Canon EOS 5D Mark III: Now You're Talkin!

<p>I know I shouldn't put too much stock in the rumor mill. But, I was passing by <strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/category/photography/canon-5d-mark-iii/">Canon Rumors</a></strong> and I caught the rumors on the 5D Mark III. I've had a 5D (Mark I) for a while. I like the camera. But, if the Mark III rumors come anywhere near reality, Canon can count on one more sale!</p>

<ul>

<li>28megapixel CMOS sensor. Achieved by introducing new technologies such as low-noise photodiode</li>

<li>Sensor Size 36.0 × 24.0mm 1.0x</li>

<li><strong>Wide low-noise ISO sensitivity ISO100 ~ 12800 (extension L: 50, H1: 25600, H2: 51200, H3: 102400)</strong></li>

<li><strong>The six frames * Dual DIGIC4 / s provides continuous shooting</strong></li>

<li>98 percent of the viewfinder field of view, magnification 0.71 times. With the electronic level</li>

<li>A high-speed AF system. Double Cross Centre, Cross assists 19 points – 26 points. 5 AF point selection mode, types of automatic. Advanced AI Servo AF</li>

<li>63-segment metering. 1920 × 1080 30/25/24 frame Video</li>

<li>Crop video feature. 10X SD, HD four times, three times in full HD.</li>

</ul>

<p>Oooh, I think I just drooled a little.</p>

<p>I would certainly bet on a new autofocus system and I would also expect the 5d3 will be introduced in 2011 but I don't think I have taken advantage of half of what my current 5d2 can do :-]. </p>

<p>Oh, I'm sure I haven't taken advantage of everything the 5D1 can do either. But, I've been in situations where the 5D1 wasn't up to snuff (bold features). I wanted to capture some sports shots (i.e., baseball) where 3.x fps just didn't cut it.</p>

<p>If all they did was upgrade the AF system and raised the burst rate I'd likely upgrade from my 5D2.</p>

<p>The above list looks like a mere "upgrade of numbers" - uninspiring. I would upgrade from the 5D if dynamic range gets significantly improved, or maybe if it can burst-shoot HDR raw images (e.g. without mechanical shutter). I suppose if "2 stops" noise improvement in ISO (over the 5DII?) means that I can shoot at 3 stops underexposed to save highlights and still be able to pull out 5D-like midtones and shadows, the target would be sufficiently met? But DxOmark graphs show at ISO 100 Canon dynamic range did not progress much at all in recent years and is 2.5 stops behind. A swivel screen would be cool as well, for macro and low angle shooting. And video needs a global electronic shutter against jelly effect and to render things like lightning flashes correctly.</p>

<p>An AF system upgrade would warrant me upgrading to the MK3. I love my Mk2 but the shutter lag and focus speed annoy me when working in a non studio environment. </p>

<p>That being said I am not holding my breath on a Mk3 coming out anytime soon especially since I am already blue from waiting on the 1Ds replacement. </p>

<p>I an under the impression that the Mk II sensor is already at, or past, the resolving power of L glass. Am I wrong (again)?</p>

<p>Jim,</p>

<p>You learn something new every day. How can I tell if my 5DI meets this specification?</p>

<p>[[i an under the impression that the Mk II sensor is already at, or past, the resolving power of L glass. Am I wrong]]</p>

<p>Can you point to data that supports this? The "we're out-resolving our lenses" argument seems to come with every new generation of camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I an under the impression that the Mk II sensor is already at, or past, the resolving power of L glass. Am I wrong?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong.<br>

The 18MP 7D already has smaller and more densely packed photosites. I haven't done the calculation, but expanded to full frame its density would get you into the upper 30MP region.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The "we're out-resolving our lenses" argument seems to come with every new generation of camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much a moot point of most people shoot one handed...</p>

<p><em>canonrumors.com</em> is garbage.</p>

<p>I am a 5D (Classic) owner. I have been saving my pennies (and dollars) for a while now anticipating the Mark III sometime in 2011. I like my 5D but there are some things that I wish it had. I wish it had live view to help me focus better in my night shots. I wish it had sensor cleaning, though owning the 5D has helped me learn to clean my sensor. I wish it had another 2 or 3 stops of <em>usable</em> ISO to help me with my night landscapes. Finally, I would like the updated focusing ability of the 7D. Video? I don't know if I would like it or not since I have not explored that part of photography.</p>

<p>Personally, I am really happy that Nikon is probably working on their next D700. It will help my next camera have advancements that it wouldn't have without the fierce Canon vs. Nikon competition. I don't know what the new capabilities will be. Canon scientists and engineers are probably full of ideas. It is fun to anticipate.</p>

<p>So, when (if) the Mark III comes out in the second half of 2011, I plan to be ready to order mine.</p>

<p>The sensor on the 5DII should be around 77 lp/mm. I hope good "L" glass is up to that! </p>

G Dan is right. 7D pixel density expanded to full frame size would be a lot of MP. I've read that images from the 7D

aren't as sharp as the 5D2, though, so maybe they shouldn't push full frame all the way to that density. There has to

be a happy medium in there somewhere.

 

My wish list includes a few more MP, better dynamic range, and cleaner shadow detail at all ISO values.

<blockquote>

<p>G Dan is right. 7D pixel density expanded to full frame size would be a lot of MP. I've read that images from the 7D aren't as sharp as the 5D2, though, so maybe they shouldn't push full frame all the way to that density. There has to be a happy medium in there somewhere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "not as sharp" evaluation often comes from people who forget what they are looking at when they make a comparison. For example, I've heard people claim stuff along the lines of (to make up an example) "my old 40D is sharper in 100% crops than my 7D!"</p>

<p>Yes. But more importantly, no.</p>

<p>They forget that comparing 100% crops from two cameras with the same format will always make the camera with the larger number of photosites look "less sharp." But in reality, the worst case is that the sharpness might be the same (in the unlikely case that you are lens resolution limited) but more likely the higher MP camera will provide better resolution.</p>

<p>Then why do 100% crops "lie?"</p>

<p>Let's imagine looking at 400 x 400 pixel crops at 100% magnification from a 8MP camera and from a 18MP camera. Both will be the same size on the screen... but the image from the latter sample represents a much smaller portion of the original image, and would comprise a much smaller section of a print. Essentially you are looking at a smaller area more closely. The 8MP 100% crop will look "sharper" on the screen, but the 18MP photograph has the potential for more resolution if you make equal size prints from the two samples.</p>

<p>The film equivalent - which sounds transparently absurd, but is really the same thing - would be to use a loupe to look at your negative/slide under magnification, then get out a loupe with greater magnification, look at the very same image again with the "stronger" loupe, and emphatically declare that the photograph had lost sharpness between the first and second inspections!</p>

<p>If you still don't get it... think about it more carefully. :-)</p>

<p>There is no loss in sharpness when going from one sensor to another with greater photosite density. In the worst theoretical case we might find that there is not significant improvement in resolution - if we are limited by reaching the resolution limit imposed by the lens or if "in the real world" we don't make large enough prints to see the difference. With the exception of the worst theoretical case, the <em>resolution</em> outcome of denser photosites is always better. (Of course, resolution may not be the only important criterion, and increasing photosite density could have some negative effects on other important criteria. However, despite regular protests that this would be the case each time photosite density has been increased over the past decade or so... image quality has only continued to improve.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Quick calculations (if right) shows that the 7D chip needs 115-116 lp/mm glass. A 30mp full frame would need less than that at around 94 lp/mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Quick calculations (if right) shows that the 7D chip needs 115-116 lp/mm glass. A 30mp full frame would need less than that at around 94 lp/mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Given what lp/mm resolution figures actually tell us, it ain't quite that simple...</p>

<p>If those are the specs, then I'm not sure that I would upgrade from the 5DII. The auto focus on the 5DII is not as good as Nikon, but it is simple to use and works just fine. 21.1 Megapixels is more than enough. High ISO on the 5DII prints very well (Especially when fixed with Nik Define). The crop feature on the video would be great for focusing, but I don't use that much, and I have a 7D for the high speed bursts (and it extends my lenses 1.6 times). There will need to be something more to justify an upgrade. If I had a 5DI, then I would totally upgrade to the 5DIII. I might just wait for the 5D Mark IV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, despite regular protests that this would be the case each time photosite density has been increased over the past decade or so... image quality has only continued to improve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does this statement suggest that the 7D's IQ is better than the 5D2's (more pixels, but less density)? Or are you comparing like sensor sizes (5D vs. 5D2)? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The auto focus on the 5DII is not as good as Nikon, but it is simple to use and works just fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to disagree. In my experience, the 5D2's lonely central cross sensor is actually SUPERIOR to the D700's complex array IF you're focusing on something stationary. For moving subjects, the D700 has the advantage. But given the 7D's AF pedigree I would expect nothing less from the next 5D, plus better video features as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>21.1 Megapixels is more than enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what they used to say about 256 Meg of RAM and pre-Pentium Intel processors. Plus, some of us are just greedy. ;-{)</p>

<p>I wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, despite regular protests that this would be the case each time photosite density has been increased over the past decade or so... image quality has only continued to improve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And Dan South asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does this statement suggest that the 7D's IQ is better than the 5D2's (more pixels, but less density)? Or are you comparing like sensor sizes (5D vs. 5D2)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it only suggests that increases in sensor photosite density have not been accompanied by the often-predicted decrease in image quality. If anything, the overall image quality has increased when a particular sensor format acquired have more photosites.</p>

<p>There are other issues at work when you compare cameras with different sensor (or film) sizes.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I don't need more mp, but more autofocus points would be great. Once again, for moving objects, like birds, it would be helpful, along with more frames per second.</p>

<p>Just wondering what the future holds for the 1-series, with the way the 5D is going.</p>

<p>Personally, I would much rather have a 5D format camera, never saw a purpose for the extra, portrait orientation shutter button, and all the extra battery pack bulk.</p>

<p>Would be nice to see an extra offering of 5D, with 1-series build and weather proofing...</p>

<p>To add to the resolution issue - I suspect that the difference between the 21MP 5DII and the 5DIII (if it is 28 MP) will not create too many lens issues. Like others I have both the 5DII and 7D and find that the 7D does tend to out resolve lenses more than the 5DII but that this does not create real world issues with picture quality, unless you plan very large enlargements or pixel peep. I already find that my 5DII needs the best quality glass and even here can embarrass lenses (for example the corners of my 16-35 F2.8 LII at 35mm and F2.8 do not look great). I suspect that we will reach a point where the sensor pixel density is such that manufacturers will end up reducing it for image quality (Canon did this with it's G series compact going from 14.7 MP to 10 MP) but that this will arrive at about 50MP on full frame.<br>

If anyone is interested you can see this effect using DXO Mark lens and sensor tests. I used the 85 F1.8 (the highest resolution Canon lens they have tested) and found the 5DII resolves 66 lp/mm, the 5D MkI 59 Lp/mm while the 7D only resolves 47 lp/mm. Clearly the limiting factor here is the lens resolution as the 13 MP 5D out resolves the 18 Mp 7D. Of course it is simply due to the fact that the 7D sensor is half the size. <br>

All that said - I have both the 7D and 85 F1.8 and do not find any real world issues with this combination.</p>