Canon 5D Mark III

[norbs007]

One of the most anticipated DSLRs for 2012, the new Canon EOS 5D Mark III has been announced.

http://www.usa.canon...eos_5d_mark_iii

Edited March 2, 2012 by norbs007

[HotLoad]

Just checked out the specs, looks nice. What's the street price? I need to replace my old non video capable dslr.

[norbs007]

Just checked out the specs, looks nice. What's the street price? I need to replace my old non video capable dslr.

It's at $3499 right now, may have to wait to get cheaper and there might be another high-end one to be announced.

[XRe]

Will be interesting to handle one Looks like they improve a number of things the dSLR video crowd wanted, and made it a better still camera, too.

What's strange, to me, is that you can pre-order this one now (at Adorama), but pre-orders for the 1DX are nowhere in sight...

[-JQ-]

I'm happy about the release but only because I don't think it is much of an upgrade from my 5D2. It has a newer processor and longer video clip capabilities but not worth the extra dough to me...more of a version 2.5 than 3.0 if you're askin me.

You can buy a very nice used Mark 2 for around $2K now..even less if you don't mind a little milage.

I'll pick up another instead of a Mark 3...and likely a 1DSMKII even before the 3.

Not that Megapixels are the ultimate water mark BUT increasing from 21 to 22...I don't think that is worth mentioning in the ads.

ymmv

[XRe]

The biggest thing that kept me from buying a 5D MkII was the shitty autofocus system - yeah, it kinda works, but it's slow and clunky, and the AF points are always in the wrong locations. The new AF system (assuming it actually performs as advertised) is the big change for the still shooter. 100% viewfinder is a nice add, too, and it has dual cards (though one CF, one SD).

For the video shooter, the ergos should be a lot better - actual "record" button that works when in video mode, etc.

Nothing earth shattering. It's not priced any differently than the 5DMkII was when new, IIRC, so nothing new there, either - just a typical feature bump (albeit a big one on the AF end of things).

Don't overlook the fact that the faster processor and updated internals for CF/SD card management are going to result in faster buffer clearing, and that sort of thing, too...

I'm happy about the release but only because I don't think it is much of an upgrade from my 5D2. It has a newer processor and longer video clip capabilities but not worth the extra dough to me...more of a version 2.5 than 3.0 if you're askin me.

You can buy a very nice used Mark 2 for around $2K now..even less if you don't mind a little milage.

I'll pick up another instead of a Mark 3...and likely a 1DSMKII even before the 3.

Not that Megapixels are the ultimate water mark BUT increasing from 21 to 22...I don't think that is worth mentioning in the ads.

ymmv

[norbs007]

I'm with XRe, same reason why I held off on the Mark II. New features on the Mark III are definitely what it should be from the get go and a real upgrade from my 5 year old 1.6 crop with no video. Excited about the new AF system and 22mp is more than enough for my needs. Can't wait to see sample RAW images as most are coming out with JPEGs. I will definitely jump on one eventually.

[-JQ-]

Not just to be contrary, but I rarely have issues with the auto focus. It isn't as snappy as a 1 series but I really don't think I miss much I'm shooting at. FWIW I don't do much bird in flight stuff though...but sports...no worries.

There are too few focus points too...but the other stuff is kind fluffy...button placement, etc...

I like the dual cards but...would also like some serious weather proofing.

So I shall still say...meh.

And to be fair, I'm not overly giddy about the 1DX either. They are both improvements within their product line...but I'm still happiest that they'll drive down the used prices.

I get such huge dynamic range from the 5D mark 2 I'm not sure how much they can improve...remember when you bought that 40MB drive? "I'll never need bigger than this!"

norbs...they biggest improvement you'll see will be that beautiful full frame goodness :-) over the 1.6 or even 1.3 Hurry up then and buy one so we can get a real range report!

Edited at add rant about their new flash too...$650!..I like the RF system but I'm already invested in triggers. Let's see those used 580's keep dropping too!

Edited March 3, 2012 by -JQ-

[Paul B]

I'm a dyed in the wool Canon fan as their photo algorithms allow much better results when photoshopped and all my images go through photoshop. I always thought the difference was like the difference between Kodachrome film and Ektachrome film. The Canon images are like Kodachrome - more fluid and smooth while Nikon is more like Ektachrome with more contrast.

That said, I'm disturbed by the direction that Canon seems to be going. The MkIII comes out on the heels of the new Nikon D800 with 36 megapixels for an actual lower price. I know Megapixels are not everything and more is sometime less in terms of image quality, but the Nikon listed features are pretty compelling. Not discussing the actual performance of each camera as neither is yet available generally, but the Nikon is actually a cheaper and possibly better alternative.

Additionally, there are rumors and some actual quotes floating around that Canon is going to change course somewhat to concentrate on mirrorless technology - at least they are supposed to keep the same lens systems. I would actually welcome the mirrorless technology as it is the way of the future and eliminates a weak point in DSLRs, but I am wary of the learning curve for Canon as this kind of change could produce more than a few mistakes as they learn.

I will hope for the best.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Paul B

[XRe]

Just some thoughts...

That said, I'm disturbed by the direction that Canon seems to be going. The MkIII comes out on the heels of the new Nikon D800 with 36 megapixels for an actual lower price. I know Megapixels are not everything and more is sometime less in terms of image quality, but the Nikon listed features are pretty compelling. Not discussing the actual performance of each camera as neither is yet available generally, but the Nikon is actually a cheaper and possibly better alternative.

I'm not completely convinced - I kind of doubt Nikon's lenses (which, BTW are some of the finest lenses on the market) can actually resolve to level of detail. That is, I think the camera will be lens limited, much like the original 1Ds (and 1Ds MkII) was when it came out. Nikon's zooms are awesome, for sure, but will they be able to take advantage of the full resolution of that sensor? I think, in the end, what you'll have is bigger files with no real gain in resolution, at least until Nikon revs the lenses again. (and jumps the price even higher...)

At some point, you begin splitting hairs on resolution - I'm not saying more isn't better (if the lenses support it) - but it would appear that the 18-24ish MP slot is a sweet spot for 35mm format cameras. If there are big jumps in lens technology, that might change, but optics are really the current limitation on things, even at current resolutions. Technique has to be perfect, lenses have to be spot on, etc, to take full advantage of 22MP as it is. 36 isn't buying you anything real on top of that in terms of resolution.

What's more interesting about the D800 (to me) is the lack of AA filter. What I really have to wonder is if the higher resolution is actually there to combat the image artifacts you get without the AA filter, in trade for increased sharpness at the sensor level. That works like this - you pull the AA filter from the current generation camera. Ok, now you get moire and such, but the sensor now sees as sharply as the lens does, which prevents you from having to sharpen (or sharpen as much) every file to counter act the AA filter. But, the artifacts in high frequency areas of the pictures are a PITA to fix, so you need a way to fix that - so, increase the frequency of lines the sensor can resolve. You still see as sharp as the lens (so, no gain in overall resolution), but now you do it with reduced moire, etc. Granted - that theory requires that you understand a little about how a Bayer sensor layout works and why you get moire and needed an AA filter to begin with, but...

The short of it is, if you use perfect technique (tripod locked down, mirror lock up, lens in the sweet spot for aperture, lens focused correctly, remote release, etc), you might see a difference in the final images of a D800. But, lacking any of those things, I don't think there'll be a real practical difference, aside from some differences in the post-processing workflow between the two.

The cool thing is, we live in a time when the cameras are pretty bad ass all around, so...

And, on the unfortunate side, Canon knows they can sell the 5DMkIII at that price because they basically own the dSLR video market at the moment, and the dSLR vid crowd will be after this camera... Nikon can shoot video, but the industry doesn't like their offerings anywhere near as much for that purposes... If Nikon could get that segment handled correctly, perhaps we'd see the prices driven down a bit more...

[XRe]

but sports...no worries.

I found it to be slow for the sports stuff I'm shooting, but then, that's a pretty demanding environment on any camera, so...

I like the dual cards but...would also like some serious weather proofing.

Weather proofing would definitely have been nice... Especially at that price... (although most of the price is sensor, apparently)

And to be fair, I'm not overly giddy about the 1DX either.

I'm not giddy about it, but I'm happy I can buy a fast camera that also shoots at a nice resolution at a high speed Previously, I had to settle for one or the other. Now, not so much... I'm not happy about the price tag, though... (realize that I'm two generations back, though - 18MP and full frame will be a huge change for me...)

I get such huge dynamic range from the 5D mark 2 I'm not sure how much they can improve...remember when you bought that 40MB drive? "I'll never need bigger than this!"

You can always get more... DR is probably one area where they haven't fully explored all the possibilities, yet - but I suspect it will mostly come at a trade off for resolution (ie, need bigger "buckets" on the sensor to catch photons - the sensors already respond to single photons in a well, so...)

Edited at add rant about their new flash too...$650!..I like the RF system but I'm already invested in triggers. Let's see those used 580's keep dropping too!

Canon just doesn't "get" the small strobe market, do they? Nikon does... and they're happen to change ass loads for it... I'm convinced that Canon only charges that much because Nikon does....

Edited March 3, 2012 by XRe

[-JQ-]

And on the DR I guess I misspoke a bit. I shoot RAW and finish in LR3 so I guess I mean the files are pleasantly workable

[XRe]

And on the DR I guess I misspoke a bit. I shoot RAW and finish in LR3 so I guess I mean the files are pleasantly workable

I do the same - it's a matter of what you can wrangle out of the files, once shot... Once they went to 14 bit files, things improved dramatically, in my estimation - even the original 5D produced some really nice files to work with...