# 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance



## smirkypants (Apr 21, 2012)

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers. I own a 5D3 and a d800 and it really seems to me that the folks at Nikon really tried harder. I originally bought the d800 for a specific purpose but now I find myself using it with a nice prime that I also bought. I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.

Using my 5D3 I don't get the impression that Canon tried as hard as it might have. It really reminds me of American car makers back in the day trying to focus as much as possible on maximizing profits and not making the best cars that it could. We all know how well that went.

So anyway, Canon. Try harder. You deserve all the sh*t people are giving you. The 5D3 is a solid machine, but it's not great. There were so many missed opportunities. You probably could have made something very similar in 2010 but didn't. Try to build the best stuff you can and price it aggressively. Thanks.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 21, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers



All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all. The only difference is that some get it right while most get it wrong (relative to others it the same market).

Now, the reason the D800 looks so nice on paper is not because over there the engineers have more sway than at Canon and it isn't because of some romantic notion of sacrificing profits to make photographers happy. It is rather because they knew that without some big wow factor they won't be able to challenge Canon's overwhelming market share in this segment. And that's exactly what we expect underdogs to do. In the end, if they manage to pull it off like Nikon seems to have managed, we all profit in the end. 

And make no mistake. Only time will tell, but if Nikon does manage to overthrow Canon this time around, we will have the same exact conversation, only in reverse, in 3-4 years.


----------



## Astro (Apr 22, 2012)

instead of the general statements i would like that people explain exactly their "issues" with the 5D MK3. that way the threads would make sense for me.

don´t get me wrong but it´s all a bit wishy-washy.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 22, 2012)

I'm gonna reiterate some of what I just posted in a different thread.

Canon is likely quite happy with the performance of the 5D3; it's selling like crack, it actually does do a lot of things considerably better than the 5D2, at least for most of the crowd who asked for those improvements.

I sure hope they are listening to all the forum griping tho, as well as those of us who've also bothered to let them know directly, that we expected better overall sensor performance from them, especially at the low ISO end.

I really think Canon needs to look at what the competition has brought to the market and pay attention to its loyal customers who'd like some of the same without having to buy it from the competition.

There's one way to help them do that.... TELL THEM.

Because right now, the following competition products have an edge in low ISO IQ.

Nikon D800, D4, D7000, D5100 and Pentax K5. 
The freshly announced Nikon D3200 is also gonna make some waves with its 24MP crop-sensor. If it can retain the clean shadows the other bodies listed can provide, plus the simple market appeal of all those pixels at a very competitive price, it's going to steer some attention away from Canon.

Ricoh-Pentax is also about to start a renewed marketing campaign as well. They have some great products that are a bit different in some ways, very creative. I've been thinking of playing with some of them myself. (That little Q is just _so_ cute.. and capable.)

This has been a one-horse race for a while but Canon's jockey is about to start feeling some hot breathe from the competition closing in on his backside.

Even Harley Davidson eventually had to start building better bikes in the face of the competition.


----------



## JR (Apr 22, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers
> ...



another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...


----------



## Aglet (Apr 22, 2012)

JR said:


> On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...



+1
This is a road they've chosen to increase sales, of course. and why not?
But, they do seem to have languished behind other Mfr's who have kept still image quality as their top priority. That and the technical requirements for doing video seem to be compromizing still IQ at a hardware level.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 22, 2012)

The problem that I have with Canon is that they are doing this intentionally - release incremental upgrades to their bodies. Take a look at their bodies starting from the xxD and upward. Small upgrades that are not worth upgrading for the IQ. The 60D is a step backwards from the 40D in IQ, as an example. The 7D is a pretty nice camera, but does poor in low light conditions. Why? Look at the 5D MKIII video - identical video quality as that of MKII - not that I care for video. If I want super video quality beyond MKII or MKIII I'll get a dedicated 1080p 60fps camcorder for $800 like the TM900. The video on this thing is beyond anything the $3500 is capable of!

My complaint their bodies is that they are NOT trying to outdo the competition. Nikon, contrary, has released very impressive bodies. I also love Pentax K5 - kicks 7D in the teeth for MUCH cheaper! 

Canon needs to get real upgrades in bodies and not drag their legs (intentionally) to maximize profits. I have money to burn, and I will burn it by purchasing from Nikon because it seems they care about their bodies as much as their glass. Nikon has gained a lot of market share since when? Look it up... since they really started churning out great bodies people wanted to use! Yes, there will be a cat and mouse in the camera competition, but it looks like Canon has been the cat for a while now... I don't have time to wait until they release a real nice body with real upgrades for a decent price.

Canon will become the next Sony trying to "protect" their profits and not go out to attract more customers! Read up on why Sony is in deep doo-doo these since 2008... it is now time to pay the pipper (Sony)!


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 22, 2012)

can somebody compare a 5M MKIII to a 5D MKII image to convince us that it is worth spending $3500 for the body?

we are photographers for the PHOTOGRAPHY = we want IQ 

so, convince me with two images (of the same subject under the same conditions) that 5D MKIII is worth the cost...

(5D MKIII stock is intentionally kept low to increase demand - a ploy from Canon to make you think it is selling like hot cakes... NOT!)

PS. oh yeah - wanted to get the 5D MKIII - was hoping for a $2500 entry price for the body alone. in Dec. 2011 the 5D MKII was $2000 in Canada. Said that I will not buy 5 year old technology. Then suddenly the cost of 5D MKII goes up to $2400 in Canada when the 5D MKIII gets released at over $3500... WTF? since when? what is the intention with that price hike? history dictates that old bodies will come down in price then be phased out when newer models come out (ie. 5D MKII gets cheaper than $2000 here in Canada with the release of 5D MKIII) - but it looks like Canon knows where th real demand is... 5D MKII - and so to make more money, they do this! so, how is this good for the consumer? should I be thankful for them for this? NO because I am not a fanboy, nor am I Canon zombie - I want a cheap 5D MKII!!!!



JR said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > smirkypants said:
> ...


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 22, 2012)

Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 22, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all.


Meh. You seek to distract. My point was that the 5D3 doesn't feel like Canon was trying to create the best product that it could. It's a fine machine. Yup. A solid effort that will sell lots. I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry. 

I wanted to focus on corporate motivations with my post, not specific gearhead stuff, but I'm attaching this shot so you can see something. I could NEVER have gotten this shot on anything Canon. I was hand-holding this on my belly with an 200-400 f4 zoom shot at maybe 100 yards. I had it set to 1.2 crop factor which gave me a 25MP file. I then cropped about 2/3 of the file away and still have this detail. I would need at least a 600mm on a 16MP 1D4 to get that kind of detail, and then I would never have been able to hand hold it to run to the spot that I needed to get to to get this shot. 

I didn't think I was going to, but I'm selling my 1D4 and 400/2.8. I don't see myself ever using it again. Sure I only shoot 5fps with the D800, but those 5 shots are better. A lot better.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 22, 2012)

the 5D MKIII is NOT a Bentley in the camera world IMO

it may be a higher end Mercedes



DavidRiesenberg said:


> Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> If I want super video quality beyond MKII or MKIII I'll get a dedicated 1080p 60fps camcorder for $800 like the TM900. The video on this thing is beyond anything the $3500 is capable of!



Oh really. I guess that's why they used 5D2s in House and 7Ds in Black Swan, because they couldn't get their hands on a Panasonic camcorder?

The TM900 is great for the money, no doubt, and yes in terms of resolution, autofocus and lack of jello effects, any 1080p consumer camcorder beats an HDSLR. But there are things like low light performance, DOF and access to pro / cinema lenses which are far more important for independent films, weddings and commercials.

Try to shoot something like this on a TM900: Artem & Katie NYC


----------



## iso79 (Apr 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all.
> ...



You're missing good action shots with the D800 as evident by the photo you posted ;D


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 22, 2012)

iso79 said:


> You're missing good action shots with the D800 as evident by the photo you posted ;D


Maybe! But it's a lot cheaper buying a d800 and having the extra reach from the megapixels than spending the $$$ on a longer lens, which is what Canon wanted me to do. I also have the added bonus of being able to take the lens wider to 200mm when the action comes closer. 

I swear, I never thought I'd own a Nikon....


----------



## FunPhotons (Apr 22, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers
> ...



You all have it wrong - I work in a very similar situation (handheld custom hardware platform with custom software and accessories, AND competitors ). The reality is that each product *group* in the respective companies have their particular cultures, and collectively they decided to produce these specific products. The reasons came from the different groups involved - marketing, management, R&D, Learning Products (documentation/training) and OF (order fulfillment - manufacturing). As to the specific group which pulled the shots - if there is one that stands above - it's unknowable (by us) and unimportant. 

The OP is correct, Nikon looks to be working harder for us than Canon, who has been over charging and under delivering. It may change in a few years or may not.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> The problem that I have with Canon is that they are doing this intentionally - release incremental upgrades to their bodies. Take a look at their bodies starting from the xxD and upward. Small upgrades that are not worth upgrading for the IQ. The 60D is a step backwards from the 40D in IQ, as an example. The 7D is a pretty nice camera, but does poor in low light conditions.



You know, back in the film days, the camera contributed virtually nothing directly to image quality. If you wanted different dynamic range or color rendition or whatever, you didn't blame the camera; you popped in a different type of film.

What differentiated cameras then is _exactly_ what differentiates the 5DIII from the 5DII -- and, not coincidentally, what makes the 5DIII a significantly better camera than the D800 as well.

Specifically, it's all those non-sensor things, like autofocus performance and frames per second and metering and ergonomics and the rest. Even more importantly is the whole system -- the lenses you can mount on the camera.

With the exception of the very last top-of-the-line pro body film camera Canon ever made, the EOS 1-V, the 5DIII blows away every single film camera Canon ever made on any spec you care to mention -- and the only spec that the 1-V bests the 5DIII on is framerate (10 FPS v 6 FPS). Not only that, the 5DIII handily bests all other pro digital bodies Canon has ever made in pretty much every spec, except for the framerate of the crop sensor models.

And, oh-by-the-way, it's got image quality that simply doesn't exist in the film world (I dare you to make a 36" x 54" 135-format film print that comes anywhere close to what the 5DIII can do), image quality that's on a par with or superior to every other camera in its format on the market save for one single model from the competitors.

And, also-oh-by-the-way, it's a high-definition large format high-speed motion picture camera.

And, did-I-mention, Canon glass stomps all over the competition, what with the TS-Es and the supertelephotos and the MP-E and on and on and on.

And yet that's somehow still not enough? Canon is holding back?

Whatever.

Say, any of all y'all complainers get your invisible pink flying unicorn ponies from B&H? I hear they were supposed to start shipping after Pesach....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 22, 2012)

unkbob - the advantage DSLR bodies have over dedicated camcorders is that you can use whatever lens you like - thus, the shallow DOF in your video

the video is nice because of the lens, thanks to the DOF

the bitrate of the video, the frame count is nowhere close to that of dedicated camcorders - you can get the Canon HF10 and add the same lens used in the video for much higher video quality

what I want to say is that Canon DSLR should concentrate on the best bodies for image IQ, and leave the video to camcorders because they are the way to go for video


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 22, 2012)

TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon? Would not say that that. Both brands, including Sigma and Tamron have good lenses. Zeiss are the masters of all glass!

Would not say that Canon has the best IQ for their lenses. I have a Sigma 105 f2.8 which is MUCH sharper than say, Canon's 24-70 mm - yeah, comparing prime to zoom is not fair, but for IQ many brands have very, very good lenses!

for example: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4


----------



## unkbob (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> the bitrate of the video, the frame count is nowhere close to that of dedicated camcorders - you can get the Canon HF10 and add the same lens used in the video for much higher video quality



You're wrong about the bitrate. The 5d2 bitrate is much higher than most camcorders, and the GH1 / GH2 can be hacked to achieve even higher bitrates.

And no, you clearly don't understand DOF either. The aperture on a camcorder can go plenty wide, but the sensor is too small for shallow DOF. You could stick an L lens on a camcorder but you'd have to shoot at such a wide angle that everything would be in focus. The prime lenses used in that video would be far too long for a camcorder - it would be like shooting with a super telephoto.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4



I take it you've used all three of these lenses? I have. The Canon 28 1.8 is crap, indeed, but it's also cheaper than the Sigma. The Sigma 30mm is inferior to the Canon 35 1.4 L and is crop-only which is a significant disadvantage and why it's cheaper.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Canon 50 1.4, but it's also more expensive.

Sigma make some great lenses. 30, 50, 85, 70-200 OS for example. Tamron's lenses are mostly cheap and plasticy, don't like them at all.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 22, 2012)

unkbob said:


> stevenrrmanir said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4
> ...



I can honestly say that I don't like the Sigma 30 1.4. Shot with it for a while and was underwhelmed by the image quality and especially the autofocus. Maybe I got a bad copy.. Who knows. Right now I'm living with two canon 50mm (1.4 and 1.8 ) and love them both while saving for Canon's 35 1.4.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Apr 22, 2012)

I'd rather not have any video features on my DSLR whatsoever. Like some, if I wanna shoot video, I'll pull out my video camera. A still photo, shot correctly with a good camera, can have so much more impact than shaky, hand-held video anyday. I know ya'll gotta agree with me on that. 
As far as Canon DSLR's being used in video production, big deal. Real Hollywood films are shot with film cameras, whereas TV shows and some feature 'movies' are shot on video or a mixture of both.
My point being, still cameras should shoot stills, motion cameras should shoot motion. 
Is that 7D firmware out yet?


----------



## distant.star (Apr 22, 2012)

Wow! Very well said!

Thanks.




TrumpetPower! said:


> You know, back in the film days, the camera contributed virtually nothing directly to image quality. If you wanted different dynamic range or color rendition or whatever, you didn't blame the camera; you popped in a different type of film.
> 
> What differentiated cameras then is _exactly_ what differentiates the 5DIII from the 5DII -- and, not coincidentally, what makes the 5DIII a significantly better camera than the D800 as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## unkbob (Apr 22, 2012)

Pieces Of E said:


> A still photo, shot correctly with a good camera, can have so much more impact than shaky, hand-held video anyday. I know ya'll gotta agree with me on that.



You're saying a good photo is better than a bad video? That is earth-shattering news. Equally, a well-shot video can have so much more impact than a poorly exposed blurry still photo. It's easy to create something horrible either way.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Apr 22, 2012)

Wow, was a sarcastic response really appropriate? How immature and un-professional. 'Horrible' is why they created a delete button.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 22, 2012)

Pieces Of E said:


> Wow, was a sarcastic response really appropriate?



Yes.


----------



## Musouka (Apr 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.



Actually there is at least one crippled feature (of sorts). The new WT-5 only works with the D4. The D800 can only use the bulkier WT-4. Both are extremely overpriced in any case so I don't think many would get the WT-5 even if it worked and you can always use Eye-Fi (but they would be quite limited).

It seems that Nikon is overcharging for some of the accessories while keeping the body price relatively low. The MSRP for the The MB-D12 Battery Grip is a whooping $616 (it's being sold for $450-500). The MB-D11 is currently selling for $220-250. I guess one can always buy an aftermarket grip, however.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon?



Hell yeah.

Oh, sure. At the bottom of the range they go back and forth between price / value comparisons.

But Nikon has nothing that even comes close to Canon's TS-E lenses, their supertelephotos weigh twice as much, they have nothing remotely like the MP-E 65...and, should you really have a hankering, (almost) anything yow can mount on a Nikon you can put on a Canon, but not vice-versa.

Really, it's all about the glass, and Nikon isn't even in the same league.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 22, 2012)

I don't understand when people complain that Canon is "intentionally holding back" features and advancements... they put the TOP OF THE LINE focusing system into a "semi-pro" camera (making it a "pro camera" for a very affordable 3,500). The last time they did that was with the EOS-3! Also, those 18 megapixie 1Dx cams are quite a bit more pricy.

Not sure why there always has to be a Canon vs X debate. Who cares? These camera bodies are just boxes. Tools.

If a 5Diii is holding you back artistically or professionally in any way, you have bigger problems.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 22, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> stevenrrmanir said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon?
> ...



I agree. I love canon glass and it was the main reason I wanted to come back to Canon. Of course I mainly shoot the f4 glass but it's something that Nikon doesn't have (I'm poor and love the weight––or lack thereof). Canon has many options and most of the Autofocus lenses are fast and accurate which is something that I didn't find with Nikon's older autofocus (which are being updated very slowly. The only lens that Nikon has the I drool over is their 14-24 f2.8. Other than that, Canon has everything that I could want and more.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry.



You're right, Nikon is hungry. They've been hungry ever since Canon stomped them so badly at the dawn of the digital era. They lost a ton of market share back then, and as underdogs, they've been pushing hard to catch up. That's the nature of being the underdog. Bold situations call for bold solutions, and Nikon's products from the last 5 years proves this. 

Many have accused Canon of becoming complacent. Maybe there's some truth to this, but the nature of being #1 is that it's difficult to gauge how hard you have to push the envelope to stay on top. It doesn't make it OK to lose sight of the market, but that's just the way things go. 

Personally, I don't think there's as large of a gap as people suggest when comparing Nikon and Canon bodies. For your needs, the D800 is the better camera than the 5DIII, but for others, the Canon is a more well-rounded machine. I'm one of those guys that preferred the D700 over the 5DII, so the 5DIII is precisely the type of camera I wanted Canon to build. If Canon is intentionally crippling their cameras, as people suggest, they will lose market share and then get serious about earning it back. It's a pissing match all consumers benefit from.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 22, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry.
> ...



Yup. 

And where do you think we will be in 20 years? 

Nikon will have the "best" camera for a while, then Canon will. It will go back and forth till in 20 years both sides are putting out a 100+ MP mirror less camera with a medium format sensor in a dslr sized camera that has clean 200k iso, 4k video at 120 fps, 15 fps for stills, more dynamic range than the human eye, built in GPS, wifi, and an autofocus system with as many focus points as there are pixles. The camera will cost around 30k thanks to inflation. 

I guess what I'm getting at is who really cares if one side or the other has the best camera right this second? Sit back and enjoy this ride into the future! Look at how far we have come since the first digital camera, and just imagine how far we will be able to go in the future!


----------



## Martin (Apr 22, 2012)

> I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers. I own a 5D3 and a d800 and it really seems to me that the folks at Nikon really tried harder. I originally bought the d800 for a specific purpose but now I find myself using it with a nice prime that I also bought. I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.
> 
> Using my 5D3 I don't get the impression that Canon tried as hard as it might have. It really reminds me of American car makers back in the day trying to focus as much as possible on maximizing profits and not making the best cars that it could. We all know how well that went.
> 
> So anyway, Canon. Try harder. You deserve all the sh*t people are giving you. The 5D3 is a solid machine, but it's not great. There were so many missed opportunities. You probably could have made something very similar in 2010 but didn't. Try to build the best stuff you can and price it aggressively. Thanks.



I have exactly the same feeling.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 22, 2012)

JR said:


> another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.
> 
> On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...



The 5D mk3 doesnt looked "crippled" to me, rather I think that Canon were looking to exploit the same kind of convergence of tech as live view and video offered on the 5D mk2. 22 MP seems to offer the 5Dmk3 vastly better video ISO performance than the D800(I'd guess a bigger issue for video than stills giving that long exposures arent an option) than the D800 but it also allows them to offer 6 fps.

To me it looks as if Canon and Nikon has specifically looked to go after what they viewed as weaknesses in there previous generation, Nikon a cheaper high MP body and Canon a good all rounder. I'm guessing that alot of amatures who want high MP bought a 5D mk2 fairly recently aswell when prices dropped while the earlier sales were made up of pro's who really wanted 5D mk3 specs.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 22, 2012)

moreorless said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.
> ...



This is a 5D3 not a series 1.

A 22mp 1Dx would be VERY interesting and give some credibility to the statement that it was a merger of the 1D and 1Ds ranges

It will be interesting to see if the tone of the posts on this forum changes from doom and gloom to glee when the 1DX gets to the market. Personally I doubt it as everyone seems to be looking for a spec of dust on the fender and if they find it no doubt there will be a class suit raised


----------



## JR (Apr 22, 2012)

Aglet said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...
> ...



for now it does seem like this. Maybe when the 1dx comes out for real we will change our mind but does not change the facts for the other bodies indeed...


----------



## JR (Apr 22, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.



Not at all. If you read the original post price is not the issue here. The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package. Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious. Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.


----------



## JR (Apr 22, 2012)

moreorless said:


> The 5D mk3 doesnt looked "crippled" to me, rather I think that Canon were looking to exploit the same kind of convergence of tech as live view and video offered on the 5D mk2. 22 MP seems to offer the 5Dmk3 vastly better video ISO performance than the D800(I'd guess a bigger issue for video than stills giving that long exposures arent an option) than the D800 but it also allows them to offer 6 fps.
> 
> To me it looks as if Canon and Nikon has specifically looked to go after what they viewed as weaknesses in there previous generation, Nikon a cheaper high MP body and Canon a good all rounder. I'm guessing that alot of amatures who want high MP bought a 5D mk2 fairly recently aswell when prices dropped while the earlier sales were made up of pro's who really wanted 5D mk3 specs.



...but DxO said that ISO performance is better with the D800 

[sarcasm] 

lol


----------



## JR (Apr 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



Well I hope you are right Brian. I can't wait to see how the 1DX perform. I really hope it proves us all wrong ;D


----------



## altenae (Apr 22, 2012)

JR said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.
> ...



Did Nikon try harder ?
Or did sony tried harder. 

Without the D800 the 5D mark iii would be top notch. 

It still is, except for the DR which is less then the D800. 
But other things from the 5D rocks. 

I think everything is blown out of proportion on many forums. 

Well I am glad I am off for a 2 week wildlife trip. 
And yes with my poor Canon stuff. 

I think we should be realistic and stop whining. 
Or be a man and buy the D800 and see if this will make your images any better. 

The 5D mark III is a superb allround DSLR with a superb AF. 

Grow up. The difference is not that big in real word. 
And the tools from Canon and Nikon are more then most of us will ever use or need. 


-----
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.scramble.nl
www.planepix.nl


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 22, 2012)

Gear is gear. It's normal for everyone to want more for less/same, unless you work for Canon or Nikon 

Are Canon perhaps pushing the envelope of reasonable pricing? Yup. How much did the flooding & earthquake cost them? Dunno. Why are they charging more than Nikon? Numerous factors I am sure, many of which have been floated here.

Should we continue to berate Canon? Well only if it is measured complaints. If anyone from Canon does read this site, if it becomes rant/vent central then I think they will frequent it less. I certainly would. Will pricing on the Canon lenses & bodies come down? History shows it should, so if you don't have a burning need then wait. I'm still happy with my kit and will wait out 2012 to decide and just hope to improve my photography 

To the original OP - how much are you putting down the better photography to the 200-400mm VR and how much to the D800? I know of a few photographers who have switched to Nikon specifically for the 200-400mm, and although Canon have one on the horizon, I suspect many people here will be more interested in a 100-400mm MK II (due to pricing)....

So, how much is the AF of the D800 better than the 1D MK IV for you, and how much is the 200-400mm giving you better flexibility to catch the photos you desire? Comparing the 400mm vs the 200-400mm is frankly unfair given all the variables. D800 better resolution? Sure, the 1D has an effective 27MP to a FF, so the 36 of the D800 will certainly help some in terms of cropping...

If you have any examples of direct comparison, that would be great...

Finally, I personally like the fact that I can shoot stills for 95% of the time, but can use the same glass on the same body, flip a switch and take some video. When I travel, my bag is full and I even try to avoid taking my 20D IR now just to avoid 2 sets of batteries & chargers. All my critical gear is in hand luggage which restricts me to those airlines that allow 15+ KG of kit. Adding a separate Video Camera even if it can take my EF lenses is just more kit. Appreciate it is horses for courses...


----------



## jrista (Apr 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> ..., but I'm selling my 1D4 and 400/2.8.



How much? I might be willing to take that off your hands if its reasonable.


----------



## jrista (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon? Would not say that that. Both brands, including Sigma and Tamron have good lenses. Zeiss are the masters of all glass!



I wouldn't say that at all. Zeiss has a reputation spanning decades as being the masters of glass, but both Nikon and Canon today, and in some cases Sigma, take the crown and are well ahead of Zeiss for commonly used lenses. In particular, Canon and Nikon take the crown hands down on their lens coating, which is a nanocoating now, far, far superior to a multicoating (which is still what Zeiss uses...their T* coating.) As such, Nikon and Canon lenses experience hardly any flare and ghosting, even in the worst of the worst situations. That improves microcontrast, and therefor sharpness...and Canon's latest lenses are truly second to nothing these days (their MTF's are approaching perfection even near the edges now.)


----------



## jrista (Apr 22, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry.
> ...



+1 Well said!


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 22, 2012)

Stu_bert said:


> If you have any examples of direct comparison, that would be great...


Direct comparisons? You mean shoot this scene, put the one camera down, shoot the same scene with a different camera? I'm afraid that would be impossible. If you don't want direct comparisons, the internet is littered with shots from a 1D4/400mm combination sports shots and there are a number on my web site.

And sure, I'm willing to admit that part of my glee is due to the lens, but I also temporarily shot with a d7000 and wasn't nearly as smitten. I was going to get a D4, but full frame 16.2MP just wasn't going to cut it. I used to shoot important events with a 1D4/400 on a tripod and a 7D/70-200 f2.8 II on my shoulder for when the action got close. Now I'm hand-holding everything with just one camera and getting great shots.

Canon doesn't really have an answer. I have explained this before, so if you've read it, move along. There's the vapor-lens 200-400/f4 +1.4x that I had been waiting on for the better part of 3 years, but the pricing on that looks to be more than what I paid for the d800 and the 200-400/f4 lens. Then what would I put that lens on? A $3500 5D3? That has no advantages. A 1Dx? I suppose that might be killer, but to get the reach of the d800 I have to drop in the 1.4x and then I'm at f5.6. And then there's the small matter of the $6800 price tag of the camera. The MSRP of the Canon 200-400 + 1Dx looks to be approaching $19,000. I paid almost exactly half that. Half!!

Plus this lens still doesn't exist... and neither does the camera. Some will say "nobody pays full MSRP for lenses." Well, yes they do. In the first year or so when they come out, the big lenses sell at full price, if you can even find them. The 400/2.8 II is still $11,500 at B&H and Adorama, despite being out for some time. It may come down in a while but how long do I wait. Until 2014?

I'm not crazy. I'm not needlessly berating Canon with my shrill hysterics. Others will do what I have done. Many others.


----------



## iso79 (Apr 22, 2012)




----------



## simonxu11 (Apr 22, 2012)

JR said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.
> ...



Can't agree more, well said!!
You can always easily find there's something has been crippled by Canon in the 5D series and lower end model compare to what Nikon is offering.


----------



## jrista (Apr 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Canon doesn't really have an answer. I have explained this before, so if you've read it, move along. There's the vapor-lens 200-400/f4 +1.4x that I had been waiting on for the better part of 3 years, but the pricing on that looks to be more than what I paid for the d800 and the 200-400/f4 lens. Then what would I put that lens on? A $3500 5D3? That has no advantages. A 1Dx? I suppose that might be killer, but to get the reach of the d800 I have to drop in the 1.4x and then I'm at f5.6. And then there's the small matter of the $6800 price tag of the camera. The MSRP of the Canon 200-400 + 1Dx looks to be approaching $19,000. I paid almost exactly half that. Half!!



You are really skewing things here. The D800 definitely has something to offer, but your talking about photographing action here. Unless you seriously don't think 4fps FF or 5fps crop mode is not an issue, there is a HUGE difference between those frame rates and the 10 of the 1D IV. Your going to be missing out on a lot of incredible moments because your at HALF the frame rate or less as the 1D IV, and just from a numbers game your keepers are going to shrink on volume. You also have to remember that the D800 is moving a LOT of data around most of the time, and while it has a large buffer, once it is full, it takes a long time to empty onto your memory card. That will create lag that you just simply can't speed up, potentially causing you missed shots. That is the very reason high frame rate cameras exist, and you can't say that the D800's improved resolution or DR is enough to offset that.

You also have to remember that the 1D IV is designed to AF at f/8, so dropping in a 1.4x TC and shooting at f/5.6 is a no-brainer. You don't lose that much DOF when doing so, and you definitely gain reach. Full-frame, full detail, no-cropping reach, which is also nothing to shake a stick at...as its still higher resolution overall than using DX crop mode on the D800 (which is 15mp.) Yes, the D800 is a great camera, but the 1D IV is still a far superior action photographers tool, even at f/5.6/


----------



## Louis (Apr 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers. I own a 5D3 and a d800 and it really seems to me that the folks at Nikon really tried harder. I originally bought the d800 for a specific purpose but now I find myself using it with a nice prime that I also bought. I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.
> 
> Using my 5D3 I don't get the impression that Canon tried as hard as it might have. It really reminds me of American car makers back in the day trying to focus as much as possible on maximizing profits and not making the best cars that it could. We all know how well that went.
> 
> So anyway, Canon. Try harder. You deserve all the sh*t people are giving you. The 5D3 is a solid machine, but it's not great. There were so many missed opportunities. You probably could have made something very similar in 2010 but didn't. Try to build the best stuff you can and price it aggressively. Thanks.




love what you wrote and totally agree


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > If you have any examples of direct comparison, that would be great...
> ...



Yup, outside your professional shooting, I just assumed you had maybe done some comparison - not during the polo games and the like  The 27MP effective of the 1D vs the 25MP crop of the D800 both at 400mm would be interesting, but I appreciate that is being cheeky!! ;D



smirkypants said:


> And sure, I'm willing to admit that part of my glee is due to the lens, but I also temporarily shot with a d7000 and wasn't nearly as smitten. I was going to get a D4, but full frame 16.2MP just wasn't going to cut it. I used to shoot important events with a 1D4/400 on a tripod and a 7D/70-200 f2.8 II on my shoulder for when the action got close. Now I'm hand-holding everything with just one camera and getting great shots.



Indeed, so it is not more the lens and not the camera? Handholding the 400mm would be difficult, hence your use of a tripod and the inflexibility that comes with that. Handholding the 200-400mm I would guess is a little more difficult than the 70-200, plus the extra MP is a little more unforgiving. Don't get me wrong, I am only trying to understand, not trying to critique. Your money, your job, your decision. 




smirkypants said:


> Canon doesn't really have an answer. I have explained this before, so if you've read it, move along. There's the vapor-lens 200-400/f4 +1.4x that I had been waiting on for the better part of 3 years, but the pricing on that looks to be more than what I paid for the d800 and the 200-400/f4 lens. Then what would I put that lens on? A $3500 5D3? That has no advantages. A 1Dx? I suppose that might be killer, but to get the reach of the d800 I have to drop in the 1.4x and then I'm at f5.6. And then there's the small matter of the $6800 price tag of the camera. The MSRP of the Canon 200-400 + 1Dx looks to be approaching $19,000. I paid almost exactly half that. Half!!
> 
> Plus this lens still doesn't exist... and neither does the camera. Some will say "nobody pays full MSRP for lenses." Well, yes they do. In the first year or so when they come out, the big lenses sell at full price, if you can even find them. The 400/2.8 II is still $11,500 at B&H and Adorama, despite being out for some time. It may come down in a while but how long do I wait. Until 2014?
> 
> I'm not crazy. I'm not needlessly berating Canon with my shrill hysterics. Others will do what I have done. Many others.



As per my original post, Andy Biggs & Andy Rouse are 2 big names in wildlife who swapped from Canon based on the 200-400mm and the AF of the series III I believe. So yes, the specific combination of lens & a good Nikon body is what made it for you. And I have considered it myself....

But, and I appreciate it is subjective and somewhat emotive, other than the 36MP and the flexibility of the 200-400mm lens, what's your initial impression of the differences between the two? Handling, AF, ISO etc? Not looking to bate you or anyone else, just interested in your feedback.... thanks


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 22, 2012)

I dont understand the logic of smirkypants

He has a 1D4 with a 1.3 crop plus the 400 f/2.8 and he says that he couldn't get the same shot as the ff D800 at 1.2 which he then had to crop more.

I would have thought the Canon option would given pretty much the same print options with the same FOV the same picture. Of course if he had the lighter 500 f/4 he would not had a significant crop at all. 

I think that option would cost less than the D800 + 200-400?


----------



## AprilForever (Apr 22, 2012)

JR said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > smirkypants said:
> ...



I kind of feel the same way, I think... Frankly, if the 7D MK II didn't even know what the word video meant, I wouldn't drop a tear. Mash all the computing, buttons, and other what not together into a powerfuller photo-centric camera. Leave the video to video people. Give me a camera which was meant to be a camera, not a cini-duhickey!


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 22, 2012)

JR said:


> Not at all. If you read the original post price is not the issue here. The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package. Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious. Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.



In the end, the market will decide the future. If Canon's sales will fall to Nikon, then in 3-4 years we will see the same situation in reverse. Not that I mind. I love my 5D3 and it offers me all that I need and more in a camera body but who am I to complain if Canon will have to do even better?


----------



## jrista (Apr 22, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all. If you read the original post price is not the issue here. The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package. Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious. Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.
> ...



I'm not sure that will happen, even if it "should". I've read a few things on other forums about Nikon having supply problems. That seems to have been one of Nikon's historical failings, and may be even more exacerbated these days with all the natural disasters they faced last year. I've heard numbers thrown around a few times about sales numbers from "the big stores" like B&H indicating Canon's 5D III is selling 25 times more than the D800...but not necessarily because people don't want the D800. They just aren't available for all the people who want them, where as the 5D III is. Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)

If the trend continues, and Canon meets demand where as Nikon doesn't, sales numbers won't affect Canon's opinions much.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 23, 2012)

jrista said:


> Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)



With that kind of manufacturing advantage, you'd think that Canon could fill the back orders for the damn 70-300L tripod collar  It's no biggie, as I've got a knockoff collar on the way. Philosophically speaking, can you really call the Hong Kong collars a knockoff when the real deal Canon stuff is nowhere to be found ;D? Understandably, I'm sure Canon has much bigger priorities right now.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 23, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)
> ...



That is why I'm a canon photographer right now. I used to shoot with a D90 when I first got started. I was going to upgrade to a D3s when it came out, but there was so little supply that I couldn't get my hands on it so i went with the 5d2. Now I'm so invested in lenses that I'm probably going to be using canon for life. I MAY eventually use both at some point if Nikon continues to increase DR and MP, just so I can have that functionality when needed, but for events and weddings, my Canon 5d3 is just great, as I'm sure any future canon camera will be as well. 

For personal, non paid photos, I dont see myself ever needing or even wanting a monster megapixle camera.


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)
> ...



Yeah, I'd figure replacement parts are pretty low on Canon's list of priorities.


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Yeah, even despite the slightly lacking DR on the 5D III, it definitely sounds like a vastly superior wedding camera. I think wedding photogs were one of the two or maybe three primary groups of photographers they REALLY listened to when designing the 5D III.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 23, 2012)

jrista said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



And as a wedding photog, I am very thankful.  

Something people don't take into account when viewing things like DxO mark is that for something like weddings, its not ALL about maximum image quality. Workflow has a bigger impact on profits than image quality from a camera (when all the latest cameras are so great). Clients don't know what color banding is. 5d3 workflow is MUCH faster than d800 workflow, and I don't think even nikon fanboys can deny that. So from where im sitting, canon can make me a more profitable business than nikon can. And thats what its really all about folks. Money makes the world go round. If you don't care about money, go shoot your kids birthday party with a hasselblad. 

Yay for logic!


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, even despite the slightly lacking DR on the 5D III, it definitely sounds like a vastly superior wedding camera. I think wedding photogs were one of the two or maybe three primary groups of photographers they REALLY listened to when designing the 5D III.
> ...



Aye! And as they say, Canon makes cameras to make money...on both ends of the line: for themselves _*and* for their customers._ 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has historically been able to produce greater supply and keep supply moving, where as Nikon has regularly had supply problems (which is a small part of the reason I'm a Canon photographer today.)
> ...



I hope it fits. I heard that the new knock-offs fit. So I finally ordered one. It arrived.
Oh it will fit all right.... if I first bash my 70-300L with a sledge hammer....
Back it goes.
:'(


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 23, 2012)

jrista said:


> Yeah, I'd figure replacement parts are pretty low on Canon's list of priorities.



Who said anything about replacement parts? The 70-300L doesn't come with a freakin' tripod collar. I would have ordered one when I bought the lens, but it's been backordered for over a year. A now LTRLI tells me the knockoffs don't even fit  Maybe it's a Canon conspiracy to try to get people to upgrade to the 70-200 f/2.8 II and a 1.4 teleconverter  I heard Kodak doesn't have any supply issues so maybe I need to switch ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I hope it fits. I heard that the new knock-offs fit. So I finally ordered one. It arrived.
> Oh it will fit all right.... if I first bash my 70-300L with a sledge hammer....
> Back it goes.
> :'(



Mine fits no problem


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 23, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> And as a wedding photog, I am very thankful.
> 
> Something people don't take into account when viewing things like DxO mark is that for something like weddings, its not ALL about maximum image quality. Workflow has a bigger impact on profits than image quality from a camera (when all the latest cameras are so great). Clients don't know what color banding is. 5d3 workflow is MUCH faster than d800 workflow, and I don't think even nikon fanboys can deny that. So from where im sitting, canon can make me a more profitable business than nikon can. And thats what its really all about folks. Money makes the world go round. If you don't care about money, go shoot your kids birthday party with a hasselblad.
> 
> Yay for logic!


This is VERY true. As someone who makes money from a camera, my needs are different to many. I think carefully about quality of images, but the "5%" difference between in visual quality between the various sensors is just irrelevant - and I'm really picky 

For me it is (nearly) the perfect wedding photographer camera. Canon really did listen to wedding photographers needs. The silent shoot mode especially is unbelievable - really good for echoy UK churches


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 23, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> TrumpetPower! - are you saying Canon has better lenses than say, Nikon? Would not say that that. Both brands, including Sigma and Tamron have good lenses. Zeiss are the masters of all glass!
> 
> Would not say that Canon has the best IQ for their lenses. I have a Sigma 105 f2.8 which is MUCH sharper than say, Canon's 24-70 mm - yeah, comparing prime to zoom is not fair, but for IQ many brands have very, very good lenses!
> 
> for example: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4



Isn't the Sigma 105 also a macro lens? Macro lenses are in my experience amazingly sharp, so you are comparing apples with not even pears, but onions. If you want to compare anything with the 24 - 70L, compare Sigma's own 24 - 70 which is good but not better than the L. Or conpare the 105 to the 100 macros that canon produce. Your arguments falls to dust when you compare a dedicated macro lens to an all purpose high quality zoom.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 23, 2012)

To illustrate my point, I have just come back from a weekend in Dubai, and at the Sheraton resort there was a dragonfly (or similar) enjoying the sun. I had left my 100L macro in my hotel room some 36km away, so only had the 24 - 70L with me on my 5D3. I would undoubtedly have got it sharper on the macro lens but 70mm and f/13 (ISO 250 1/640), I think it's pretty sharp




Dubai-critter-enjoying-the-sun by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 23, 2012)

LoL! This is great! Canon is always going to serve its pocket book first but its ever more halarious to believe that somehow Nikon isn't! Take a look at the d800. 

Nikon was like "crap... People are losing interest in the d700 and we need to make a new camera." Bam! Take the d700 and slap video and 36 megapixels. Easy money. 

I remember the forums before the 5D3 was released and lots of people were like "add everything but more megapixels to the 5D3! We don't need more megapixels!" then the d800 is released and a riot broke out and now we all need more megapixels! It's obsurd. 

Anyway, it's a clever marketing and the time old belief that more megapixels is better that's going to see more nikons that canons this generation around. It's brilliant!


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 23, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I remember the forums before the 5D3 was released and lots of people were like "add everything but more megapixels to the 5D3! We don't need more megapixels!" then the d800 is released and a riot broke out and now we all need more megapixels! It's obsurd.
> 
> Anyway, it's a clever marketing and the time old belief that more megapixels is better that's going to see more nikons that canons this generation around. It's brilliant!



+1


----------



## skitron (Apr 23, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Anyway, it's a clever marketing and the time old belief that more *mega*-pixels is better that's going to see more nikons that canons this generation around. It's brilliant!



LOL, and I suspect if Canon launched an effort to promote a new metric *mega*-ISO and how much more of *it* they have than Nikon, they'd probably kill them in the marketplace! 

The marketing geek in me honestly believes the market is full of folks that have a knee jerk reaction to all things *mega* and automatically gravitate to whatever has the most *mega*...


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 23, 2012)

I have been working long enough with one of the biggest MNC's to apprehend what might going on with Canon these days. When longer term strategies are set, it's like an aircraft carrier: no way you are going to change course whatever. And you can bet there's a lot of brainpower behind these strategies. My take is that, over the last couple years, Canon have become infatuated with video. So much so that their new mantra might as well be: Go Hollywood. I don't believe in complacency but in carefully planned design and release of their models. These guys are professionals. C500, C300, C100, 1Dc, soon 5Dc (bet it's not April fool), 7Dc sooner or later and finally the whole range under Dc. The 5D3 - with no compressed HDMI output - finally fits quite well within that scheme.

They could not care less that a few gear junkies whine here and there and threaten to jump ship. Collateral damage to a much bigger picture. They'll look at numbers, that's what matters. Obviously, they are convinced to be right and it's not our call. We're grown-ups living in a world of free choice. You like it, you think it meets your requirements ? Go get it. You're not satisfy with the offering ? Decide for yourself. Lots of choice. On their side, only time will tell whether their strategy pays off. On our side, let's go out and shoot. Que sera sera.

Having said that, I think 5D3 is a great camera that actually fits the bill for a number of users.


----------



## caruser (Apr 23, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I remember the forums before the 5D3 was released and lots of people were like "add everything but more megapixels to the 5D3! We don't need more megapixels!" then the d800 is released and a riot broke out and now we all need more megapixels! It's obsurd.



It's partly absurd, and partly not about the megapixels, but about the dynamic range and/or the price, or rather the combination of the 5D3 being more expensive, having worse dynamic range (and not inheriting the flagship's exposure sensor; unlike the D800).


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 23, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I remember the forums before the 5D3 was released and lots of people were like "add everything but more megapixels to the 5D3! We don't need more megapixels!" then the d800 is released and a riot broke out and now we all need more megapixels! It's obsurd.



I was against more megapixels before the 5Dmk3 & D800 were released, I'm still against more megapixels now that they've been released, and - surprise! - still waiting for wide primes to be updates & a new ultrawide lenses.

Next year I'll have a saving account opened, and I'm considering spending the money on a Nikon FX camera for the 14-24mm f/2.8, in face of the extra megapixels.


----------



## daveswan (Apr 23, 2012)

Was saving up for the 5DIII, then something happened. A little something called the Blackmagic Cinema Camera.

Guess who'll get my money now.

Canon really bogged up the much touted video / cine on the 5DIII to the rage of cinephiles everywhere,


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 23, 2012)

daveswan said:


> Was saving up for the 5DIII, then something happened. A little something called the Blackmagic Cinema Camera.
> 
> Guess who'll get my money now.
> 
> Canon really bogged up the much touted video / cine on the 5DIII to the rage of cinephiles everywhere,



Doesn't the Blackmagic have a much smaller sensor than the 5D3?


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> daveswan said:
> 
> 
> > Was saving up for the 5DIII, then something happened. A little something called the Blackmagic Cinema Camera.
> ...



Yes...much smaller, and a different form factor to boot. The BlackMagic is not a replacement for the 5D III. Its an alternative with some very different characteristics.

From what I have actually seen, the 5D III video is a definite improvement over the 5D II, and its a hell of a lot better than what you get from the D800. I don't think the 5D III's video is "botched"...its definitely an improvement, I think its just not as much of an improvement as people wanted, and since the C-series HDSLR's are more expensive, what people want is also not within the price range they want it at. Same deal as always, same reason people want more from the 5D III at a better price point than they already DID get.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 24, 2012)

jrista said:


> Chewy734 said:
> 
> 
> > daveswan said:
> ...



I'm disappointed that they have barely (if at all) improved the video resolution of the 5D3, which is still a long way from actual 1080P. Full res 1080p was not an unrealistic expectation, was it? It's still the best camera for me, but that's my biggest gripe.


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2012)

unkbob said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Chewy734 said:
> ...



I think you mean 4:2:2 encoding, which is simply a variant of quality for 1080p. It is still a "full res" 1080p camera, since 1080p simply means the number of lines of resolution. The 5D III may not be 4:2:2, but its still a hell of a lot better with full 3x3 binning. You would need a 7680x5120 sensor, or 39.3mp, for full 4x4 luminance binning and 2x2 chrominance binning for 4:2:2 encoding. Not even the SoNikon alliance was able to create a 40mp sensor yet, and 3x3 binning was the next best option. So technically speaking, the 5D III video is the best it could be for its price point and release date, and 4:2:2 WAS an unrealistic expectation. At least the 5D III doesn't use skip-line encoding like the D800, which may be razor sharp for what it does encode, but it has a ton of rather severe problems as a consequence.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 24, 2012)

jrista said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I must admit I understand only a fraction of what you've just said. I thought 4:2:2 was about colour depth, but I'm not a video tech guy, I just know there are not 1080 lines of actual resolution in 5d3 video files. There are 1080 lines of something, sure, but those are not individually resolved lines of information - ie it is not sharp at the pixel level.


----------



## AprilForever (Apr 24, 2012)

Sorry, but I still don't see how this is commuppance for Canon. The 5D mk II got used a ton by video people. The 5d mk III will get used even more. People are buying them like mad pigs. I really don't get the point... I would so get a 5d MK III if I were into cinema. I once worked on a small indie film, shooting it with my 7D's. What they shot looked pretty good. Looked wild compared to stuff of not many years ago. Now, I don't ever want to do video again, but did I, the 5d MK III would be my beast. I really don't get the comuppance bit, or how this is all so bad for Canon. 

Now, too bad that the smitings are over, because I am sure this thread would be giving them out like free beatdowns in a riot party...


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 24, 2012)

unkbob said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > unkbob said:
> ...



Since when does any sane person view videos at pixel level? The problem with forums like this one is that people obsess over things at minute detail at a purely theoretical level. Perhaps at full theoretical 1080p, you could get it sharp at pixel level but at the cost of moire and aliasing. Moire and aliasing are visible at normal levels so I know which I'd target. Not the one you have to stick your head against the monitor for certainly.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Since when does any sane person view videos at pixel level?



When they are looking to slam Canon and praise Nikon


----------



## unkbob (Apr 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Haha, how ridiculous. When you watch a 1080p video on a decent screen, you're seeing it at 100%. The difference between 5D2 / 5D3 resolution (roughly 720p of resolved detail) and footage from high end cameras like a C300 and above is immediately obvious. If you don't care, you're not making professional films. This is not like "pixel peeping" a still photo, which might only be printed at 8 x 10 inches - it's easy to crop a 22MP file and mess around with it and still retain perfect sharpness for printing. NOT SO for video.

As for Brian's snarky response - whatever, I've never shot Nikon and I don't think I ever will. But it IS possible to bring up a flaw in the 5D3 without detesting Canon mate. And just a big BY THE WAY - the D800 is arguably no better than the 5D3 in this regard. I would rather have moire-free video than more resolution but it's not unreasonable to want both.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 24, 2012)

I don't use my cameras much for video. My 645D doesn't do it in any case. My case still stands looking at individual pixels is pixel peeping no matter what the media. When I watch videos I don't look at individual pixels on the screen, nor does any other sane person. I stand by my point that if there is a choice, I'd rather not see moire


----------



## AdamJ (Apr 24, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Even Harley Davidson eventually had to start building better bikes in the face of the competition.



"Hardly Movingson" as we like to call them.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> I don't use my cameras much for video. My 645D doesn't do it in any case. My case still stands looking at individual pixels is pixel peeping no matter what the media. When I watch videos I don't look at individual pixels on the screen, nor does any other sane person. I stand by my point that if there is a choice, I'd rather not see moire



I'm not looking at individual pixels, I am looking at a moving image comprised of individual pixels. When you remove half of them, that shit is noticeable! Like I said, it's not like stills, where you can downscale a 22MP image to 2MP and often see no practical difference. It would be like downscaling a still image after it's already been printed at the required size. That is destructive, and noticeable. Average Joe might not be able to see much difference between, say, a 50dpi print and a 300 dpi print, but you, the photographer would.


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2012)

unkbob said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > unkbob said:
> ...



You really don't understand video, nor do you understand resolution. The 5D III resolves THREE TIMES as much information as necessary to produce FULL 1080p output. Three times the information is cross-processed and downsampled, which effectively produces a BETTER output pixel, for the given target resolution, than you would generally have by recording natively. Multisampling is how all top-end cinematography cameras work....4k or higher cameras are always recording more than necessary for 1920x1080 progressive output, and they ALL downsample. This produces better results. The only real drawback is that the 5D III doesn't output the full RAW native 3x oversized video (like most Red Digital 4k+ cams offer), so that you can work the raw with video post-processing tools then downscale later on at your leisure.

Stop bitching about something you clearly do not understand.


----------



## Ivar (Apr 24, 2012)

jrista said:


> The 5D III resolves THREE TIMES as much information as necessary to produce FULL 1080p output. Three times the information is cross-processed and downsampled, which effectively produces a BETTER output pixel, for the given target resolution, than you would generally have by recording natively.



The 5d mk3 video is more like 720p, not real 1080p according to some test comparisons, i.e. panasonic gh2 driftwood or canon c300, those are proper 1080p.

So much about sampling and Canon's marketing.


----------

