# How many MP would have changed your mind about the 5d3.



## APBPhoto (Mar 3, 2012)

For those who were looking for higher MP increase in the 5d3
How many MP would the 5d3 have to have for you to consider it a true upgrade to the 5d2 (32MP, 46MP, 60MP, 100MP)?


----------



## randplaty (Mar 3, 2012)

8 megapixels


----------



## mjp (Mar 3, 2012)

I think the 5DIII is quite a good upgrade to the 5DII. Regarding megapixels; I can't think of any reason I'd need more than 22mp. It is likely more than enough for most photographers, even if they don't think so! 

Bigger files means increased storage requirements. I've already filled several 1TB hard drives with photos from my 5DII & 7D. 40+ mp would be ridiculous!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 3, 2012)

What ^^^ said. 8)


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 3, 2012)

mjp said:


> Bigger files means increased storage requirements. I've already filled several 1TB hard drives with photos from my 5DII & 7D. 40+ mp would be ridiculous!



I don't care too much about those factors, as disk space and computer hardware is cheap. However, for the type of shooting that I do, a low-light beast like the 5DIII gives me more flexibility in terms of practical use and creativity. Once mine gets here, I will take advantage of its high ISO performance all the time, whereas having a ton of megapixels would be nice, but for editorial work, it would only be a factor in 1 out of 10 shots that actually make it to print.


----------



## Jim K (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm looking for a landscape body (and some lenses) as a next purchase and the 5D3 does not give me what I want right now. But considering the price of the 5D3 right now I don't know how much a 30+ MP body would cost but probably enough that I would not jump too quickly.

Thinking about a 5D2, looks like $2199 may be the new price there based on Hunt's latest email. Going to speak with two bird/wildlife pros I know who both shoot 5D2s for landscape about going with it and what they think the 5D3 improvments would do for landscape work. One guy has the full set of TS-E lenses (not much need for improved AF there) and a 17-40mm that see most of his landscape use. The other guy mainly uses a 16-35 and a little bit of the 24-105 for landscape.


----------



## jalbfb (Mar 3, 2012)

mjp said:


> I think the 5DIII is quite a good upgrade to the 5DII. Regarding megapixels; I can't think of any reason I'd need more than 22mp. It is likely more than enough for most photographers, even if they don't think so!
> 
> Bigger files means increased storage requirements. I've already filled several 1TB hard drives with photos from my 5DII & 7D. 40+ mp would be ridiculous!



Totally agree!


----------



## APBPhoto (Mar 3, 2012)

I have no problem with the 22MP of the 5d3, I plan on placing my order for one in April. 
But since I am seeing so many posts on boards about the Nikon D800 MP vs the Canon 5d3 MP and people threating to switch formats ( I don't believe most of them will be buying either camera, just waiting around for that dream camera with everything for $500 .


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2012)

I prefer the 2 stop better sensor over the 5D MK II, it will allow me to get images in situations that were impossible with my 5D MK II. More pixels is not bad, I just value the 2 stops more.

However, we need to confirm this with actual raw images, I am a skeptic.


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 3, 2012)

I frequent the Gigapixel website, so for Landscapes, a 40+MP camera does produce better images (with the right lenses and sensor pixel size, etc...). It's not to say that I can't take some perfect shots with the 21MP 5Dm2.

I do think that Canon should look into making a high MP medium format camera for the landscape and architecture photographer...


----------



## D_Rochat (Mar 3, 2012)

0mp. I'm very happy with the 5D mark III specs and test images and I can't wait to get one.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 3, 2012)

I have already preordered the 5d3 but the sample images failed to impress me in some ways. I would have liked more megapixels. I did try comparing the D800 sample images and one of the things I couldnt get over is when pressing the 100% button how much more detail I was getting in the Nikon shots. Extra zoom in on detail, seemed sharper and clearer.

I know that the jpg samples are not anything good to go on... Some of the Canon ones improved no end with a small amount of sharpening in Lightroom for instance. Whereas perhaps the Nikons had already been severly edited.

The fact that so much of the marketing spin on specs for pro cameras apply to jpg not raw bugs me. I dont care at all how many stops blah blah on jpg... I want to know for the raw. I shoot raw, I edit raw... thats what needs comparing... I dont care if you give me 14 stops of noise better than Nikons off camera jpg in your off camera jpg, especially when your jpg production ripped out all of the details to do so...

I'm not a pixel peeper... well I am... but not for sake of it. Most of the work I have sold recently has been as 30x20 prints and I would like to go bigger. Obviously I would love a Phase One on a Hasselblad but thats probably never gonna happen... but if ff dslrs could nudge themselves towards what the medium format cameras do in some aspects that would be the way I would like to see a line or two develop. 

I think, to oversimplify to illustrate a point, so please dont take offense at anything thats said that may be a little unfair)... That some of this megapixel thing comes from how long you spend with and keep selling the same image for... 

For a wedding photographer, You probably will only print over 16x20 very rarely and once the bride has chosen her shots and youve supplied the prints you will rarely see those shots again, it is extremely unlikely you will come back to edit the same images in years to come. 

For a landscape photographer, you will go to places that you will never return to and will end up selling and sometimes re-editing some of the same images for years. The shots a landscape photographer makes his money off arent usually the ones he took last weekend. 

So for a wedding photographer smaller mp, less editing, fast throughput are great.

For a landscape photographer as much detail captured while you are there as possible, more editing is viable in a scene that is worth it, re-editing with more up to date software down the line can improve an in image. Printing techniques and formats change and can allow larger and larger pieces to be made from your work. Some of those extra pixels may come in use in years to come. Some noise introduced by making those pixels smaller may be removable in years to come and more detail retrievable... Improving software and algorithms can modify all the pixels you have but they cant help you about the ones you didnt capture.

One obvious previso there is that as the higher mp mustnt by a knock affect on other aspects of the shot add blur to your source images, that will really screw you up... though software is even starting to make inroads into that apparently... "unblur" alogorithms... but thats neither here nor there...

So basically, yeah, I want more megapixels. 30mp on the 5d3 as opposed to 22mp would have been nice. The fact that the D800 has over 1 and half times as many pixels irks me a lot more than if it had a sixth or fifth more...


----------



## Wahoowa (Mar 3, 2012)

The current offering is perfect, just not the price.


----------



## gmrza (Mar 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I prefer the 2 stop better sensor over the 5D MK II, it will allow me to get images in situations that were impossible with my 5D MK II. More pixels is not bad, I just value the 2 stops more.
> 
> However, we need to confirm this with actual raw images, I am a skeptic.



I think Canon has looked at what the majority of 5d series users want - and good low light performance is probably in more demand than more megapixels are.
One problem for Canon is that reading out the larger files of a > 30MP camera would have resulted in a slower continuous shooting rate than 6fps. Canon probably decided rather to opt for more fps than for more MP. ... And dual Digic5+ was not going to happen in the 5DIII....


----------



## starnaud (Mar 3, 2012)

I was looking for 32 to 36 mp at $2700 to $3000, plus I was looking at lens upgrades to 16-35II, the new 24-70 and and a new 70-200. Now I am doing nothing. Cannon will have to prove some vast advantage to the 5d3 at $3500 and 22mp to move me. I'll sit on the fence and will wait for hands on tests with 5d3 and D800.

Now with 5d2 and a whole bunch of glass and 6 speedlights


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 3, 2012)

I had the D800E on order before the 5Diii came out because this site published the rumored specs which turned out to be true. Since the D800E wasn't available until mid April (I expect it will be later than that), I felt I probably had plently of time for Canon to make the announcement just as they now have done. I plan to go ahead and purchase the D800E now with the 14-24mm Nikor lens (I am a Landscape guy). The next new camera cycle won't be until mid-September in Germany. I do expect Canon to offer a 3D that is a pro-body with 40-44 MP with the built in grip for around $4500 to $5000 US dollars. It probably will have the 1DX focus system like the 5Diii but be one really tough camera with some revolutionary features that won't have the speed of the 1dx but will probably be about 6fps, usb3, gigabit ethernet, uncompressed hdmi, radio controlled synch with stobes and best just about every Nikon feature existing at that time. Long live the 3D! (I'm hoping....) Meanwhile I'll see what the D800e is made of and I'll use my Canon for my daily work until I complete my evaluation of the D800e and then I'll see. My story is to hedge my bets.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm quite satisfied with the 22mp sensor. It's a bit more resolution than I need, but otherwise the camera fits my needs extremely well.


----------



## MrBeavis5 (Mar 3, 2012)

1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.

Don't get me wrong I still have plans to get a 5D3. At $3500 I'm sure they will still be hard to find for the rest of the year! Funny thing is has anyone considered that Nikon under valued the D800? I mean they could price that thing at $3500 - $3700 and it would still sell.


----------



## Actionpix (Mar 3, 2012)

I shoot 15 MP on crop now. I do not believe my sensor outresolves my lenses yet as thin lines are still build up of stacked, well defined, squares and not blurred out. The noise levels at 15 MP for me are acceptable, as I have no need for high iso settings for my action photography. (Actually very often I have to much light and would like lower iso settings.) 15 MP translated to full frame would be 38 MP. So everything from 38+ MP would be fine now. (When the price would be realistic.)


----------



## gmrza (Mar 3, 2012)

Actionpix said:


> I shoot 15 MP on crop now. I do not believe my sensor outresolves my lenses yet as thin lines are still build up of stacked, well defined, squares and not blurred out. The noise levels at 15 MP for me are acceptable, as I have no need for high iso settings for my action photography. (Actually very often I have to much light and would like lower iso settings.) 15 MP translated to full frame would be 38 MP. So everything from 38+ MP would be fine now. (When the price would be realistic.)



What you need to take into account is that a crop frame camera only uses the "sweet spot" in the centre of the lens - which usually yields more line pairs per image height than the fringes do. Take a look at some of the lens reviews on www.photozone.de. The 17-40mm f/4L USM is a good case in point - on the 5DII, it's performance is fairly mediocre, whereas it is quite acceptable on a crop body.


----------



## Actionpix (Mar 3, 2012)

Oké, lets say it in a different way. I would like a camera with a sensor that matches my $10K+ lenses, designed for full frame. (I like the maximum possible. Going for bigger pixels because else lens and user shortcomings would become to visible is not who I am.)


----------



## dbduchene (Mar 3, 2012)

At 3500 for me it would have to really meet the performance that they are stating that this one will met AND be at least 30 MP. Unless the unless it is truly 2 stops better in both ISO and DR I will not consider it and will wait. landscape and such you can use a tripod if you have to and I have not hit that point. I can use my 1st gen 5D with my 17-35 lens at f-2.8 up to 4/5ths of a sec. Give me the 2 stops of the Mark 2 that I picked up for 1200 with some people panicking and I can do a lot. If I need more than that I will just use a tripod. For now I will be sitting this out on the sidelines.


----------



## t.linn (Mar 3, 2012)

SomeGuyInNewJersey said:


> The fact that so much of the marketing spin on specs for pro cameras apply to jpg not raw bugs me. I dont care at all how many stops blah blah on jpg... I want to know for the raw. I shoot raw, I edit raw... thats what needs comparing...



I completely agree. And add to this the hype for in-camera features like multiple exposures. Strip out the gimmicks and stuff aimed at newbies (A+ mode, anyone?) and build in an intervalometer or something that is useful to serious users.

Having said that, I have no issues with this DSLR. It is exactly what people have been asking for. It is the digital EOS 3, a largely pro body and feature set in a smaller, more manageable, more affordable size. Finally we get pro AF, five stops of exposure compensation, auto-ISO in manual, up to 7 frames of exposure bracketing, dual axis levels, gapless microlenses, and (hopefully) better weather sealing. These aren't gee-whiz features (except for the AF!); these are features that will actually make a difference in day to day use.

The fact that people are clamoring for more megapixels is surprising given the trade off in resolution at small apertures and the inevitable reduction in low light performance. How long have Nikon users championed the low light capabilities of the D3 and D700? That's likely gone; certainly relative to the 5D III. How many of us have bemoaned the prioritization of more pixels over increased IQ? And now there is complaining because Canon has seen the light?


----------



## yankidank (Mar 3, 2012)

MrBeavis5 said:


> 1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
> 2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
> 3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.


I completely agree with all of this. I have been praying for an updated 5D to replace my 7D, but this price point is a bit too high. Take it down to $2,999 and I see it as being a fair and competitive price for what they are offering. If you go back and look at the 5D MKII initial price and adjust for inflation, I think it only works out to be ~$2,900. I feel like the changes made to this new version are only addressing issues raised about the MKII, rather than a revolutionary change that justifies a $600 bump over the previous model's price tag. 

I sense that they will have a lot of initial sales from people like me who have been eagerly awaiting an updated 5D, but Canon is going to lose a lot of potential new customers to Nikon at this price. A year from now, just after the holidays, we will probably see the price drop closer to the $3,000 mark. In the meantime I will have to live with my 7D.


----------



## Mappy (Mar 3, 2012)

22MP is fine, but at $3500 I'd hoped for some of these extra's (in no particular order):
- 1080p60 movie mode
- radio flash transmitter built in
- wifi built in
- articulated screen
- timelapse mode
- autofocus tracking in movie mode with 100k metering sensor

Even though photo quality should be great, in order to keep selling this cam for the next 3-4 years it would be nice to tick some boxes in the shoppers' wishlists that will match specs of cams to come


----------



## birtembuk (Mar 3, 2012)

This will undoubtedly be a solid and very capable camera. For pros (photo-video) having used the 5D2 for three years or so, I guess the upgrade is worth it because it mostly addresses their concerns and wishes. Now, for me it looks like Canon did not want to make ripples, and capitalize on a successful model, especially in the video compartment. I read somewhere (sorry for the author but I can't remember where and the detailed argument) that 22 MP is the perfect number for video in terms of whatever scaling, compression, sampling etc. 

Expensive, conservative, solid. But no thrill. A bit like Toyota cars. I am left with the feeling that something is brewing somewhere in the digital imaging world. New developments are coming from here and there and it looks like Canon has no immediate answer. My gut feel is that they just released conservative models to satisfy their base customers ( hence the name 5DIII). while new stuff w/ higher pixel count or whatever makes photography more thrilling is being developed. 

I'll wait for comparative reviews of those recently released beasts. Since however it's my belief that we are soon going to see some 3D or 4D or even 6D with more oomph, I'll willing to wait a few more months and see.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Mar 3, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> I frequent the Gigapixel website, so for Landscapes, a 40+MP camera does produce better images (with the right lenses and sensor pixel size, etc...). It's not to say that I can't take some perfect shots with the 21MP 5Dm2.
> 
> I do think that Canon should look into making a high MP medium format camera for the landscape and architecture photographer...


+1000 i believe it's the time for a high MP camera since:
1. canon has upgraded most of it's lenses for greater resolution.
2. canon has already announced a camera for photojournalists and for sports fans as well as a camera mainly for videomakers.
the only categories of photographers that are left without a dedicated camera are landscape/architect/studio/portrait. where all need high MP camera for better detail. the waiting time for a high MP camera begun with the announcement of the 5d mark3!!


----------



## MaGiL (Mar 3, 2012)

I don't care about more megapixel. Current 21 mp from the 5DII are fine for me.


----------



## pwp (Mar 3, 2012)

22 MP is plenty for most but not all photographers. I shoot double page spreads, glossy full page/full bleed plus billboards with a 16 MP 1D Mk4 and both the clients and myself are completely satisfied with the results. 

Canon has built the 5DIII specced pretty close to what the majority of photographers who offered feedback on the 5DII. Better low light and better AF and no more MP's were constant requests. The new 61 point AF has exceeded expectations by a huge margin. Most of us were hoping for a 19 point 7D style AF at best.

Some landscape and architectural photographers for whom the massive financial leap to medium format would be business suicide rightly hoped for the 5DIII to be the megapixel monster that would be very suitable for their line of work. 

22 MP is going to suit the greater percentage of potential 5DIII buyers, but there is definitely room for a separate 35-45 MP model. 
Is this the 5DX? If it's properly put together it would steal a LOT of sales of the lower end MF and D800 market. 

Frankly I'd be astonished if Canon didn't ship their megapixel monster in the near future.

Paul Wright


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 3, 2012)

MrBeavis5 said:


> 1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
> 2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
> 3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I still have plans to get a 5D3. At $3500 I'm sure they will still be hard to find for the rest of the year! Funny thing is has anyone considered that Nikon under valued the D800? I mean they could price that thing at $3500 - $3700 and it would still sell.


Yes you are right. Nikon could have easily charged 3500 and got away with it. Anybody who is invested in 10000 to 20000 of Nikon lenses would not be that bothered to spend another 500. But I think. Ikon is trying to build market share and that's why they underpriced and over engi erred the d800. IMHO.


----------



## bycostello (Mar 3, 2012)

MP is more or less irrelevant now.... in fact too many would put me off, file size processing speed in pst etc being a factor...


----------



## skoobey (Mar 3, 2012)

22mpix.

I like the camera, and I'll probably buy it, it's just that I don't need it right now, wait until 5dII gets it's number of shots I guess.

I wouldn't have like it any more or less if it had 36 mpix, but I think that anyone who is into studio shoots will be tempted by the Nikon. Especially if they don't have a FF camera.

I'll stick with 5dII for at least a year or two. Also, I'd rather buy 85mm 1,2 then upgrade to the 5dIII.

Wedding/event photographers are gonna love the 5dIII, it'll probably become one an urban legend.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 3, 2012)

IMHO the 5D line was a landscape and studio camera. So if you take the pixel pitch of a 7D and move it to FF you'd end up in the 40MP range and that's where I would have like to see it. Are your 7D images not detailed enough? don't you sing praises to them all the time? so yeah, hate to break it to you but your lenses are more than up to the task. I would have liked to maximize them.

the new 5D is more of a sports/action body. while it is perfectly ok for other uses, it simply didn't push the bounds. If you shot landscapes or studio where ISO and FPS aren't a top priority, you got 1 more MP for 1000 more dollars and that's about it.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 3, 2012)

48 MP should have been fine ... to create 12 MP images with 4 subpixels (r+g+g+b) with true 16 bit dynamic range and 48 MP images if you really need the resolution. 

BUT ...
22 MP means 5760 x 3840 pixels or in terms of a large scale print 5.8 x 3.8 metres with 1 sqare mm sized pixels corresponding to an eyes resolution in roughly 2 metres distance. That's appropriate.

AND ...
I am shure that most macro lenses and good primes are limited to that resolution across the image field. 60 lines/mm -that is a high resolving power for primes - meanst roughly 120 pixels per mm or in terms of sensor pixels on x/y axis: 4230 x 2880 pixels!

IMHO high dynamic range and good per pixel sharpness of the sensor and RAW-conversion (DPP) software might much more contribute to good image quality ... and let's see what the 5DIII delivers!


----------



## RobS (Mar 3, 2012)

for me as studio only people/food/items stock photographer the 5dIII was a slap in the face. Most of the upgrades the new 5dIII comes along are not needed in studio, more fps, so much AF points, and video.
I'm sure the 5DIII will be a great camera but like the 5DII it not that kind of camera i hoped for. 
As i earn money even with MP so i hoped for more, not necesary 40+ MP but i hoped for about 28-32MP.
A year ago my last 5DII broke so i was waiting with the 7D from my wife, now i will buy a new 5DII and wait a couple of month saving money and hoping Canon will spend us studio photographers a suitable upgrade ... if not i will look at MF or at Nikon.

sorry for my bad english


----------



## moreorless (Mar 3, 2012)

psolberg said:


> IMHO the 5D line was a landscape and studio camera. So if you take the pixel pitch of a 7D and move it to FF you'd end up in the 40MP range and that's where I would have like to see it. Are your 7D images not detailed enough? don't you sing praises to them all the time? so yeah, hate to break it to you but your lenses are more than up to the task. I would have liked to maximize them.



In terms of specs perhaps it was but in terms of who was buying it I'd say probabley not, many users who wanted the IQ but couldnt afford a 1Ds mk2/mk3 probabley went for 5D's inspite of rather than because of the basic AF and low FPS.

A crop body is only going to test the sweet spot of a lens aswell and boarder performance is obviously going to be a big part of any landscape system. Seeing how the D800/D800E perform with Nikons lenses is really going to be a desider for me.



> the new 5D is more of a sports/action body. while it is perfectly ok for other uses, it simply didn't push the bounds. If you shot landscapes or studio where ISO and FPS aren't a top priority, you got 1 more MP for 1000 more dollars and that's about it.



I'd say its more of an all rounder in the mold of the 1Ds mk3.

I'd guess that either we'll see a new Canon body specifically targetting landscape/studio use or Canon have given up on this market believing that either its lenses arent up to it or its simpley too small with MF above.


----------



## richard_mitchell (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm perfectly comfortable with the 22mp count. There are pros and cons to higher MP, and I think the higher ISO capabilities and focus capabilities (fingers crossed) may make up for the overall larger image size.


----------



## LukieLauXD (Mar 3, 2012)

With all the hype from 36MP D800, and the fact that it would cost a lot more than the $2k I paid for my 5D2, it would've taken at least 32MP on the 5D3 for it to have changed my mind. :-\


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm not a pro nor studio guy...so current specs on 5d III is what I'm looking for - Better AF, Better ISO, and faster in fps.

After placing a pre-order 5d III through BH, I just sold my 5d II on CL for $1945. A profit of $45 is in my pocket (bought 5D II last x-mas for $1900 new at BH and now sold for $1945 through CL) I thought I would loose a hundred or two, GUESS NOT


----------



## sjprg (Mar 3, 2012)

46MP. So I'm off to Nikon. If the 645 comes down to an afforable level I'll go there.


----------



## lol (Mar 3, 2012)

To me it is not about MP count directly, but the density. I'm happy enough with the 7D pixel level output for example, so I'd love a full frame of that level. To keep the numbers simple, if it was 45MP at 3fps, I'd be 1st in line to buy. Of course, I could settle for less. I'd say my floor would be equivalent to 12MP on crop, or about 30MP on full frame.

At 22MP, it doesn't take me anywhere beyond what the 7D and 5D2 offer between them. So I'm not feeling any need to rush out and get it. There's lots of little "nice to have" features, but none of them are "must have". So I have to pass for now and concentrate on lenses.


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 3, 2012)

Jimmy_D said:


> the only categories of photographers that are left without a dedicated camera are landscape/architect/studio/portrait. where all need high MP camera for better detail. the waiting time for a high MP camera begun with the announcement of the 5d mark3!!



I would also like Canon to offer a panoramic mode built into the camera, and have it stich together the photos right then. It would depend on what lens you had attached, so it would be a little programming intensive, but it should be done. 

I've tried taking panoramics with my 300mm, but it doesn't work out as well as I would hope. With a high res sensor, you can switch to an 85mm and get the same level of detail and have it be less obvious that you stitched a bunch of photos together.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 3, 2012)

Jim K said:


> I'm looking for a landscape body (and some lenses) as a next purchase and the 5D3 does not give me what I want right now. But considering the price of the 5D3 right now I don't know how much a 30+ MP body would cost but probably enough that I would not jump too quickly.
> 
> Thinking about a 5D2, looks like $2199 may be the new price there based on Hunt's latest email. Going to speak with two bird/wildlife pros I know who both shoot 5D2s for landscape about going with it and what they think the 5D3 improvments would do for landscape work. One guy has the full set of TS-E lenses (not much need for improved AF there) and a 17-40mm that see most of his landscape use. The other guy mainly uses a 16-35 and a little bit of the 24-105 for landscape.


Great current landscape photographers like Joshau Holko and David Noton have made great images (that they have sold and one competitions) with cameras that has 16 MP or less. People have been taking great pictures with the MKII (which can be had now for less the 2000 used) or the D700. So you really do not have to buy a MKIII athough it will do everything you want to do very well.


----------



## sjprg (Mar 16, 2012)

I shoot most of my panos with a 1DSIII with a 100mm F2.8L Macro lens mounted in portrait mode. This makes a great pano. I'm looking forward to doing the same with the new Nikon D800E and their 100mm macro. If it doesen't work out I don't think I'll take much of a loss on the Nikon stuff. One of my Nikon friends is already to buy one after I try mine, so he can have mine if I don't like it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 16, 2012)

sjprg said:


> I shoot most of my panos with a 1DSIII with a 100mm F2.8L Macro lens mounted in portrait mode. This makes a great pano. I'm looking forward to doing the same with the new Nikon D800E and their 100mm macro. If it doesen't work out I don't think I'll take much of a loss on the Nikon stuff. One of my Nikon friends is already to buy one after I try mine, so he can have mine if I don't like it.


this is my favourite lens for this purpose too (works great on the gigapan) and i can confirm the Nikkor 105 f2.8 Vr Micro is even better build and possibly a better lens than the L (it is 9 blade circular and mag alloy build too) just dont freak out when at certain focus it wont go to f2.8, the Nikon adjusts the widest aperture value to the actual amount of light available (this only applies to actual macro shooting due to the close focus distance doesnt apply to landscapes)

this is the lens
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Nikon-AF-S-105mm-F2-8-f-2-8G-IF-ED-VR-Micro-62-UV-VHR1-/370436583220?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item563fbdaf34


----------



## gecko (Mar 16, 2012)

I'd swap the FPS for more MP......but I don't really need them. 

My guess is that 90+% of users of the MkIII won't either. 

I just made a 17x11 print from my 7D (at ISO 6400!!).....looks great.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 16, 2012)

The 22mp is fine by me. It's actually more than I know what to do with coming from the 12mp 5D1. Ideally, I wanted the 1DX, but it's too expensive and I don't need the high framerate. The 5D3 suits my needs just fine. I really had thought we'd grown out of the mega pixel wars, but sadly it seems I was mistaken given the hysteria surrounding the 5D3's "mere" 22mp to the D800's 36mp.


----------

