# The ultimate 5d3 poll - What's your take on the 5d3?



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2012)

kbmelb said:


> The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.



I have to admit I didn't read all this troll-heave 5d3 stuff myself, but I remember one complaint: The af was said to be slow to pick up if all points are selected (like 1sec or so). It might be even Ken Rockwell who wrote this  .. is this true, and is it a sign that while the 5d3 has the same af as the 1dx the 5d3 is "under-powered" when it comes to af processing and needs more time to make up its mind than the 1dx will?

@v8beast: I guess there is no real argument about the 5d2's lacking af when it comes to tracking... that's why many people were raving about the 7d until now.


----------



## fugu82 (Apr 23, 2012)

Moved up from the 40D - big jump. 5D3 is more than I could have hoped for. Best thing? MORE KEEPERS. Less poorly focused + exposed/noisy toss-outs. Sure, it's my lousy technique, most of the time, but this is a forgiving piece of equipment. I will certainly be shooting more.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 23, 2012)

Even if only for the AF, it owns.


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 23, 2012)

I'm not sure I understand the poll terms at all. I'm a pro, I own the 5DIII and I am happy with it. I've seen reviews that claim the ISO performance isn't any better than the markII but my unscientific observations are that it is at least a stop better. I'd almost say it's 2 stops due to the appearance of the noise. It doesn't band nearly as bad as the 5DII and what noise is there is not as ugly as the markII. I'd liken the noise pattern more like my 1DsII which I always like better than 5DII. The markIII definitely retains more detail at higher ISOs in my observations and I sure purely RAW. Dynamic range has never been an issue to me, my style of shooting is, if I can't get enough detail in shadows I put up a fill light.

The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.

With that said, with a stationary subject, well lit and properly metered shot (were I don't have to push exp), I could care less which camera I choose. If the markII has the lens I want already mounted to it I'll just grab it instead of taking time to switch lenses/bodies.


----------



## Revil0 (Apr 23, 2012)

I'm a pro photographer and love the 5D3. (I only mention that I shoot proffesionaly because my livelihood depends on it) Frankly, I'm tired of hearing all the complaining on these forums. Don't believe the hate... It's a great camera and a big improvement over the 5d2.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 23, 2012)

kbmelb said:


> The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.



True dat. I finally got to put the 5DIII's AF through its paces yesterday, and I walked away impressed to say the least. As you can see, a lot can happen in 1 second 
































Out of this sequence, the first three are tack sharp, the next two are acceptably sharp, and only the last one is unusable. For shots like this, a 50-80% hit rate is unbelievably good. Plus, with pan blurs, the majority of soft images you get are attributable to user error. I'm certain that with more practice and tweaking of the tracking sensitivity, even better results are possible. 

With the 5D and 5DII's pathetic 9-point AF, I would have been lucky to get a 10 % hit rate, and as you can probably tell by the images, you'd can't replicate smoky burnouts too many times before the authorities crack down on you ;D When you need to get the hell in, fire off some quick and accurate frames, and get the hell out, the 5DIII is a badass tool for the job. 

So yeah, I like mine


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2012)

kbmelb said:


> I'm not sure I understand the poll terms at all.



What you describe would be "saved time" by better af, so I tried to include this scenario.



kbmelb said:


> The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.



I have to admit I didn't read all this troll-heave 5d3 stuff myself, but I remember one complaint: The af was said to be slow to pick up if all points are selected (like 1sec or so). It might be even Ken Rockwell who wrote this  .. is this true, and is it a sign that while the 5d3 has the same af as the 1dx the 5d3 is "under-powered" when it comes to af processing and needs more time to make up its mind than the 1dx will?

@v8beast: I guess there is no real argument about the 5d2's lacking af when it comes to tracking... that's why many people were raving about the 7d until now.


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 23, 2012)

My take. I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money, nor could I afford it right now, I haven't got the gigs to support it, but maybe that would change soon and even if it did I don't think I'd be in a mad rush. It has almost everything I would have liked to see included in it. Weather sealing, decent FPS, improved ISO/dynamic range or does it (seems very nice so far, need to see more)? Wished it had 4k or at least a bit larger than 1080p capture for some safe-frame margins for re-framing/cropping editing leeway, etc. Wished the video looked even better, but to be honest it's more than I'll ever need anytime soon, so is the 5DII and the 7D, etc.. I like the dual card slots a lot, nice to have that in a non-1D sized body, would be a very nice thing to include in the 7DII which is used by some pro's. Wish it had an extra top or front scrollwheel on the right side. Wish it had a better video codec/would have really liked to be able to record RAW video even if it required plugging in an external HDD. I hope it's easily hack-able, if they managed to add even RAW video out as a hack I think that would be amazing enough on it's own, and I hope cool things get done with it. As it is, it looks like it would save day in and day out pro's a bit of work and ad some welcome functionality/pay for itself and would be worth it the upgrade. I think in the long run, the camera is going to be well received. It's not perfect, and I really think Canon could have included the features I listed above and some other's I'm forgetting and kept the price the same, but at the same time I think the forums are over-reacting about the device and often for completely different reasons than I'm listing here, but to each their own. 

I'd buy one if I had more money, but I do think it's priced too highly. The nice thing about it being priced higher, is that it helped not to crash the price of 5D Mark II's which is nice for those who already own a II and I can't get too upset about the price for that reason alone. It's nice to not have your expensive equipment not just crash in value overnight more than it has to. Overall I'd give it a B or a B- and that could improve if the firmware is hacked or improved by Canon to extend extra features. Oh, one more thing, for the price, I think Canon should have payed for the European/Video camera tax so it could be without limitation for recording length, although to be fair I don't know how much that tax would be, and at least it's better than the 5DII clips (or did I get that wrong?). I don't like the mode dial lock at all, would like an option to get it with a regular 5DII/7D mode dial, probably not that hard to hack myself but would void warranty if they don't do it. Nice to see the pretty darn fast FPS for stills included, very welcome feature and with what they did ultimately include, it makes it an even better, pro-viable body in the non-1D size and I like that a lot.

I did ask for the moon, but I didn't quite get it. This was my original list when someone asked what do we want out of it before it was announced, they got a lot of it right (according to me), and some of my wish list they didn't put in.

"In order.

-Better high ISO performance (1DX esque)
-Awesome Auto-Focus (1DX/7D esque.)
-Solid weatherproofing (at least as much so it can handle getting snowed and showered on a decent bit)
-Improved video capture performance (aka, clean up rolling shutter problems, etc., even further)
-Uncompressed /Raw Video Capture or Clean HDMI out (I don't mind hooking up a separate adapter when shooting video)
-Over resolution, aka. more than 1080p (not necessarily 4k) to allow for re-cropping/panning/zooming/breathing room in editing
-Ability to capture in 60-120fps frame-rates even if it requires using Clean HDMI out and an external capture unit
-Usable auto-focus in video (this is not a pro-video feature, but there are casual times when a reasonably good version of this could come in great handy at barbeques and whatnot.) And if it is put in, I would also suggest some ability to manually over-ride it/flip it on/off, while still in shot.
-Remove Video Time-Limits (even if a fee has to be paid to digitally unlock it in the regions where that licensing matters)
-Consideration for digital adapter accessory that would allow smooth manual aperture control during shooting. (at the bottom of my list for a reason but it makes more sense than new lenses to me, though for all I know (and I don't) it may require new lenses anyways but it may not, and even still it makes more sense)
-If it's not there already and buried, a recorded measurement that tells the distance of the subject focus point from the camera. This is useful to approximately calculate the scale of a subject which is in turn helpful in roughly estimating the scale of textures for texture artists in 3D animation projects.

So basically, an amazing, 5DII sizish body with the latest stills improvements and nothing we've come to expect missing, as well as updated generation 2 DSLR video upgrades. Hit that mark and I'll grab one near launch. "


----------



## cdang (Apr 23, 2012)

To those with the Mark iii and 85L. 

Is the AF more accurate / faster wide open ?


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 23, 2012)

funny how all the answers are worded so that I either say I love the 5D3, or say I'm stupid :

I had to go with the second one

I would have voted "the D800 is a lot better, and cheaper too, I would consider the 5D3 but only if it falls down to $2700 or less, significantly below the D800 price"


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> I would have voted "the D800 is a lot better, and cheaper too, I would consider the 5D3 but only if it falls down to $2700 or less, significantly below the D800 price"



... I thought that would have been the "Nikon competition" option? I didn't include a "it's not worth it" option because "worth" is so subjective or related to various different things so it wouldn't have made sense.

The first two options are trollish, but currently how many people choose them. But maybe this reflects the heated discussion about the 5d3.


----------



## Terrano (Apr 23, 2012)

Sorry i do not wish to stir things up but with the launch of the 5D mk3 i am thinking of getting a D800.
Maybe that should have been one of the poll options.
That said i would not mind a 5D mk3 because of the improved focus but it would have to be a lot cheaper ,
and the 5D mk2 is the best digital camera i have ever owned.

http://www.terencehogben.co.za


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2012)

Terrano said:


> Sorry i do not wish to stir things up but with the launch of the 5D mk3 i am thinking of getting a D800.



... I've expanded the "Nikon competition" option to explicitly reflect this.


----------



## Alker (Apr 23, 2012)

To all.

The D800 is NOT a lot better. 
Yes the sensor is better. 

But it's not like we fill light 100% and + 5 exposure all the time. 

The total package is a lot different. 
Use them both and you will see the
difference between the D800 and 5D mark
iii. I can assure you very very close call. 

For allround the 5D is better. 
Time will tell, but there is more then only the sensor. 

And I think it's about time people start taking some pictures instead of
the endless polls, whining, Nikon vs Canon, 500 to expensive, etc.


----------



## TAR (Apr 23, 2012)

Its really shame that canon did not solve the problem of banding and noise problems, check the images below ..bottom images are from 5d3 and tops images are from D800. this problem present in 7D too..just for the D800 raw headroom i ll buy it. this is a IQ problem they should have solved this in a first place. even for 2700$ , ill not buy. 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2012)

TAR said:


> Its really shame that canon did not solve the problem of banding and noise problems, check the images below DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html[/url]



Ugh, this is really a large difference. Maybe they got a bad 5d3, because different 7d samples are said to have variances in banding, too? However, the site says that you can compensate by ETTR'ing: "Start by overexposing by about 1 stop above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then underexpose by the same amount later in software, basically normalizing the image.". But essentially on Canon, it's more necessary to take hdr pictures than on nikon - and given a static scene, this poses no problem.


----------



## Alker (Apr 23, 2012)

TAR said:


> Its really shame that canon did not solve the problem of banding and noise problems, check the images below ..bottom images are from 5d3 and tops images are from D800. this problem present in 7D too..just for the D800 raw headroom i ll buy it. this is a IQ problem they should have solved this in a first place. even for 2700$ , ill not buy.
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html



Yes yes yes. 
We are not always do the 100% fill light and + 5 exposure 

The guy from FM made many pictures with the 5D mark iii. 
And when normal exposed and not pushed to extremes they are SUPERB NICE
IMAGES. 

Check some here with the TS-E 24mm. 
Nothing wrong is there !!!!

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index.html

Beautiful images. 
He also wrote many positive things about the 5D mark iii. 
But we don't care do we ?
We are only interested in the 100% fill light and +5 exposure. 

The numbers photography what a BS


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2012)

Alker said:


> We are not always do the 100% fill light and + 5 exposure



Disclaimer: I like Canon, have a Canon and will stay with Canon. That being said, the high dr sample picture taken with bright sun and shadows is not artificially engineered to make Canon look bad, but it's an average shot that will be taken million of times. And to brighten the shadows (instead of doing hdr) doesn't need excessive pp ev raise & fill light but much more moderate pp. It's a pity the site doesn't say how much ev they raised it. But imho there is no way around this: For landscape, the d800 does have a real world advantage.

Obviously that doesn't mean you cannot use anything else than the d800: With my humble 60d and magic lantern, I'm used to take 5-7 exposures with +-0,5ev and then exposure fuse them - noise problem solved.


----------



## Alker (Apr 23, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > We are not always do the 100% fill light and + 5 exposure
> ...



True, but this is blown out of porportion.


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 23, 2012)

it's not a matter of "I can't live with that image quality"

it's a matter of "why should I pay $500 more for significantly poorer image quality, it should be $500 LESS!!"


----------



## altenae (Apr 23, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> it's not a matter of "I can't live with that image quality"
> 
> it's a matter of "why should I pay $500 more for significantly poorer image quality, it should be $500 LESS!!"



Why ?
Says who ?

Poorer image quality at pixel peep maybe. 

From a very big store in the Netherlands the 5D mark iii sales are 15 till 1 in favor of the 5D. 
For me the AF was well worth the price. 

If you think it is to expensive then by all means don't buy it. 
I wish we saw some interesting photography topics instead of this same price, sensor, blows away, canon is a shame, what were they thinking, canon lost the battle,etc,etc,etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> it's a matter of "why should I pay $500 more for *significantly poorer image quality*, it should be $500 LESS!!"



So, that's across the board, all ISO settings, all scenes. The 5DIII image quality is vastly inferior to the D800. Is that really what you're saying?


----------



## skitron (Apr 23, 2012)

TAR said:


> Its really shame that canon did not solve the problem of banding and noise problems, check the images below ..bottom images are from 5d3 and tops images are from D800. this problem present in 7D too..just for the D800 raw headroom i ll buy it. this is a IQ problem they should have solved this in a first place. even for 2700$ , ill not buy.
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html



I'm sorry but I find that comparison totally without credibility. It is either completely bogus or else Lightroom 4.1 is total [email protected] I've done shadow recovery on shots out of 50D, 60D, 5D2 with at least as dark, if even darker shadows using Capture One Pro 6 and do not see all of the noise and banding, and the shots are at higher ISO...


----------



## Orion (Apr 23, 2012)

Geez some of you gys pick a pin point of a particular image and alter images to show something that wasn;t there just to get a lok at how the shadows play in some scenes. . .

The mkIII is a total gem! Its AF is astounding . . . ISO is amazing especailly in jpg I think . . video is a no contest scenario . .mkIII rules!

Now if you all want to spend days and nights thihnkning of DR in the smallest coreners of some generic image, then go ahead . . but if you are thinkning of a more than WELL ROUNDED camera, the mkIII is without doubt the best there is. The AF on the D800 is choppy and the burst rate on the mkIII gives you more bang for your buck when paired with that AF and fps. The LCD on the mkIII is the best too, while over at Nikon they are still trying to make up their minds what colour mcast they like on the D800 v D3s etc etc etc. D800 is a great camea for the amount of MP it offers, and it is in another class in terms of res and shadow detail/DR. That is not something that willg et you a better image out in teh field where DR in any given scene is variable anyway. With the mkIII you even have in-camera DR system where it brackets for you and presents you a final image. . . if able to do this in raw format, then yay! 

The video posted over at Fstoppers shoing just how good the mkIII is over the D800 is fricken astounding! check it out, and then ask yourselves whether you want to talk about DR, shadow detail, and ISO. . .

Canon 5D Mark II vs. Mark III vs. Nikon D800 - Candlelight: High-ISO

this video kinda shows how the Nikon cameras are heavily biased towards bringing out the shadow detail, and it shows how that may influence DR tests in the lab ( not sure about that, though) . . remember they measured only the sensor.


----------



## altenae (Apr 23, 2012)

Orion said:


> Geez some of you gys pick a pin point of a particular image and alter images to show something that wasn;t there just to get a lok at how the shadows play in some scenes. . .
> 
> The mkIII is a total gem! Its AF is astounding . . . ISO is amazing especailly in jpg I think . . video is a no contest scenario . .mkIII rules!
> 
> ...




Wow in high iso no match for the D800. 
Remember there is so MUCH more to a DSLR then only the DXO numbers 
So in real live the 5D and the D800 are superb. PERIOD !!!
Stop complaining and stop crying. 
These are pro tools and will deliver top quality images. PERIOD !!!!

Now let's use these tools and have fun with photography instead of WHINING


----------



## Crapking (Apr 23, 2012)

cdang said:


> To those with the Mark iii and 85L.
> 
> Is the AF more accurate / faster wide open ?






5d3 85 a by PVC 2012, on Flickr




b by PVC 2012, on Flickr




c by PVC 2012, on Flickr




5d3-85 d by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture f/1.8
Focal Length	85 mm (lens 85L 1.2 II)
ISO Speed	800

Not 'wide open' but AF had no trouble tracking this athlete in an underlit high school gym....


----------



## kdsand (Apr 23, 2012)

Wow!

Those were some difficult / awkward poses.

;D


----------



## atrocious (Apr 23, 2012)

The noise around that right arm in the first picture is just beautiful. http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/6960253520_8e813fa6c5_o.jpg


----------



## sb (Apr 23, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> My take. I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money



This actually touches upon my own sentiment about 5DMk3 (strictly business oriented) and it's something that I haven't read on this forum so far. A lot of people here who feel positive about their Mk3 purchase, upgraded from consumer models, and I'm sure it feels like the best thing since sliced bread. But really, even Mk2 would have felt like that going from 40D.

I do earn revenue with wedding photography, and I could easily get the Mk3, but it would be the dumbest business decision I could make (and I'm only talking about myself here - other people may have different needs). As long as Mk2 earns revenue, there is no reason what-so-ever for me to get the Mk3 because, for the sake of keeping it real - it's not a game changer. Only game changers (or breakages) truly warrant an upgrade in my opinion. 

Some people see auto focus as a game changer, but to be fair - I have no issues with Mk2 auto focus. As far as IQ goes, difference is minuscule, clients can't see it, I even can't see it unless I pixel peep, I don't shoot over 6400ISO (which I'll happily do with Mk2 and nicely clean up in LR), so unless this camera could magically allow me to raise package prices to pay for itself (which it unfortunately can't), I don't see how it could warrant a $3500 expenditure. 

Anyway I just wanted to change the beat a little from the usual "I'm switching to D800" Mk3 bashing.


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 23, 2012)

cdang said:


> To those with the Mark iii and 85L.
> 
> Is the AF more accurate / faster wide open ?



I haven't shot a whole lot with the combo but I would say it is definitely quicker and I never had too much issue with accuracy. If I missed the focus on a shot before I likened it to the AF didn't lock where I intended and the photo was snapped. When given the time the 85L has always been deadly accurate. All of my lenses seem zippier and lock focus faster. I have really noticed the difference with 50 1.2 in the accuracy dept.

I think the shortened shutter lag also makes it feel more accurate. It allows for less time for you to move from the time you compress the shutter button to when the image is actually captured. I did find this to be an issue shooting the mkII. With the shallow DOF at 1.2 this is a huge improvement also.


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 23, 2012)

sb said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > My take. I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money
> ...



My income is solely based on my photographs, contrast to the above, which I totally understand and respect because I told myself the same thing for a couple weeks after the mkIII was made available. But I caved and can't say it was the best business move but I don't feel like it was a bad one. I doubt I will ever be able to quantify it but I spend less time fiddling with MF because there is AF point where I need it. I spend less time sorting through missed focus shots or sharpening missed focus shot. Less time cropping because I didn't have to settle on an AF point to get the shot. I just plain end up with shots the way I intended out of the camera. I for see the mkIII having a longer shutter life (time wise) since I am shooting less shots. It frees me up to just take the picture I find it very liberating.

I know a lot of the arguments are that people had no problem with AF of the 5DII. While styles are all different, my point here is I made the mkII work too but it was more work to get it right in the camera and it was sometimes more work in post. So to me the mkIII is same money earned but less time equals happier me. I don't think the mkIII is a game changer by any means (I'm not in a hurry to trade my mkII in for another mkIII) but it can be a difference maker to most.

I sold my 1DsmkII for $1500 after my mkIII purchase so I look at as only being $2k in the hole and I'm ok with that. Plus it helps me out with Uncle Sam next year.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 23, 2012)

sb said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > My take. I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money
> ...



You have a valid point: As long as the MkII keeps generating revenue, there is no need for a MkIII. I also shoot weddings and generate revenue from the MkII, but I have upgraded to the MkIII for this reason: Although, the MkII is good enough to get the job done and delivers beautiful results, the advancements of the MkIII make my job just a little bit easier by reducing post processing time at the very least. Now, if you think about all the man-hours spent on post processing, and look at your long-term savings in post processing time that the MkIII should give you; then the MkIII is a wise purchase in itself because it increases efficiency and productivity. Thus, allowing you as a photographer and business owner to generate more revenue, because you are now able to pick up x amount more jobs. 8)


----------



## jaduffy007 (Apr 23, 2012)

Can you send some of whatever it is your smokin'?




Orion said:


> Geez some of you gys pick a pin point of a particular image and alter images to show something that wasn;t there just to get a lok at how the shadows play in some scenes. . .
> 
> The mkIII is a total gem! Its AF is astounding . . . ISO is amazing especailly in jpg I think . . video is a no contest scenario . .mkIII rules!
> 
> ...


----------



## Orion (Apr 23, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> Can you send some of whatever it is your smokin'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think you can afford it! 

http://youtu.be/P72LtIRm9mc


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 23, 2012)

sb said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > My take. I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money
> ...



IMHO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of rationalizing, and on top of that, it's smart business. IQ wise, the MKIII is nothing revolutionary, so unless you need improved AF, FPS, weather sealing, etc., there's no reason to upgrade. For me, my biggest gripe with the 5DC was it's miserable AF, so when Canon put the same junk system in the MKII, I decided to wait until the next generation to upgrade.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 1, 2012)

Poll closed, the results are in! And amazingly, there are less than 50% troll votes either advising people to get rich quick or bashing the 5d3 because they cannot afford it  ... so there's still hope left.


----------

