Canon EOS 5D MkIII Preview

[bobatkins]

<p>Just published or hand-on preview of the EOS 5D MkIII</p>

<p><a href="../equipment/canon/5D-MkIII/preview/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/5D-MkIII/preview/</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks Bob.</p>

<p>Looks tempting, doesn't it?</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>This looks like a very capable machine. My hands started to shake and I broke into a cold sweat when I read that it claims ISO performance ~2 stops better than my 5D Mark II whose files are, as it is, squeaky clean :D</p>

<p>As for video, I think Canon were clever enough to realise their game-changing Mark II was onto something (big) and have focused on continuously improving their DSLR video capability. The capacitive screen for video is a nice erm....touch :)</p>

<p>New camera, new price-point, new (?) target market/niche... Let the games begin! :)</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Surprise, surprise, the CR3 rumor was correct. :-) Seriously, I am very glad that Canon followed Nikon and put the same AF system in their pro model and semi-pro model. One difference pops to my eye. You wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unlimited buffer for JPEGs, approx a 35 shot buffer for RAW files</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/02/Canon-5D-Mark-III">DPR</a> they state: <em>With an increased 8-channel read out, the camera comfortably handles a maximum full resolution speed of up to 6fps in bursts of 18 RAW images or over 16,000 JPEGs1, without the need for additional accessories.</em></p>

<p>Any idea why there is a difference?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[._kaa]

<quote>...it claims ISO performance ~2 stops better than my 5D Mark II...</quote><br><br>

 

That claim is only for JPGs and mostly due to improved in-camera JPG processing. Canon made no explicit claims about better *RAW* performance which is a bit worrying...

[bobatkins]

<p>Yakim</p>

<p>Chuck Westfall said around 35 frames, but that was a number off the top of his head in answer to a question, not a quote from a Canon spec sheet. The official Canon specs (which I've just seen) say around 18 frames. Maybe I misheard Chuck or he was giving an unofficial estimate. Until we can do some testing, I'd take the official Canon number as the minumum.</p>

<p>Chuck said unlimited JPEGs while the Canon spec number is 16270 JPEGs. That's about 45 minutes of continuous JPEG shooting at 6fps and around 10% of the rated shutter life. I doubt I'l be testing that number...</p>

<p>

For most people the difference between 16720 JPEGs and "unlimited" JPEGs is pretty meaningless. I suppose if you're shooting 6fps full frame movies it would be of some concern.

[bobatkins]

<p>The lower noise is due to a number of factors. Better sensor design, more efficient microlens system, on-chip noise reduction and (presumably) advances in image processing.</p>

<p>The RAW files should be better, but Chuck couldn't (or at least didn't) quantify the improvement.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Bob, thank you for the clarification.</p>

<p>I just noticed that the BG-E11 has a joystick. That is a much needed upgraded IMHO. Is it compatible with the 5D2?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I doubt it's 5D2 compatible. Certainly nobody mentioned that it was. I'd assume the 5D2 doesn't have the internal contacts to connect with the joystick circuitry of the BG-E11</p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>The new microlens design is supposed to improve image [lens] sharpness particularly with wide angle lenses - that might be significant for certain lenses such as the 16-35mm F2.8 (at edges/corners).</p>

[zml]

<p><em>> compatibility</em><br>

Yeah, a good point :-) The battery units must physicaly and securely attach to the camera hence are most of the time camera model, or camera line, specific, but dear Canon want to nickel-and-dime the public even more, so GPS units and wireless file transmitters are model-specific as well. I'm really surprised that the new flash and the flash control unit are not only backward compatible but fit all Canon cameras: uncle Canon might have missed on a big opportunity to sell multiple units to photogs using different DSLR lines! And imagine the possibilities of making connecting cables camera-specific...</p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>Here is an example of a low-light jpeg made with a pre-production 5D3:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/02/canoneos5dmarkiii-isoseries</p>

<p>Looks like Canon has added in-camera Noise Reduction to the Raw files...but to be fair, I bet Sony/Nikon do the same as well.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>SORRY, but the new 5DMkIII will not become my toy!</p>

[green_photog]

<p>To me the most desirable features of the 5D3 over 5D2 is the better AF and dual card slots. But it's not worth $1500 upgrade for me. At least they keep the battery the same so when the 5D3 comes down in prices, perhaps to the $2500 level, I'll consider upgrade. For now, I'll just stick to my 5D2 for a least one more year. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The 5D III is a disappointment of huge proportions! Nikon goes way over the top of Canon's head for the first time with their D800. Unless there is a 5D III S yet to be announced, I am shocked and dismayed. I am so glad I bought a 5D II in the fall for a savings of at least $1500 over this III. Now it actuallly becomes possible to justify the 7D for when I need 8 fps.</p>

<p>This development is very odd.</p>

[zml]

<p><em>> The 5D III is a disappointment of huge proportions! Nikon goes way over the top of Canon's head for the first time with their D800.</em></p>

<p>Well, in this game Nikon has had an edge lately but whatever...</p>

<p>But...there is an old engineering adage "good, fast,cheap - pick any two..." and unless the good folks at Nikon have found a way to defy gravity, there will be a catch somewhere. AFAIK the sampling rates of 24x36 mm chips are still absymally low, electronics and mechanics cost real dollars and the yen is pretty high against the world's currencies. Nikon might be betting on volume and corresponding decrease in costs but I'm skeptical and tend to agree with the analysts who claim that Nikon had a knee-jerk reaction to whatever Canon might release and, as a preemptive strike, went overboard with features at the price point at which they cannot possibly make any money anytime soon. Either Canon had indeed something else up in their sleeve and Nikon were afraid that they'd release a kitchen-sink 5D, or the Nikon's industrial espionage unit is worth nothing. </p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>This development is very odd.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

I'm not sure why. There are two ways to go. You can go with the maximum number of pixels possible and so attempt to maximize image resolution with good lenses or you can go with the lowest noise and highest image quality, which means that you need larger pixels and so you can't get as many onto the sensor. Nikon chose the former for the D800 Canon chose the latter for the 5D MkIII. The EOS-1D X was a hint that Canon are going down the "maximize performance and don't worry about pixel count" route when they actually lowered the pixel count from the 1Ds MkIV. Nikon themselves only put 16MP in their D4.<br>

<br /><br>

Maybe pixel counters should look to Nokia who have managed to cram 41MP into their latest cameraphone?<br>

<br /><br>

Don't get me wrong. I suspect that the D800 will be the perfect tool for some photographic applications (like high resolution images), but it might equally well turn out that the 5D MkIII is a better tool for others (like low light work).<br>

<br /><br>

If pixel count really does matter all that much, then I guess anyone paying $6000 for the new Nikon flagship 16MP D4 is going to be rather disappointed.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Canon 5D Mk III vs Nikon D800<br>

<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401087,00.aspx">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401087,00.aspx</a></p>