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

[BornNearDaBayou]

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.....

 

[RedEye]

Yeah... welll, back to bed.

 

[Actionpix]

These are specs I wanted to see for the 5D II. (fps, not the MP) I am a crop camera user and keep on wondering why the pixelsize of the 5D II (And 5D III) only equals that of the very old 20D. Only when I can get real close, so no soccer pics, no airshow pics, no wildlife pics, I can get more pixels on my subject. (Than with the 20D) For air to air photography, where I can come closer, I would like the shallower DoF but wonder why I still have only about the pixelssize of the 20D and not that of the newer crop cameras resulting in more detail. (I do not care for high ISO settings as for action photography I need long exposure time and because of DoF I also want to shoot wide open.)

 

[Apple Tree Studios]

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.

 

[tooslick2k]

I think this is a superb upgrade from the mk2. Anti-climatic? Not at all. Maybe your better suited for the D800. either way dont knock it solely based on MP. It has a lot of awesome features!

 

[D_Rochat]

Just because Canon didn't build the camera you want doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. By all means, go with Nikon. I'm not being rude, it's just that they may be a better fit for your needs. I'm very excited about this one.

 

[Kliphten]

This seems like a great camera but I'm disappointed in the price. Technology is expected to improve over the years so saying that it has better tech specs doesn't really make sense. I know the dollar has weakened as well but this price is ridiculous.

 

[SPG]

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.

 

[randplaty]

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.

 

[rlarsen]

Are you kidding ?
It sure looks like a great camera that was improved in many significant ways. Often I have file size dialed down for professional assignments, so 22 mp is fine by me.
I have two on order and can't wait to get them.
I will say I'm not thrilled by the price of the new 24-70, and we all know the price of the new 5D grip will be outrageous.
I wonder if the current grip will fit the new body ?

 

[Kliphten]

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 do you care so much about what other people purchase? You will always have people doing things they don't know much about, but I feel it's pointless to fret over it. Maybe help those people with Mark IIs understand more about it so that they do know more about photography instead of thinking they don't deserve it even when they are spending their own money on it.

 

[KeithR]

Why did Canon play this so foolishly?

Canon isn't here to build you your own personal perfect camera.

 

[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.

 

[BDD]

On paper the 5D3 looks perfect for me spec wise...BUT...it just dawned on me it has no AF-Illumination on front (as the Nikon D800 does...D3s/D4 does not incidentally...nor does the 1D-X). WHY?? Is that not vital for low light shooting?? To utilize the 100-25,600 native ISO of the 5D3?? Or is there something about the design of the 5D3, 1D-X, and the Nikon D3s/D4 that allow them to getaway with out having AF-Illum?

 

[briansquibb]

On paper the 5D3 looks perfect for me spec wise...BUT...it just dawned on me it has no AF-Illumination on front (as the Nikon D800 does...D3s/D4 does not incidentally...nor does the 1D-X). WHY?? Is that not vital for low light shooting?? To utilize the 100-25,600 native ISO of the 5D3?? Or is there something about the design of the 5D3, 1D-X, and the Nikon D3s/D4 that allow them to getaway with out having AF-Illum?

I dont think that using a speed light for AF assist is a deal breaker

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It is a bit worrisome that CW mentioned nothing about better DR at ISO 100-400.... I fear it may still lag Nikon by 2 stops of DR.

And that 7.5fps dropped to 6.9fps dropped to 6.0fps and they still want $3500.

AF is probably better than expected (assuming same speed and no watered down algorithms), so that is great. Really great actually!

$3500 is a little bit much since they didn't give it a super expensive 7-8fps mirror box.

It probably should be priced more like the $3000 of the D800, but for now it is not.

 

[dunkers]

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 :-\

 

[Flake]

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'm going to hold off buying one, I'm convinced Canon are going to get a shock when customer demand isn't any where close to what they expect, and that the price will fall quite dramatically within 6 months of launch. I bought the 5D MkII soon after launch with a battery grip and spent £1900 I'd now have to spend close to twice that for a camera which isn't going to give me twice the image quality.

For me it's a big thumbs down I'll keep my cash until Canon get some sense, I remember the outcry of Nikon shooters over the D3x price, and a lot of them boycotted the camera, it didn't sell well at all, this is how I see the MkIII, it's just not enough of a step change to justify the price.

 

[TAR]

It is a bit worrisome that CW mentioned nothing about better DR at ISO 100-400.... I fear it may still lag Nikon by 2 stops of DR.

And that 7.5fps dropped to 6.9fps dropped to 6.0fps and they still want $3500.

AF is probably better than expected (assuming same speed and no watered down algorithms), so that is great.

But for 4 years they had to do something big.

$3500 is a bit much since they didn't give it a super expensive 7-8fps mirror box.

It should be the same $2700 as the 5D2 or the $3000 of the D800 at absolute worst.

+1

 

[Michael7]

The price is way out of whack. $2700 is more than acceptable. These features are not a big enough jump to justify $3500.

I'll pick up a used 5D II in a few months for landscape, or maybe a d800e.