# Are you happy with the 5D III Specs?



## ImageZone (Mar 7, 2012)

Quite frankly I personally am NOT happy with the 5DIII release. I strongly feel Canon has shot themselve in the foot. I have done a comparison with the Nikon D800 and well, I may be switching to Nikon. 
1. What type shooting do you do?
2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
3. How do you feel about the 5D III ? 
4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

Made up your mind before the reviews have been done?


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

Congratulations! you win the prize for starting the 1 millionth thread about changing to Nikon :


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 7, 2012)

To answer your question, yes.


----------



## ImageZone (Mar 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Made up your mind before the reviews have been done?


No, I just feel I like to do my own comparison. What is your opinion?


----------



## ImageZone (Mar 7, 2012)

In answer to my own question:
1. Type Shooting: Studio still life, Studio Advertising, portraits, and personal landscapes.
2. Professional: Yes, I have been a photographer since 1961. Military News photographer, Civilian new photographer, Freelance photographer, Studio Owner.
3. Feel about the 5DIII: Canon blew it. The new specs are not worth the price.
4. What did they leave out: Swing and tilt back, 30MP, GPS location logging, WiFi connect,Uncompressed HDMI, Remote Microphone In port.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

ImageZone said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Made up your mind before the reviews have been done?
> ...



My opinion is that I would get a second opinion before taking a haircut on my Canon Kit. After all the Noink stuff will still be being produced in 3 months so unless it caused a financial disadvantage I would wait.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 7, 2012)

LOL @ noink, +1 Brian!

$3500 is kind of steep for the list of specs but low light performance and IQ might justify it... Reviews should give an idea... 

Wonder how these cameras are going to score in DxO's sensor ratings compared to previous flagships...


----------



## Orion (Mar 8, 2012)

ImageZone said:


> In answer to my own question:
> 1. Type Shooting: Studio still life, Studio Advertising, portraits, and personal landscapes.
> 2. Professional: Yes, I have been a photographer since 1961. Military News photographer, Civilian new photographer, Freelance photographer, Studio Owner.
> 3. Feel about the 5DIII: Canon blew it. The new specs are not worth the price.
> 4. What did they leave out: Swing and tilt back, 30MP, GPS location logging, WiFi connect,Uncompressed HDMI, Remote Microphone In port.



Well as a professional, the list you make out should not be all that important as the things that are IN the actual camera as far as good specs go. As for the 30MPs, Maybe this isn't the camera for such high MP since they are comming out with new stuff to possibly cointend with that. This is a low light camera and with great AF and hits the sweet spot of MPs. . . . I don't know what you mean by "remote microphone in port," you can attach any nice professional mic made for a dslr when shooting video, along with a nice rig and 5" screen, etc (if you are serious/pro/semipro about video. . . . about the only real gripe is no HDMI out, really. 

aside from the tilt/swing back (weather sealing issues?) and the MPs, I would also, though, suggest that if a company can add those other aspects relatively easily (as others do) then why the heck not add them. . . I am with you there. . . . I;m just saying that with the image quality (it is a stills camera first . . should be), it is hard to fault this camera, especaiully with thelatest raw files we have seen. . . and compared to the D4.


----------



## dho81 (Mar 8, 2012)

I'll play:

1. What type shooting do you do? 
*Mostly weddings/portraits. But a lot of other stuff for fun (architecture, landscape, fashion, abstract).*

2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)? 
*I make about 1/3 of my income through photography (possibly shifting to full time next year)*

3. How do you feel about the 5D III ? 
*Exactly what I wanted and a little more. I wasn't expecting them to put an AF close the 1DX one on it. But it is also priced at a higher premium than I wanted which is a bit of a bummer. Assuming IQ is not any worse and that the high ISO is good enough to make 6400/12800 usable for low light work, I'm still incredibly happy with it and put in an order for 2.*

4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't? 
*wish there was a way to trigger OCF without having to buy 3rd party items or their new and very expensive trigger. without increasing the MP count I would have expected that the IQ is of much better quality--the tests I have seen do not seem to show a marked difference. But none of these items are deal-breakers for me, as the IQ of the 5D2 was already good enough for me.*


----------



## callaesthetics (Mar 8, 2012)

Photography is my hobby and i get paid for a few projects and shoots here and there. I myself do a lot of portraits, high fashion, editorial looking stuff.

It was pretty hard to predict what they would do to the 5D, but i love what im seeing. The price is steep based on previous models but i think what it has evolved into is justifiable. Coming from a 7D and playing around with the 5D3 RAW's im very impress by the image quality.

I find it suspicious that the Nikon D800 has been announce one month ahead of the Canon 5D3, yet the 5D3 has a ton more sample and reviews out already.


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 8, 2012)

Yes, I am happy with it. It looks awesome.

Contrary to what I said here some days ago, I am now going to pre-order it. It's a high-ISO demon, from what I can see on that "Comparometer".

And we in the UK will be paying the equivalent of about $4700 for it (apparently). I can't believe some people in America are complaining at a $3500 price tag, which I guess is equivalent to just £2000 here. We're paying £3000! And I am still ok with paying that, given the low-light performance. But I'd much rather be paying $3500 for it!

The 5D line has, at its 3rd generation, become an undeniably mature product. I'm glad I'm buying into it now.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 8, 2012)

I, for one, am happy with the 5D3 specwise. It suits my needs quite well. It's a bit pricey, but I still pre-ordered one.


----------



## NutsAndBolts (Mar 8, 2012)

Only problem that I cared about was the weak focus system on the MK1&2 (I hated the focus system on my 30D which is probably close to what 5D 1&2 had). Canon has fixed that, so I pre-ordered. As for the MP issue people have brought up, 20 some mega pixels is plenty. If the IQ is there, I do not need more mega pixels. I have seen some samples, less noise at higher ISOs (I saw the samples at 12k ISO, it is looks awesome!). I am sold!


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

ImageZone said:


> Quite frankly I personally am NOT happy with the 5DIII release. I strongly feel Canon has shot themselve in the foot. I have done a comparison with the Nikon D800 and well, I may be switching to Nikon.
> 1. What type shooting do you do?
> 2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
> 3. How do you feel about the 5D III ?
> 4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?



#1 product, architecture, commercial, aviation, etc
#2 yep 100%
#3 So far I'm impressed. Would need more tests and reviews but I'm buying one
#4 wireless commander


----------



## jalbfb (Mar 8, 2012)

#1 landscape/nature, portrait, family activities & travel
#2 just started side photography business but not my primary job...yet
#3 very satisfied, more than I expected. Pre-ordered (couldn't hold out until the reviews on released camera)
#4 wi-fi connection would have been nice


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 8, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> And we in the UK will be paying the equivalent of about $4700 for it (apparently). I can't believe some people in America are complaining at a $3500 price tag, which I guess is equivalent to just £2000 here. We're paying £3000!



Wow, Fleetie. I sense a conspiracy to charge Mother England and *all* of its colonies a premium over the rest of the world (here is Australia, we are similarly screwed with pricing, as you may have gauged). Funny thing is, it's not like they need to convert the darn thing to right-hand-drive.


----------



## Meh (Mar 8, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> Yes, I am happy with it. It looks awesome.
> 
> Contrary to what I said here some days ago, I am now going to pre-order it. It's a high-ISO demon, from what I can see on that "Comparometer".
> 
> ...



Fleetie, are there hefty import duties or any additional taxes built into the sticker price that would account for the apparent difference in the sticker price?


----------



## ssrdd (Mar 8, 2012)

not at all


----------



## Radiating (Mar 8, 2012)

ImageZone said:


> Quite frankly I personally am NOT happy with the 5DIII release. I strongly feel Canon has shot themselve in the foot. I have done a comparison with the Nikon D800 and well, I may be switching to Nikon.
> 1. What type shooting do you do?
> 2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
> 3. How do you feel about the 5D III ?
> 4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?



I am not satisfied with the 5D Mark III, mainly because low iso banding should truely not be an issue in this day and age.

1. Still Life & Portraiture
2. Semi-Pro
3. Low iso banding needs to be gone. 


I would honestly switch to Nikon in a heart beat if they had a better selection of glass. However I'll take low iso banding which only impacts me very occassionally because Canon has the 24-70mm II, the 85mm 1.2 II L the 24mm TS-E L and the 70-300mm L.


----------



## callaesthetics (Mar 8, 2012)

ImageZone said:


> I am not satisfied with the 5D Mark III, mainly because low iso banding should truely not be an issue in this day and age.



Im pretty sure real world use would even see the banding some people are claiming. The supposed banding that was discover took extreme extraction and manipulation, things we would never resort to even when trying to recover shadow details.


----------



## MazV-L (Mar 8, 2012)

5Diii will suit me! I class myself as an enthusiast but I'll be stepping up from a 5D classic so will be looking forward to better low-light performance, less noise'll be nice especially for light painting- light trail photography that I like to do. better PP crops, and better AF, which means my portraits won't be such a hit and miss as it is at the moment with my 85L 1.2ii, at f1.2! I can stop using the centre spot AF and focus/recompose wow!
Not to mention the multi-exposure feature will lend itself to alot of creativity!


----------



## Radiating (Mar 8, 2012)

callaesthetics said:


> ImageZone said:
> 
> 
> > I am not satisfied with the 5D Mark III, mainly because low iso banding should truely not be an issue in this day and age.
> ...



The banding starts to show up at 4 stops which makes the files unusable for any high contrast sceenes.


----------



## slippyphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

ImageZone said:


> Quite frankly I personally am NOT happy with the 5DIII release. I strongly feel Canon has shot themselve in the foot. I have done a comparison with the Nikon D800 and well, I may be switching to Nikon.
> 1. What type shooting do you do?
> 2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
> 3. How do you feel about the 5D III ?
> 4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?



I've been waiting for a good forum post like this one to justify a first response! I could not agree more, and i think i speak for the large majority of photographers in my field.

1. I shoot commercial fashion (editorial, catalogue, advertising)
2. I am a Professional, and have been freelance for 5 years.
3. I am throughly disappointed in the Mk3

4. The biggest question. In my time shooting (and assisting before this), i have used many camera systems, owning a lot of them too. 3 yrs ago, i bought a 5d2, and sold it soon after to upgrade to a Phase One P30 back, a year later buying a 1D4 for speed, and a year after that, coming full circle and selling it all to buy back another 5D2 - the source of all this swapping and changing wasn't indecisiveness, but just using the best tool for the job at that particular time. The 5D2 has by far and away been the best up until now. As we all know, it has its flaws...

Lets just for a mont take aside MP's; iso's; fps; and auto-focus. There are some very simple basic updates that were badly needed on this body. I am predominantly a studio photographer but also shoot heavily on location. I mainly shoot tethered using Capture One, so that my AD's can see and we're all happy we have the shot. The digi op's can do their thing and we can make dam sure we have something that resembles the final product pretty quickly wherever we may be. 

One of the biggest downfalls from the Mk2 was the connectivity of USB2. When shooting fast (4fps) and filling the 13 frame buffer repeatedly - by lunch time i have major problems, restarting, rebooting blah blah, and the rest. This using an iMac with 16gb RAM and 64bit software. The problem? USB2. Why oh why could Canon not have adopted an Ethernet port as in the 1Dx, or even an upgrade to USB3, which can be adapted via many 3rd party adapters to use Thunderbolt on Mac, or Firewire. BIG design flaw number-1, and BIG tick Nikon - they listened.

Lets go back to the main sources of argument - MP's. I HATE hearing "well you never need more than 22million" YES YOU DO!!! The benefit of having more MP's in a 35mm body have been grossly underestimated by Canon. It is small, light with great lenses that can handle the res... 30mil would have been perfect. Then one body could have served all purposes - whether shooting large scale windows, or on location of just for an A4 mag - High resolution images are extremely important to many many of my professional peers indeed.

Personally for me, ISO upgrades and Auto-focus are moot. I never go above 400ISO even on location. I'm sure they'll be appreciated by many - but what a poor major upgrade for the rest of us.

Video upgrades are a joke - the Nikon D800 wipes the floor clean (on paper) with its continuos Autofocus, and uncompressed HDMI output. Both worth their weight in gold. Video is fast becoming normal for my commercial clients. Catalogue clients especially are asking for this now in conjunction to stills. They would laugh you out of business if you suggested hiring focus-pullers or an entire crew to shoot footage, they (and we) want it shot alongside the stills, quickly, efficiently and cheaply... All the 5D3 has is 7D capabilities. Whoopie-do.

This might sound like a personal rant - IT IS - but i believe front talking to my fellow colleagues that it is their personal rant too. The 5D2, has been an industry standard for my peers as much as it has been for other fields. When Canon claims to have spoken to other photographers about upgrades needed on the 5D2, its blindingly obvious that studio and commercial photographers were overlooked or worse unrecognised. Wedding and event photographers have their prayers answered, but this is a very disappointing product for a large section of the photo community. One that has invested heavily in Canon, historically using its amazing developments in technology to full creative advantage. Because we believed them at the forefront of digital capture. I'm afraid the baton might be passed on now...


----------



## Orion (Mar 8, 2012)

Maybe this system isn't for you, due to those things that you mentioned, but it is for the rest of us . . . what I mean to say is that Canon will possibly come out with a high MP camera with HDMI out and video focussing etc etc etc. . . and call it a 5DX (CINE???), and keep this mkIII as an upgrade to mkII. 

IF NOT, then taking note of the legendary status of the 5DmkII, I would be astounded to know tat the D800 suddenly bests the 5DmkII/III as the new video "champ," and Canon let this happen because they did not add uncompressed HDMI (v. timecode upgrades, etc) out and continuous autofocuss fixes (v. you contolling the focus manually with any good rig). . . . . with that said, we are left to wait and see the final raw output of the D800 against the mkIII, and if the mkIII has way better detail and ISO in video etc, then we can question if the D800 is better, or not. . . .

edit:

with the image quality and ISO performance of the 5DmkIII and other improvements over 5DmkII, it is unfair to put all your eggs in one basket and get upset over it not having 30MP+. . .

We DID see a EOS "C" Cine camera too! It's not over yet. . . .


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 8, 2012)

ImageZone said:


> Quite frankly I personally am NOT happy with the 5DIII release. I strongly feel Canon has shot themselve in the foot. I have done a comparison with the Nikon D800 and well, I may be switching to Nikon.
> 1. What type shooting do you do?
> 2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
> 3. How do you feel about the 5D III ?
> 4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?


Yes, I'm very pleased.

1. Weddings, Beauty, Landscape
2. No. About 1/3rd of my income comes from photography
3. It's a very significant upgrade. I'm glad they kept the MP at a reasonable level. The new focus system is incredible! It's £500 too expensive though.
4. Hmm.. I would have loved a bit more RAW performance in high ISO and (if the rumours are right) more DR, but I think they've got the high ISO to the level of competing with Nikon and DR... well so be it. We'll see when the reviews come out.


----------



## traveller (Mar 8, 2012)

Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are. 

The 5D MkIII is a great camera for what it does (but needs to shed a few hundred pounds/dollars/euros). If you want a 1D X, but can't afford/justify the cost of one, the 5D MkIII is a godsend (and lets not forget that pros too are on tight budgets in the current economic climate). If you want a 1D X in a more compact body, then the 5D MkIII fits the bill perfectly. If you want to print big and dream of owning a Phase One or a Hassleblad, then the 5D MkIII is a disappointing upgrade from the MkII and also in comparison to the D800. 

With the 1D X replacing both the 1D MkIV and 1Ds MkIII and the 5D MkIII staying in the same resolution ballpark, Canon have left themselves without a cutting edge high-megapixel body. The Sony 36MP sensor is a game changer for 35mm users who value resolution; for all that the 1D X and 5D MkIII are great cameras, at the moment Canon have _nothing_ to match it. This is the _first_ time that Canon have put their users in this position and there are lots of photographers who don't like it (many of whom switched to Canon for this reason in the past). 

Canon _need_ a high resolution camera that can _complement_ the current offerings. Deep down, I think that we all know this and so does Canon (which is why they put out their "we can make it if there is demand for it" statement). There have been many rumours of a 39MP sensor prototype; I think that Canon will have seen the reaction to the D800 and will now be looking at bringing it to market. Quite what camera it will be in is anyone's guess. 

I know there are arguments about diffraction, motion blur, camera shake and lens quality; I think that there are a lot of Nikon shooters that are going to have a shock at how much more care it will take to make the most of the D800's 36MP. Despite all of this, technique can be honed, lenses can be developed and bought, but not if your chosen brand does not build the camera that can make use of this.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

traveller said:


> Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are.
> 
> The 5D MkIII is a great camera for what it does (but needs to shed a few hundred pounds/dollars/euros). If you want a 1D X, but can't afford/justify the cost of one, the 5D MkIII is a godsend (and lets not forget that pros too are on tight budgets in the current economic climate). If you want a 1D X in a more compact body, then the 5D MkIII fits the bill perfectly. If you want to print big and dream of owning a Phase One or a Hassleblad, then the 5D MkIII is a disappointing upgrade from the MkII and also in comparison to the D800.
> 
> ...



Well said


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 8, 2012)

I have a feeling if Canon announced a 5D that was a 36 giga pixel monster that had a slower fps, we'd hear people complaining that the pixel race is unnecessary and ISO number is the new frontier, and they'd wish it shot 12fps....

Isn't 22 million pixels a lot?

Perhaps Canon actually did some R&D and this was the happy medium for pixels/ speed/ image quality/ price?

Since I have enjoyed my Canon products for the last 20 years, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually know what they are doing.

I also like to stay a generation behind the technology, so I'm super siked to buy a new 5D II some day soon! That camera is pretty sexy.


----------



## Orion (Mar 8, 2012)

The 5DmkIII is not supposed to be a medium format upgrade . . . . the medium formats can't compete with these new dslrs on ISO, and I venture to say that putting 2 images from either camera side by side, it will be hard to say which one is which (5DmkIII v. Medium format) . . unless you pair 2 low light images, in which case you can tell it's from dslr. There is a certain tade-off when introducing such hiugh MP to a dslr where the lenses cannot resolve such . . . and if a pro craves high MP for studio or landscape, they can expect to have lower iso performance, and lens anomalies introduced as a trade-off. Wherever you look online the first thing that is mentioned IS ISO performance, NOT MP. Landscape and Adverts may require, in certain cases a high MP depending on the resolution needed (print), but the case for that is not as great since mostly serious pros with thier foot in the door get such assignments and THEY own/rent/lease a medium format body for such work. We can;t have all our eggs in one basket as far as specs go on these cameras, becasue there are not only priorities such as ISO, but also the question of if you actually need 36MPs. Yes, I know the "why not?" reply, but then the sensor comes into question, and pixel pitch, etc and the ISO performance suffers. . . . since this is not supposed to be a medium format MP camera, let's finally decide on whether or not the 22-24 MP is a sweet spot as far as our concerns/uses go. . . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## dbduchene (Mar 8, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> I have a feeling if Canon announced a 5D that was a 36 giga pixel monster that had a slower fps, we'd hear people complaining that the pixel race is unnecessary and ISO number is the new frontier, and they'd wish it shot 12fps....
> 
> Isn't 22 million pixels a lot?
> 
> ...



You are missing the point. For many 22 is good. BUT there are others that it is not what we want and what some of us need. This camera is trying to please EVERYONE with one camera and that just cannot be done. If you look I have 3 bodies and there is a reason for that. If I am shooting wildlife or sports and several others I get out my 7D. I do not do weddings anymore but if I did I would get out my 5D For Shoots like Fossil Rim Wildlife reserve I double strap 7D with 100-400 and the 5D MkII with the 28-300L gives me 28 to 640 effect. My full frame though is my landscape and studio camera and for that I do not care how fast it is. I would like a little better auto focus and as with every camera I would like it with better Dynamic Range. 

What Canon has decided at least for now is that there are so many of us with 10,000 and more in their lenses that for now they can ignore us and we will be stuck with it. Right now if you are entering the field and are looking for Agency, Architecture, Landscape, high end Portrait then we feel abandoned buy Canon and was was stated a few post above both Nikon and Sony have cameras that are addressing that. Canon has made a calculated bet that they can ignore these needs and not get hurt in market share. As have been said by many they are banking on most of us having so much in there glass that we cannot jump and they will wait and address us some where down the road. 

For me I would gladly pay 4k and maybe a little more for a 2 frame a sec 40 MP camera with true one stop ISO and DR improvement over the MK II BUT 16 Bit color. And yes USB 3 and ethernet would be a MUST. Traveller brought some very good and very well thought out and stated points that are valid. Right now there is a segment in the industry that Canon is not providing for as well and there competition is. For those of us that have been shooting Canon for a lot of years it (36 for me) does not feel good to be abandoned. 

It has been brought up by many that they could bring out a 3D or 6D or what ever they want to call it high MP to address this and that would be fine with me but of that is the direction that they are taking they would be wise IMHO to do so sooner instead of latter. I along with several others that I know are telling the people that we know are entering to wait till the camera are out and then take a very hard look at the Nikon right now as it is a lot more bang for the buck.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 8, 2012)

Awin, you had me with this statement:



> Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are.



But, then you lost me with this:



> Canon _need_ a high resolution camera that can complement the current offerings.



I just don't think any of us knows enough about Canon's market research, financial projections, etc. to know what they need to produce. We might perceive that there is a market for a high resolution camera. Nikon obviously believes there is. But we don't have access to either company's research or financials, so just as it's not fair to presume to know other people's requirements from a camera, it's also not fair to presume to know any manufacturer's business plan. 

It's possible that Canon will eventually produce a high megapixel camera, but it is also possible that they have determined the return on investment is too low to produce such a camera. One thing we enthusiasts tend to ignore is that every opportunity has costs and those in business have to weigh the cost against the benefit. 

No wedding photographer can afford to bid on every wedding. No portrait studio can afford to try to get the business of every high school senior. Successful businesses not only know when to go after a client, they know when to leave an opportunity on the table as well.

I'm simply suggesting that while Canon could offer a high megapixel camera, people need to accept the possibility that they have decided to cede that portion of the market to others because the cost of going after it is more than the potential gain.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 8, 2012)

Less than 10 years ago the 1Ds was launched as the top of the line pro camera @ 11mp. The 1D was 4mp in 2001. I'm sure people have been producing professional results over the last decade with those wimpy cameras.

Why do people keep saying Canon NEEDS a high mp camera? the 5d III IS a HIGH MEGA PIXEL CAMERA.

Isn't there a saturation point on those tiny "full-frame" sensors? At the end of the day, 35mm was made as a small, portable, fast camera. Not a studio/ landscape monster.

Medium format and large format exists for that.

Cameras are tools, and each tool has it's limitations. Perhaps we are seeing the limits in some areas?


----------



## samthefish (Mar 8, 2012)

I'm happy with the specs but can't afford one anytime soon. I'm an advanced but not professional photographer, shoot mainly action photography / sporting events and sometimes portraits / small weddings. Last night I was shooting a string concert with my 7D / 70-200L 2.8 is II. Flash was not allowed in the venue so nearly all shots were around 1/60 f 2.8 ISO 800. I would have loved to have the ability to shoot at f 8 /6400 for increased DOF in some shots but of course on the 7D would be too grainy. I would also love to have the extra stops clean ISO in basketball or late afternoon lacrosse games. I don't print anything over 13x19.


SamTheFish


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 8, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Awin, you had me with this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't originally post these quotes, i believe that was traveller.. Anywho I think there is a market, obviously, by all the griping and grumbing we have seen about the lack of MP... BUT, like you, we dont know Canon's market research and I believe Canon, when deciding on the 5d3, picked the right compromise in features and specs that would satisfy 90-95% of most it's target audience. I believe if canon see's a ripple in people not upgrading or people unsatisfied, it could force their hand in producing a large MP camera, whether it be the 5dx, 3d, whatever you want to call it, and I also believe such a camera would raise the bar, price wise, which falls into the realm of beware what you wish for. 

I've heard pro's say that they charge thousands of dollars per day per shoot because that's their basic cost of doing business and that "lower priced" shoots aren't their customers, aren't their competition, and they dont worry about those photographers undercutting them because of that. Likewise, with cameras, not everyone probably could afford the 5d3, and probably even fewer of those who could, could afford the high MP... it's just a different camera for a different type of photographer with different needs and wants. Do i think canon nailed what I would like in a perfect camera? Sure... i think they addressed 98% of all my needs/wants as a professional photographer... but do i think there's room for another camera geared for another type of photographer? Sure... I'd be ignorant not to.


----------



## CarpetFeet (Mar 8, 2012)

I am absolutely delighted with the specs and have just pre-ordered mine. But then I'm a mere enthusiast with a 20D that has been looking to go FF for some time.

I would have taken the plunge on a 5Dii last summer if I hadn't picked up on this site and all the rumours of a pending replacement. I have seen the stunning IQ from the 5Dii and I'm sure I would have been very happy with that too (most of my photography being landscapes and candids). But I'm probably only going to be spending this kind of money once every 6 years or so and as I do shoot the occasional sports and wildlife event, I'm delighted that the 5diii appears to have addressed the limitations of the 5dii that would have made it less successful at shooting those events.

Yes the price is more than I was hoping and has caused me not to buy the kit lens (I'll be making do with my 17-40 and 70-200 for a while) but for a body that I expect to meet all my needs for a good few years it's something I am prepared to stretch to.

As somebody that doesn't produce many large prints and is keen not to have to upgrade his PC any time soon, I'm also delighted that Canon has not gone for many more megapixels in the 5Diii. As long as the IQ lives up to its predecessor (and I see no reason why it shouldn't) I'll be extremely happy.


----------



## traveller (Mar 8, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Awin, you had me with this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Awin's right, they were my statements. 

I concede your point that I don't have access to their market research or business plans and therefore I could be accused of hypocrisy for presuming to know Canon's requirements. However, I would like to make the argument that for a technology driven company it is dangerous for them to base their product development solely upon what users _think_ that they want. To bring up that much overused Henry Ford quote (that can't actually be attributed to him!) "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse". 

Did Canon's decision to include video on the 5D MkII come from their extensive market research that there was a huge latent demand for a cheap large sensor video camera from the indie movie makers? No, Canon freely admit that they didn't realise the game changing implications of the technology, because they probably wouldn't have asked the right people when they were doing their market research and even if they had, the movie makers themselves would have been skeptical because it was such a leftfield technology in the cinema world. My point is that you cannot entirely predict where your market for new technology is going to come from, so whilst carrying out market research for a new product is important, it is not the be all and end all. [I could quote the old "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", but that is probably apocryphal as well]

I understand that there are serious volume versus development cost calculations to get right, but I think that it would be a mistake for Canon to cede this part of the market to others, that's a mistake that Nikon made for a number of years up to 2007 and it cost them a lot of their user base.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 8, 2012)

I'm much more concerned with pattern noise and canon fixing that issue, than the difference between 22MP and 36MP the difference represents only about 20% increase in vertical an horizontal aspects and as MP increase the law of diminishing returns will become more and more apparent especially since there are trade off associated with those higher MP


----------



## nightbreath (Mar 9, 2012)

Having a 36 MP sensor gives ~28% increase in resulting image size (vertical and horizontal, comparing to 5D Mark III), diffraction limited aperture of f/9.2 and all the complexities smaller pixel pitch apply. From one side you get less than 1/3 improvement in image size, from the other – drawbacks of the bigger pixels number.

I would definitely consider 5D Mark III as it is now + a borrowed medium format camera for the job rather than a compromise camera that was going to suit everyone.


----------



## traveller (Mar 9, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> Having a 36 MP sensor gives ~28% increase in resulting image size (vertical and horizontal, comparing to 5D Mark III), diffraction limited aperture of f/9.2 and all the complexities smaller pixel pitch apply. From one side you get less than 1/3 improvement in image size, from the other – drawbacks of the bigger pixels number.
> 
> I would definitely consider 5D Mark III as it is now + a borrowed medium format camera for the job rather than a compromise camera that was going to suit everyone.



Sure, if that's what you'd rather have then Canon have made the perfect camera for you (and for a lot of other photographers too, I might add). However I believe that there are also enough people that are prepared to accept the increased complexity of a high megapixel camera with a smaller pixel pitch. Sure, your diffraction limited aperture will increase (i.e. f/number reduce), which could be a problem in certain shooting situations. Your choice in these cases would be to stop down and accept loss of resolution from diffraction, or use a perspective control (tilt-shift) lens to control the plane of focus. This is a problem that large format (and now increasingly medium format) users have experienced for years. I'm sure that there is a 'sweet spot' after which it is not worth increasing resolution because the diffraction limited aperture becomes unworkably large, but I don't think that this is 22MP. As for the drawbacks of smaller pixels at higher ISOs, this is pretty irrelevant for landscape and studio work, in fact it might be nice to have a sensor optimised for low ISOs that is native ISO25 (a la Dalsa MF backs). 

You also mention borrowing (or hiring) a medium format camera, which is great if you only need it occasionally. If it is the mainstay of your business or hobby, then you'd need to buy one; UK medium format prices range from £10,000 - £35,000, which is not really in the same league as a D800.


----------



## nightbreath (Mar 9, 2012)

traveller said:


> Sure, if that's what you'd rather have then Canon have made the perfect camera for you (and for a lot of other photographers too, I might add). However I believe that there are also enough people that are prepared to accept the increased complexity of a high megapixel camera with a smaller pixel pitch. Sure, your diffraction limited aperture will increase (i.e. f/number reduce), which could be a problem in certain shooting situations. Your choice in these cases would be to stop down and accept loss of resolution from diffraction, or use a perspective control (tilt-shift) lens to control the plane of focus. This is a problem that large format (and now increasingly medium format) users have experienced for years. I'm sure that there is a 'sweet spot' after which it is not worth increasing resolution because the diffraction limited aperture becomes unworkably large, but I don't think that this is 22MP. As for the drawbacks of smaller pixels at higher ISOs, this is pretty irrelevant for landscape and studio work, in fact it might be nice to have a sensor optimised for low ISOs that is native ISO25 (a la Dalsa MF backs).
> 
> You also mention borrowing (or hiring) a medium format camera, which is great if you only need it occasionally. If it is the mainstay of your business or hobby, then you'd need to buy one; UK medium format prices range from £10,000 - £35,000, which is not really in the same league as a D800.



I am 100% agree with you, but my point is that the topic we have this discussion under should have been called differently. Forum threads are full of complaints about the 5D Mark III price / MPx count / DR / ISO performance / whatever, and it would be nice to see suggestions of a camera that has not been yet created rather than complaints about current one that many people liked spec-wise.


----------



## traveller (Mar 9, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, if that's what you'd rather have then Canon have made the perfect camera for you (and for a lot of other photographers too, I might add). However I believe that there are also enough people that are prepared to accept the increased complexity of a high megapixel camera with a smaller pixel pitch. Sure, your diffraction limited aperture will increase (i.e. f/number reduce), which could be a problem in certain shooting situations. Your choice in these cases would be to stop down and accept loss of resolution from diffraction, or use a perspective control (tilt-shift) lens to control the plane of focus. This is a problem that large format (and now increasingly medium format) users have experienced for years. I'm sure that there is a 'sweet spot' after which it is not worth increasing resolution because the diffraction limited aperture becomes unworkably large, but I don't think that this is 22MP. As for the drawbacks of smaller pixels at higher ISOs, this is pretty irrelevant for landscape and studio work, in fact it might be nice to have a sensor optimised for low ISOs that is native ISO25 (a la Dalsa MF backs).
> ...



In a way you are correct, but topics do tend to wander a bit! The problem with fora is that if you start a thread with a sensible and reasonable 'subject' line, they tend to get ignored in the blitz of recriminations from the more controversial topics. I've found that quite often people are now posting a subject line such as "Canon are finished, move to Nikon!" and then making a more reasonable assessment of new developments once they've grabbed people's attention. 

I guess it's the way of the world! :


----------



## ak47 (Mar 9, 2012)

No, I’m totally disappointed with 5DIII ... I'm staying with my 5DII.

5DIII is a very conservative update to say the least ... as if the clock has stopped over the past 3 years …

Yes, the AF system is substantially upgraded (why drawfed 5DII with that crappy 9-point AF in the first place?) … but why are we not getting tracking AF in movie mode? If Pannny/Oly, Sony and Nikon can do it, I can’t see why Canon cannot. Canon may rightfully argue that pros don't need it, but this is a prosumer body! Lots of people were buying 5DII just to take pictures of their kids, me inclusive. Don't just think about the production houses (I know they bough lots of 5DIIs). Wake up, Canon!

And since 5DIII is supposed to be video-oriented (given that the sensor’s vertical resolution is now a multiple of 1920 ... which should have been used in 5DII, btw), why hold back raw output from HDMI?

Last but not least, why retain that stupid AA filter? Leica, Nikon and Fuji are all taking it out, and one doesn't need to pixel-peep to appreciate the effects!

Canon marketing guys must be blind or brainless or crazy ... they have the full spec. of D800 right b4 them, and they still come up with a crappy spec like this? and want to charge customers $500 more? is that a joke?

As the matter stands, I’m reserving my funds to upgrade my D700 instead. I don't switch systems any more ... parallel running, but I've been using 5DII very rarely ever since I got D700 a year after I got 5DII (I actually compared both b4 jumping into 5DII for the sheer resolution advantage and movie capability ... then, my kids start running around so fast that 5DII's crappy AF fails to catch them).

Canon guys, if you're listening, pls. give us 3D/5DX b4 everybody else here head for the superior D800. By superior, I don't mean the crazy MP count (which does show up as a huge advantage under good light when viewed 100% on-screen or when monstrous size prints are required, btw). It'd be fine if you release the same 22MP sensor, go up to 33MP or even beyond, but pls. give it a tracking movie AF that at least equals that of D7000, if not drawf it; take out that Stone-Aged AA filter; add global shutter to eliminate (not minimize) the jello effect; give it Raw video output (nevermind the interface); and price it reasonably (say, $4k). Is that too hard?

Almost forgotten about 1 stupid thing which I'm not sure whether 5DIII has inherited from 5DII, "Auto ISO" means the body chooses ISO values automatically for the photographer when he/she shoots in Manual mode, not ISO400 or any magic figure. Look at D4, it even allows for zooming and shutter speed +/- biasing now. At least do it the D700 way, pls. Many people would like to set the aperture and shutter speed by themselves and let the camera do the calculations ... because they're fully occupied with tracking their subjects.

Back to the questions:-

1. What type shooting do you do? child photography ... my 4-yearolds
2. Are you a Professional ... (Make the major portion of your income with your camera)? Yes ... but not in the photography/video field ... I'm an engineer
3. How do you feel about the 5D III? an over-priced piece of junk
4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't? pls. see the above

BTW, D800E fulfills virtually all my upgrading requirements - >12MP, movie AF, no AA filter, raw video output, lighter than D700. What it misses - too high MP count (file size, high ISO noise, low fps ...) and not multiples of 1920. Had it been a 22/33MP body at >=5fps, it would be perfect.

*****************************************************************************************
posted to the wrong thread by mistake yesterday - re-posted here


----------



## rocketdesigner (Mar 9, 2012)

dbduchene said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > This camera is trying to please EVERYONE with one camera and that just cannot be done.
> ...


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 9, 2012)

1. What type shooting do you do?
Everything. Events -Weddings and smaller events. Landscapes. Small home studio and a bit of sports. 
2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
Yes.
3. How do you feel about the 5D III ? 
From where I am coming MKII its just what the doctor ordered. 
- For events its going to provide me the versetality to capture the moment. I could silence the shutter and use ISO upto 25000+ to get pictures that I could only dream before. 
- Landscapes - On a Tripod I am more then satisfied with the 22 pixels. If I need larger prints I just pass it t the pro to do their magic. 
- Home Studio - Head shots, Beauty shots, Glamour shots and fashion. I am not a Joe McNally or a Melissa Rodwell. But if they could do with 22-24 then I guess I can if I trive to improve the skill to their level. 
- Sports - Occassional soccer and basketball shots of children. It gives me the speed and ISO capabilities for both outdoors and indoors. 
4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't? 
Its perfect.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm somewhere between advanced prosumer and semi-pro, if you can figure that out! Most of my serious photography is portrait, glamour and boudoir. I currently use a 5D classic and a 7D.

I prefer the images from the 5D when shooting people (when the images are in focus), because the higher res of the 7D makes a lot more work for me in post. I shoot mostly real people, not models, so I don't want every pimple and pore to pop out of the photo at me. Seriously, it is a real problem with the 7D and takes up a lot of time with the spot removal tool, among others.

I also love the ability to create shallow DOF with the 5D - I have several prime lenses that I use when possible.

My only two complaints about the 5D classic are the erratic focus system that lacks microadjust and slow writing-to-the-card.

I skipped the 5D Mark 2 since it did not seem like enough of an improvement, but I am definitely going to pick up a Mark 3 sometime this year.

I'm overjoyed at the new focus system and it might occasionally be fun to have better high-ISO performance. I'm hoping that the increased dynamic range will allow me to make larger exposure adjustments in Lightroom when I screw up and underexpose an otherwise good image.

I am also very pleased to see that Canon did not give us a megapixel monster. I have no use whatsoever for anything more than roughly 15 megapixels. And I do consider myself a pixel peeper!

I'm a motorcyclist as well as a photographer. There are riders who insist that their machine must be a "torque monster" or it just isn't worth owning. I've never been able to understand that, since even a modest motorcycle will give you far more performance than you can use in the real world. I think photography is like that. Hopefully Canon will give the "pixel monster" guys what they want, even if I don't understand their desire. In today's market, there is no need for a one size fits all product line.

Mike in Portland


----------



## skoobey (Mar 9, 2012)

Spec yes, price not so much.

I think it'll chase away many buyers getting into FF that don't have the lenses.

I love my lenses, and I don't care about getting used to Nikon at this point, as I am happy with the 5dMKII.

That being said, I don't care about the 5dmkIII either. As, I said, if I were upgrading from a crop to a full frame, and if I weren't limited by lens collection, I'd go for a Nikon.

Current 7d/5dmkII wedding photographers rejoice! And some sports shooters too. A light body with everything you wanted, and with versatile yet manageable file size, and both the more professional CF, and the laptop-friendly card slots...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 10, 2012)

it's simple:
100% with the AF specs

95% with the general body and UI and all

85% with the 2/3 stops better high ISO (if that is the actual number in the end, a full 2/3)

80% for stills options (it still needs EC in AutoISO M, NR is a bit gone wild for the jpg engine and sharpening algo not the best but in cam jpgs, not the biggest deal anyway, i bet the histogram is still not outline and you still won't be able to see where it ends when out in the sunshine, etc.)

40% for video options (come on at least give it zebra bars to show when stuff it blown! ML was a struggled hack and they put 30x more options in, although the 2 compression options are a plus at least)

40% with the MP count (hoped for 28-32MP, 36MP ain't bad either  and maybe they could have still gotten top video quality by grabbing it in the same 3x3 blocks just out of a bit of a cropped section)

0% with the zero improvement to low ISO DR (if this stands) :'(

0% with non-inbuilt flash



it's complicated:

100% with the fps IF it had had 28-30MP at 6fps but since it is still 22MP....
65% for 6fps at 'only' 22MP, the rumored 6.9 or 7.5 would have made it 100% at 22MP (if it had been 6fps and 22MP and come out a year or year and a half earlier also 100%)

it remains to be seen how much better the movie mode is, it seems like aliasing and moire are much better maybe give it a 90%? but sharpness and natural film look are in question and it could be 10% it could be 90%, not sure yet


The price seems a bit high considering it has a less advanced sensor than the D800 (by all accounts so far), no built-in flash or intervalometer and worse metering than the D800.

BUT

If the AF proves to blow away the D800 AF then it helps the price become more tolerable (although you might say it merely makes it equal for not having as good dynamic range and fewer MP) and if the video mode ends up doing a lot better than the D800, in addition, then the price also becomes a lot more reasonable.


----------

