Author Topic: Canon 5D Mark III: Official announcement (Read 47344 times)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #75 on:** March 02, 2012, 18:29 »

Quote from: contrastaddict on March 02, 2012, 14:35

I like the upgrades the Mark III offers, the AF, fps, 100% viewfinder, image quality but I'm having trouble justifying the $3500 price tag. The AF on the Mark II is poor I think we can all agree on that, but do I want to spend $3500 to replace that, not at the moment.

I think that about sums it up for me.

And while I get what some people are saying about the currency changes, the bottom line is it's still $1,000 more. It doesn't matter what the reason is. I'm more willing to bet Canon felt they underpriced the MII and are trying to gouge us a bit to make a better profit.

And I'm not seeing anything about it, for now, that can make me more money over my MII. But that's me. I'm sure a lot of people will buy it but I don't quite see it having anywhere near the same "gotta have it" sales demand as the MI and MII. I'm guessing the early adopters and people waiting for reviews will buy it but sales will taper off quickly after a couple months.

dgilder · « **Reply #76 on:** March 02, 2012, 18:38 »

Quote from: Perry on March 02, 2012, 17:08

I'm a pro, and some times on a comissioned shoot I have some spare time to look at the images. It would be nice to "tag" the images with a rating so I can easily find them on DPP.

Meh, you are going to look at them all at 100% anyways to check focus on subjects, right? I just don't think you can tell enough from the camera's screen to decide, and if you are going to review them all anyways, you are wasting time.

Regarding the megapixel comments, I'm perfectly ok with the number of pixels, but if you are going to run the same pixel density, I expect vast improvement in light sensitivity and dynamic range, ~~which this doesn't really appear to have based on the sample images~~. Look at the shot of the tiger at the end, looks awful and flat.

Edit:

Just found the samples over at DPReview, this is ISO 6400: http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1779794.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1330733134&Signature=DtppWGChUgqH4NLhM1K3YKvq6Lk%3d

That's not bad, and reduces well, so maybe they did make some good strides on the image quality side of things. I'd like to see some RAW files though.

Here is the DPReview sample gallery:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples

travelstock · « **Reply #77 on:** March 03, 2012, 02:51 »

I don't think the 5D 3 is really that bad. It improves on all the areas that the mk2 is weak in, except sensor cleaning. Existing mk2 owners shouldn't be unhappy, because the result will probably mean that the value of their cameras remains high, and that there's not an overwhelming need to upgrade.

In terms of price, its almost like Canon is leaving room for the Mk2 to remain in the lineup as an entry level FF camera, maybe at a slightly reduced price.

leaf · « **Reply #78 on:** March 03, 2012, 03:54 »

Quote from: KB on March 02, 2012, 17:20

I was really hoping for a built-in time lapse feature (I don't like carrying around an intervalometer), and a bigger improvement on the video side (e.g., 4:2:2).

Really agree with this one. I don't get why they don't add it, although it should be a simple firmware upgrade to allow for it.

I also don't get whey they don't have built in GPS. Their cheaper cameras like the S100 have it and I would think it to be very useful for journalistic photography.

sharpshot · « **Reply #79 on:** March 03, 2012, 04:38 »

How good is the timelapse function in the D800? I don't mind having to use an intervalometer but it would be nice for the times when I have forgotten to put it in my camera bag.

sharpshot · « **Reply #80 on:** March 03, 2012, 04:49 »

Quote from: wut on March 02, 2012, 17:40

Quote from: RT on March 02, 2012, 07:20
Quote from: lagereek on March 02, 2012, 04:55
Wrong! microstockers only, do not need tons of pixels, youre uploading JPGs, and any 12MP, cam will do nicely.

You're wasting your breath, having read most the replies here and on the other thread it's clear that a lot of people are only interested in one thing - big MP numbers - forget the fact that Canon have taken an already good camera and improved on it's minor flaws, most aren't interested in the quality of the image or usability of the camera they just want big MP's, no doubt a few drive cheap cars with big engines

Exactly I wrote that in the rumor thread but everybody ignored me. Yeah, like Mustangs, Camaros and similar American muscle cars (or Corvettes etc), lots of power, no breaks, pathetic suspension, only fast in a straight line. But they usually look good, I'll give them that, some are stunning actually.

I don't want any of the stuff that most other people seem to want, like higher FPS, lower noise at high ISO, improved focusing. There are many times when more mp's would be useful. Single frame panoramas for example. I live near the sea and it's virtually impossible to make a decent panorama of waves using stitching programs. With more mp's, I could crop a single frame and still have a decent size image.

Perhaps people that want all the extra gizmos are like those that pimp their ride? I would be quite happy with a maximum 400 iso, 1fps, MKII auto focus and only aperture priority and manual. The only reason I would want to upgrade the MKII is for more mp's.

Perry · « **Reply #81 on:** March 03, 2012, 04:54 »

Quote from: dgilder on March 02, 2012, 18:38

Quote from: Perry on March 02, 2012, 17:08
I'm a pro, and some times on a comissioned shoot I have some spare time to look at the images. It would be nice to "tag" the images with a rating so I can easily find them on DPP.

Meh, you are going to look at them all at 100% anyways to check focus on subjects, right? I just don't think you can tell enough from the camera's screen to decide, and if you are going to review them all anyways, you are wasting time.

We have propably a different workflow. I usually first check images for artistic qualities at a size that fits on my screen (DPP: Quick Check -> Fit to Window). After I have made my ratings I check the highest rated images if they are technically (Sharpness) sound.
If I would first check the sharpness of each image it would take forever if there are hundreds of raw images. Much easier to choose the ten best and mark them with a rating and after that hope they are sharp. If they are not, I'll check ones with four stars.

wut · « **Reply #82 on:** March 03, 2012, 05:19 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 02, 2012, 18:29

I'm sure a lot of people will buy it but I don't quite see it having anywhere near the same "gotta have it" sales demand as the MI and MII. I'm guessing the early adopters and people waiting for reviews will buy it but sales will taper off quickly after a couple months.

It's always like that, they wait for the suckers to pay premium (they overprice it) and after 3 months or so, they lower the price to a normal, realistic price.

lagereek · « **Reply #83 on:** March 03, 2012, 09:08 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 03, 2012, 04:49

Quote from: wut on March 02, 2012, 17:40
Quote from: RT on March 02, 2012, 07:20
Quote from: lagereek on March 02, 2012, 04:55
Wrong! microstockers only, do not need tons of pixels, youre uploading JPGs, and any 12MP, cam will do nicely.

You're wasting your breath, having read most the replies here and on the other thread it's clear that a lot of people are only interested in one thing - big MP numbers - forget the fact that Canon have taken an already good camera and improved on it's minor flaws, most aren't interested in the quality of the image or usability of the camera they just want big MP's, no doubt a few drive cheap cars with big engines

Exactly I wrote that in the rumor thread but everybody ignored me. Yeah, like Mustangs, Camaros and similar American muscle cars (or Corvettes etc), lots of power, no breaks, pathetic suspension, only fast in a straight line. But they usually look good, I'll give them that, some are stunning actually.
I don't want any of the stuff that most other people seem to want, like higher FPS, lower noise at high ISO, improved focusing. There are many times when more mp's would be useful. Single frame panoramas for example. I live near the sea and it's virtually impossible to make a decent panorama of waves using stitching programs. With more mp's, I could crop a single frame and still have a decent size image.

Perhaps people that want all the extra gizmos are like those that pimp their ride? I would be quite happy with a maximum 400 iso, 1fps, MKII auto focus and only aperture priority and manual. The only reason I would want to upgrade the MKII is for more mp's.

Right! me neither. Never go beyond ISO 400, not the slightest interested in high ISO, low light or whatever, nor fps. I want cameras not toys, gadgets, etc. I already have all the camera bodies I can get, I even and out of pure investment reasons, got the Leica S2 with lenses.
Today, the only thing which can get me going is first class optics, now that is what I think Canon should have done, instead of this toy they should have launched a few new L-optics.

best.

stokfoto · « **Reply #84 on:** March 03, 2012, 09:13 »

I am not disappointed with the update as it means i can keep using my beloved mark ii for longer .yes i would love some of the new features especially with the focus, the the price tag doesn't justify an upgrade. I think Nikon people are more impressed with the d800 (admittedly me too) lets wait and see if the image quality is really superior to mark ii. but it will be interesting to see what magic lantern people can do with the new camera as at least processor wise it looks like a better camera i guess.

travelstock · « **Reply #85 on:** March 03, 2012, 10:23 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 03, 2012, 04:38

How good is the timelapse function in the D800? I don't mind having to use an intervalometer but it would be nice for the times when I have forgotten to put it in my camera bag.

One of the big advantages of the Canon is that the way the remote trigger is implemented is that you can do bulb ramping for time-lapse when you have long transitions from day to night.

On the 5D II half the time I'm actually using the intervalometer in a way where I'm just using the camera in continuous shooting mode with long exposures. For example in this clip:

only about 2 scenes are actually using a timer setting on the intervalometer, the rest are exposures of 0.5-1.5 seconds shot continuously. If you don't actually have something to do bulb ramping, manually adjusting exposure times is much easier if you're using an external intervalometer rather than the built-in one.

In practice, even if an intervalometer is built in, I'd probably still use a remote trigger most of the time. The real issue with the D800s for timelapse though is just the file size. You don't need that much extra resolution, but it is nice to be able to get the benefit of shooting in RAW, particularly for adjusting white-balance in changing light conditions - without any sRAW setting, its just a massive amount of data to handle without any benefit.

aeonf · « **Reply #86 on:** March 03, 2012, 10:35 »

I loved the clip Holgs!

lagereek · « **Reply #87 on:** March 03, 2012, 10:41 »

Quote from: holgs on March 03, 2012, 10:23

Quote from: sharpshot on March 03, 2012, 04:38
How good is the timelapse function in the D800? I don't mind having to use an intervalometer but it would be nice for the times when I have forgotten to put it in my camera bag.

One of the big advantages of the Canon is that the way the remote trigger is implemented is that you can do bulb ramping for time-lapse when you have long transitions from day to night.

On the 5D II half the time I'm actually using the intervalometer in a way where I'm just using the camera in continuous shooting mode with long exposures. For example in this clip: only about 2 scenes are actually using a timer setting on the intervalometer, the rest are exposures of 0.5-1.5 seconds shot continuously. If you don't actually have something to do bulb ramping, manually adjusting exposure times is much easier if you're using an external intervalometer rather than the built-in one.

In practice, even if an intervalometer is built in, I'd probably still use a remote trigger most of the time. The real issue with the D800s for timelapse though is just the file size. You don't need that much extra resolution, but it is nice to be able to get the benefit of shooting in RAW, particularly for adjusting white-balance in changing light conditions - without any sRAW setting, its just a massive amount of data to handle without any benefit.

Yep! brillant work Holgs, really nice and professionally done. Jeez! you should be doing commercials instead of stills.

travelstock · « **Reply #88 on:** March 03, 2012, 10:55 »

Haha thanks guys! Timelapse has become a bit of an addiction at the moment, but its adds a bit of variety from shooting stills.

KB · « **Reply #89 on:** March 03, 2012, 11:13 »

Quote from: holgs on March 03, 2012, 02:51

In terms of price, its almost like Canon is leaving room for the Mk2 to remain in the lineup as an entry level FF camera, maybe at a slightly reduced price.

I think that's exactly right. I have read reports that the MkII's price will be reduced (next week, in fact), and that it will remain in the Canon lineup.

KB · « **Reply #90 on:** March 03, 2012, 11:17 »

Quote from: leaf on March 03, 2012, 03:54

Quote from: KB on March 02, 2012, 17:20
I was really hoping for a built-in time lapse feature (I don't like carrying around an intervalometer), and a bigger improvement on the video side (e.g., 4:2:2).

Really agree with this one. I don't get why they don't add it, although it should be a simple firmware upgrade to allow for it.

I also don't get whey they don't have built in GPS. Their cheaper cameras like the S100 have it and I would think it to be very useful for journalistic photography.

I think it's all about being able to sell the add-ons. It's true of an intervalometer, a GPS, and wireless flash control. A movable LCD panel, though, can't be added on. And IIRC they do have that on one of their lower end dSLRs, so I'm disappointed they didn't consider it worthy for this. Maybe it adds too much weight, but there are times when it certainly would be useful for me.

dgilder · « **Reply #91 on:** March 03, 2012, 12:47 »

Quote from: Perry on March 03, 2012, 04:54

We have propably a different workflow. I usually first check images for artistic qualities at a size that fits on my screen (DPP: Quick Check -> Fit to Window). After I have made my ratings I check the highest rated images if they are technically (Sharpness) sound.
If I would first check the sharpness of each image it would take forever if there are hundreds of raw images. Much easier to choose the ten best and mark them with a rating and after that hope they are sharp. If they are not, I'll check ones with four stars.

I'm using Bridge and ACR, I select all the images from the shoot in Bridge, then open them all at once in ACR. I run through them, marking blinks, ugly expressions, etc as one star (or five if I find something fantasitc), and hit done. Then I select No Ratings in Bridge, open all in ACR again, select all and right click in the image to set it at 100% (which sets them all at 100%). Then I just run through them again real quick, navigating around the image a bit if I'm not sure on focus, and mark anything iffy a two star. It takes maybe 20 or 30 minutes or so to do a quick pass on 200 or so images.

dgilder · « **Reply #92 on:** March 03, 2012, 12:56 »

Quote from: KB on March 03, 2012, 11:17

I think it's all about being able to sell the add-ons. It's true of an intervalometer, a GPS, and wireless flash control. A movable LCD panel, though, can't be added on. And IIRC they do have that on one of their lower end dSLRs, so I'm disappointed they didn't consider it worthy for this. Maybe it adds too much weight, but there are times when it certainly would be useful for me.

Could be a weather sealing issue of some kind. The Olympus E series have a smaller screen, but it can be pulled out and rotated completely around. It is actually extremely useful for composing low and high angle shots, etc.

Fran · « **Reply #93 on:** March 03, 2012, 13:02 »

Quote from: wut on March 02, 2012, 17:54

Wow, really? There's 2 types of CA, lateral and longitudinal. Not sure which is which, but only one can get removed with a couple of clicks in PS and that is the one that doesn't cause problems to me. So are you sure it just gets removed, all the contrast edges loose coloration? It really sounds too good to be true. I'll give it a try if that's the case. Tnx for the tip

I'm pretty sure (make it 90%) that DXO removes longitudinal CA as well from lenses that are profiled. And it should do it on jpgs and not only raw. I suggest you to download the trial version and see if it works for you from www.dxo.com. But prepare yourself for a bumpy ride, the UI is less than stellar and it's very buggy especially on Mac. But the IQ is fantastic.

aeonf · « **Reply #94 on:** March 03, 2012, 13:11 »

And the latest ACR does it even better.

Fran · « **Reply #95 on:** March 03, 2012, 13:39 »

Quote from: holgs on March 03, 2012, 10:55

Haha thanks guys! Timelapse has become a bit of an addiction at the moment, but its adds a bit of variety from shooting stills.

It's stunning! It really gives the feeling of the city and left me scratching my head several times asking "where did he put the camera?"
How did you get the shots on the railway?

wut · « **Reply #96 on:** March 03, 2012, 14:11 »

Quote from: Fran on March 03, 2012, 13:02

Quote from: wut on March 02, 2012, 17:54
Wow, really? There's 2 types of CA, lateral and longitudinal. Not sure which is which, but only one can get removed with a couple of clicks in PS and that is the one that doesn't cause problems to me. So are you sure it just gets removed, all the contrast edges loose coloration? It really sounds too good to be true. I'll give it a try if that's the case. Tnx for the tip

I'm pretty sure (make it 90%) that DXO removes longitudinal CA as well from lenses that are profiled. And it should do it on jpgs and not only raw. I suggest you to download the trial version and see if it works for you from www.dxo.com. But prepare yourself for a bumpy ride, the UI is less than stellar and it's very buggy especially on Mac. But the IQ is fantastic.

Quote from: aeonf on March 03, 2012, 13:11

And the latest ACR does it even better.

Tnx guys, I'll try both

wut · « **Reply #97 on:** March 03, 2012, 15:20 »

Quote from: wut on March 03, 2012, 14:11

Quote from: Fran on March 03, 2012, 13:02
Quote from: wut on March 02, 2012, 17:54
Wow, really? There's 2 types of CA, lateral and longitudinal. Not sure which is which, but only one can get removed with a couple of clicks in PS and that is the one that doesn't cause problems to me. So are you sure it just gets removed, all the contrast edges loose coloration? It really sounds too good to be true. I'll give it a try if that's the case. Tnx for the tip

I'm pretty sure (make it 90%) that DXO removes longitudinal CA as well from lenses that are profiled. And it should do it on jpgs and not only raw. I suggest you to download the trial version and see if it works for you from www.dxo.com. But prepare yourself for a bumpy ride, the UI is less than stellar and it's very buggy especially on Mac. But the IQ is fantastic.

Quote from: aeonf on March 03, 2012, 13:11
And the latest ACR does it even better.

Tnx guys, I'll try both

I may be doing something wrong, but I've tried both and both can remove CA in some areas, but then it becomes visible on areas that wasn't before the adjustments. I talked about that on another forum a while back and ppl said the kind of CA that troubles me, just can't be removed easily with software, you just have to go through dozens of selections and then selective color adjustments. If it was so easy to remove it, no one would really care about it (those that PP photos don't count since max IQ obviously doesn't matter to them). It's like with noise, there's always a trade off (you loose details, sharpness). I'll just have to keep on doing it manually

rinderart · « **Reply #98 on:** March 03, 2012, 16:44 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 03, 2012, 09:08

Quote from: sharpshot on March 03, 2012, 04:49
Quote from: wut on March 02, 2012, 17:40
Quote from: RT on March 02, 2012, 07:20
Quote from: lagereek on March 02, 2012, 04:55
Wrong! microstockers only, do not need tons of pixels, youre uploading JPGs, and any 12MP, cam will do nicely.

You're wasting your breath, having read most the replies here and on the other thread it's clear that a lot of people are only interested in one thing - big MP numbers - forget the fact that Canon have taken an already good camera and improved on it's minor flaws, most aren't interested in the quality of the image or usability of the camera they just want big MP's, no doubt a few drive cheap cars with big engines

Exactly I wrote that in the rumor thread but everybody ignored me. Yeah, like Mustangs, Camaros and similar American muscle cars (or Corvettes etc), lots of power, no breaks, pathetic suspension, only fast in a straight line. But they usually look good, I'll give them that, some are stunning actually.
I don't want any of the stuff that most other people seem to want, like higher FPS, lower noise at high ISO, improved focusing. There are many times when more mp's would be useful. Single frame panoramas for example. I live near the sea and it's virtually impossible to make a decent panorama of waves using stitching programs. With more mp's, I could crop a single frame and still have a decent size image.

Perhaps people that want all the extra gizmos are like those that pimp their ride? I would be quite happy with a maximum 400 iso, 1fps, MKII auto focus and only aperture priority and manual. The only reason I would want to upgrade the MKII is for more mp's.

Right! me neither. Never go beyond ISO 400, not the slightest interested in high ISO, low light or whatever, nor fps. I want cameras not toys, gadgets, etc. I already have all the camera bodies I can get, I even and out of pure investment reasons, got the Leica S2 with lenses.
Today, the only thing which can get me going is first class optics, now that is what I think Canon should have done, instead of this toy they should have launched a few new L-optics.

best.

Im solid Nikon since the early 60's and owned just about everything in every format from spy cameras at 8MM to 11 x 14 field cameras. The Mk2 was a benchmark Camera no doubt, Just Like the Nikon D3 was and both still are. This new one is simply Not. I want a still camera, Not a Video camera, I'll buy a video camera[ Which I have]. Don't care if you can shoot at 50,000 iso, I've never gone above 200. I really don't want More megapixels either, I want better megapixels and if they do give you More, I want better Glass to resolve them. Which is not the case now with every DSLR. Im very fortunate as I teach and every week I get to process Images from every camera out there shot in controlled situations. The original 5D was spectacular, especially with Leica glass. The Mk2 was amazing and still is. The D2x and D3 were also spectacular all being equal...Like Talent.. The only Camera I would get today if I needed something else that was small with amazing Quality and resolution is the new Fuji X1 pro. I tested it and was blown away. You can keep your bells and whistles and stuff you'll never use in the real world unless your a specialist in sports or wildlife all I need is superior Glass,One page of menus,A choice of 3/4 lenses and around 16 "GOOD" MP's. Then I'll upgrade. Sounds Like back to leica??? LOL

Optics are King Guys,Bodies will come and go, The guys who make these things completely understand the reason Most think a newer camera will somehow make you see better and shoot better. It will Not. And anyone thats been at this a long will agree. But most of us are full Manual folks anyway. Your mileage may vary, I've already plopped down a fortune on every new uber camera. No More.

TheDman · « **Reply #99 on:** March 03, 2012, 17:10 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 03, 2012, 09:08

Today, the only thing which can get me going is first class optics, now that is what I think Canon should have done, instead of this toy they should have launched a few new L-optics.

best.

They are launching a few soon. In fact I thought they might be announced at the same time, but I guess they didn't want to steal any thunder from the big Mk3 announcement.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canon 5D Mark III: Official announcement (Read 47344 times)

PaulieWalnuts

dgilder

travelstock

leaf

sharpshot

sharpshot

Perry

wut

lagereek

stokfoto

travelstock

aeonf

lagereek

travelstock

KB

KB

dgilder

dgilder

Fran

aeonf

Fran

wut

wut

rinderart

TheDman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors