it makes your pictures any less good.

I'm not complaining about the price necessarily. Maybe it is worth what its being priced for - although it seems a little steep for a progression of a model. I just don't buy the argument that you're glad its expensive, so it will be a little more exclusive.

p.s. - there are still plenty of rich people out there who don't know squat about photography who will still buy this thing.

I believe he's talking more about teenagers/college students who use dslr's to take mirror photos. As a college student, this is a huge pet peeve for me when I see rich kids get expensive cameras but use them like point and shoots.

I have no problems with adults who buy the cameras and have no idea how to use them. These people have a job and work for their money. They are entitled to spend it however they please.

I do however, have a problem when it is a person my age who has a good camera only because their rich parents bought it for them. They don't have jobs, so they didn't work for the camera. They flaunt it around and act as if having a good camera means they are a good photographer.

I know it doesn't affect my abilities, but it just annoys me when I worked hard to get something that other people can get just by asking their parents. One of my roomates is a prime example of this :-\

i understand your pain. it would annoy the you know what out of me as well to see something like that. however, i'd rather them and me have that camera as opposed to just them!

like i said before - i'm not complaining about the price because i am mad at canon. just complaining about my lack of dough!!!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I already have 5dII. I wanted more MP (more than D3X at 24MP), much better ISO performance, and better AF.

Why did Canon play this so foolishly? I am invested in Canon somewhat, and don't care about this new announcement. What a monumental letdown. I don't know how any current 5d owner could get very excited about this "ground-breaking" new DSLR.

I would rather have the 1dX. Even at over $3k more, you will have similar IQ at low ISO. I can't believe the resolution went up by 1 measly MEGAPIXEL!!!!!

I hope I am wrong. This is like the ending to Saving Private Ryan. An old man crying is all I see.....

I'm not as negative on it.

Granted I had hoped for about 30MP at 6fps or 22-24MP at 7-8fps and they delivered neither. It is a bit unfortunate that after 3.5-4 years the IQ might be more or less the same. and the speed not quite truly there for sports. And if it would be neither than surely for the old price and not $800 more or at least the D800 price.

BUT

I had hoped for fully sampled video and it sounds like they may have delivered that.

I had hoped beyond all hope for 1D AF and it seems they have delivered that and not just some older 1D AF but the newest of all. ;D ;D ;D

I hope they have somehow managed to match Exmor technology and jump from 11 or so stops to the near 14 stops of the D7000/D3x/D800. And that the SNR is up 2/3 to 1-1/3 stop in RAW. I hope banding is gone. That would temper the lack of MP a bit since at least we'd have much better DR than than the 5D2 and a decent SNR improvement at high ISO. I have a feeling we might get more like only 1/3-1/2 stop better SNR and little to no low ISO DR increase. So we might end up with only slightly better SNR at high ISO than the D800 and much less low ISO DR. High ISO banding appears to be much better. Anyway nobody knows yet. In a few more weeks it will be become more clear.

 

[Neeneko]

I could see the argument that the camera is disappointing.. as with any new model the designer picks winners and loosers, market segments that are considered important and ones that are not, BUT the specs are pretty close to what has been predicted for some time now, thus I would not call it anti-climatic. It fits the narrative well.

*goes back to looking at used MF backs*

 

[minestrone]

As a professional photographer I'm going to have to disagree with many of the people posting on this forum. Many of us need more than 16MP and some of us need even more than 22MP. But with that said, I understand why Canon decided to make the 5D Mark III those specs. Its pretty much everything that a majority of the 5D Mark II users were asking for. An improved AF, better ISO noise reduction, better weather sealing, more FPS. I've also read that HDR option allows 3 photos to be merged within the camera. I think this will be awesome for landscapes and timelapses.

I'm so frustrated by reading post where people say things like "99% of photographers don't need Megapixels". Below I'm going to give you a few examples of why people like me (and there are MANY OF US) need higher Megapixel count.

I currently shoot weddings, product photography and landscapes.

1.) I've had couples ask me for 20x30" print outs, I've even had couples ask me for copies large enough so that they can make wall size canvases out of the final output files. More Megapixels give engagement and wedding couples more options as to what they can do with their photos.

2.) From time to time I'm asked to shoot product photography ranging from electronics to fashion accessories. Currently the 5D Mark II is acceptable for these jobs but I can see clients moving away from what I have to offer eventually if Canon doesn't update pixel count. More Megapixels offers more flexibility in how clients can showcase their products.

3.) I love photographing landscapes. This one is a no-brainer. More megapixels the better. Yes I post my photos on flickr BUT I also sell them and galleries often want these blown up to wall size canvases.

Yes, the obvious answer is to go Medium Format. But in today's economy not all of us can afford a $45,000 Hasselblad H4D and nearly $5000 per lens. I've got a mortgage and car payments so that's out of the question. What I can afford is a $4000 Canon that will offer 45MP and one or two $2000 lenses that will be able to handle the resolution output. I don't need 6 FPS. Better AF, HDR and ISO are definitely welcomed and I'm glad to see it in the new 5D Mark III but that's about it for me. The 5DMIII is still somewhat underwhelming.

If someone wants to call me stupid or a "pixel peeper" because I want more megapixels feel free to email me personally at [email protected]

 

[Frank209]

Ah well, Here in europe it's 3290 euro..

3249 Euros = 4 290.62 U.S. dollars!!!!!

Sooo ehm... shut up

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm sorry, but I have to smite you, my friend. If I could smite you ten times in a row, I'd do that, too. You don't seem to get that for the last several years, the ENTIRE time we've all been waiting for this camera, we all heard nothing but "LESS MP, BETTER ISO!! LESS MP, BETTER ISO!! LESS MP, BETTER ISO!!". Here we are, on the day the long-awaited 5D III is released, and everyone is BITCHING about the fact that we "only" got a "measly" single extra megapixel. Well DAMN, PPL?!? If you wanted uberpixels, why did you demand less mp and ask for better ISO?!?!

Simply put, the 5D III is a FANTASTIC camera from a specs standpoint. Canon listend to ALL of their users complaints, and fixed just about all of them, from what I can tell! Like the 1D X, it STOPPED focuing on megapixels, megapixels, megapixels, and STARTED focusing on WHAT PEOPLE FRIGGIN ASKED FOR!!!!!!!!! We just got a whopping TWO STOPS of NATIVE ISO improvement!!! The Nikon D4 didn't change native ISO one tiny bit, and neither did the D800!!

1. many people were asking for about 30MP, although many were not, not sure the break down, but probably between 70:30 to 35:65.

2. The thing is it does NOT have 2 stops native ISO improvement. Even Canon has said some to much of it is just in cam jpg NR fakery. Canon says the 1DX is 1 stop better than the 5D3 and the 5D3 is 2 stops better than the 5D2 but it is beyond the laws of physics for the 1DX to be 3 stops better than the 5D2 (certainly barring a change to a radically different technology). While we may get 1 full stop better than the 5D2, which would be very nice, we might only get 1/3-1/2 stop better in which case it might not be all that different from the D800 SNR after doing complete normalized comparison.

3. The D800 uses an Exmor sensor and they have been getting very near the theoretical limit for low ISO DR compared to high ISO DR. Some of them have had 13.8 stops. The 5D3 has 14bit files there is no room for it to be better than the best Sony/Nikon sensors so far. Canon has failed to mention any ISO 100 DR improvement. Canon apparently turned down tech prior to the 5D2 that would have let them match Exmor DR because they wanted to milk more money out of what they had. There is a solid chance that the 5D3 might have say 11.5 stops DR while the D800 13.8 at ISO 100.

So for all the talk about low MP and awesome IQ it is not at all impossible for the 5D3 to have not only 50% less MP but 2 stops worse ISO 100 DR and perhaps only 1/3 stop better SNR at high ISO for all we know.

I sure hope that is not the case. In the best case comparative scenario maybe it pulls of 1 stop better SNR at high ISO than the D800 and 1 stop better DR at ISO 100 (this latter part is very unlikely, since it would require a huge step up from Canon in terms of DR and a near 1 step drop back for the D800 from the D3x sensor). If so that certainly would be nice.

My guess is the 5D3 will have anywhere from 1 stop worse to almost the same ISO 100 DR and 1/2 stop better high ISO SNR.

It's all guessing though. By mid-April we may know all the answers.

At this point we really can't say which sensor will deliver better in any respect other than the D800 has more max detail and reach at lower ISOs.

They did give us awesome AF though (on paper at least), which is, well, awesome.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I really don't see how people are dissatisfied with 22 megapixels. Until just recently 21-24 megapixels was the absolute maximum you could get with a DSLR and people weren't rushing to buy medium format cameras.

99% of photographers don't need more than 16 MP. I'm one of the few people that needs at least 16 MP because I'm a photoshop artist and my craft degrades images to an extreme extent and I extensivly crop. Even so 16 MP is enough.

22 MP is enough to do 4 foot wide prints. It's an absurd amount of resolution that is already typically overkill. I'm really glad that Canon deeply improved everything but megapixels, the other issues needed much much more attention and the results are amazing.

22MP does very sharp 13x19", crazy sharp 7.5x11"

once you need to crop for say wildlife shots then it can fall behind quickly though or if you like to scroll around at 100% view and spot all sorts of little details and things

I can see how landscape people and others could want more, but 22MP ain't bad as you say.
I can really see why wildlife shooters/some sports would want more. 36MP is a built-in 1.3x TC compared to 22MP. Although some sports shooters hate 36MP since you take so many shots each event the storage and transfer become a pain.

personally i had hoped for 30 MP or so at 6fps and if it had to be 22MP then 7-8fps at up to $3500 or so

22MP at 6fps is OK though, good, if nothing thrilling at this point in time at $3500 (although starting to be something less than that if it ends up with worse DR than the D800)

the 1DX AF is thrilling though

 

[tasteofjace]

Here's a review from an actual Photographer. Someone not focused on numbers, but performance and usability. He is also a user of the MK2.

Anyone worried that the Mk3 is nothing but a small upgrade to the Mk2 should definitely read this.

http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html

 

[XanuFoto]

I think this is a great upgrade. I shoot weddings and 15 mega pixels is enough so I am not worried about the pixels. I am excited about the better AF. If I get better AF and one stop of light I am happy. Just as excited about the new flash. Looks great.

Exactly. This is a wedding photographers and event photographers dream camera. And if the files coming out of this camera are as good or better then the MKII this can very easily handle fashion/beauty segments. Maybe even Landscape pretty well.

 

[D_Rochat]

There really isn't anything this camera can't do. Events, landscape, portrait, sports. Sure it's not lightning quick like 12fps, but where else are you going to get a FF with that kind of ISO performance and a modest 6fps for the same price. This body will do everything well. If you want perfection, go shell out $7000.

 

[Axilrod]

Canon didn't really hype this product that much, their users did. If it was anti-climactic then the you must have had some unreasonable expectations. Or it could be the fact that we had a spec list before release, so the actually announcement ended up being more of a confirmation than a genuine "surprise" announcement.

I'm a 5DII user and I think the 5DIII is awesome. Improved video, much better resolution, absolutely killer low-light performance and a bunch of very cool features. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but it sounds like your biggest issue is with the Megapixels, because the IQ and low-light performance have increased tremendously. And megapixels aren't everything, I mean being able to crop into an image isn't useful if you don't do it often, so it doesn't really matter to me. Wait for some real-world testing and do some more research before you start judging stuff solely based on specs.

I personally think the upgrades are stellar, and there are a lot of great features and lot's of small improvements that are collectively awesome. But if you only look at it like it's got an improved AF and +2FPS faster of course it's going to seem like a bad deal.

 

[Axilrod]

I'm waiting to see what this camera actually DOES, and not just what the specs are.
When Canon launched the C300 there were a ton of RED fanboys screaming that it didn't have 4k resolution, or that it didn't shoot R3DRAW or whatever other spec they read. What they all overlooked is that the camera itself recorded an amazing image, was rock solid dependable, and had a smooth workflow for production. People who should have known better were declaring the RED Scarlet the winner, and that the C300 was DOA. Well.....now we can see that the C300 is actually an incredible camera, especially for documentary and TV production. Point is, don't just judge any camera purely on the specs. Let's see what the 5DIII does.

I agree 100%, people ignored the amazing quality of the footage and all the testimonials from pros that absolutely loved it, but because it wasn't "4k" that means the whole thing is worthless. People spec race and like to have 1 number that sums up the level of quality in a product, and with cameras there are so many other variables it just isn't fair to judge like that.

 

[Axilrod]

A major mistake on the price. Is this camera so good it warrants a launch price double the high street price of the previous model, and 25% more expensive than the D800? Somehow I doubt it, the improvements seem very incremental over the MkII, and while that camera sold in massive numbers I'll stick my neck out and say that this one won't.

I don't know how you came up with 2 x $2700 = $3500, but ok. It's not Canon determining the MSRP country by country, so if you live in a place that it's very expensive, that's unfortunate. But the MSRP is only $800 more than the 5DII originally was, I don't think it's that ridiculous.

 

[Axilrod]

I am OP. This is my argument: We, as consumers, are collectively indifferent. some want this, and some want that.

The 1dX addresses High ISO performance issues. We also have the existing 1D4 (16 MP) that is impressive in high ISO. And it is a wonderful camera from all I have seen, read, and heard.

Okay, so since the 5dII came out nearly 4 years ago, Canon has added 1MP, better ISO performance, similar video features, same metering, 2 frames per second, and "pro" AF. All of this for $500 more-- 4 years later.

I know I am leaving out some specs--what dual card slots that many sub-FF cameras already have? I just don't see why anyone would pay $1,500 MORE for these upgrades. And yes, the 5dII can be found for $2,000 flat.

Look at some of the other specs and the fine details. The resolution is much improved, and there are more than enough new video features to make me very excited about shooting at the end of the month. I really only use these things for video and astrophotography, and I still think it's an awesome camera and worth the $. Sure it would have been cool if it was cheaper, but I don't think it's a rip off by any means.

The problem is that so many people have been holding out for this camera, waiting patiently with their 40D/50D/60D/7D to take the leap to full frame. We've been waiting for so long that people just had it stuck in their heads that the 5DIII was what they were going to get. Now they feel stupid for waiting, or cheated because it's out of their price range. And that's unfortunate, but I think a lot of the animosity comes from people holding off upgrading for so long for something they couldn't afford.

 

[DJL329]

the 1DX AF is thrilling though

Agree. I had a hard time believing the rumors that it would have 61pt autofocus; I figured it would be something closer to the 7D or maybe the 1Ds Mk III.

I don't do a lot of birding, but that may change now!

 

[Neeneko]

I think the real problem with the 5D3, cutting through all the 'this is great' and 'this sucks' banter, has nothing to do with the camera, but with how DSLR manufacturers handle their release cycle.

Most manufacturers, when they serve multiple overlapping market and produce an entire product line across them will release multiple models at the same time rather then this staged approach. If you have widget X that is best for submarket A and widget Y that is best for submarket B and widget Z that is an in between,... when you update X you update Y and Z at the same time.

I think people feel slighted (or are annoyed people feel slighted) because of the winners and loosers inherent in any set of design decisions combined with the single model release. If Canon had released, say, 5 bodies at once, with something to get excited about from all their sub markets at once, we would see a lot less complaining.

As it stands, certain submarkets got a new camera. Others will wait. The people who got a camera are happy, the people who will have to wait are not, and off course there is butthurt going on between them since people who are happy do not like hearing people complain (plus, riding the high of being the current choosen/important market), and people are not happy do not like being told that they should be content with a camera designed for someone else.

 

[Marsu42]

I think the real problem with the 5D3, cutting through all the 'this is great' and 'this sucks' banter, has nothing to do with the camera, but with how DSLR manufacturers handle their release cycle.

... and this release cycle seems to be set to make people upgrade their bodies beyond their original budget, as numerous examples seem to suggest. This time it's "5d3 or downgrade to aps-c on the next 7d cycle", "throw away your ir flashes because we don't produce legacy radio tiggers" and "if you want longer video clips wait for our real eos movie body".

This strategy is not condemnable itsself, after all Canon is not here to please photographers but to maximize their shareholder's roi. But I can understand that people are annoyed if certain features are withheld or prices bumped up for marketing or commercial reasons alone.

 

[XanuFoto]

This kinda reminded me when Apple released the iPhone 4S. Everyone was expecting a iPhone 5 and a game changer. They said Apple has lost it. It went on to be the highest selling phone for them. Then also kept the iPhone 4 and 3GS in production and keep selling those too. Today Canon dropped 300 dollars of the MRSP of the MKII. So many people who had 60D,40D,30D,20D can get a FF camera very cheap. Not to mention all the used MKII cameras that will come up on craigslist and ebay. In Canada they are appearing between 1600-1700 at the moment. Expect those prices to reach 1500 soon. Seems like Canon with have a FF cameras in the 2000, 3500 and 7000 dollar segments. Depending on features and requirement you can take take your pick.

 

[birdman]

Wow! I am OP, again. Here to thank all of the responders. You guys are great. (Even those who bashed me for slight misspelling. Not usually one of my weaknesses)

I may well hold off on an upgrade. i just sold my d7k that I never used, and may just take the plunge on the Zeiss 21mm Distagon. Even for a manual focus, it looks delicious (except for 82mm filter size :-\ )

I had my 5d2 for sale, and actually think it sold. Need to check my account. But, after someone asked me to respond with the shutter count-- I simply could not believe it!! 7,262 total shutter actuations! Wow! I guess my deep depression kept it in it's nice bag for WAY LONGER than I ever remember. Depression is a real thing, guys.

I am going to refund money if 5d2 did sell, and wait/hold out for reviews. Maybe I'll rent the Zeiss and shoot it on both my 5d2 and my Rebel 2000 35mm. I just ordered some Fuji 100 Film.

 

[Leadfingers]

I already have 5dII. I wanted more MP (more than D3X at 24MP), much better ISO performance, and better AF.

Why did Canon play this so foolishly? I am invested in Canon somewhat, and don't care about this new announcement. What a monumental letdown. I don't know how any current 5d owner could get very excited about this "ground-breaking" new DSLR.

I would rather have the 1dX. Even at over $3k more, you will have similar IQ at low ISO. I can't believe the resolution went up by 1 measly MEGAPIXEL!!!!!

I hope I am wrong. This is like the ending to Saving Private Ryan. An old man crying is all I see.....

I'm sorry, but I have to smite you, my friend. If I could smite you ten times in a row, I'd do that, too. You don't seem to get that for the last several years, the ENTIRE time we've all been waiting for this camera, we all heard nothing but "LESS MP, BETTER ISO!! LESS MP, BETTER ISO!! LESS MP, BETTER ISO!!". Here we are, on the day the long-awaited 5D III is released, and everyone is BITCHING about the fact that we "only" got a "measly" single extra megapixel. Well DAMN, PPL?!? If you wanted uberpixels, why did you demand less mp and ask for better ISO?!?!

Simply put, the 5D III is a FANTASTIC camera from a specs standpoint. Canon listend to ALL of their users complaints, and fixed just about all of them, from what I can tell! Like the 1D X, it STOPPED focuing on megapixels, megapixels, megapixels, and STARTED focusing on WHAT PEOPLE FRIGGIN ASKED FOR!!!!!!!!! We just got a whopping TWO STOPS of NATIVE ISO improvement!!! The Nikon D4 didn't change native ISO one tiny bit, and neither did the D800!!

But DAMN, the D800 has uberpixels!!

We just got an unbelievable, entirely unexpected 61 point AF system with 41 cross-type sensors!!! And to go along with that, we got a nice boost from 3.9fps to 6fps, 18 continuous frames, and dual memory card slots (and don't you DARE complain about the fact that they are not both CF or both SD...YOU HAVE TWO FRIGGIN MEMORY CARD SLOTS, and are probably sitting pretty on 50,000 unused SD cards that you couldn't use any more once you went to the 5D II!)

But DAMN, the D800 has uberpixels!!

"WHAAAA! So screw Canon, they are a bunch of b*tards for listening to their CUSTOMERS. PFFAH! Nikon HERE I COME!!" - anonymous, ubiquitous complainer

GROW THE FRACK UP PPL!!

YOU...GOT...WHAT YOU ASKED FOR!!

-.-

MEH.

</rant>

And what you asked for...IS AWESOME! Can't wait to get mine.

+1
ftw