# 5D Mark III Reviews



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 22, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/5d-mark-iii-reviews/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/5d-mark-iii-reviews/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/5d-mark-iii-reviews/"></a></div>
<strong>5D Mark III review links


</strong>We are going to post review links to the 5D Mark III as they become available. We’ll only post indepth reviews, not previews. Be sure to send in a link to a review if you find one.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Reviews

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5895239/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review-the-best-dslr-for-shooting-video">Gizmodo</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml" target="_blank">Camera Labs</a> (ongoing review)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review/" target="_blank">Engadget</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review" target="_blank">EOSHD</a> (video focused)</li>
<li><a href="http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html">Jeff Ascough</a></li>
</ul>
<p>My review of the camera will be a week or two away. I really want to use the camera in a bunch of different situations.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## HughHowey (Mar 23, 2012)

Great review from Engadget on the stills side. A miserable review from the video site.

Crazy that this doesn't do 1080. I thought the 22 MP was supposed to be perfect for this.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 23, 2012)

HughHowey said:


> Great review from Engadget on the stills side. A miserable review from the video site.
> 
> Crazy that this doesn't do 1080. I thought the 22 MP was supposed to be perfect for this.



I haven't used the camera for video but I beieve that the camera does 1080p at 24, 25 and 30 fps and 720p at 60 fps. You can get compatibility issues at 60fps in any case.


----------



## ronm88 (Mar 23, 2012)

HughHowey said:


> Great review from Engadget on the stills side. A miserable review from the video site.
> 
> Crazy that this doesn't do 1080. I thought the 22 MP was supposed to be perfect for this.



Actually ... that part of the review is very poorly worded. When the reviewer says that it doesn't do 1080p, he is trying to say that there isn't 1080p worth of resolution. i.e. there are 1920x1080 pixels, but the pixels are less sharp than a scaled up 720p video.


----------



## preppyak (Mar 23, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> I haven't used the camera for video but I beieve that the camera does 1080p at 24, 25 and 30 fps and 720p at 60 fps. You can get compatibility issues at 60fps in any case.


Think of it like your hamburger you order. Sure, you ordered a 1/4lb burger, but, if you weight what you get, it weighs much less, because the weight comes before cooking

Same thing with the video, it can probably record at 1080 4:2:2 ..but, since it can't output that (like a D800 can, or like many other pro camcorders can), it relies on what Canon's codec outputs. The results are videos with fewer lines that look a little softer. Sometimes that is a good thing, for the right effect (interviews, things with people)...sometimes its not (architecture, nature, etc)


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 23, 2012)

I wonder what kinda potential this thing has for improvement via firmware updates.....Can they actually affect image quality or is it just minor tweaks?


----------



## gene_can_sing (Mar 23, 2012)

Yes, the reviews of the video have been pretty POOR as a whole. 

Even DP Philip Bloom, the person who basically popularized the video DSLR movement who sold countless cameras for Canon seemed let down. And he's a very optimistic person. The main reason for all the discord is POOR, upscaled 700 lines of resolution. Some people are going as far as saying the new 5D3 has a softer image than the 5D2 because of the way they are dealing with Moire and Aliasing by blurring the pixels.

To Canon, the video people deserved a lot better than this. I'm passing on the 5D3 and hopefully the 4K C-DSLR comes out at NAB. I don't want to buy a Sony FS-100, but I might just have no choice soon as I've waiting so long for a decent video solution from Canon, only to be let down again and again


----------



## davidbellissima (Mar 23, 2012)

HI all. First post after being an avid reader for a long time.

I have posted my own review of the high ISO performance of the 5D Mkiii versus the Mkii, after spening most of today running the tests getting this all done. 

Feel free to review it here:

http://www.bellissimaphoto.co.uk/photographers/canon-5d-mkiii-review-vs-5d-mkii-high-iso-test.html

Also, any comments as to the setup or validity are most welcome.


----------



## kubrick (Mar 23, 2012)

Btw: Gordon Laing (@CameraLabs) provides some 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II noise comparison shots (JPEG only, RAW to follow): http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 23, 2012)

*My 5D Mark III Review*

I didn't waste time reading reviews. I rented a Canon 5D MK III yesterday and did some video testing. 

Your own review is the best review of all. But I will say I'm impressed.


----------



## catz (Mar 23, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Same thing with the video, it can probably record at 1080 4:2:2 ..but, since it can't output that (like a D800 can, or like many other pro camcorders can), it relies on what Canon's codec outputs. The results are videos with fewer lines that look a little softer. Sometimes that is a good thing, for the right effect (interviews, things with people)...sometimes its not (architecture, nature, etc)



Codec has almost nothing to do with sharpness. Panasonic GH2 is sharp despite it has very poor bit rate codec. The better codec and higher bitrate only reduces artifacting, and has not really much to do with recorded sharpness.

Simple experiment: 
Shoot a video with RED Scarlet/Epic.
Shoot the same video with the 5D mark II or mark III
and shoot the same video with the 7D and finally 1D mark IV.

Now scale all videos to the same resolution, 1920x1080 (in other words you need to only scale the RED from 4K to 1080p). Then drop the bit rate of the resulting video lower than the lowest denominator of these, e.g. lower than the Canon's bit rate. Now compare the actual resolution of the images. 
What you can see very easily is that:
1. RED is very sharp
2. 5D mark III is next
3. 5D mark II is next
4. 7D is second last
5. 1D mark IV is the very last of this group.

When you compare 1, 2 already you get a feeling that anything less than the mentioned 1 is crap. If you look sharpness a bit through fingers, then you can add 2 and 3 to the acceptable category. If you are irritated with moire, you can drop everything below 2 (in other words, mk II, 7D and 1D are unacceptable).

I am excited for the Zacuto 2012 camera test to prove this this year. I already knew the results, but want to see it done "properly" so that it is easier to point out to people who do not understand that the number of pixels in the file do not equal to the resolved row & line resolution of the camera. It is like comparing Canon L glass with some cheap plastic lens and say that both have same magnification. Indeed yes if you don't care about quality.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 23, 2012)

Here's another review site...

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml

They compare the 5d3 vs 5d2 Jpegs only, Raw is to come... interesting side by side comparison shots....


----------



## DeepShadows (Mar 23, 2012)

davidbellissima said:


> HI all. First post after being an avid reader for a long time.
> 
> I have posted my own review of the high ISO performance of the 5D Mkiii versus the Mkii, after spening most of today running the tests getting this all done.
> 
> ...



It's been found by a huge number of people that DPP is smearing for no reason the RAWs and when you take that same RAW and convert to DNG usiing the 6.7 DNG converter and open in Lightroom or CS6 the same exact file magically gets way sharper. I think Canon might have rushed their update of DPP which is why it's not available on the web, just used as a temporary stopgap. Seriously I request you rerun your test with the Beta ACR 6.7 and then re-upload your results.


----------



## jlev23 (Mar 23, 2012)

much better review with real samples!

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/

i have to say the dps review almost seemed like a joke to me, on my first tests i did in a professional post production vfx company, the video is embarrassing to post because we were shooting each other and book cases and screen doors, trying to create problems. we could not get the 5D3 to moiré at all and we saw no noise at all on the intra frame compression, clean a as a whistle. we then put the MK2 and the MK3 footage next to each other and yes the MK3 was a tad bit softer, but in a really good way, it had more of a nice gradual feel to the lights and darks in the frame where the MK2 seemed like "video camera" sharp and though appearing sharper it did not look as pleasant on people's skin tones and any straight lines in the frame, plus the moire on even a bookshelf made the shots unusable.
i wish the person who wrote the eos review told us what settings he was using that was causing noise and did an overall iso test. i have always found that you need to stay at 320 or 640 and thats it, i shot at 320 and i saw no noise.
as well, the default settings out of the box are unfortunate, basically you should disable almost everything that effects the image, all the noise reductions, and auto correcting highlights, etc; they all cause the image to soften. try shooting in neutral, you'll notice a big difference 
next week ill be shooting a job with the epic on green screen and we are bringing in the MK3 to give it a keying test!


----------



## okcamera (Mar 23, 2012)

I came across this earlier on Unique Photo's blog: http://blog.uniquephoto.com/?p=8629. Comparison of noise levels. Mark III vs. Mark II. You can really see a drastic change in the higher ISOs. Might make the difference between a usable image and a non-usable image.


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 23, 2012)

"Hello I'm Gordon Lang, editor of Cameralabs.com. I'd like to give you a brief video tour around the <insert camera name>. (Holds up camera). Here it is the <insert camera name>"


----------



## dadgummit (Mar 23, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> My review of the camera will be a week or two away. I really want to use the camera in a bunch of different situations



I am looking forward to it. I purchased the 70-300L after reading your review and have been very happy.


----------



## mememe (Mar 23, 2012)

Now look at the camera-lab test:

The Movie tests are strange. The III makes a darker image at the same settings as the mkII... Iso cheating eh?


----------



## Sptherapper (Mar 23, 2012)

http://gizmodo.com/5895239/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review-the-best-dslr-for-shooting-video

Another review


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> Yes, the reviews of the video have been pretty POOR as a whole.
> 
> Even DP Philip Bloom, the person who basically popularized the video DSLR movement who sold countless cameras for Canon seemed let down. And he's a very optimistic person. The main reason for all the discord is POOR, upscaled 700 lines of resolution. Some people are going as far as saying the new 5D3 has a softer image than the 5D2 because of the way they are dealing with Moire and Aliasing by blurring the pixels.
> 
> To Canon, the video people deserved a lot better than this. I'm passing on the 5D3 and hopefully the 4K C-DSLR comes out at NAB. I don't want to buy a Sony FS-100, but I might just have no choice soon as I've waiting so long for a decent video solution from Canon, only to be let down again and again



The ironic thing is they apparently went with 22MP again in order to get perfect video.... so what on earth happened??? The C300 and more internal protectionism??? ???

It's weird that for years Canon gave us substandard AF in anything non 1 series and poor body specs but great sensors and now that they finally give great AF, the sensor seems like yesterday's news.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

DeepShadows said:


> davidbellissima said:
> 
> 
> > HI all. First post after being an avid reader for a long time.
> ...



I think it may be to make the 'much improved' high ISO for the 5D3 be 'true'.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 23, 2012)

A few things to note after I've played with mine for 20 minutes:

1. The "low light continuous drive" issue that is there with the 7D (which the Mk III inherits its meter from) isn't there in the Mk III. It's just as fast in low light as in bright.

2. Live View picture taking is much, much faster. You can actually use it to take pictures in environments with motion.

3. CDAF appears to be improved as well. It certainly feels faster, though I haven't compared it directly to my Mk II. 

Thought I'd mention these, as everybody else seems to be focused on other things.

Speaking of focus. Oh. My. God. This thing is heaven. I've never seen AF that can do what this does.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2012)

Well so far all reports coming in about the AF are that it is totally amazing but the sensor results are looking more and more mediocre and, sadly, the video still seems to be a far cry from sharp :'( (this could have been the saving grace to make up for the sensor), although if you are willing to accept you are getting maybe a 1280x720p then it does seem to do that very well (and the Nikon D800 res appears to be no better plus it still has aliasing), but it does seem a little weak for 3.5 years....

D800 just got tested at 14.4 stops of dynamic range and even the D4, without Exmor, got 13.1 stops while, according to prelim tests outside of DxO, the 5D3 gets about (normalized the way DxO does to 8MP in a way) 11.75 so Nikon has gotten non-Exmor to 13.1 but Canon still used the same old, same old and the Exmor is truly wow now I mean nearing 3 stops better.

I can't get the high iso D800 results yet since DxO site seems to be overwhelmed but their overall low light score for it is close to the D4, which makes it sound like it might be at least a match for 5D3 there.


----------



## simonfilm (Mar 23, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> I wonder what kinda potential this thing has for improvement via firmware updates.....Can they actually affect image quality or is it just minor tweaks?



Canon can do a lot of improvement, but not us. We only can wait and dream. The problem is not if Canon can, but if Canon wants. Think that Digic 5+ is 17 times faster than Digic 4. 

Simon.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 23, 2012)

it's not so bad. the problem is that people were really hoping this camera would rival a scarlett. what are you people thinking? it is primarity designed for stills, not video. the sun is setting on the HDSRL video world with things like the C300, scarlet, etc.


----------



## AndrewReid (Mar 23, 2012)

psolberg said:


> it's not so bad. the problem is that people were really hoping this camera would rival a scarlett. what are you people thinking? it is primarity designed for stills, not video. the sun is setting on the HDSRL video world with things like the C300, scarlet, etc.



Yes the sun is really setting, apart from for the 99% of people... To whom $16,000 makes for a slightly larger sum of money than the 5D Mark III costs.

DSLR video is not going anywhere dude!

Not until there is a 4K interchangeable lens video camera with large sensor for under $3000 will the masses shifts from DSLR video to that, and when that happens it'll essentially be the same thing anyway!

The form factor, and the stills.

Just my two cents. And Canon probably won't be a player in that market sub $3000 if they carry on with the lukewarm re-heats!


----------



## CaiLeDao (Mar 23, 2012)

Well i follow the forum and read all the speculation about how good the mark iii would be... I almost cancelled my pre order based on the chatter. I have had a 5d mark ii for three years and shot a lot always raw generally iso 100 and avoided moving targets.

To me the mark iii isn't 1 or 2 stops better about its about 100% better, go take some pictures. I shot some really good candids today around Covent Garden in London, mainly because the camera was quiet and I can crank up the iso, so no flash and no noise to attract attention. 
My real interest in Landscapes and until a dxo raw convertor arrives I wont know the difference in IQ or noise but I always shoot landscapes at iso 100.. (today I was shooting 2000 and the pictures are clean really clean). I do know that as I travel around I only need take one body now, so I save the weight of a 7D from my backpack, as previously i took a 5Dii and a 7D I will now get more candids and avoid the back pain, with the loss of some lens reach.
I really like the mark III, and if the criticism has been as wrong about most other aspects the IQ when the raw convertors get finished and tuned it will be awesome as well.
Yes I do wish it was cheaper and expect the price to drop and will feel the bump, but its taking good pictures.

Now if I can figure out how to magnify live view to focus my TSE accurately I will be really happy.  I know RTFM


----------



## kubrick (Mar 23, 2012)

there are some new "far cry from sharp" results at TDP:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## Tainted (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm primarily a stills guy, so take this from that perspective, but I see a lot to be happy about from a pro photographer's point of view:

- HUGE autofocus improvements, more sensors, faster, better low light sensitivity, better algos, etc.
- Microadjust at Both ends of zoom lenses!
- Dual card slots (huge backup improvement for pros!)
- Stop or two noise improvement in high ISO
- 60p video for slow mo
- headphone jack
- Audio adjust during record
- larger better LCD
- Much better grip (vertical controls!)
- Faster FPS on stills 
- more customizable buttons
- Continuous recording (at least more than 12 mins)
- Less moire (I'll take a little more softness to improve that god awful problem any day)

My biggest beef is lack of precision focusing screen.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> A few things to note after I've played with mine for 20 minutes:
> 
> 1. The "low light continuous drive" issue that is there with the 7D (which the Mk III inherits its meter from) isn't there in the Mk III. It's just as fast in low light as in bright.
> 
> ...



nice on those three points and it does seem that the AF is getting rave after rave


----------



## kwwalla (Mar 24, 2012)

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-canon-5d-mark-iii-review-1067683?artc_pg=1


----------



## Autocall (Mar 28, 2012)

5D II VS 5D III:


http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=2264&canon-5diii-portrait-tests-5diii-vs-5dii


----------

