5D MkIII Is it what you wanted?

[robert_turner]

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest disappointment for me is the lack of a decent 50mm lens from Canon. The f1.8 is badly made rubbish, the f1.4 is sloppy and unreliable while the f1.2 is too big and expensive. I’m hoping they will produce an IS f1.4 using the barrel recently introduced on the new 24mm and 28mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe your wish will come to, and the new lens won't be "rubbish"! Just don't complain about the price of the 50 you request. It is pretty easy to extrapolate a reasonable price range based on the last new fixed focal length 2.8 lenses Canon just announced.</p>

[william_bray1]

I have never experienced any problems

with the AF on the 5d2, but in critical

situations I only use the center AF point.

Tracking that's another thing. From my

experience , when shooting at 2.8 or

faster the centre AF on the 5d2 is

extremely accurate, the 7d which I

compared it to, while it was faster and

tracking was superb, using it where there

was shallow depth of field it gave

inconsistent results, and in low light I

never had problems with the center AF

of the 5d2. I only use fast lenses so I

don't know if the 5d2 has problems

locking on with slower lenses.

[dan_south]

I'm sure that the 5D3's AF is a marvel of technology, but IMHO the 5D2 was accurate and reliable (center point only).

Yes, the other AF points were just about useless, but that center point outperformed the fancy AF on my D700 for

consistency and reliability.

 

As stated before, there really isn't a price increase. Our money just isn't worth what it used to be.

 

The big problem I've had with the 5D2 is shadow noise. I'm hoping that this is no longer a problem with he new model.

[MTC Photography]

<p>5D mark II is my ideal camera body to attach my Leica lenses from 19mm up to 400mm, it takes me quite a while to find the best EOS-R adapter after testing five adapters from different vendors. I am going to stick with 5Dii.</p>

 

[eric_duncan3]

<p>My advice to fellow photographers: do not buy the Canon 5D Mk III. Do not buy the Nikon D800, either. In fact, stop taking photographs altogether, because when the first yottapixel (YP) camera is introduced a decade from now, with ISO 128 trillion, today's arguments about 22 vs. 36 MP will be laughable, and the images these cameras produce, hopelessly passe!<br>

The YP camera will be the great equaliser among genres: resolving detail on a subatomic scale, it won't matter if our images of baryons and leptons are landscapes, portraits, or whatever. I can't wait!<br>

With tongue firmly in cheek,<br>

Eric</p>

[dan_south]

Yeah, please don't buy one. Free up that waiting list. ;-)

[j_hickton]

<p>Can anyone see the price of a new 5D mark ii eventually dropping below £1,000?</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>There're not that price second hand, the 5Dmk1 still sell for £700 second hand in good condition. I don't think there ever going to be below £1000, if they get any where near that I'll be surprised. The lowest I've ever seen them in the UK was £1450, at Park Cameras, that was in January 2012, then in the middle of February they shot up to £1680, when they had to get new stock from Canon. I assume your from the UK as you said "£1000", look at a website called camerapricebuster, it tracks all equipment, showing lowest to highest price.</p>

[aesco48]

<p>I had my fingers crossed for video AF... and a nicer price tag. My 50D just died and now I dont know what to get. A 7D (2009)... 5DII (2008)...?</p>

<p>Anyone know why no video AF?</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Just Bought a B+W 10 stop ND filter, and on a 5D mkii it still locks focus. I don't know what the big deal is about poor AF on a MKII, as I said before tracking is another matter.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Does it also lock focus if you don't use the central AF point? If so, that is very impressive.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> 5D MkIII Is it what you wanted?

 

No. Making identical photos as my 5DII, but at a +50% increase in price doesn't make any sense.

 

Smaller package, built-in flash, lighter weight, better ergonomics, etc at a *lower* price would make sense

for me.

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>"Smaller package, built-in flash, lighter weight, better ergonomics, etc at a *lower* price would make sense for me."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be a 7D, and that still takes considerably higher IQ images (not that IQ is the be all and end all of an image) than your beloved iPhone.</p>

<p>I think the 5D MkIII is a fantastic camera and a bargain, I have a 1Ds MkIII, a $6,000+ camera (well it was) the 5D MkIII does pretty much everything better for just over half the price!</p>

[Brad_]

>>> That would be a 7D, and that still takes considerably higher IQ images (not that IQ is the be all and end all

of an image) than your beloved iPhone.

 

The 7D is not able to peacefully coexist with my wallet and keys in my pants pocket.

 

It is interesting that with respect to the high-end segment, camera manufacturers seem to be immune from what has been happening in the rest of the tech

world (computers, cellphones, etc). That is, where newer models offer better performance, many times in

smaller packages, for the same or less money.

 

That's probably because many are willing to pay a lot more $$$ for incremental increases in performance,

thinking that is the easy path to creating more compelling photographs.

[william_bray1]

Yakim,

I used the canon 24-70 and the 70-200

2.8 is, with the filter on. I did this on an

overcast day. At first I didn't even

attempt to use AF, I didn't think it would

work, but before I packed up I gave it a

try. The center AF locked on surprisingly

fast, the outer ones hunted but locked

on to a good contrast subject. The

exposure was 30 seconds @ f18 and 200

ISO, so pretty dark.

I must say I didn't think anyone would

be still following this thread, and to get

responses so fast.

I've been keeping my eye on the 5d mkii

vs mkiii, on other sites and reviews, and

it seems that the improvements in ISO

are only in jpeg, and that's down to the

processor. In raw they are both

practically the same.

Has anyone seen anything to that says

different?

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>"The 7D is not FF, and is not able to peacefully coexist with my wallet and keys in my pants pocket."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No FF DSLR will ever be able to fit in your pants pocket, unless you have very baggy pants. Even old film SLR's wouldn't fit in a normal sized pocket with a lens on. If fitting in your pocket is a key feature then being disappointed at the 5D MkIII is a little pointless.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It is interesting that with respect to the high-end segment, camera manufacturers seem to be immune from what has been happening in the rest of the tech world (computers, cellphones, etc). That is, where newer models offer better performance, many times in smaller packages, for the same or less money. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't follow your logic here.</p>

<p>In late 2007 Canon introduced the 1Ds MkIII, it has no video, is 6.1 x 6.2 x 3.1 in, it weighs 3.1 lb, it shoots 5 fps with a 21mp sensor, and cost $7,000.</p>

<p>In early 2013 Canon introduce the 5D MkIII, it has very good HD video, is 5.98 x 4.57 x 2.99 in (30% smaller), it weighs 2 lbs (30% lighter), it shoots 6 fps with a 24mp sensor (20% faster and 14% more pixels), and cost $3,500 (half the price), all other specs match or exceed the 1Ds MkIII, AF, weatherproofing, playback screen etc etc. In real terms, when inflation and currency differences are taken into account, the launch price is the same as the 5D MkII was in Feb 2009.</p>

<p>By what metric are you measuring the 5D MkIII as not a significant step forward for the consumer?</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>I found this comparison of video capabilities on You Tube yesterday which was a real eye opener for those of you who shoot video. I have no idea if any of it translates to still photo capability. <a href="http://fstoppers.com/video-canon-5dm3-5dm2-and-nikon-d800-low-light-video-test"> Here</a> is the link. If I planned on doing video at all I would buy the 5D Mk2 or 3. In the comments section the creator says that the Canon's exposure was accurate when compared to a light meter and that the D800's was not accurate.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>When you compare the mkIII to the EOS DCS, which only had a a 1.3 Megapixel CCD sensor and a price tag of £12,000 back in 1995 you are getting a bargain, how are Canon making any money from the 5D MKIII with 22 megapxels, they're giving it away.<br>

Wait stop, its not 1995 and its not 2007 when the 1ds mkIII was released. Why are you comparing yesterdays cameras to todays and saying we're getting such a good deal.<br>

Compare the MKiii to it's competition TODAY, the Nikon D800 and other equivalent cameras.<br>

The only people who could be seriously tempted by the 5D MKiii is those who were looking at the 1DX or those who have money to burn<br>

5D MKII + better AF + 2x the price = RIP OFF</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Here is a link to my website, www.williambrayphoto.com<br>

If you go to the section, people, you'll see a few photos of a religious festival that I shot at night. the photos there are just a few of many, they were all shot with a 5DmkII with a 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 IS at 6400. The lighting conditions were dreadful and I had to always shoot at 2.8, every one was marching through the streets, hardly anyone stopped to pose. I would say I got 80% of the shots taken in these conditions spot on focus, I don't know of the 20% that were thrown away how much was the fault of the 5D or was user error.<br>

I've reduced the resolution of all my photos for the web, so you're not going to see fantastic detail when zooming in, but I hope you see that I'm not making my claims up.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>@ Brad—I believe the <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=NXk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=CURRENCY:JPYUSD&ei=HWylT7PqLqSqiALUpe2xAg&sa=X&oi=currency_onebox&ct=currency_onebox_chart&resnum=1&ved=0CIMBEOUGMAA">10-year chart depicting the yen's performance against the dollar</a> is the big problem, as many others have pointed out elsewhere. Since virtually all the camera companies are Japanese, we're likely to keep seeing prices roughly track the currency. </p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>william,</p>

<p>My comments were a direct rebuttal of Brads comments about there being a lack of innovation, cost improvements, size and weight reduction etc, as my figures clearly show he was misguided.</p>

<p>You on the other hand seem to be saying that because the 5D MkII AF is good enough for you nobody should need, want, or pay for a camera with more features, better AF or any other improvement. Well the truth is many people have found the 5D MkII AF unsatisfactory, I did that is why I didn't buy one, I paid over twice as much for a 1Ds MkIII mainly because of the AF. Many wedding pros gave up on Canon and bought D700's even though they have a much lower mp number, again, primarily because of the AF on the 5D MkII. Now seeing as how, again in real terms, the 5D MkIII is the same price as the 5D MkII was at launch how you can say it is a ripoff just shows you don't understand the basic economics of the situation.</p>

<p>So compare the 5D MkIII to its direct competition today, the D800, what is the big issue? They are very comparable though have slightly different key selling points and are at a similar price point. Neither is head and shoulders a better camera than the other, both will do one type of photography "better" than the other. I'd venture to say that for the vast majority of shooters, despite all the reviews and marketing bull, the Canon is a more rounded camera than the Nikon and is a far more capable camera for anybody that doesn't print, or generally prints less than 20"x30", and I think that is about 99.9999% of photographers.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Where I live the MKIII is not at the same price as the MKII was at launch. If you look back at previous threads about the AF of the MKII before the 7D , only sports and wildlife photographers wouldn't buy it. But Wedding photographers thought it was a godsend. So I don't know why all of a sudden they can't take photos with a camera that previously they were hailing as the wedding photographers camera.<br>

For me I think Nikon made the D800 and we know where we stand on what it's made for. As you said the MKIII is more of a better rounded camera. I'm not a sports or wildlife photographer but if I were I would welcome the AF performance on the MKIII, but the FPS is still not enough for serious sports or wildlife in todays market, and the shutter life wouldn't be up to it if it were. So where does that leave the MKIII, not a sports or wildlife camera as a landscape and studio camera it's got to compete now with 36 megapixel cameras.<br>

With the the 5D range Canon has this pattern-<br>

today they'll give you the sensor you wanted<br>

Tomorrow we'll get the body we wanted to go with the sensor we had yesterday<br>

After that a new sensor same body, and the cycle goes on. Canon listen to what we want and hold it back for three years, and when we get it we praise them for giving it to us.<br>

For me buying a new camera starts at image quality, thats No1 if there is no improvement there I wont be buying a camera on one feature alone at these prices.<br>

So at £2000 cheaper I would get the 7D, or if I were that seriously into sports or wildlife I would get the 1DX.<br>

As long as the 5D MKII is out there the MKIII is a jack of all trades and still only a master of one, and that "one" the MKII is also master at half the price.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>In the UK in March 2012 the 5D MkIII had a launch price of <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/02/Canon-5D-Mark-III">£2,999.99</a>, in Sept 2008 the 5D MkII had a UK launch price of <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d2_3d_7d.html#eu_press">£2,299.00</a>.</p>

<p>In Sept '08 £1 bought 198 Yen, in March '12 £1 bought 129 Yen. In 2008 for your £2,299 the Japanese got 455,202 ¥en, today if you buy a 5D MkkIII for £2,999.99 the Japanese get 386,999 ¥en. So in real terms, you are giving the Japanese nearly 20% less money (without allowing for inflation) for the 5D MkIII than you did for the 5D MkII.</p>

<p>You are paying for your currency devaluing bailout every day with every foreign purchase you make, you can't blame the Japanese for that, and for a better camera at 20% cheaper they are not trying to rip you off either.</p>

<p>If a 5D MkII is all the camera you will ever need then all power to you, but many actual owners are coming to the conclusion that the 5D MkIII is pretty close to the perfect camera. I know two local pros who are overjoyed with theirs and couldn't get rid of their MkII's and 7D's fast enough.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>The pro's you know thought the 5d mkii was so bad they went out and bought a 7d, and after Canon disappointed them so badly with a 7d that they couldn't wait to get rid of it they buy the next camera from canon.<br>

If I were them by now I'd jump ship or buy a 1D series.<br>

You and I keep going round and round about this.<br>

You are still comparing canon to canon, the same as you keep comparing older canon to newer canon about spec, your doing the same about price.<br>

When the 5D mkII came out there was nothing that could touch it, video, 22mp. nikon's D700 couldn't keep up. Yeah you'll hear the Nikon boys go on about noise but seriously great AF or not would you want a 12mp camera.Some Photo stock website don't accept anything smaller than 8mp.<br>

The 5d MkII left the D700 standing<br>

We are in 2012, not 2007 the golden age of the 1Ds MKiii, or 1995. Now Canon have serious competition with companies that have manage to keep their prices below Canon's new line of camera gear, and they are also from Japan.<br>

If you can't bring yourself to look at anything than Canon to Canon comparisons, of 2012 specs and prices to 2007 specs and prices, please don't think the rest of us are blind.<br>

And by the way you like comparing older specs and prices. What about the 5D MKI and the 5D MKII, the price was high of the MKii, but what a massive jump in performance and resolution, Live view, sensor cleaning, 22mp vs 12 mp, professional video capability, micro adjustment, massive improvement in ISO. Not marketing tricks but an actual improvement in ISO and things that were only seen on the MKII.<br>

What have we got with the MKIII to justify the price ,AF, and everything else, all the gimmicks can be found on cheeper cameras.<br>

How do you like those specs.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Well if it comes down to points made by verifiable facts, or inflated jingoistic internet waffle I'll take my "specs" any day.</p>

<p> I specialise in the former, you are clearly more interested in the later, there is no common ground and I am not interested in finding any.</p>