Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII (pure conjecture)

[Axilrod]

* if you have any doubts that Canon is ripping you off, just look at the video side of the market; BlackMagic is selling (still not shipping, but that will come in august) a camera that puts all the canon, sony, panasonic, etc, models to shame, for $3K (with $1500 of awesome software included); Canon could do the same, with a bigger sensor, for $4K; yet they prefer to sell it for $40K; good for them, but just don't expect me to buy it (ok, the C500 has some things that are better than the BMC, but some are worse too; definitely not worth the price difference unless $30K is just small change for you)

It's idiotic to try and compare the black magic camera to the Canon Cinema line. It appears that Black Magic was actually aiming for consumers, while Canon was clearly aiming at industry professionals with their Cinema EOS line. I know it sucks they didn't make anything in our price range, but it's clear to me that stuff is for the big boys. I doubt you'll see any blackmagic cameras on any sets with it's joke of a 2.4x crop. And you talk about both these cameras as if you have used them to produce dozens of films, but it's all just speculation until they actually get released.

 

[bycostello]

Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII?

To make a profit. And guess what? They will. 'Nuf said.

+1

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

The center point was an f/4 cross, the others required f/2.8 or faster lenses. With every 1-series digital body and with the 1V and 3 film cameras, an f/4 lens gives one and only one cross point (except certain specific f/4 lenses on more recent bodies), and an f/5.6 lens gives you no cross points at all. On the 1D X and 5DIII, an f/4 lens means 41 crosses, an f/5.6 lens means 21 crosses, and an f/2.8 means 41 crosses and 5 dual crosses. Old tech and AF sensor redesign, sure.

On the 3 & 1V, yes there were 7 standard cross points usable with f/2.8 or greater lens. Yes, only the center one worked with lens with a max ap of less than f/2.8. Starting with the EOS 1Ds MkIII in 2007, 19 additional cross points were added.
Is the AF on the 5DKIII better than the EOS 3 and 1V of 14 years ago? Yes.
Is it new technology? No. Just a modest refinement of old tech.

We are nit-picking here. You asked if Canon had AF with >19 point and at least 1 point cross-point workable at less than f/2.8 in the past. I showed you several, some dating back over 14 years which met this criteria. Yes, the system has improved over the years - that's to be expected. And yes, the 5DMkIII benefits from that refinement. But no, it is not a major breakthrough and to me, not worth the premium Canon wants.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

* if you have any doubts that Canon is ripping you off, just look at the video side of the market; BlackMagic is selling (still not shipping, but that will come in august) a camera that puts all the canon, sony, panasonic, etc, models to shame, for $3K (with $1500 of awesome software included); Canon could do the same, with a bigger sensor, for $4K; yet they prefer to sell it for $40K; good for them, but just don't expect me to buy it (ok, the C500 has some things that are better than the BMC, but some are worse too; definitely not worth the price difference unless $30K is just small change for you)

Yeah, I think between the Black Magic, the lower cost RED's and the Sony NEX line, the whole digital video market is in upheaval. I don't think it makes sense to buy into any of these until things settle down bit. But I will be renting the Canon 4k when they are available.

 

[Loswr]

You asked if Canon had AF with >19 point and at least 1 point cross-point workable at less than f/2.8 in the past. I showed you several, some dating back over 14 years which met this criteria.

No, I asked about dual cross type points. The ones you're referring to comprise one f/2.8 line and one f/5.6 line, so the increased accuracy of the f/2.8 baseline is only available in one orientation. A dual cross is an f/2.8 'x' superimposed on an f/5.6 '+'. You showed me none. No previous 1-series has them - they debuted in the 40D, and are found in the 50D, 60D and 7D as the center point, and the 1D X and 5DIII have five of them.

But when it comes down to it, all of this is incremental improvements to old tech - that defines 99% of what marketers call 'new'.

You don't find the improvements in the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII, worth the cost. That's fine - don't buy one. IMO, the 5DIII addresses all of the shortcomings of the 5DII - particularly the AF. You mention the EOS 3, and that's how far you have to go back (a technological eternity) to find Canon putting the 1-series AF sensor in a non 1-series body. I, for one, am fine with the cost of the 5DIII - the improvements over its predecessor are substantial. I'm not getting one, but only because I've already pre-ordered the 1D X.

 

[rj79in]

But when it comes down to it, all of this is incremental improvements to old tech - that defines 99% of what marketers call 'new'.

You don't find the improvements in the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII, worth the cost. That's fine - don't buy one. IMO, the 5DIII addresses all of the shortcomings of the 5DII - particularly the AF. You mention the EOS 3, and that's how far you have to go back (a technological eternity) to find Canon putting the 1-series AF sensor in a non 1-series body. I, for one, am fine with the cost of the 5DIII - the improvements over its predecessor are substantial. I'm not getting one, but only because I've already pre-ordered the 1D X.
[/quote]

+1 on that

 

[rj79in]

It is really a wonder as to how all the alleged issues with the 5d3 boil down only and only to the $3,499 and no real problem with the camera as such.

 

[Marsu42]

It is really a wonder as to how all the alleged issues with the 5d3 boil down only and only to the $3,499 and no real problem with the camera as such.

Of course all issues boil down to the price tag - but that's ok, because buying anything and esp. tech is always a matter of "what do I currently get for the money". For this very reason, there are no inherent problems with any tech item "as such", its mostly about what the buyer subjectively wants for his more or less hard-earned cash and what the competition is.

There are some absolutes like "how many mp do I need for what print size", but most is relative and heavily dependent on shooting circumstances - cropping power, sealing, af, dr, noise, weight, usability...

 

[rj79in]

It is really a wonder as to how all the alleged issues with the 5d3 boil down only and only to the $3,499 and no real problem with the camera as such.

Of course all issues boil down to the price tag - but that's ok, because buying anything and esp. tech is always a matter of "what do I currently get for the money". For this very reason, there are no inherent problems with any tech item "as such"

My point exactly. While the gripes are almost always over the price, people are needlessly trying to find fault with what is a very good camera.

It's ok to have a different point of view but some of the trolling here is unbelievable.

 

[Marsu42]

It's ok to have a different point of view but some of the trolling here is unbelievable.

Actually, I find the trolling level around here rather low, imho it's more trolling from well-off people essentially stating "get a job" if you try to decide if feature/body is worth it for one's circumstances.

While everybody should be able to understand some degree of jealousy, that shouldn't influence posts. I'm very happy with my current 60d gear, I'm just looking into in the future and trying to decide what is needed to get money out of this. And when I walk around with a friend of mine who's got very cheap Sony gear, I'm always amazed that she doesn't try to strangle me looking at my shots - and this reminds me that even my current gear is pretty good, too.

 

[Viggo]

It's probably the "lack" of DR that got me into the most important thing about photography, LIGHT!

Flash-photography is a tad more than ettl on cam. I have a few customers that claim their 7d is so good they don't need flash. I lol then....

So thank you Canon for the 5d3 being JUST the way it is... They have done a spectacular job, they have turned ME, of all people, away from the 1-series, because they put so much of the fun from the 1-series into the 5d and built it smaller and lighter, by far! That is serioulsy good... 22 mp is just right, plenty but not stupid. And the high iso DR of the 5d3 is very good indeed.

And headphone jack for video is something they never should have left out of the 1d x.

 

[rj79in]

It's ok to have a different point of view but some of the trolling here is unbelievable.

Actually, I find the trolling level around here rather low, imho it's more trolling from well-off people essentially stating "get a job" if you try to decide if feature/body is worth it for one's circumstances.

While everybody should be able to understand some degree of jealousy, that shouldn't influence posts. I'm very happy with my current 60d gear, I'm just looking into in the future and trying to decide what is needed to get money out of this. And when I walk around with a friend of mine who's got very cheap Sony gear, I'm always amazed that she doesn't try to strangle me looking at my shots - and this reminds me that even my current gear is pretty good, too.

Well phrased ... However to me it looks like the most trolling is coming from ppl who don't own either a 5d3, nor the D800

 

[KeithR]

Typical fanboyinsm... did you even bother to look at the picture comparison between the two bodies and how well they deal with shadows and image quality (IQ)?

And your post is typical clueless trolling with no basis whatsoever in fact.

Understand this very clearly: not only have people here looked very carefully at that review, but they then went back their 5D Mk III files and utterly destroyed the review by producing results from them that were so much closer to Reichman's D800 examples than his 5D Mk III results, that it's obvious his problems weren't coming from the camera.

 

[KeithR]

Given a choice between more MP OR less noise and more DR, many/most users choose the latter.

Damn - I didn't get the memo where you asked me my opinion about that.

Just to reiterate what has already been said (not that it really needs it):

• you don't speak for "everyone";
• what you want doesn't automatically become what "many/most" users want; and
• the way the 5D Mk III is flying off the shelves (and let's face it - it won't be getting mopped up by clueless newbies) might even suggest that you have absolutely no insight whatsoever into what "many/most" users want from the 5D Mk III, and (this is where I'd bet my money) could even be utterly, utterly wrong about that.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

Damn - I didn't get the memo where you asked me my opinion about that.

Just to reiterate what has already been said (not that it really needs it):

• you don't speak for "everyone";
• what you want doesn't automatically become what "many/most" users want; and

You're right:
- I didn't ask you. I apologize for that oversight. ;-)
- I don't speak for anyone else.
- I don't know what most/many users want.
- I should prefaced that with an "I think" rather than present it some sort of fact (it is pure conjecture)
- My wish list does not become what many or most want and certainly does not become camera reality.

So in short, I apologize for the "many/most" statement and retract it.

Again, I didn't start this thread to debate the features of the 5DMkIII or to nit-pick over the evolution of Canon AF tech - though that's what it has become.

I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.

I firmly believe that if Canon could produce such a sensor at scale, it would have been in the 5DMkIII. I do not know why they could not. I took a guess.

For me, the sensor is like film. In my photographic purchases over the past 25 years or so, I've placed the emphasis on getting the best glass, OEM ED and L, rather than getting the body with the most features or most rugged construction. I came up using spots meters, the Zone system and careful film calibration. I worked with commercial labs for weeks or months with each particular chrome film until I could predict exactly what it would do in almost every lighting situation, ASA and processing push - how much DR, true speed, grain, color shift, etc. I knew Fuji chromes (and TMax) like the back of my hand.

Fast forward to the digital age. My "film" is the sensor. I shoot RAW. Body produced JPEGS are for my previews and occasional tight newspaper deadlines. The body is only a means to get my L glass in front of that sensor. I want the highest resolution, lowest noise and greatest DR I can, because that what is I would demand of my film.

Digital is evolving quickly. I have tended to buy bodies with disposability in mind - knowing that in 2-3 years I would dump it for an improved sensor package, not because I'm a gadget freak, but because the sensor is the film, and if better film is out there, I want to use it - like when Fuji produced Velvia 100 and I stopped using 100D or when Fuji came out improved 400 D, I stopped using the older 400.

So when my system manufacturer, Canon, fails to keep up in sensor tech in a given model revision, I wondered why. Not that the 5MkIIII doesn't have many fine features. It does. What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.

 

[Loswr]

I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.

What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.

A fair question, but essentially irrelevant. Canon has certainly shown a desire to innovate in the sensor arena - has Sony produced the largest CMOS sensor ever made, or a 120 MP APS-H sensor (equivalent pixel density as a 71 MP FF)? No. It's not like Canon doesn't care about sensor technology.

But what matters isn't selling sensors, it's selling cameras. The 5DIII is designed to sell as a camera, not merely as a sensor-enclosure. Time will tell, but I expect the 5DIII will sell like proverbial hotcakes. Given the relative market share of the 5DII vs the D700, I expect there will be more upgraders on the Canon side, and given Canon's >14% greater market share overall, and thus a greater number of people already invested in the Canon system, I expect the 5DIII will outsell the D800, sending Canon a clear message that they made the right design choices.

Even though some people have trouble grasping the 'big picture' and prefer to 'focus in' on individual features (puns intended), Canon's overriding consideration is and must remain making a profit (something they, unlike Sony of late, seem able to do).

 

[briansquibb]

I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.

What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.

A fair question, but essentially irrelevant. Canon has certainly shown a desire to innovate in the sensor arena - has Sony produced the largest CMOS sensor ever made, or a 120 MP APS-H sensor (equivalent pixel density as a 71 MP FF)? No. It's not like Canon doesn't care about sensor technology.

But what matters isn't selling sensors, it's selling cameras. The 5DIII is designed to sell as a camera, not merely as a sensor-enclosure. Time will tell, but I expect the 5DIII will sell like proverbial hotcakes. Given the relative market share of the 5DII vs the D700, I expect there will be more upgraders on the Canon side, and given Canon's >14% greater market share overall, and thus a greater number of people already invested in the Canon system, I expect the 5DIII will outsell the D800, sending Canon a clear message that they made the right design choices.

Even though some people have trouble grasping the 'big picture' and prefer to 'focus in' on individual features (puns intended), Canon's overriding consideration is and must remain making a profit (something they, unlike Sony of late, seem able to do).

+1 The more money they have the more they can put into R&D

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.

What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.

A fair question, but essentially irrelevant. Canon has certainly shown a desire to innovate in the sensor arena - has Sony produced the largest CMOS sensor ever made, or a 120 MP APS-H sensor (equivalent pixel density as a 71 MP FF)? No. It's not like Canon doesn't care about sensor technology.

But what matters isn't selling sensors, it's selling cameras. The 5DIII is designed to sell as a camera, not merely as a sensor-enclosure. Time will tell, but I expect the 5DIII will sell like proverbial hotcakes. Given the relative market share of the 5DII vs the D700, I expect there will be more upgraders on the Canon side, and given Canon's >14% greater market share overall, and thus a greater number of people already invested in the Canon system, I expect the 5DIII will outsell the D800, sending Canon a clear message that they made the right design choices.

Perhaps it is an irrelevant question. After all, this is the camera that Canon has released, and I have no reason to doubt that it will sell very well. There's pent-up demand after a 3 year wait, and with Canon's greater market share, sheer numbers alone are in their favor.

But relying on customer lock-in rather than true innovation is, I believe, a losing proposition. It may work for one product cycle, maybe even two, but it hurts in the long run.

Of course we'll never know what the real sales impact is because without putting the Sony sensor in a 5DMkIII body and charging $500 less for it, there's no way to do a real head-to-head with Canon customers.

Regarding the 120 MP APS-H sensor, while impressive, there is a very great difference between building a one-off "concept" sensor and mass manufacturing. Now Canon may sell as many of these handcrafted 120 MP sensors as they can produce to military contractors and satellite manufacturers, but what matters in consumer products is scale - thousands of units, on schedule, on budget.

So far, Canon has not shown they can do that with a sensor comparable to the Sony at the Sony/Nikon retail price point.

Canon faces one further pressure: Every day that Sony makes this sensor they get better at it. The yields get higher and their costs go down. That is operational knowledge you only gain by making a thing. It's knowledge that Canon will have to acquire one step at a time. Even if they enter the market in 6 months with an equivalent to the Sony sensor, they will be at a manufacturing experience disadvantage, and therefore cost disadvantage. And Sony get to apply all their knowledge its next gen.

Now that's not to say that Nikon or Sony will suddenly or even ever overtake Canon in market share. I don't think they will, at least not in the next several years. I happen to think Canon cares as much about sensor innovation as Sony - maybe more. But they have their work cut out for them.

 

[Loswr]

Let me explain, no, there is too much, let me sum up. There is some truth to the idea that ISO is the new megapixels. But at this point, DR is a forumenon - discussed almost exclusively by people here, most of whom have no real intention of buying either a 5DIII or a D800 (meaning, frankly, that neither Canon nor Nikon care about them). Think about it. MP? That's a top line spec. ISO? It's at least in the specs, and highlighted in the feature lists. DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon.

Sorry, that's harsh...but reality often is.

 

[briansquibb]

The ideal iso is 100 as it was with film (although asa64 was best)

Rather than let the camera give you high iso (and low DR) it is worthwhile working on the techniques to get as close to iso 100 as possible.

If you rely on high iso you will run out of DR to recover the blocked out blacks.

One of the reasons I suspect the Canon released the new 600EX is to reduce the iso and increase the DR. The beauty of this approach is that it applies to all existing cameras rather than relying on new technology