The Professional's Source
800.606.6969 / 212.444.6615
items - Share
Brands
Contents of Article
- DIGIC 5+ Image Processor
- 14-bit A/D Conversion
- 22.3 Megapixel Full Frame CMOS Sensor
- 61-Point High Density Reticular AF
- iFCL 63-Zone Dual-Layer Metering Sensor
- HD Video Recording
- Multiple Exposure and HDR
- Intelligent Viewfinder and 3.2-inch Clear View II LCD Monitor
- Rugged and Functional Design
- Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM Lens
- More Images Below
Products Mentioned
What's in the Box
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital Camera
- LP-E6 Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Battery Pack (7.2V, 1800mAh)
- LC-E6 Battery Charger
- STV-250N Mini A/V Angled Male to 3 RCA Male A/V Cable
- Eyecup
- R-F-3 Camera Cover
- IFC-200U USB Interface Cable - 6.9' (1.9 m)
- Wide Neck Strap EW-EOS5DMKIII
- EOS Digital Solution Disk
- Camera Instruction Book
- Software Instruction Book
- Pocket Guide
- Digital Learning Center Leaflet
- 1-Year Canon U.S.A. Limited Warranty
New Canon EOS 5D Mark III Hits the Mark
- DIGIC 5+ Image Processor
- 14-bit A/D Conversion
- 22.3 Megapixel Full Frame CMOS Sensor
- 61-Point High Density Reticular AF
- iFCL 63-Zone Dual-Layer Metering Sensor
- HD Video Recording
- Multiple Exposure and HDR
- Intelligent Viewfinder and 3.2-inch Clear View II LCD Monitor
- Rugged and Functional Design
- Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM Lens
- More Images Below
The long-awaited Canon EOS 5D Mark III has finally arrived. Offering refinement and improvement over its predecessor, the camera maintains its position as a very capable DSLR that’s ideal for high-quality image capture and HD video recording.
Only a slight bump in resolution, 22.3MP versus 21.1MP, means the 5D Mark III’s already excellent image quality has not improved drastically; 
the way images are recorded and processed, however, has changed in significant ways. The integration of the new DIGIC 5+ Image Processor stands as one of the largest improvements over the 5D Mark II, offering increased speed and power as well as higher ISO sensitivity and better noise reduction. Also aiding the increased sensitivity is 14-bit A/D conversion, which improves gradation between tones and overall image quality.
A hugely increased 61-point High-Density Reticular AF system and iFCL 63-zone Dual Layer Metering sensor improve the efficiency and accuracy of the camera by essentially blanketing and analyzing scenes and extracting as much exposure and focus information from images as possible. A newly designed Intelligent Viewfinder incorporates a superimposed LCD, providing focus and image data. This LCD overlay can just as easily be removed to provide clear, unobstructed viewing for straightforward composition. The larger 3.2-inch Clear View II LCD features a reflection-resistant coating for image display in bright conditions, and its 1,040,000-dot resolution provides highly detailed, sharp imagery for critical review.
Multiple Exposure and HDR modes represent in-camera creative effects that facilitate control over the look of your images, saving time in post production. All of these new hardware and software features are housed in a rugged magnesium-alloy body that offers dust and weather resistance.
DIGIC 5+ Image Processor
For the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, the largest improvement over the 5D Mark II comes from the increased speed and power that are made possible by the DIGIC 5+ Image Processor. Compared to the DIGIC 4 processor, the new chip should show marked improvements in terms of speed, file-write time and transfer time. This processor also integrates new complex algorithms for improved noise reduction, greater sensitivity at higher ISOs, and a reduction in chromatic aberration. This boost in sensitivity will make photographing in low-light situations less of a chore and much more of a realistic possibility. The higher speed of the DIGIC 5+ affords an increased continuous shooting rate, bringing it from 3.9 to 6.0 frames per second when using a UDMA CF card.
14-bit A/D Conversion
Working tightly with the image processor, the 14-bit signal processing provides an extended ISO range for the EOS 5D Mark III. Standard sensitivity runs 100-25600 ISO, but this range is further extended to 50-102400 ISO in expanded mode. This range can be customized and modified depending on your own needs; additionally, an auto ISO mode can be employed to cope with fluctuating conditions. 14-bit depth also makes possible excellent, smooth tonal gradations and high overall image quality.
22.3 Megapixel Full Frame CMOS Sensor
While the megapixel count hasn’t increased significantly, the 5D Mark III’s CMOS sensor has been reformatted, promising to enhance the already superb image-capturing traits of the previous model. A newly designed photodiode structure facilitates highly detailed, rich images and increased visual depth. This full-frame sensor provides the same field of view as a 35mm camera and causes no crop factor. This is especially useful for taking full advantage of wide-angle lenses.
61-Point High Density Reticular AF
The newly designed autofocus system employs an additional 52 points for focus. This new 61-point autofocus system helps ensure the most critical focus possible, with a high level of efficiency. The autofocus system is broken down into several modes, featuring up to 41 cross-type AF points across the image and 5 dual diagonal points. Focus control is segregated into 6 different methods: Spot, Single Point, Single + 4 Adjacent Points, Single + 8 Adjacent Points, Zone Selection and Automatic AF Point Selection. This variety helps to suit the requirements of any situation, including extremely low light conditions.
iFCL 63-Zone Dual-Layer Metering Sensor
Playing off the AF system, the metering system has also become more intelligent and critical in terms of analyzing subjects to help determine the best exposure possible. The 5D Mark III independently analyzes focus, color and luminance across the 63 zones that comprise the image area. The dual-layer design of the metering sensor provides a wider sensitivity to different wavelengths of light, countering the common issues that are generally associated with electronic sensors. On the 5D Mark III, these layers are split between a red/green channel and a blue/green channel, giving relief to the inherent red bias that sensors are usually known for. Data from each layer is analyzed and combined into a highly accurate metering and subsequent exposure setting.
HD Video Recording
Continuing what made the 5D Mark II so popular, the 5D Mark III offers significant HD video quality. Multiple formats are supported including 1080/30p and 720/60p, and continuous recording times up to 29 minutes 59 seconds are now possible—with time code. The camera compresses video as either I-frame-only or as IPB, for two variations of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC codec.
What separates the 5D’s video recording from that of other DSLRs is manual adjustment of settings and audio levels while recording. These features are available, in part, due to Live View; which permits real-time monitoring on the LCD as well as menu functionality during recording. The DIGIC 5+ processor also enhances the 5D Mark III’s video functions by improving response times and reducing color artifacts, aberrations and moiré.
Multiple Exposure and HDR
Both Multiple Exposure and HDR features are available to use in-camera, reducing the time needed to alter your imagery during post production. High dynamic range imagery is executed quickly and seamlessly. The camera automatically brackets your exposures and then integrates the subsequent range of images into one file. This new file represents controlled highlights and detailed shadows with an extended middle range of tones. This efficiency is especially useful when photographing high-contrast scenes, such as landscapes with water or snow, or in situations where both an exterior and interior are in the image frame.
Intelligent Viewfinder and 3.2-inch Clear View II LCD Monitor
On the surface, the optical viewfinder provides 100% field of view and aspherical lens elements for a bright, clear view with a reduction in chromatic aberrations and distortions. This high-grade viewfinder is further enhanced with the integration of a superimposed transparent LCD that displays autofocus and exposure information. This newly developed Intelligent Viewfinder gives a range of information, and is easily turned off to return you to the clear, unadulterated view from the optical finder itself. The displayed AF information and grid lines can be customized and the AF meter can also be segregated to the side of the viewfinder outside of the image area.
A newly designed LCD shows an increase in size (3.2" compared to the Mark II’s 3.0") and resolution (1,040,000 over 920,000-dots). Increases in size and resolution allow for even more critical review of imagery and videos and a reflection-resistant multi-coating enables monitoring in bright conditions.
Both the viewfinder and rear LCD support Dual Axis Electronic Levels, a feature that visually displays a level as well as roll and tilt information. This is particularly useful for photographing landscapes or in situations where horizons must be straight and convergence is to be avoided.
Rugged and Functional Design
The 5D Mark III does not alter the already tested and proven magnesium-alloy construction of the previous model. This highly rigid and strong design also provides a great deal of weather and dust resistance and features extensive gasketing around the seams for ensured protection. The tough build also features ergonomic contouring for simplified and intuitive handling. Customizable controls allow you to dedicate certain buttons to your own needs, helping to increase efficiency when photographing in fast-paced situations. There are also dual memory card slots, supporting both CF and SD cards for convenience.
The camera’s newly designed shutter has been tested to at least 150,000 cycles. An updated EOS Integrated Cleaning system uses a vibration-based dust removal process to protect the camera against dust incursion.
Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM Lens
When purchased as a kit, the camera comes bundled with a standard 24-105mm f/4 zoom lens. This range of focal lengths is more than adequate for most situations, ranging from wide angle to a standard portrait-length lens. Its construction integrates a Super-UD glass element with three aspherical lenses for a further reduction of chromatic aberration and distortion. Additionally, the lens incorporates Image Stabilizer technology for a 3-stop reduction in camera shake. The design of the lens also integrates the same dust and weatherproofing as the camera body, resulting in an entire system that can be relied upon for continued performance, regardless of the conditions in which it’s used.
Canon’s 5D Mark III is a definite improvement over the Mark II. But given the previous model’s already superlative features, the Mark III is really more a refinement. This camera remains a leader in terms of HDSLR functionality, and does not falter with regard to rich still imagery. The new model is more efficient and enables even more intuitive use. Improved speed and processing power are the areas in which this camera truly shines, giving uncompromising performance that greatly exceeds previous expectations. With the Mark III, the Canon 5D maintains its status as a benchmark for other DSLR cameras.
| Camera Type | Interchangeable Lens DSLR |
| Lens Mount | Canon EF |
| Sensor Size | Full-Frame (36 x 24mm) |
| Sensor Type | CMOS |
| Image Processor | DIGIC 5+ Image Processor |
| Resolution | 22.3MP |
| File Formats | JPEG and RAW |
| Bit Depth | 14-bit |
| Continuous Shooting Speed | Up to 6.0 fps (with UDMA CF Card) |
| Autofocus Points | 61 |
| Focus Type | Auto and Manual |
| Exposure Metering | iFCL (with 63-zone Dual Layer metering sensor) |
| Flash Connection | Hot shoe and PC terminal |
| Viewfinder Type | Optical pentaprism with superimposed LCD |
| Viewfinder Coverage | ~100% |
| Viewfinder Magnification | 0.71x |
| Viewfinder Angle of View | 34.1° |
| LCD Monitor | 3.2" 1,040,000 dots |
| ISO Sensitivity | 100-25600 (50-102400 in expanded mode) |
| Video Recording Formats | 1080/30p (29.97), 24p (23.976), 25p; 720/60p (59.94), 50p; 480/30p (29.97), 25p |
| Video Clip Length | 29 minutes 59 seconds (4GB automatic file partition) |
| Video Compressions | All i-Frame and IPB compressions |
| Time Code | Yes |
| Creative Modes | Multiple Exposure and High Dynamic Range (HDR) |
| Connectivity | HDMI, A/V output, USB 2.0 |
| Power Source | LP-E6 lithium-ion battery pack |
| Wireless Capability | Compatible with optional transmitters and receivers |
| Dimensions | 6 x 4.6 x 3" / 15.2 x 11.7 x 7.6 cm |
| Weight | 1.90 lb / 860 g |
Comments
I will say that this is the consummate professional or professional amateur's Camera. It uses both the compact flash as well as the SD memory modules. Purchase a professional sped memory card for this Camera for high speed high resolution video recording. Go to canon.com for a full explanation of this unit's fun functions. Even I can take great pictures now!
Looking to sell my Canon Mark II to upgrade to the Canon Mark III, i'm in the area if anyone wants to buy an excellent camera at a good price. Mint condition.
The Canon Mark III is just amazing, I can't wait to upgrade, best offer for my Canon 5d Mark II gets it :-)
I am interested in purchasing ur canon 5D MARK II, Let me know how much you would like to sell it, the necessary accesories you are selling the camera with and how long it would take you to make delivery to Nigeria if payment is made?
Cant wait to see the canon 6D thats just come out
We invite our readers to contact the B&H Used Department here used@bhphoto.com and access a link to the B&H Trade-in page here http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/UsedDeptSelling.jsp
Thank you for reading In-Depth.
I just bought the 5D Mark III to use in conjunction with a 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III. I shoot architecture and often set up for shots that require a camera be dedicated for 2+ hours for just one view. Now I have three cameras to increase productivity.
There is a hidden little gem with this camera that I feel the need to point out. There is a multiple exposure feature that allows you to set how many frames you want to combine and how the frames will be combined, average, lighter or darker. I have experimented with my 1Ds III by combining frames of the exact same image in Photoshop to reduce the random noise inherent in long exposures. The 5D Mark III will do this automatically. Ie., I can set up a long exposure for a dark interior and capture the image 8 times. Those 8 frames are then averaged into one file. This has a tendency to oversample the data, effectively reducing the random noise typically found in low light digital images.
The 5D Mark III may be my first choice, even over the 1Ds III except for when I need to have a more impressive looking camera for a client to see. The ability to shoot CF and SD cards simultaneously is also a HUGE improvement for the professional shooter.
If I had it to do all over again, and had the option, I would own three of these.
Thanks for your comment Jim! I take a lot long exposure of night shots and low lighted places, even though for my quality needs (for my old t2i) at ISO 100 and noise reduction on, it looked good enough, your method of 8 pictures with HDR seems great for perfection. If you are not familiar with HDR I recommend that you give it a try, it will make great fantasy looking for architecture and forniture (maybe not for clients) but if the effect is not so exagerated you may even found a client loving that unreal effect.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Sebastián Vergara.
The feature you found is called HDR .
No I think he is talking about image averaging.
What a disappointment, especially from the Japanese company. As soon as the camera came out, it was taken down because of issues. Canon is up to their ears in money generated from the Mark II sale that they forgot about complete product testing their new model. Now after finally admitting that the issue is indeed there, they are not even saying when the fix will be available and the distribution (ETA) of the new Mark III will take place. The C300 series cameras are totally overprices. Well, by the time Canon fixes their DSLR Mark III, Sony’s NEX-FS700 will be available, a 4k video camera for under $10k.
I just upgraded from the 5D MKII so I have a tangible camera to make comparisons. Here are my first impressions:
Lets start with the bad: Many of the control buttons are re-positioned on the camera. Along with a re-formatted menu system, there is a bit of fumbling to go through as you re-learn what was previously second nature. No big deal though.
Now for the good: The image quality, when shooting at higher asa is considerably cleaner and free of noise. The image quality over all is smoother and superior to the MK II. And the speed... The processor is FAST! Considerably faster than the MK II. The addition of the SD slot is fantastic for redundent back up or for extending your picture count or video footage. For video, there are some well appreciated features that made this a no brainer for me. 60 fps for smooth slo-mo, time code generation. manual stereo recording ability, headphone sound monitoring jack, and there is now the opportunity to use the shutter release to focus and activate recording (No more hit or miss IR remote units or fumbling for the record button. I believe a standard wired remote button can also be used). I am a DP, and with the exception of time lapse photography, I shoot video almost exclusively with my DSLR. For me these features are worth the step up in price alone.
So in conclusion, if you are primarily a still photographer, I am not sure you will be able to justify ditching your MK II for this camera. (I would'nt.) Remember that Canon never intended for the MK II to be used exclusively as a video camera so useful video features were understandibly anemic. The MK III is really Canons first DSLR designed also for digital cinematography and that truly is where this camera outshines the previous version by miles!
Why was Geo tagging not not built into the camera, instead of being an optional extra piece of kit that you have to carry around? Unbelievably bad of Canon, and just a way of making additional money. The cost of these cameras is excessive, and at that cost, geo-tagging should have been a built in feature of the camera, not an optional extra. Canon, catch up with the real world please and rectify this nonsence in the next release. You have a great camera but you let it down by not getting the simple things right.
From what I hear, it has nothing to do with "out to get more money" and more to do with the fact that these are cameras sold and used internationally. The reason Canon, and Nikon for that matter, choose to exclude GPS and WiFi on their higher end cameras is the fact that international laws differ on whether or not these technologies are legal or not, and what frequencies can be used. It's much more economical to make various models of point and shoot cameras with/without WIFI and GPS for different markets, and not so for the higher end DSLRs which are essentially identical for the entire world market.
Not sure they are doing this to "make extra money", so much as this is a balance of what features you can fit in vs overall cost of the product. The idea for the 5D is for it to be "somewhat" affordable Full Frame. Sure, include geotagging, an intervalometer and build in transfering while we're at it ... sarcasm intended.
To your own point, the cost of these cameras is excessive to begin with, I can see why they made a purposeful decision to exclude geotagging.
Well, I was hoping for more...like a reticulating screen found on most lower level cameras...a bigger jump in megepixils....a greater number of automated bracketed exposures. I like the improvrmrnts to both the focuing and the metering. As a still photgrapher if I did not already have a 5D Mark II I could see upgrading to this camera. While there are advantages, I don't see $3,500 worth of advantages so I will wait for the Mark 4.
WOW Finally here! I am not sure if I will upgrade my 7D given the price difference and consiering the slight improvements. But the 7D is still going for 1k + second hand on ebay so It might help with the damage!
B+H Thank you for such comprehensive review!
WOW, this looks awesome...Not sure if the price difference is worth the upgrade for video work on the 7D.
Is it lacking flash remote like the 7D has?
OK, chalk one up for advantages of pop-up flash.
As the Canon 5D-series cameras do not have a built-in flash, they do not have built-in remote flash triggering. You would have to use either a Canon ST-E2, ST-E3-RT, or a Canon Speedlite Flash that has a Master Wireless Control mode to trigger E-TTL II-compatible Canon Speedlite flashes wirelessly.
Being a 5D Mark II owner, I'm extatic about the high price-point.
It means my Mark II isn't going to plummit $400 in value overnight.
It'll fall, as it always does. I'll throw in my baseless estimate that it'll be $3,200 in 6 months and $2,800 this time next year, then $2,400 a year after that.
61 AF points, water proofing, and so much else. You have to wonder if this isn't giving the latest 1D a run for it's money. From that point of view, it's a bargain.
This statement in the first paragraph of the review bothers me:
"Only a slight bump in resolution, 22.3MP versus 21.1MP, means the 5D Mark III’s already excellent image quality has not improved drastically;..."
This is the consumer pixel-war mentality one wouldn't expect from pro favorite BH Photo, but then, they're really just pros at selling this stuff aren't they?
IQ is a bit more than simply pixel MP and they should know it. In fact; more pixels crammed into the tiny space can actually decrease IQ - besides more load on Post Processing resources. I'm so happy happy happy Canon didn't bend to this erroneous pressure.
This is the consumer pixel-war mentality one wouldn't expect from pro favorite BH Photo, but then, they're really just pros at selling this stuff aren't they?
I am sorry you feel this way. In fact I think our saying images from 22.3MP versus 21.1MP cameras won't be dramatically different (all else being equal) is designed to diffuse the pixel war.
What's more important though is that many of our sales associates and many of the people who wrote these columns for us have decades of full-time working-pro experience and are here because they have that invaluable experience. We may be pros at selling this stuff but part of the reason we are is the pro experience we have using this stuff.
--
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video
I loved my 5D II. It's been like an extension of my arm. And my 5D before that. I had a few quibbles with the Mark II, like why didn't the viewfinder show full frame, could they please enlarge the LCD on the rear for field review, hopefully crank up the ISO to be able to shoot practically in the dark like the 7D, and fix the low light auto focus issues. The 5D III appears to nail all these issues! I've got one on order, and can't wait. I would say this is no longer a prosumer camera, but a bona fide pro. If you compare the price of the Mark III to the higher end Canon cameras, the Mark III is pretty reasonable. Plus, the clincher for me is that it is lighter weight but still sturdy. That is why I bought the Mark II in the first place, instead of the heavier and larger pro Canons. I can carry it all day and not be exhausted (well, depending on how many lenses I lug around). This is definitely the camera for me! :) P.S. I took the Mark II to Burning Man last year, which is one giant dust storm, and it worked fine without any taping or covers. I got it cleaned upon return, and so far no problems have arisen.
I love the idea that there are 61 focus points, but I will still wait a few months before buying one so I can check out the feedback from pro's. I'm still gunshy from the last 5D purchase with terrible focus issues. If they have fixed that then I'm sold.
Whaoo, i think this is a success.
A dream come true. I own a number of Canon cameras, some more expensive, but the 5D mark II has been by far my favorite. Now I will have an improved version and I couldn't be more happy. I ride a bicycle, pulling a trailor full of lenses, tripods, food, water, and cameras in bug infested areas to take my pictures. Having a 5D mark III will make each trip more worthwhile and the dollar cost of the camera is the least of it. I don't know how to make a camera.
Well after much thought and consideration on whether to upgrade from my 5DII I've decided to "downgrade" to only 18mp with a new 1DX. #grinning
The naysayers boggle my mind! I am a MK II shooter and the MK III nails everything I have ever complained about my phenominal MKII!! Lowlight AF is a problem with the MKII ... fixed! FPS ... 50% increase ... fixed!
Larger pixels and greater sensitivity ... less noise and higher DR all in less light! Major bonus!!
I love everyone saying they'd rather pick up a MK II. Sure .. it's a phenominal camera! The image quality quality does not improve meaningfully ... why, because the MK II is a phenominal camera!!! I have never heard anyone say the MK II makes crappy pictures!! But the MK III does improve on the MK II in significant ways from an operational pov!!
When 1Dx was announced, i started saving to hop on for the op improvements. Let me rephrase that ... i was willing to cough-up $6800 to get world class AF!! Yes, I would get a lot more, but thank-you Canon for MK III ... a mini-IDx that meets all my needs for almost 1/2 the price!
The MK II is a fantastic camera and anyone who choses to purchase will hold a tool able to wield magic!! The MK III attempts to make magic easier .... not make better magic! That's what all of us MK II shooters asked for ... and Canon listened!
I happily await the MK III and will continue to shoot MK II as back-up and on bright days! Because ... it's phenominal!!
Now ... Who do I need to speak to re: upping the sync speed to a respectable 1/250th?! :-)
I too would have gone for the 1DX had the 5D3's spec re AF and low-light performance not been so good. Will miss the 14fps but not for £3k and handy to remove grip and have smaller body sometimes. As it is I went for the 5D3 and it is yet to arrive but should be big step up from my current 7d and 5D1 if not quite what the 1DX woul dhave been. The thing that has me grinning though is that the battery grip for the 5d3 has a vert version of the joystick like the 1DX too! Awesomeness!
The naysayers here leave me simply stunned.
I'm a Mk II shooter currently. My Mk II was in my hands the day they were on the shelf, and dollar for dollar it was the best FF DSLR on the planet. And that was with a sketchy AF system, limited ISO performance, and <4 FPS. And that was $3,000. And compared to the EOS1 Mk IIIDs, when it came to IQ, it was a steal. It still is.
Now enter the Mk III. I get dramatically expanded ISO, a 50% increase in FPS, an AF system that is as welcome as it is overdue, same holds true with the metering system, a new sensor that promises to meet or exceed the already outstanding IQ if its predecessor, dual card slots, and even better weatherizing. For $500 more than the MK II was at launch and about half of what the EOS 1 IIIDs is still selling for. And people still bitch.
Amateur hour.
My Mk II will move into 'primary backup' role, relegating the 5D that fills that role now to a shelf in the closet. And I will not remotely be alone.
Thanks Canon, you nailed it.
Ditto x 2, but I will sell mine to keep the shelves clean since I am fortunate to have a Mk iv. as a back up.
While I can appreciate small parts of your argument, it is flawed. True, the 5D III may be only $500 more than the 5D II was at release but you must keep in mind the key words "at release".
With technology, it is not a fair comparison to put old pricing on old technology against new. If Dell did this I would be paying $5000 for a quad core computer today becasue it is that much better than the Pentium 4 CPU I had 10 years ago. You should be looking at the current price of old technology.
Now, what you did seem to realize is that the III has "an AF system that is as welcome as it is overdue." You think this is only positive. I think it is great that the AF is improved BUT I realize Canon has stepped into technology that it should have been using already. The 7D AF crushed the AF of a II. In addition the 7D has 8FPS and ISO max of 12,000. The 7D is now 2.5 years old.
A direct comparison of a 7D and 5D III is not even close to fair but the fact remains, there is a $1300 price difference between a II and a III. For myself, I dont know that a 5D III for the cost (almost) of a 5D II AND a 7D makes a whole lot of sense.
Since you feel that people who are looking at the price in a logical fashion is "Amature Hour" perhaps you would be willing to purchase my old computer from me. It cost me $1500 years ago and I would gladly let it go for $1000. I will even throw in a box of floppy disks for you.
Ditto.
I think i'll pass and go grab the iphone 4Gs which shoots 1080p @ 60 fps video. Common Canon!!!!!!! They could be a legit company and AT LEAST put out firmware updates to give MarkII users the ability to shoot 720 @ 60fps but thats how they role. Watch, they will release anouther camera in 6 months that shoots 1080p at 60fps making yet anouther group of disappointed loyal customers. What a joke!
You might do that, but the iPhone video isn't going to look that great on a 60" led tv. Canon might not have 60fps in this camera, but for most videos, unless you're doing sports(in which you can just go down to 720p, which is not that horrible...) the 1080p 30fps will give it the 'movie' look everyone will cherish.
Magic lantern firmware is a shining example of what features are practicable in older cameras and Canon definately makes a pragmatic business decision not to add such features to incentivise future purchases. If only they had managed to hack the 7d! Apple did the exact same thing with features such as Siri and video recording having been denied respectively to pre-4s and pre-3gs models despite no hardware limitation to increase contrast in features and marketably of their new device. We'll have hope that lantern cracks the 5d3 quickly!
if you want video that badly, go buy a video camera.
Yes but then you cannot use the lenses you already have.
I have been waiting on a camera upgrade for the III and while I appreciate some of the new features on the new 5D III, I too feel that it is a bit pricey. It is currently $1300 more than the II and I dont know that the features are worth that. Perhaps somebody could offer insight on my thoughts before I decide on my purchase.
I currently have a 50D and want to move to a full frame sensor. I have a few L lenses for everyday shooting at family gatherings and nature photography (landscape and animals).
I like the multiplpe expose and HDR capability but do you really need this if you know how to use photoshop and photomatix? Is it worth saving my money on the III, purchasing the II and taking $1300 worth of classes to learn how to manipulate the photos that would be done by the camera?
I have not found that I go higher than 800iso with most photos but I suppose it might be nice to have that ability. Also, I have no interest in shooting video.
So... I feel that I am spending $1300 additional for a camera because it has more AF points and higher fps. Is that worth the $$? Should I sell my equipment on ebay and look at Nikon?
You are better off with the 50d if you just photograph uncle nelson and your cat.
FUNNY!
I'd say give the D800 a look.
if you shoot some landscapes, you'd appreciate its high resolution.
The D800's metering and af systems are very advanced. a 91k pixel RGB sensor is used for metering, and it also detects faces to ensure proper exposure of people in backlit situations. the AF system uses the metering sensor to track and focus faces, even in optical view finder mode (i.e. not just in live-view mode). these features would help improve those family photos to ensure faces are focused and properly exposed.
in addition, the D800 is built to last longer, with its shutter rated for 200,000 actuations, compared to 150,000 of the 5DmkIII.
all this for $500 less.
And the D800 has built-in flash, remote flash triggering and focus-assist light. Canon shure missed the boat on this one, at least for the price. As a 5DMkII shooter, I expected so much more. For example, why did Canon not incorporate their new flash radio-triggering system, instead of having to buy an additional (and expensive) piece? I was looking forward to the new Canon flashes and the new body to work as a well integrated unit. Instead, I decided to keep my 4 580EX flashes, bought a Phottix Odin flash trigger kit (which does something none of the Canon triggers do -- remotely control flash zoom!), kept my 5DMkII and saved a whole lot of $$$, which sad to say for a Canon die-hard, will probably be using to buy a D800. As a final point, the body construction of the new MkIII feels less solid than my MkII, and nowhere close to a D800. Canon, are you listening?
You ensure correct exposure of backlit subjects by having adequate knowledge of the issues involved and mastery of the BASICS of camera operation. If you really want to gripe about this sort of thing, you're probably insulting your own abilities.
you're talking about cameras that have tons of automation built in. it seems arbitrary that you deem this particular feature that the 5DmkIII is missing to be unnecessary but everything else it does have to be absolutely necessary.
if you want to operate a basic camera, go buy a manual focus, manual exposure film camera (which i also have)
my photography abilities are just fine, thanks.
Naaa, probably not
Hi. For me it comes down to two things.
a) The price needs to drop by at least $500.00.
b) We have to wait to look at the MKIII stills and videos that will emerge over the next few months to reliably compare it with the MKII.
p.s. On paper this is a much better camera than the MKII. Time will tell its true value.
4 years after its release the price of the MKII has dropped $500.00.
How long will it take for the MKIII to reach $2800.00 or $3000.00 is anyone's guess.
I was disappointed by the pricing. I considered buying a MKII but it's old tech now - the MKII is showing its age.
I really think the MKIII will prove to be a far superior camera to the MKII.
It's just not worth $3500.00, unless you have a fat wallet.
"It's just not worth $3500.00, unless you have a fat wallet." - Truly talking senselessly. Money talks and bull walks. Techonology with research gets you cool products. You expect the researching and milions of man-hours to be free?
I applaud Apple for understanding that when they introduce a new model of the same product, they introduce it at the same price as the outgoing product and drop the price of the outgoing product if it remains on the shelf: AppleTV, iPad, iPhone etc. Why can't Canon come to the same recognition as the world's best technology and consumer product developer and retailer?
I expect competitive pricing. $3500 for a camera that offers less resolution, less dynamic range and fewer features, overall, than the competing Nikon D800 is too much. The improved AF and iFCL metering should be the price of entry at this price point, as, functionally, it just simply brings the 5DIII to parity with the D800. And the additional framing rate isn't worth $250 per frame per second–at least not in my estimation.
I have to laugh when I see people saying they are going to switch to the D800 over getting a 5D MK III, I bought a first generation 5D in 2007, because I already owned a significant amount of EF glass. Why anyone who has been shooting Canon for a long time would leap to Nikon over a slightly lower camera body price is beyond me when they would have to get new lenses. It's the lenses that brought me to Canon from Minolta more than twenty years ago when I was first getting into photography. There were simply more choices and better glass. Each time I have upgraded from my lowly Rebel G 35mm, I have added more glass to my kit along the way. I never go anywhere without at least three different lenses, and my three favorite lenses cost more than the 5D MK III so from that standpoint upgrading to a MK III, even if it cost a little more is well worth it just to keep using the fast glass that I love so much.
My 2 cents.
Essentially all updates in this camera are a response by Canon to current 5D MKII users. They've covered most of the wish list with this new camera. I've heard the following over the years: give me a better focusing system, better sensitivity, better metering, better LCD, better video, dual card slots, etc.
OK Done.
On top of that they've added a few new features like HDR, ruggedized the design, put in a faster processor, improved sensor design - tightening up the package. With firmware upgrades they may open up new features, fine tune any remaining bugs as the user community responds.
OK Excellent.
Cost
For someone who does photography for a living or even for part time, the 500-800 bump is nothing. They can make that in one evening. The reason why the camera is a little high in price is of course due to supply chain issues, initial cost of recuperating research costs, perhaps costs in transitioning operations to other facilities. The price will come down and as things improve in the supply chain.
Difference?
Having shot hundreds of thousands of raw files on the MKII over the past years and looking at the initial set of files posted on the interent in the first week - do I think there is a difference in the output of the test files. Sure, a little bit. But you have to realize that there are many variables with these tests which don't always go accounted for which can explain the minor variances between the MKII, MKII and other cameras. In real life situations it's a hot mess out there.
For a wedding photographer - will a bride or groom notice - ya right. Sometimes they want the fuzzy, , crappy, soft shots because the sharp and bright ones makes 'em look scary.
Ok forget about test files - we see a small difference - we can match 'em up in post for the most part. The bigger question is will there be a difference "operationally" for the photographer when he is on site shooting with the MKIII -- I beleive so.
The added sensitivity will give you a little extra tolerance to play with sure. This is why people spend a thousand dollars more on a 2.8 (70-200) vs. a 4.0 (70-200). The vast majority of pro's shoot raw. 1 stop in raw is not bad. That means I can keep the camera at ISO 1600 vs. 800 and not worry about obtrusive noise (for the pixel peepers). It means I can shoot on higher shutter speeds - less blurs. The new focus system adds to that. Going to ISO 3200 doesn't make me cringe anymore (ok fine I'm a pixel peeper). I've got the secondary card slot as a backup or just in case I run out of storage and don't have time to switch. I've got the 'quiet' shooting mode for those times when I have a very quiet chuch to shoot. . With the new metering my exposure will likely be a little better w/ETTTL and so I have to take less repeat shots and/or do less post processing. And yes when it is raining i'm a little less worried about my camera shorting out due to the weather sealing.
More sensitivity is not always a good thing - depending on the lighting situation on site. Sometimes it makes sense to notch down the camera to 400 and set up your own lighting. Go outside and you need to start blinding the camera with ND filters. Faster shutter speeds may not good either and dragging the shutter may required. So maybe in some situation you'll need to do extra work with this camera - the other way.
Just playing on the positives, all these little things make a little bit of a difference under high stress events like weddings. Photographers are always looking for little dohickey's to make their day a little easier, a little less stressful.
CONCLUSION: So our image quality will maybe go up by 15% (perceivable mostly to us). Overall operational benefit maybe 20%. If the first adopters (me included) rave about it - the rest of folks may consider investing in it and proabably get it cheaper or laugh at us while they continue to shoot on their MKII's. It's all good and ultimately we all enjoy contributing to the technology revolution so let's keep the dialogue going. Canon - keep listening and continue to impress us.
Thanks,
Paul
I was using 15 Years ago an Eos 50 but then came digital and I started to travel the world in my profession, building telecom networks. I stopped using my film slr and started to use smal compact digital. Always interested in in photography but never willing to pay the price for the quality I would have liked. When going to Africa 2 years ago and being a fan of nature I started with slr photography. At the time the 7D convinced me that it is now time to spend the money as I found the quality right. I also looked at the 5D but the focus was not what I was looking for. After the first 3 days in the bush I decided I needed a upgrade to my equipment. I had already 70-200 2.8 L IS II and a sigma 50 - 500 OS. So I went out buying a 300 2.8 L IS + extenders and another 7D body plus a 60D and a view more lenses for my wife. I spent in total over 1month in lodges in Sabi Sands and Kruger and made more pictures in great quality then I ever would have dreamed of. This is not all I use my cameras for but it's my priority. The 7D has a great and highly flexible focus system and the speed is phenomenal for a camera in that price range. I even changed the mode dial to one with lock which is great if you handle 2 cameras (one resting one you legs) at the same time in an a cramped and moving car so you have not changed your mode when switching cameras and you miss a shot when ther is no time to check. Now to the 5D III. I would buy it mainly because of the great low light performance and certainly because of the AF system. Even little things like the extra joystick on the battery grip is great as I use this most of the time for fast composition ad have with my 300 and 70-200 always the grip mounted. Would I now start over again I would by it for the overall package and the price would not let me flinch. And for what I need no camera I know would suit me better for this money. This camera will have its customers and for a safari wher you try to make pictures out of a moving car tracking a leopard in dim light conditions maybe only the 1DX could be better but this is then even for me a decision of price but as I don't need it right now maybe I grab both at the same time just before my next trip. By the way. I don't care if Nicon Canon Sony or anyone else as at any time there will be one of them having an edge like for me the 7D was part of the reasons together with one of the best lens systems on the market to go for Canon. But after spending for 12 lenses around 15000 USD I treat this most likely as a lifelong marriage.
Yes inded, the new Canon EOS 5D Mark III it comes with outstanding futures!
This almost brand new Serie 5 Canon, can become the main camera for enthusiast photograhers or can be a second camera for every professional photographers wich will use the new Canon EOS 1DX as main body.
The 100-25600 ISO will help wedding photojournalists in extreme low light condition or photographers in love with street photojournalism.
The 6 frames/sec can help enough if you are Sport Photographer or Wild Live Photographer.
The new 3.2" Display will offer a good image for videojournalists.
I would say that about 90% of all the Mark III bashers on this thread are due to its comparison to the Mark II...that the $1000 price mark up is not worth the upgrade...that they will just stick with their Mark II.
Unlike most of the people complaining here, I have a Canon 40D and quite a few canon lenses and been wanting to upgrade to a full frame camera.
I have no problem spending the $3500 as I really think that this is a superb camera. Any reason why I should not make this purchase?
REMEMBER: I don't own a Mark II to be able to complain like anyone else and money is not a problem.
Any thoughts?
I have had several Canon DSL Cameras also and one is the 40D. I have been considering the 5D Mark III also so I have been following the comments to try to make a decision as well. I am also considering a 28 to 300 Tele also and haven't tried a push pull lens yet to decide if I will be able to get use to it ? Keep the comments going as we can all benefit from good discussion. I do love my L Series Glass, even though I have been noticing the costs of Nikon compared to Canon. I will probably stay Canon as I love the glass.
Dan
Most intelligent response so far. Kind of like when the iPhone 4S came out. Before, I had some Sprint phone that didn't even have a camera on it. I got the 4S and it's awesome. Should you get it if you have the 4? Probably not, unless you have money to blow.
Although it would've been nice to see a bit more of a resolution upgrade, there are numerous upgrades that tell a very different tale than the way many readers here are judging this camera. If you factor in the ISO (25,600), the speed (6fps), the focus system (61 pts), the metering (63 zone) and the dual memory card slots, it's safe to say that the 5D has effectively been upgraded to the level of the previous 1D series (ie 1DS Mark III). In fact, this camera is quite close to the 1DS Mark III, but with slightly greater speed (6 fps vs 5fps), the same nominal resolution improvement over the 5D Mark II (22.3 MP vs 21.1 MP) and a much better ISO range (native 25,600 w/o expansion vs native 1600 w/o expansion). From that perspective, the 5D Mk III is a modest improvement over the 1DS Mk III, a camera which still lists at $6999 and was originally listed at $7999 -> $3499 still looks pretty good from that angle. It should be seen that Canon has moved that level of camera down into the lower price line, rather than being outraged that it took a $500 or so price hike. It's actually been cut in half.
To address the ridiculous Nikon vs Canon warring - the D800 appears to be an amazing camera also. The specs appear to be similar to a 5D Mark II with a beefed up resolution at 36 MP, since it is slower at 4fps, and much lower in ISO sensitivity at 6400 than the 5D Mark III. However, I think that this is very deliberate marketing on the part of both companies. Rather than warring over the exact same customer by trying to hit nearly identical specs, they are providing a particular niche within the specs in that price range. Canon has elected to go after ISO sensitivity and speed and Nikon after Resolution. A new buyer should go for what's more important to them. Those of us entrenched in a particular brand should stick with the one we currently use. Canon and Nikon both make great cameras.
Loyal Canon user (but I watch Nikon carefully, as well as several others).
You make some good points. The biggest disappointment for many, myself included, is the outrageous price.Despite the some strong points this is undeniably a warmed over MKII, and therefore the pricing is repulsive.
I think quality side-by-side comparisons will reveal the MKII - MkIII price gap to be what it is - flawed.
Two additional points:
1. Do a side by side comparison between the 5D Mk III and the 1Ds MK III. As far as I can see, dual processors and a gignatic, grip-already-included-as-part-of-the-body-whether-you-want-it-or-not, are the only points that distinguish this camera from the 1D series. I am not sure of the extent of the weather sealing on the 5D Mk III, perhaps it's not as much, perhaps it is. The other stuff is pretty straightforward. Anyway, in that respect, it COULD be looked at as though the 1Ds series has DROPPED from $7K-$8K down to $3500, meanwhile the 1D series got bumped up (1DX) $2000-$2500. I think this is what REALLY happened. Of course Canon isn't going to tell all it's Sports shooters "We decided to hit you with a price increase so we can push down the price of the 1Ds series," and risk ticking off a huge market segment, so they really amped up that model and claimed they are "merging" the two portions of the 1D line. It makes sense because these professionals are probably by and large having their equipment paid for by newspapers, sports teams, etc, where there are a lot deeper pockets than, say, a Wedding Photographer. I think this plan started with the first 5D camera, where they "tested" the market - it's led to this point, where the 5D has stepped into the 1Ds series shoes and the 1D has become the beefed, but higher priced, monster Sports camera in the 1DX. Talk merging all you want, I can't think of any reason why a Wedding Photographer would need a 1DX over the 5D Mk III. That one stop of ISO is the only thing, and I just can't imagine that would matter that much.
2. The 5D Mark I debuted at $3500. The series saw price decreases after that. (NOTE: Nikon rarely does this, Canon does it all the time). I think it's reasonable with the 2 stops expanded ISO, 50% shutter speed increase, and ESPECIALLY the 61 point AF to bring the price back up. I also think within a year it will take a drop in price.
Bottom line, to say "outrageous" about the price, within context of the history, and considering all the models they've released, it's really not.
I cannot bring myself to pay $3.500 for the 5d mark iii. Even if I really wanted it badly enough, I would wait till the price went down. For that matter, why not save up another 2 grand and buy the 1d mark iv? Just sayin'. What I find funny is all the people cutting down the 5D mark ii when for the LONGEST time any website you read comparing Canon 5d mark ii to other cameras like the 7d had nothing but RAVES about how superior and amazing it was. I am going to save up for the 1D mark iv myself. If I'm going to blow the bank, I want to make sure it's for something I REALLY LOVE and want. Though the specs on the 5d mark iii are impressive, you're paying much more for an upgrade with HDR capability. Why not buy the software and do it on your computer where you have more control and waste less memory in your memory cards? Just my opinion.
Is the 5D mark 3 better than my 20D? LOL, you people have WAY TOO MUCH time on your hands!
I was planning to get the 5D Mark III to replace my 5D Mark II, but at this price point I guess I need to wait till the price is reduced to around $2700, if that ever happens or I'll happily keep using my 5D2.
Nikon d800 is better
No it's not. It may be good for studio use. but compare it to the 5D mkIII as an all round camera. That is the only aspect of that camera that will surpass canon. other than that the 5D eats it alive. Plus have you seen the test images out of the 5D mkIII. not even the 4D compares to it. Sorry to say but Nikon has officially been relegated to the little leagues.
What happenned to the the ef 50 f1.0 (circa 1986) when I bought my EOS 620?
It's hilarious to see all these disgruntled Canon users bashing everything and anything including Nikon equipment. LOL. All these nonsense about the Canon 5DMark III as being better than Nikon in higher ISOs, lower light, etc. etc. Since the D3S, Nikon has always been superior in performance at higher ISOs. That is not an opinion. It's a fact that thousands of photojournalists would swear by the cameras they use on the field and studio. And now Nikon is winning the megapixel battle as well. It's really not surprising as Nikon has always been superior to Canon in reliability and performance.
The Mark III is not much better than the Mark II. An $1000 hike in price for minimal improvements is not worth it.
I just amazed what are you talking about. Compare Nikon d3s with markIII, are you a photographer? 1dx maybe? MarkIII is super camera. All people talking about price....you have to use first then talk... I use it and difference is huge compare to markII. That is simple.... Exactly on $1300.00 Nikon is great company, but they just never first, they wait and try to do better, but....not always. By the way, who cares about 36 mil pixels??? But lower iso with other little lower...little things on d800 compare to markIII. And just because of that cost lower on $500.00 . Nikon is not a stupid co.
First the Canon 5DMkIII is $3,499 which is $500 more than the 5DMkII when it first came out. That is not $1,000 difference.
Second, Canon comes out on top in reliability in Consumer Reports and PC World. Nikon cameras are less reliable base on consumer reporting.
The 5DMkIII since it has two stops better DR and less megapixels should have the edge in noise in low light. Let's wait for the testing but I really doubt that the Nikon will be better. More megapixels means more heat which means more noise.
The Canon has 80 lp/mm resolution while the Nikon has 102 lp/mm resolution so the Nikon has 25% more resolution even though it's sensor is 36MP versus Canon's 22MP.
I think the Canon actually has a larger market since it can shoot faster 6fps versus 4 fps and should produce better images in lower light. I see the Nikon has a studio/landscape camera where the Canon would be good for photojournalists, wedding photographers, landscapers, and some sport photography. Time will tell but I think more Canons will be sold because the Canon is a more diverse camera than the Nikon.
It's hilarious to see all these arrogant Nikon users bashing everything and anything including ..... well everything kind includes everything.
You sounds as ignorant as the good old Ford vs Chevy arguments.
Product A is the greatest, compared to product B. There are many other cameras to compare then just Canon and Nikon. "And now Nikon is winning the megapixel battle as well" well here are a few that I can recall off the top of my head ..... and I know a co like mamiya will have higher, unless you have your blinders on again.
leica 80 mp, hasselblad 60 mp, Pentax 40 mp, Nikon 36.3,Sony 24.3, Canon 22.3
MP are not everything , point in fact look at the Pro models of both Canon and Nikon you will see that the MP drops. Nikons flagships D3x is 24.5Mp and the new D4 is only 16.2 Mp.
As far as ISO I try to shoot as low as possible.... and dont think i have ever used anything above 3200. Need more light use a F1.2 lens, or bring light in .... if they really wanted to knock my socks off have it expand lower to ISO 25 or 12, if you can remove more glass the better (medium density filters).
There are some Nikon cameras that are better then Canon , there are some Canon that are better then Nikon. As for the best, well that will bepend on what your needs are and the point in time the question was asked.
I waited 6 months in not getting into the Mark II (from a Nikon) knowing the model was about to be replaced. The Mark III seems only upgraded from the Mark II, hence it it is still called a 5D by Canon. At 30% more $$$, I waited for nothing. I am no Pro, but take a lot of underwater video and landscape photograpgy and want a great SLR that fits most situations, for the price differential I guess I will stick with a new Mark II or a new D7000.
I swear the next company to report resolution and image quality as megapixel is going to lose my business. The 5D III is not doubt an incredible camera and Canon should be commended for not joining the megapixel race. If BH are just supporting "more pixels = better pictures" by claiming that resolution and megapixels are the same thing, they clearly do not know enough about the way digital images are made. As a business, BH have always been one of the best and that's why I have been such a loyal customer, but don't get into reviews if you don't know what you're talking about.
I am upgrading from the 5D after holding out on the 5D Mark II which had the 5D's anitquated and frustrating AF.
In addition the still pictures on the original is far superior to the Mark II. The hook for the 5D was the HD video.
This helped canon sell a lot of the Mark IIs. I guess making a great camera was trumped by business decisions. This is unlike the philosophy behind the original 5D.
The Mark III seems a more business related decision too, But decisions have been made to correct the issues with the Mark II but at a price.
I have decided to pre-order, but with a bit off angst. This is a decent upgrade from my original 5D, but I feel gouged.
But then again this is my decision.
Exactly the same situation here. Got the original 5D a bit late and was holding out on M2 (a mistake, I know). I am very disappointed with the depth of an upgrade. Here is my opinion based purely on specs.- 61 point AF. I always manually set the point, I am glad there is an option to keep on using it as 9 point.- fps. Old school here. I just cannot care less.- Higher ISO. I love to shoot with available light but I never went above 800.- Better weather sealed. Its like being a little pregnant. It is NOT sealed period.- Video. I plan to use it for pictures. On another hand the following I am considering the following points, if someone can comment on them, please - New chip. Cannot wait to see the images. If it is truly 2 stops better, this probably be the tipping point for me.- Dual card. DS is just cheaper, but not as reliable. Should be great to have option to use it w/o having to use it.- Viewfinder. 100% vs 98%. Is this really noticeable? I am not really a kind of a guy that looks at a sticker with MP number and nothing else, but I have to say I expected more. I respect the fact that better pixels is better than more pixels. I just like freedom to crop and Canon is (was) in good position to do that with this camera, IMO, this was not done to keep the fps. Price - there are few ways to look at this:M1 was at 3k, M2 was at 3k, M3 is just a bit over 3k and by skipping M2 I saved enough (thats the one I will probably use at the diner table)M2 + almost another decent lens = M3 - OUCH! So... I really-really want the M3, mostly for the fact that it is the most current one. I am just really struggling to justify the difference.
"In addition the still pictures on the original is far superior to the Mark II"
In what universe?
DXO
5d2
Overall Score - 79
Portrait (Color Depth) - 23.7 bits
Landscape (Dynamic Range) - 11.9 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO) 1815
5d
Overall Score - 71
Portrait (Color Depth) - 22.9 bits
Landscape (Dynamic Range) - 11.1 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO) - 1368
Great camera, but inferior across the board
I am amazed at the intellegent and insightful responses posted by various photographers and their take on the products available to the professional photographer. Their logical questions pose issues that I did not even consider. So, thanks to all of you who post comments - I appreciate your take on photographic equipment design. I am a photographic Rip Van Winkle, I am so used to my Hasselblad equipment and film that getting up to speed on digital has been an ongoing amazing learning experience.
However, I do have one question:
I currently have a Canon Powershot G-10 with 14.7 megs. It is great for trips and yields great images. I do not have the capabilities of my complete Hasselblad system, but then I do not have to lug it with me on trips. My question is this: will the 5D III with 22.3 megs, produce a visible difference in an 8x10 when compared to the 14.7 meg G-10? I no longer need all the capabilities of the body, nor all the various lenses since I am no longer a working professional photographer.
Your comments, please. Thanks.
For vacation snapshots, except for possibly dynamic range, the 5DIII with a convenience zoom lens will not demonstrate any observable advantage in image quality over your PowerShot in 8" x 10" prints. Heck, I'm hard-pressed to tell a difference between the images from the 12.7MP 5D and the 21.1MP 5DII at anything less than A3 size. The 5DIII's additional 1.1MP isn't going to make that much of a difference. And if you're shooting RAW and know how to maximize the performance of your PowerShot's sensor, as well as get that into print, which has a smaller brightness gamut than even the sensor, there may not be a DR advantage, either. I chose to vacation with my DSLR and some bulky, fast lenses and got some beautiful images that I would never have gotten with a compact digital, but I paid the price in inconvenience and time spent afterwards wringing every bit of shadow detail out of the files.
At 8 x 10, generally no, and since you're taking snapshots on trips, etc. I would also say, "No, not at 8x10 given your stated scenario." There are plenty of what-ifs and the always popular, "... in low light" phrase associated with full-frame cameras, but you're comparing one of the most popular HD DSLRs witha point-and-shoot. No offense, but that's like comparing an apple to a banana. I don't need any special equipment to peel and eat a banana, but it won't clean my teeth as well as an apple. This analogy breaks down when we consider cost. To spend over $3,000 for a 5D Mark II/III (21/22MP) just to shoot snapshots on trips may indeed be overkill in terms of providing you with pleasing image quality (i.e. the G-10 may leave you smiling merely from the price/performance perspective).
Yes, the 5D Mk III would produce a visible difference in an 8x10 when compared to the 14.7 meg G-10 (at least in most conditions). The larger pixel count in the 5D Mk III, and more importantly the larger surface area of the sensor in the 5D MK III (coupled with your favorite high quality L-Series lens) will have the ability to capture a much greater amount of detail in a broader variety of situations.
Alot of the other replies to your question from the other posters also cover alot of valid points. The one important thing to consider is that the lens quality and sensor size ultimately determine your final image quality.
If you want to stick with something the size of your G10, but want better image quality, you could consider a model such as the new Canon Powershot G1X which has a much larger sensor inside it, or you could even consider one of the Rebel models coupled with a nice lens and it would also be better than your G10, but not near the weight or heft of the 5D MK III would.
Tom,
I have a G-10 (and have had a G-9 and a G-11), and I have both the 5D and the 5D-II (as well as the 5D-III on order). I've never owned a Hasselblad, nor any medium-format camera, but I've been shooting 35-mm seriously since 1974. The 5D series has astounded me. The G-series ... is okay. I don't diagnose images with numbers, but the 5D-II has never failed to produce images of a quality I only figured one could get with a medium format camera. I work a lot in architectural work sites, shooting both live action documentary and carefully composed architectural images, invariably in low light. I shoot my live action stuff at 5000 ISO and have been incredibly happy with the quality (compared to 35mm film at 1600). I shoot my architectural work with tilt/shift lenses and use the "live view" on the back for careful compositioning. With those, at 1000 ISO, I get sumptuous 13 x 19 prints that knock-out clients. My personal forte is "street photography" in which -- akin to my live-action work-site photography -- capturing apex moments is key. Within that realm, the G-series is a dud. With the 5D-series, I shoot at a high enough ISO (daylight: 1000 - 1600 ISO -- with incredibly low noise) that I can maintain great depth-of-field at a moderately shutter fast speed, using a wonderfully small and light 28 mm lens on manual focus. Basically, what I get is the instant speed of a true point-and-shoot camera. (The G-10 is too slow and doesn't provide a true viewfinder.) So for me it's more operational; even so, with any single shot, the G-series hasn't really impressed me, print-wise, compared to what I get with the 5-series. I am personally looking forward to the 5D-III (which is going to improve my low-light operation, plus give me a built-in "bubble level" in the viewfinder, etc.), but I have found nothing at all "wanting" from my 5D-II for a really vigorous weekly workout with best-of-my-life output. Get a 5D-II now (as the prices drop); don't worry about the new model. But I would look at the 5-series with a light lens (e.g., the 17-45) for something between your Hasselblad and your G-10.
At those print sizes you will only notice a difference for images taken in low-light, at high sensitivity settings and without flash. For photos taken in well-lit conditions, you won't notice a difference even for bigger print sizes. I think there are four valid reasons someone may want to upgrade from a good compact: 1) If you want available-light images in low light; 2) If you like shallow depth of field; 3) If you want to use an ultra-wide angle; 4) If you're into nature or sports photography and need the big teles. For many people these reasons are all irrelevant, and a good compact is much better choice.
This is my tips... if youre serious about photography get the 5D... the problem with your question is your worried about megapixels and not overall image quality in general... heres the deal by shooting with the 5D you'll have a bigger sensor and way more control over your camera because you can use different lesnes and such... image quality doesnt depend so much on the megapixels as it does on the glass (lens) that you use and the size of your image sensor. Basically i would tell you this if you want something like your hassleblad to use get the 5D and invest in some really high quality lenses but if your not going to invest in the lenses and have more than one then just stick with the camera you got
RE: G10 & 5D2:
I shoot both and love my G10 for day to day and keep it with me always. Everyone that sees me shoot the 5D2 with the 70-200, 2.8 L (every Canon shooter has one, and needs one) asks me what camera to buy (I hate that, but offer up the G12, as they don't want to drop $ and have a big camera to carry around)
Back to your question:
- Rule of thumb, buy good glass, if you shoot a 5D2 with "L" glass, no point 'n shoot will be close
- I shoot landscape in the Southwest on tripods and take my time. When I got my 5D2 (yea!) on my first trip compared the G10 & 5D2 for my own comparison in the same shot (as best you can) no comparison buddy, the glass wins with the 5D2
Me:
- Canon 5D2
- 16-35, 2.8, L (Sweet wide, go to Horseshoe bend, near Page, AZ, don't fall in or take kids or pets!)
- 24-70, 2.8, L (indoor for family & event shoots)
- 70-200, 2.8, L, testosterone lens, even for the girl photographers (buy the 2X extender & 3 legged thing, Brian travel tripod)
- 24-105, 4.0, L (good outside lens, if you can only take 1 lens, take this, sucks for indoor without light)
- Canon light: 580EXII, 430EXII, 220EX (keep this with you when you don't need light, LOL you always need fill...) Nikon SB800 & and a bunch of Scott Robert's flashes and trigers (manuel)
- Lumodi beauty dishes with sock, easer than softbox and more classy then an umbrella, doesn't replace a parabolic...- 24-105, 4.0, L (good outside lens, if you can only take 1 lens, take this, sucks for indoor without light)
- Canon light: 580EXII, 430EXII, 220EX (keep this with you when you don't need light, LOL you always need fill...) Nikon SB800 & and a bunch of Scott Roberets flashes and trigers (manuel)
- Lumodi beauty dishes with sock, easer than softbox and more classy then an umbrella, doesn't replace a parabolic...
I agree that the pixels count is NOT a decisive factor in terms of picture quality.
What is is the SIZE (in inches or cm) of the captor, and the way in which the triplet Lens-Captor-DigitalProcessor produce the RAW or JPEG images.
Its easy to understand that to get a well defined image on a 20megs captor of half-an-inch, or quarter-of-an-inch, you would need MUCH better lenses that on a full inch frame ! And such lenses do not exist because the best ones are available for the full frame...
Another special point of interest is the depth-of-field handling, and the quality of the blurred zones ( the bokkey , not sure of the orthograph) which comes out much smoother and nicer on large lens-frames couples.
And finally there is the hability to store RAW images with all the initial details and to "develop" these as a pro does..
This is what makes the HUGE difference between a good machine as the G10 and a Great 5D, whatever the Mark, II or III.
But may be you also want to consider an alternative, as you mentionned you used your G10 for trips. The intermediate APS-C might be the solution: Very close in quality from Full frames, much better than G10, and you have a choice of gear , from the cheap and very handy 600D (MUCH smaller than 5D) the 60D (both with a very interesting TILTING display) and the high-end (in cost) 6D.
Hope it helps
8 x 10, probably not, if fact I would say no. The pixel argument is so rediculous. How many of these people are shooting high end glossy advertising material or extrememly large prints. If they were, they'd be puttin $35,000 digital backs on their Hassleblads.
Wow you all are tough customers! Canon takes one of the most amazing, powerful creative tools ever created for photographers, the 5d2, and gives it a new central processor, improved shutter, dramatically better new af and metering, dual card slots, better sealing, improved ISO, improved noise, improved video record time and audio, slightly higher resolution, and improved lcd and vf, and that's a "firmware upgrade" not worthy of more than a couple hundred dollars?
The spoiled generation!
execellent point.
Myself, I have been using a XTI for the last four years; my photography work has improved over time and I was in the market for a full frame--this is the one I am going with.
Spoiled Generation for calling out that paying $1000 for basic product life cycle updates is ridiculous. I would actual call $3500 for a camera in this economy SPOILED unless it is part of your job and then you figure the payback calculation. Second - will the improvements really improve the image or picture to a level that the overall value of the images created can justify paying an additional $1000 more than the 5D2. From a business perspective a 1 year payback on additional investment is what makes sense - I don't see enough improvements to say the images will be worth a $1000 more with the 5D2 than the 5D3.
Well.... Not to sound argumentative but the 5D Mark III has over 60 autofocus points almost ensuring that you will never miss a shot. The 5D Mark II on the other hand had only 9 and it was seriously plagued with autofocus issues. That alone justifies the price increase, in my opinion. Newer technology that went into the making of this camera had to have cost Canon too. Overall, this new camera is a much better one. Like MUCH MUCH better.
1000 USD more ? WTF ...they cant say AF as a marketing feuture ..they just catchup with 4 or 5 year old Nkon D300 or D700..still lagging behind metering of Nikon ..only advantage is dynamic range thats depends on the person, MP vs dynamic range ..if you think carefully there is nothing advantageus compared to nikon ..canon just keeps screwing itscustmers ...seriously we are fools..keep paying premium for wht is not worth...2700 would have been a proper priceing..if they dont reducing the pricing ..im switching to nikon for the last time ..they offer best of their core feutures like AF and metering ... you can invest on nikon glasses and if the situation changes you can still use nikon lenses with canon with nikon adaptor (i dont think canon will understand ..adaptor wll not be nessary )..and use split screenfocus screen ..for me switching to nikon seems more logical ..and they keep offering bestof their techs on FF camers...sorry canon you have lost me for the one last time ..time to think guys ..
"2700 would have been a proper priceing"
So this camera should cost $300 less than the camera it is replacing did when it was new, even thought this has new af, metering, cpu, shutter, etc.?
I've pre-ordered one, so take this for what it's worth.
Yes, given the state of increase in technology, I think this camera is overpriced. With moore's law showing that technology doubles in capability for the same price every 18 months, I would expect more camera for less after this many years.
That said, I'm a 20D owner from almost 7 years ago. My tech purchasing habits are to overspend on new models, then hang on to them until they're relatively obsolete. So I know that I'm paying extra to be on the bleeding edge.
So I'm grudgingly spending the extra few hundred dollars and am looking forward to a great camera.
I love Canon cameras but yes - $300 to $400 more than current model market price for fundamental updates to the camera. The updates aren't game changing or revolutionary. They make the camera competitive with the offerings of Nikon, more like a sequel in a movie or book. If they start making significant step changes to the technology or in camera functions then yeah steal an extra $1000 out of my wallet. Things that would warrant extra $$ - 300,000 cycle shutter life and warranty to support that; 2x pixel count where half the count was used as oversampling for color clarity, noise reduction, and sharpness (ie 36mp sensor @ 18 mp picture size); in camera IS; etc. At least the in camera HDR is a fun add.
Thankfully cars don't follow the same % markup with each new generation - they wait for more revolutionary step changes like gas to hybrid to all electric before the big mark up. Next thing you know we will see each movie sequal demanding a 20% to 30% markup since it is so much better than the one before - we wouldn't accept that so why this.
120fps would have been nice.
Wow! This camera is so dreamy. Canon really knows how to bleed a Canon fan dry... the MSRP is excessively over the top. The more I read about this new beauty, the more I'm sadden by the current aggressive price. It will be a few years before my upgrade... I just bought the EOS 7D in January. I wonder if Canon will reevaluate its current asking price when the production model actually hits the retail channels in order to be competitive and relative with the Nikon D800 DSLR. Let's hope Canon gets the hint.
Looks like a disappointing camera for the video DSLR crowd, no 60p 1080, no clean HDMI out, no fast AF in video mode. Features available on other cameras for some time now. The biggest disappointment since FCPX.
It's not all bad, supposedly better moire performance. Cool new photographic features too.
Too expensive. $2800.00, please.
$300 more for a new processor, metering, shutter, auto focus, etc. etc? Nice try.
The price is ridiculous for the tweaks that have been provided. Perhaps if they separated still from video they could produce a great camera at great price. I have only Canon equipment (all from B&H) but there is no way I would spring for this. Save your money peeps.
I think whilst many videographers will enjoy increased HD video capability and features, including timecode, headphone output and levels and increased recording time with 4GB file span.
The price point for some maybe a sticking issue especially if the 1DX has been pre-ordered and more than the Mark II.
It will be interesting to see pre-orders and uptake on this. Whilst the C300 is a different beast altogether, Canon have definitely be busy, it has been a 4 year wait since the release of the 5D MKII
James
I was lamenting the staggering percentage of price increase. But after talking with a friend who is involved with a lot of high-finance trade with Japan through his employer, I'm now able to forgive Canon. There are two factors behind the increase: The tsunami plays a part, but mainly prices are affected by the U.S. dollar's significantly low exchange rate. Greed may play a part as some have suggested, but that would run counter to Japan's very successful historic business model. Fingers crossed that in a year or two our exchange rate will strengthen and prices for imported goods can drop back down. If it does, then I'm getting me one of these babies!
I'm not surprised that people are disappointed.
It seems that Canon is now chasing high ISO and fps and improved auto-focusing in their latest cameras. These are great achievements but will not impress too many current 5D II owners with a $1100 price increase.
It seems Canon has fallen for the Nikon trap. Nikon was behind in MP for years and argued, successfully for Nikon owners, that 12MP should be the max for the 35mm format arguing the Airy Disk for small aperatures effects on sharpness. It is a good argument....if you are shooting >f11. However I like to shoot <f5.6. Now Nikon leapfrogs Canon in MP and you hear Nikon owners rejoice and Canon owners lament. Funny that....it seems the MP "myth" is alive and well.
I don't know if I'm going to upgrade from my 5D II yet
Actually, if you look at the comments on the d800 over on NikonRumors you will find that a majority of posts are decrying the awful injustice that Nikon is perpetrating on its fans by providing a sensor with too many MP. I have one on order, but many feel the high iso is far more important than MP count. For me the high MP is a plus because I tend to Crop heavily to get multiple images out of one shot in Motorsports photography and rarely shooot in the dark, so I'm happy.
Nice try nick, the comments are 75% pro. Hardly the negativity you claim.
I'm tired of Canon coming out with more and more DSLR bodies and not enough lenses. Everyone is on this body hype, when in my opinion, it doesn't change much if you still have the same lenses.
"...and not enough lenses." EF is probably the most extensive AF line of lenses for a 35mm format. At the moment, I'm using:
14mm 2.8
16-35mm 2.8
50mm 1.2
85mm 1.2
24-70mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8
200mm 2.0
I sincerly do not see a brand/manufacturer who offers a beeter choice of high quality, fast and precise for the given format. I agree that the prices are not the best, but that's how it is....
Are you kidding? I wasn't sure. Do you really find Canon's mind-boggling range of available lenses to somehow be lacking?
Not enough lenses? What more do you need? I guess they could be more like Nikon and offer a lot of basic low cost lenses along side their awesome lenses. But why would Canon do that?
I have
15mm f2.8 fisheye
16-35mm f2.8
50mm f1.2
100mm f2.8 IS macro
70-200mm f2.8 IS II
2x extender
I don't see where Canon is deficient in lenses?
I do have one additional point I would like to make. This is aimed at the hosts of this forum, B&H. If this is the same crappy kit lens that came with the 5D MkII why on earth would you think I would be willing to pay an additional $800 to get it? I made that mistake once already and have NO intention of doing so again.
Hello,
You do have the option to purchase the new body separately. Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital Camera (Body Only)
The Canon bundle includes the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM which incorporates Canon's highest standards of precision optics. Apart of thier L-series, this is Canon's flagship professional lens range, combining outstanding image performance and ultimate operability with dust and moisture resistant construction.
While on paper, it may be all that and more, the reality is that it's hard for me to imagine how the apparently flawed, fragile 24-105/4L earned its red ring. Perhaps a healthy copy performs to "Canon's highest standards of precision optics," but I've had no such experience. To the contrary, the two copies I've had were both badly decentered right out of the box, with chromatic aberration throughout is worse than my $150 second-hand AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5D. I've read it suggested that the design may be prone to easily slipping out of alignment–which would be a damn shame for a price "L" series lens.
Of course, I know Canon is capable of designing and building great lenses. But no one should be deluded into thinking the 24-105/4L is among them.
Reading through the comments I see a lot of things that only seem to point out the ignorance of the folks posting. I see a lot of folks talking about how this is only a firmware upgrade. Firmware is the programming embedded in the the chips used in the system. The things I do see in this fluff piece of a review sound like they ripped the guts of the MkII out and replaced them wholesale. Some folks talk about the MkIII vs. the D800. I haven't seen any actual info yet, but I do know enough about physics to know that when you pack that many photo receptors into this sensor size you will have to do something to deal with the noise of so many electrons passing so closely by each other. As a fashion shooter low light performance is important to me, so I would have to see some real world shots in fashion show conditions before making that jump. What I don't see are any mention of real information in this review. Things like write speed to the memory cards, number of images that can be included in the new HDR functions and can you create an HDR series of more than three images without combining them into the final HDR image. This would be nice to allow more artistic operations than what you would get with the in camera function. Things like how many lumens it takes to allow the autofocus to work correctly, hopefully an increased transfer speed when tethered...... The list goes on. Please, don't let my comments stop you all. Please continue to whine. This is not a review, it is a fluffy introduction of an upgrade to the MkII. All the noise about switching is just posturing and reminds me of the joke about the photographer invited to dinner. The hostess exclaimed to said photographer, "You have some lovely images. You must have a very good camera." It's just a tool, boys and girls. It's not nearly as important as what's between your ears.
Amen. I like the whiners, as I get to move up on the pre-order list. Maybe they'll by my used Mk ii.
Canon just sold me a Nikon D800!
The upgrades are definitely worth the $1k price differential in my opinion. I bought a 7d instead of a 5d mkii because of the better ergonomics, white balance, auto focus, metering, frame rate, etc. So now canon wants to put those features on a full frame camera and charge me for it? Not unexpected or unreasonable. A good camera should make technical high quality images yes, but I won't buy a camera that doesn't get out of the way and let me make good pictures. Looking at these specs, I think there is potential for the mk iii to be canon's best and most versatile camera yet.
So what should the Mark IV cost? $4500? These are improvements on an existing model. The better AF is great, but it should have been there long ago. It had a horrible AF system before. The full size chip made it all seem better. They are pricing a lot of people out. I think they need to have a camera at the $3000 point. Shoiuld have left out some of those Video features and reduced the price that way if this was their only option. It will eventually drop down in price anyway. But if you're not too invested in Canon, Nikon may me the better buy right now. A lot of people have been waiting for the AF improvement, but not at $3500.
I've got a couple mk II's. I'm trying to decide whether it's worth it to pay and extra $1,000+ to updgrade to a 5d that can actually focus on the subject!
The only MAJOR upgrade is the number of focus points as the 5dmkII struggles like a point and shoot to focus in low light and on moving objects. 61 focus points is much welcomed but the focus capabilites on the current 5d (mkII) should be much better than it is.
cpu, metering, shutter, all major
All major? Really? They are all fundamental to staying competitive. Major is like when Canon created the digital Rebel - first of its kind in that price point or when they created the 5D series. This is a refresh like computer processors - a simple step change. This is not like going from single core to multi-core computer processing which is a technology change. This is like cars - Generation 1 vs 2 vs 3 - you don't see this kind of a % overall mark up until you see a major design change.
Still missing a lot of things. I am glad I my AF100 from panasonic rather than any of the mark series from cannon. With that said I do love my T2i for photography and its more than I need on a regular basis for that reason. But it does make for a great second video shooting camera on set.
To all those whining about the $1,000 price difference between the Old Mark II and the New Mark III. It is not a thousand dollars more, it is $500.00 more. Did people just forget that the Mark II was $2,999.99 when released in 2008? If you are waiting for the NEW Mark III to drop in price you'll be waiting a year or two. I'll pay $500.00 more for a better AF, 6 FPS, Mode Dial Lock, and multifunction button.
Why is every one saying better autofocus? No one has proven that yet. Having more focus points does not make it a "better autofocus" by default. A good example is the EOS Mark III. If this is new to you, go to visit the Rob Galbraith web site and read all about it.
As a diving professional, ths camera looks like what I've been waiting for. I have been debating getting a 35mm SLR that gives great picture quality and video. This does both. I hope the reviews pan out and an underwater housing comes available for it. This camera will be great for underwater work.
Love to all new features but need some more improvements like it has to be 32mp or more, 6fps is not enough need to minimum at list 10fps headphone out with live sound need to be there I don’t know what kind of stapes they are going to do. Not happy with Mark III it’s processer enough to justify as new features. It is new name of mark II that’s it.
Canon guy should understand requirement, actually I read from blog they are coming in March 2013 with mark III with good features list what looking for.
$3500? With the grip close to $4000? Never thought I'd say this but Nikon is starting to sound really good about now. I have both the 5D Mark I and II, but this is a different price point. Is a 6D coming or something? Waisted too much time waiting for this release. I do have all that Canon glass.
Nikon's grip is in the same price point, too. A bit less, but still up there.
Ford vs Dodge vs Chevy trucks, Porsche vs. Mercedes. I'd take any of these given to me, gratefully and happily. Canon vs. Nikon, same applies. I am jittery waiting to get my hands on a 5D Mk iii. For me, perfect upgrades, far from "just a firmware" upgrade. Increased fps, not huge, but better, and the markedly improved AF. Shooting also with a 1D Mk iv I have sworn at my 5D Mk ii more than once trying to hit that focus, esp in dim light. Yes I use AF, when shooting high speed events, manual focus doesn't swing it in these circumstances. Oh, then there is the horizon level, ....I think this camera will be awesome out of the box, can't wait. Price, yes a big jump, but I'd be hesitant to say what it costs to R&D these improvements--shockingly more than people would imagine. As already mentioned, any of this gear will make great images if the shooter sees and makes great choices.
If you're not excited for this camera, then it wasn't built for you. As a wedding photographer I can't wait to shoot usable images in the dark at 12000 iso on my 50 1.2 and 24 1.4. Realistically the price to upgrade is 1700 to 1800 once you sell your 5dmkii. I'm buying two and will pay for the upgrade with one wedding. I will absolutely get lower noise and more in focus shots. The HDR and other new features are just a bonus. If you think video on a dslr is a waste, give it a try. Learn something new and discover a new way to express your creativity. Its a relatively new frontier and there is actually opportunity to do something new. Bottom line, quit complaining- this will be one of the best tools available for the next few years and its up to you to do something awesome with it.
You'd think you'd at least get USB 3.0 support at that price.
I wanna know if the hdmi out is clean and not downconverting to 480...thats the dealbreaker for me. If not, I'll be looking for a good deal on a mkii. I only shoot video with my 7D, Love it, but I need a fullframe to take advantage of my Zeiss ZF.2 lens kit.
And to those that are asking for AF in video mode...seriously? Real DPs shoot Manual
At this time we know that the 5D Mk III’s video output is better that the Mk II’s since during Live View video recording the HDMI output signal is not down converted to 480. However, the actual size is unknown. We also know the signal is not clean and is unsuitable for external recording devices. Since this is a new product information is still forthcoming.
I for one am thrilled with this announcement, as it means I can stay with Canon cameras, and won't be as tempted to switch to Nikon. When I originally glanced through this announcement, I was most disappointed with one thing: The lack of dual memory card slots, which is something I think Nikon has been doing that Canon has neglected in their lower than 1D series bodies. I was about to post my disappointment, and decided to read the entire thing through one more time. I am now quite pleasantly surprised that they added this feature to the 5D series, and am hoping they will take Nikon's lead and add it to the remainder of their mid level cameras. I was a bit surprised to find the feature buried here, when it is a priceless feature IMO.
They didn't need to up the resolution to 36 megapixels for this camera. It certainly wasn't necessary, and I'm glad they showed a bit of restraint. 22 might have been a bit conservative, but is still plenty for almost any application. I mostly shoot with a 1D Mark iii, and 10 megapixels is sufficient for most applications, so double that is not bad at all. I'd much prefer a 22 megapixel camera with extremely low noise capabilities than a 36 megapixel camera that packs in the pixels and doesn't do well above 1600 ISO.
As far as the other improvements, the improved autofocus system should be a huge bonus. Everyone I know that owns or has used the 5D II agreed that body should have a higher end AF system. Now it does. There is also an improved metering system, which is always a good thing. 6 FPS isn't shabby either, especially for a 22 megapixel camera.
Would it be worth it to upgrade from a 5D II to a 5D III, maybe, maybe not, depends on your needs. It should be an excellent camera though, especially for those thinking of buying a new one soon. If image quality is anything like the previous 5D series cameras, it should be amazing. If the ISO results in low noise images at 6400 and/or 12800, it will be a fabulous tool.
Would you pay $1000 for a superior AF system, dual memory card slots (priceless), and 2 fps difference? I think it is worth that much, especially when you consider it is now basically a 1 series camera with a slower frame rate, and no vertical grip, minus perhaps a bit of weather sealing. Add a vertical grip and you have a slightly slower 1 series full frame camera, not bad.
What am I most excited about? The dual memory card slots should eventually make their way into the other mid range bodies, maybe the next XXD series, 7D Mark II, etc. I also expect Canon will come out with another camera, maybe a 3D, or something similar, with a higher megapixel count to compete with Nikon's latest announcement, and to please the megapixel starved photographers out there (hope their lenses can resolve that much detail)
$3,500!?!?!?....OUCH!!! I guess my trusty 7D will have to suffice for my budding filmmaking aspirations, and my aging "5D-Mark-nothing" for full-frame still photograpy. :-(
Dissappointed. I had various canon cams since 10d incluing 5d2 and 7d. I'll be looking at something else. Perhaps d800. Would not concider buying mk3 above $1800. I guess canon was hit pretty hard by tsunami and is becoming desperate. Im sureit's a great camera but a little too expencive a little too late.
I do not understand why these big debates about MK2 vs MK3 or Canon MK3 vx Nikon D800 are going on before anyone actually has tested both cameras side by side. It is like boasting about one car being better and faster than another before they hit the road. Any new technology needs intensive real world testing to show its strentghs and weaknesses.
My complaint is that the foreign electronics manufacturers where able to use their money to bribe US politicians to give electronics an exemption form anti-price fixing laws. I am confident that B&H could give us much better deals if the prices were not dictated by the manufacturers.
Now this is a political agenda I would support. How about everyone who shops at B&H complaining to their representatives in the US Congress to remove this price-fixing exemption. It is a big election year. Perhaps a change could be made.
For those who fault using these DSLR's for video - Here's how I do event video with the 7D: all audio is centralized in a mixer, and I connect two wireless xmitter's to the mixer outuput. Each camera (five) has a dual-channel wireless receiver on it. By doing this, each camera gets identical audio which allows easy sync'ing in the NLE, which is very important, and also you can see that on-camera gain (level) adjustments are not important. Recording can be done off the mixer; the camera doesn't care.
To those who think more pixels aren't of very much value - would'nt we love a full-frame sensor with over 120 mega-pixels for all those situations where we crop out a small section and blow it up 400% or even 1600% while retaining high clarity?
Be prepared to buy really big, expensive cards and a whole lot of storage space.
Actually, the lenses are the weakest link and don't have the resolution to allow that. Just look at your images at 4:1 so you can see the pixels; you'll notice the blurring from the lens. There is no advantage in over 20-25 m pixels.
The only way this will outsell the D800 is if they unlock the video to 2k 120fps raw... In which case it'll outsell Red One/Sony F3/D800... Oh even Canon's own C300... Guess that's not going to happen any time soon then, unless someone can hace the firmware on the new processor... I've got $5 in a paypal account ready to transfer to the firmware hacker that can make that happen. Who's with me?
I have been shooting since 1989. I didn't jump to digital until it was a mature, fully developed technology. The reason? Low light and noise and poopy resolution. I shot medium format for over a decade (rz67) for the detail in the prints. I make most of my prints at 30x40 inches. I never printed digital shots that large until I tried Perfect Resize. My first print blew me away. Since then I sold ALL my MF gear and purchased more lenses for digital. The only issues I currently have with digital is low light performance, which is still far more capable than film ever was. The 1DS MK III has more than ample res. for my enlargements. The only thing I find lacking is, again, low light performance, and noise. Looking at the 2 northern lights sample photos on Canon's web sight gets me VERY excited. My guess is that the 5d3 will smoke Nikon's d800 in noise and low light performance. Yes I wish it has more pixels, but that is really a secondary consideration in the real world of landscape photography. 22mp will upres wonderfully to 30x40 and with the low light performance being stellar, this may be the best, most capable, digital slr in history. I up-ressed the sample shot at iso 6400 to 9600x6400 and it was truly stellar. Take a look at Marc Adamus' web site and his best work is all low light stuff and truly amazing. I don't doubt that he will be using this camera soon. All the naysayers may find the flavor of foot quite unpleasant soon. Wait for the "Digital Picture", "Pop Photo" and real-world tests results before you judge this beauty. Megapixels are nice but capability is what I spend my bucks on.
Don't bet on the 5D3 "smoking" the D800 in high ISO performance. The 5DII and D700 were neck-and-neck for noise (quantity) at high ISO. Below, the D800 looks at least one stop better than the D700 with significantly more resolving potential.
http://www.jambor.ro/blog/2012/03/13/nikon-d800-vs-d700-high-iso-compari...
IF the 5DIII is a stop better than the 5DII, that puts the cameras roughly equal in terms of noise performance (quantity) with higher resolution to the D800.
I just ordered mine from B&H. I am putting my money where my mouth is! I will be upgrading from a 7D with 1.5 years of School NYIP. Some my current gear includes 35 f1.4L, 100mm f2.8L macro IS, 24-105 f4L and the lovely 70-200 f2.8L IS ii. From 2011 the 5D mark ii had the best IQ DXOmark, better then the 1Ds iii. This body will produce better IQ and two stops better ISO performance with better metering and the best AF system in this price range. Only two other Pro body's will surpass the IQ here the Nikon D4 and Canon 1dx. I believe this body will surpass even the ultra expensive Nikon 3Dx. Nikons glass has limited sharp glass that will be able to match the D800 Resolution and sadly to say seems like half of them are still manual focus.
Way to many complainers and Nikon users trying to throw some off track. If you are in the market for the best IQ, ISO performance and best glass choices to match Canon won this time out. Surpassing Nikons D3s , D3x and D700 with just one body......the 5D mark iii, just not the Shutter cycles, but every thing else. I like Nikons and have respect for all they are accomplishing just hate complainers. Start shooting and producing your best products and put your money where your mouth is, like I just did.......or wine like a little girl.
Exciting! But So dissapointing at the same time because of the price. Guess I will be holding on to my Mark II for a while. This is one of the several reasons I prefer film.
Did the AF in live view get any faster than the 7D? It's GOTTA be, right?
Unfortunately, while overall autofocus performance for the Canon EOS 5D Mark III has been stated as receiving an overhaul and is expected to be much better, especially with bright lenses with the extra cross-type focus points and the five central focus points that have additional diagonally-cross type sensors for extra sensitivity, I have not yet seen any preview or statement in the press release that specifically addresses AF performance during Live View. The Canon EOS 5D Mark III has not been compared to the Canon EOS 7D; however, the 5D Mark III is to use the same 61-point autofocus sensor as used in the also newly-announced Canon EOS 1D X, which does eclipse the 19-point autofocus sensor in the 7D.
Thanks for the rundown on the camera. One thing that puzzles me is what you mean by saying that the 14-bit A/D conversion extends the camera's ISO range. Canon too refers to 14-bit conversion as an improvement without explaining what it's an improvement over. If 14-bit conversion extends the dynamic range or provides other "improvements" in this camera, why doesn't it do so in the many other EOS cameras using 14-bit conversion, including the 5D mk ii?
Canon has used a 14-bit A/D conversion has been used in Canon cameras going back to the EOS 40D, and is included in cameras like the 5D Mark II as well. Earlier cameras with a 12-bit conversion did not produce as smooth of a gradient in the image. Canon does have a very good article on their site that explains the conversion, and its advantages.
Hooray for Canon abandoning the pixel count war. With the 5D II, I have seldom wished for more pixels, unless I was careless in framing and wanted only a fraction of the recorded image. I want speed, quality, low-light capabilities, versatility, etc.
I can't wait to get my hands on this new version!