Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: dreed on March 02, 2012, 12:55:59 am
-
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii
22MP, no f/8.0 AF, no built-in GPS, 90Mb/s video, electronic level, 61 point AF from the 1DX
Feels yawn worthy?
-
Just got the email from B&H. That was quick.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html
-
I can't believe it! What on earth is Canon doing! They once had the lead over Nikon, not only with regard to their offering of a full-frame format, but also with regard to significantly lower noise at high ISO in their cropped formats, such as the 20D and 30D.
Nikon changed that just a very few years ago with the introduction of the D3 full-frame format which in terms of dynamic range and low noise, exceeded anything that Canon had to offer.
Nikon has subsequently continued from strength to strength, whipping Canon with every new release. The D7000 was a breakthrough in DR capability, and now the D800 is a breakthrough in both performance and pixel count, if one assumes the pixels are at least the equivalent of the D7000 pixels.
I've got two 12mp full-frame cameras, the original 5D and the Nikon D700 which has better specs than the 5D. Since I have quite a few Canon lenses, including the highly acclaimed TS-E 17mm, I would be very interested in a 45mp or even a 36mp 5D MkIII.
I doubt very much that I'll buy this new offering from Canon, unless it includes some other breakthrough in performance which hasn't been announced, such as spectacularly low noise at high ISO along the lines of the Nikon D3s.
-
i'll probably not upgrade as a higher MP was what i was after, unless there's a massive leap in file quality. another colleague will now order an 800d as the mkIII has no 60 frames video and no high mp (either would have swung the deal). i know quite a few people who will not upgrade or swap over and buy a nikon instead as a back-up to their MFD.
it's probably a very good camera and plenty of people will upgrade but i can't see the volume of sales similar to the MKII
-
22?
22!?
It is March 1st, not April 1st, right? Right!?
Somebody pinch me please and tell me we have not returned to the (digital) stone age.
Booooo, Canon! Booooo!
-
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/ (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/)
The files look pretty clean to me.
-
Other than pixel count, this is a substantially improved camera in every other category. Most have been stating for a couple of years that camera makers should end megapixel race, and applauded canon when they went for lower pixel count for some of the point and shoots. I've read posts for years asking camera makers to focus on dynamic range and noise (which go hand in hand), judging by what they've done with their other sensors over the last few months, seems like they've given us what everyone has wanted. Now it's what were they thinking....
both look like great cameras, will be fun to shoot them side by side. One intriguing comment on the Canon is about the sensor design and improved performance with wide angle lenses.
Personally I think a 5Dx is still in the works.
-
The built-in HDR sounds as if it might be interesting in terms of a more natural extension to dynamic range
-
At least one person was keen to check out the new 5DIII (or Ixus, I couldn't be sure). Taken earlier this afternoon here in Shanghai.
-
Most probably a very solid all rounder but not a camera that is going to generate much excitement. Samples are predictably OK.
Above all, I feel that Canon will have a bit of a hard time to convince 5DII shooters to upgrade.
There maybe a 5DX coming still which would explain the strategy but I would have announced both at the same time if possible at all though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Most have been stating for a couple of years that camera makers should end megapixel race...
And I always thought that to be demented. As everybody knows, one can never be too rich, too thin or have too many pixels (at least for landscape photography).
-
If it has 11+ stops of dynamic range, I could be very interested. Or maybe just silky smooth, high-iso noiselessness would be enough. Will have to wait on that information, apparently. Don't see see claims published so far.
However, for us HDR hungry pano guys this somewhat ambiguous official info is intriguing...
Multiple exposures are possible in-camera and up to 9 exposures can be recorded onto a single file using 4 distinct settings for control. When in Additive mode, this closely resembles making multiple exposures on film and layers each exposure; manual exposure compensation is required. Average mode layers the images and automatically compensates for the final exposure, eliminating the unintended possibility of gross under or overexposure. Bright mode is specifically designed for photographing in uniformly dark scenes with a bright subject, such as a studio environment. Dark mode functions inversely, and helps to eliminate overly bright sections of the image including reflections and highlights.
A High Dynamic Range (HDR) mode is also incorporated and allows for the creation of HDR images in-camera, reducing the time needed to manually overlay images in post-production. When using this mode, a series of bracketed exposures are made of the same image, then automatically integrated into the same frame, resulting in a photograph without blown highlights or blocked up shadows and a long middle range of tones. This mode is especially useful when photographing scenes with a great deal of contrast.
From a pano viewpoint I liked the 5D2 for just about everything except the miserable 3 frame HDR bracket limit.
-
As a landscaper, totally disappointed with the announcement! 22MP? I don't need 61 point auto focus and 6 fps for my use!! Why would I upgrade from 5D mark II? I was hoping it will have better MP than the newly announced Nikon!! Drats....
-
a very nutual improvements over the last, disappointed a bit on the pixels count not that I don't like the quality of old 5D2, and even the new 5D3 may be a little clearner, sometimes more is better. But otherwise, it is just an excellent camera.
Pingang
-
"End the megapixel race already!"
"We want proper AF in the 5D!"
Now we got that and there are still complainers... go figure...
-
Hi,
Not much going on regarding noise, except improvement in JPEG noise reduction. Expanding DR is essentially done improving the readout noise and it seems than Nikon/Sony have a healthy lead in that area.
My take is that the Canon 5DIII is a much better camera, competing head on with the EOS 1DsIII.
Better AF, better video, better JPEG engine, better FPS.
Best regards
Erik
If it has 11+ stops of dynamic range, I could be very interested. Or maybe just silky smooth, high-iso noiselessness would be enough. Will have to wait on that information, apparently. Don't see see claims published so far.
However, for us HDR hungry pano guys this somewhat ambiguous official info is intriguing...
Multiple exposures are possible in-camera and up to 9 exposures can be recorded onto a single file using 4 distinct settings for control. When in Additive mode, this closely resembles making multiple exposures on film and layers each exposure; manual exposure compensation is required. Average mode layers the images and automatically compensates for the final exposure, eliminating the unintended possibility of gross under or overexposure. Bright mode is specifically designed for photographing in uniformly dark scenes with a bright subject, such as a studio environment. Dark mode functions inversely, and helps to eliminate overly bright sections of the image including reflections and highlights.
A High Dynamic Range (HDR) mode is also incorporated and allows for the creation of HDR images in-camera, reducing the time needed to manually overlay images in post-production. When using this mode, a series of bracketed exposures are made of the same image, then automatically integrated into the same frame, resulting in a photograph without blown highlights or blocked up shadows and a long middle range of tones. This mode is especially useful when photographing scenes with a great deal of contrast.
From a pano viewpoint I liked the 5D2 for just about everything except the miserable 3 frame HDR bracket limit.
-
who will buy it?
@CANON. my needs as an architecture photographer:
i don´t need video, no 1000 programs, no fast autofocus, no high iso. so why should i pay for that?
i need more pixel (36MP), maximum image quality (at iso 100), better sensor cleaning, ts-e 40 + 80 lens ...and most: bigger sensor (as big as possible).
i think many other photographers (architecture, landscape, still...) think that way.
3200,- € for EOS 5 Mark III - 1800,- € for EOS 5 Mark II...
again: who will buy it?
-
The D7000 was a breakthrough in DR capability
to be fair, D7000 was annunced on Sep 15,2010 and Pentax K5 on Sep 20, 2010 - so breakthrough belongs mostly to Sony (Semiconductor).
-
who will buy it?
@CANON. my needs as an architecture photographer:
i don´t need video, no 1000 programs, no fast autofocus, no high iso. so why should i pay for that?
i need more pixel (36MP), maximum image quality (at iso 100), better sensor cleaning, ts-e 40 + 80 lens ...and most: bigger sensor (as big as possible).
i think many other photographers (architecture, landscape, still...) think that way.
3200,- € for EOS 5 Mark III - 1800,- € for EOS 5 Mark II...
again: who will buy it?
Lots of people.
Why don't you go medium format ? It fits your profile. You can't afford it? Well...
-
to be fair, D7000 was annunced on Sep 15,2010 and Pentax K5 on Sep 20, 2010 - so breakthrough belongs mostly to Sony (Semiconductor).
Yep... but who do you think pays the bill at Sony semi-conductor? Hint... the volume sold by Pentax makes them pretty insignificant... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I saw this camera last week and it's a lovely bit of gear as it stands. The viewfinder is bigger and brighter than the 5D2, the build is rock solid, the AF is very swift on the new 24 and 28 Mark II lenses, as well as the new 24-70. High ISO images look good, 3200 has less noise than the 5D2.
It's interesting to note that the 5D2 has not been discontinued. The two will be sold side by side for a while yet. Not sure what that's all about.
I was at the launch in Sydney today, no surprises as I saw it all last Friday, but they had the new C300 there with the new cinema zoom. $40000 lens, it's huge and itso well built, silky smooth focussing and stop ring, did I mention it's huge? No primes though.
I'll keep my order for the 1Dx in place.....
-
again: who will buy it?
The same people that rushed out and bought the mkII for it's video capabilities and made a whole new genre of film making. That's probably a much bigger market than architectural photographers not successful enough to use MFDB.
The improvements in video are significant to those using the camera for professional video work and will generate a lot of upgrades.
-
The two will be sold side by side for a while yet. Not sure what that's all about.
Getting shot of inventory probably. The more interesting question is will the MKii still be coming off a production line ?
I doubt the mkIII will be easy to get for a long time based on past experience.
-
I'll keep my order for the 1Dx in place....
Ditto.
And add a MFDB to my kit.
-
So the D800 has weather sealing, spot metering at all focus points, clean HDMI out, significantly more megapixels, etc and is £700/$1100 cheaper in the UK. It's certainly a great camera but for that price, why on earth would you buy it over the D800 unless you needed the fps? Film makers aren't going to pay more for less features. Canon are out of their minds.
-
So the D800 has weather sealing, spot metering at all focus points, clean HDMI out, significantly more megapixels, etc and is £700/$1100 cheaper in the UK. It's certainly a great camera but for that price, why on earth would you buy it over the D800 unless you needed the fps? Film makers aren't going to pay more for less features. Canon are out of their minds.
That's a good question.
-
Film makers aren't going to pay more for less features. Canon are out of their minds.
You've missed the point. mega pixels, spot metering and even weather sealing just aren't important to film makers. Clean HDMI output may attract some users, but the mkIII offers some significant improvements for mkII owners in terms of high ISO performance, lack of moire, time code provision, better codecs and frame rates and all of that in such a similar form factor they won't need to change any other parts of their filming hardware; lenses, follow focuses, rigs, monitors, leads etc.
I think it will be enough to keep the indie film makers in Canon's market.
-
It just hit me. The 5D series is a "fleet model." It's a Camry.
At Nikon (playing Subaru in this scene), I can actually picture someone behind the scenes in front of a D800 thinking "we just made the coolest camera we could think of...people are going to flip out." I would have liked to see a little more of l'amour fou from Canon.
-
There is also a fair amount of information available on the Canon Professional Network Europe Site at:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_unveils_eos_5d_mark_iii.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_unveils_eos_5d_mark_iii.do)
and accessible from the links on that page.
Regards
Nigel
-
The samples are soft and completely lacking in detail. I really don't see that much difference in image quality from the Mk2 or, dare I say it, the low iso of the mk1. The files are just bigger. Upgrades like these SHOULD have noticeable image quality increases like the Nikon 800 has had. Canon really appears to be asleep.
The 1Dx was a stupid move. They have possibly held back the 5D so it doesn't cannibalise sales of the 1 but for pete's sake Canon WAKE UP!!! It's so weird to watch a company that was at the peak just roll over in bed like this. I can't see see who would buy into this system now and I feel a lot will jump ship to Nikon.
I hope they have something like the fabled 3D up their sleeve or this sink will ship fast.
I never thought the day would come that I said the Nikon is the better choice having been a Canon user for over 20 years. I'm really so pleased with my recent switch to Leica M9. A 3 year old camera that is in a whole other league to the Canon and I look forward to seeing comparisons with the Nikon 800. Bring on the M10 later this year!
-
So the D800 has weather sealing, spot metering at all focus points, clean HDMI out, significantly more megapixels, etc and is £700/$1100 cheaper in the UK. It's certainly a great camera but for that price, why on earth would you buy it over the D800 unless you needed the fps? Film makers aren't going to pay more for less features. Canon are out of their minds.
The 5D Mark III has two video modes and the higher of which has a bit rate (~90mbps) that is in excess of that used by BluRay (~40Mbps).
It will be interesting how the pixel size decrease in the D800 compares to that of the 5D Mark III (more or less the same size as the 5D Mark II).
It would seem that the D800 has at least comparable results to the D700, which is arguably better than the 5D Mark II. For the 5D Mark III to command a better price, Canon will have needed to improved the output to beyond that of the D700.
-
The 5D Mark III has two video modes and the higher of which has a bit rate (~90mbps) that is in excess of that used by BluRay (~40Mbps).
The bitrate of a distribution medium ("infinite" automatic/manual tuning resources) cannot be directly compared to those of a recording medium (possibly noisy, need for post-processing colors/sharpness/exposure...)
-h
-
Canon will have needed to improved the output to beyond that of the D700.
The appeal of video cameras isn't just about output. Although a small improvement on the existing "good enough" quality may make it an appealing upgrade if taken along with other usability improvements.
The ability to use time code is significant by itself, even better if it allows multiple cameras to be locked together, but I can't see that's been implemented from what I've seen so far.
-
My 1Ds 3 is about four years old and still doing great service. Our 5D mk2 is also a good camera, which I really want to like, but it has handling drawbacks. However having looked at the new 5D specs I would say it would now make more sense if I need to upgrade to go to this camera rather than the new 1Dx. The new camera addresses the things I like in the 1 series. Improved viewfinder, better autofocus, dual card slots, and the 'silent mode'. These were all reasons for me to stick with the heavier camera. With an added grip when needed, the new 5D will completely fulfil my personal requirements. More MP may be nice, but in all honesty I do not really need it very often, and most of the time just fills up drive storage unnecessarily. The new features as listed easily make the camera worth more than the Mk2, because it is still going to be significantly cheaper than the new 1Dx.
To all those people who bang on about jumping to Nikon because of extra pixels, presumably they don't have a whole cupboard of Canon lenses. In any case, how long do you think it will be before Canon produces a higher pixel count camera? And just in case anyone thinks I'm an anti-Nikon Canon fanboy, I'm not. I just have invested heavily in the Canon system since my first D30 (the 3mp one) and it is a system that works perfectly. If Nikon had an affordable body in 2001 I would have gone the Nikon route because I had a drawer full of Nikon MF lenses. It shows the maturity of digital that camera systems are not going to be leap-frogging each other in such a big way as they used to. Image quality is the key thing, and that is going to improve only very incrementally from now on.
Jim
-
Does anyone know if spot metering is linked to the active focus point?
-
Canon seems to have prioritized video, action photography, and "non-sensor" aspects where it previously lagged, such as finally offering its best AF, a 100% VF and rugged construction befitting any camera in this price range. Cynically, Canon might have a project using about 45 million of the 7D photosites, but right now, that suffers in comparison to the D800, at least in comparisons of per pixel specs like engineering DR and in 100% pixel peeping.
Note that the horizontal photosites count of 5760 is now exactly three times 1920, which raises the hope that 1080p output now uses all photosites in a 3x3 block to produce each video output pixel, with no sub-sampling or imterpolation up.
P. S. I have noticed though that the VF magnification is still 0.71x (as in previous 5D models), not 0.76x (as in 1D models). Nikon instead has always offered its top-of-the-line 100% coverage VF in its 35mm format DSLRs --- but all at only 0.7x magnification. A small but mysterious difference in design philosophy.
-
D800 has high-end 96k segment meter, 200k shutter, 14M more pixels, uncompressed HDMI out, $500 less.
Never mind the features, why does the 5DIII cost so much more?
-
Looking at the marketing it seems they are focussing more on motion and less on stills. They seem to have defined their own boundaries where as Nikon seem to be pushing what can be done with the stills format.
-
Does anyone know if spot metering is linked to the active focus point?
Pretty sure the answer is "yes".
-
I'd read that it wasn't in true canon fashion (they leave that for the 1 series), would be interested to see what the real answer is.
-
Unlike (I think) most here I shoot a crop camera - the Canon 7D. I'd wondered whether the 5DMkIII would be compelling enough to finally move me up to full frame. The specs were disappointing to me at first as well. And they still are, compared to some of the latest offerings from Nikon.
But now this thought is tickling at the back of my mind... one way of looking at this is it's a full-frame 7D. And y'know, that's not so bad. The 7D user interface is *productive*. Lots of useful functions come readily to hand, especially after one customizes it a bit to suit. It's hard to explain but it has a way of making a lot of control readily available but not getting in my face.
So. If this is a full-frame 7D with some further enhancements? That's not so bad. Not so bad at all.
Compared pricewise to the new Nikon? urgh. I like the sound of 36mp when desired, then being able to drop to "just" 16 and crank out a good frame rate. Time and image quality will tell.
Not seeing any chatter here about the new flash system. For me *that* is the hot announcement for the day.
When did the world shift? Canon has the cool flash system and Nikon rules low-light. Whassup with that?
-
fuji Xpro1
Nikon D4
Nikon D800/E
Canon 1DX
Canon 5D MarkIII
a lot of talk...
I am curious tot see what real use of these cameras brings around..
-
Not seeing any chatter here about the new flash system. For me *that* is the hot announcement for the day.
LuLa isn't really a home for serious flash users. I'm sure sites that cater more for the studio and wedding market will be getting excited about the 600.
It does sound a significant step forward, but sadly there's nothing included that will make Canon's auto flash system any easier to understand or use.
-
So many new cameras, what shall I buy? I'll go for a Nokia please, most pixels and fits in a shirt pocket, a great walk around lens.On paper and press release it beats 'em all. Blah who needs a Canokon.
Kevin.
-
Yep... but who do you think pays the bill at Sony semi-conductor? Hint... the volume sold by Pentax makes them pretty insignificant... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
sure and who do you think pays the bill @ Nikon ? Nikon's customers as well - so by your logic too Nikon also has nothing to do w/ its products ... no matter what amount Nikon paid for the product they did not get any exclusive on that silicone... both Sony Imaging and Pentax got the same sensor and at the same time.
-
This announcement further supports a conclusion that arose with the 1Dx -- that Canon is stuck with an inferior sensor technology relative to the Sony Exmor design, which is incapable of going beyond about 22 or so MP without substantial degradation in performance due to read noise (and is a lot worse performer at its given pixel count, especially at low ISO). If I weren't chained to an expensive lens collection, the choice between Canon and Nikon these days is crystal clear. Interesting (and sad) that the clear leader when I started in digital photography was the other one, by an equally wide margin.
-
Hi,
That is the association I make. A full frame 7D. That is not a bad thing, as the increase in sensor size will give a somewhat better SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) about one fstop difference, like same quality at 800 ISO as on the D7 at 400 ISO.
Best regards
Erik
Unlike (I think) most here I shoot a crop camera - the Canon 7D. I'd wondered whether the 5DMkIII would be compelling enough to finally move me up to full frame. The specs were disappointing to me at first as well. And they still are, compared to some of the latest offerings from Nikon.
But now this thought is tickling at the back of my mind... one way of looking at this is it's a full-frame 7D. And y'know, that's not so bad. The 7D user interface is *productive*. Lots of useful functions come readily to hand, especially after one customizes it a bit to suit. It's hard to explain but it has a way of making a lot of control readily available but not getting in my face.
So. If this is a full-frame 7D with some further enhancements? That's not so bad. Not so bad at all.
Compared pricewise to the new Nikon? urgh. I like the sound of 36mp when desired, then being able to drop to "just" 16 and crank out a good frame rate. Time and image quality will tell.
Not seeing any chatter here about the new flash system. For me *that* is the hot announcement for the day.
When did the world shift? Canon has the cool flash system and Nikon rules low-light. Whassup with that?
-
Does anyone know if spot metering is linked to the active focus point?
Pretty sure the answer is "yes".
Cheers Ginger. I can't find the specs anywhere though. Spot metering has been kept to the central AF point in previous models.
-
The 5DIII will be pretty useful camera, the HDR and onboard lens correction and promised low light capability all look very useful if it works as advertised. Canon now have a gaping hole in the high pixel count area, we can see that and I am sure Canon can as well. The X and 5D look like solid upgrades but there is nothing must have in the line-up, Nikon look to be offering a more complete range as it stands. A low light performer and a high pixel camera. I think the 5D and X are a bit close together, why would anyone that does not make a living on Sport/press opt to spend the extra on the X.
If Nikon did not exist we would be much more excited about the new Canons, but Nikon do exist and are asking questions of us all looking to upgrade, add in the bad experiences of getting the Canon things to focus and the "never heard of that problem before" response from the Canon service centres and you wonder about investing more money into the Canon line.
I'm like many others wondering what my clients will be thinking when a competitor starts dropping 36mp files on their desk when I send over the 22mp ones. I doubt for one minute they will get excited about lens correction etc when they go "Oh look how far I can zoom in on these ones.
Canon must have a wow factor camera lurking somewhere, or has their technology been leading up a dead end path and these are a result of the best we can do with what we have?
I've not crossed either Canon off my shopping list for good, but the Nikons look very tempting even with expense of buying new lenses.
Kevin.
-
This announcement further supports a conclusion that arose with the 1Dx -- that Canon is stuck with an inferior sensor technology relative to the Sony Exmor design, which is incapable of going beyond about 22 or so MP without substantial degradation in performance due to read noise (and is a lot worse performer at its given pixel count, especially at low ISO). If I weren't chained to an expensive lens collection, the choice between Canon and Nikon these days is crystal clear. Interesting (and sad) that the clear leader when I started in digital photography was the other one, by an equally wide margin.
Same feeling here. :-( I'll wait a bit more for real samples and reviews before taking a decision, but this fits in the overal trend. Could be that Canon will be forced to buy sensors from a third party at some point in the future. And if the real focus of that camera is videographers, it's a bit strange that the form factor hasn't been modified somewhat.
-
So. If this is a full-frame 7D with some further enhancements? That's not so bad. Not so bad at all.
True! It's not so bad. But it would have been more impressive if the 5D3 were also a full-frame 7D in terms of pixel density/size, as the D800 appears to be an expanded D7000 sensor (2.25x16 = 36mp).
I was hoping the 5D3 would have a 46mp sensor (2.56x18) which would eliminate the 'long reach' advantage of their other cropped format cameras with regard to telephoto lenses.
I frequently carry two cameras for this reason. If you need a 640mm FoV, you'll get better results from a 400mm lens on the 7D than you will from the same lens on the 5D3.
-
fuji Xpro1
Nikon D4
Nikon D800/E
Canon 1DX
Canon 5D MarkIII
a lot of talk...
I am curious to see what real use of these cameras brings around..
Indeed. I'm especially curious to evaluate Canon's claim (http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Features) about the new 1DX sensor:
a newly developed Canon full-frame 18.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor that's designed from the ground up to create high resolution, perfectly detailed images with unprecedented speed and clarity.
. . . Canon is stuck with an inferior sensor technology relative to the Sony Exmor design . . .
Canon may have inferior sensor technology today, but they're in for the long haul. Their R&D department is one of the best in the world and if they're not pushing the envelope today, they will tomorrow.
-
But it would have been more impressive if the 5D3 were also a full-frame 7D in terms of pixel density/size, as the D800 appears to be an expanded D7000 sensor (2.25x16 = 36mp).
<snip> If you need a 640mm FoV, you'll get better results from a 400mm lens on the 7D than you will from the same lens on the 5D3.
Yes, I agree, some part of me is still disappointed there aren't more pixels. I think Nikon hit a sweet set of compromises with the D800 *assuming* the quality holds up, and there's no reason to believe it won't. I look forward to the tests on both sensors.
But really, for the way I shoot and the size I print the world is a wonderful place packed with excellent camera choices.
-
And if the real focus of that camera is videographers, it's a bit strange that the form factor hasn't been modified somewhat.
That's the C300.
-
I think the real winner here is eBay. Expect a deluge of Canon equipment there.
To those who say it's a great camera: perhaps... would have been a year or two ago.
To those who say it's a great video camera: why would I care!?
-
From RG post
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11675-12364
"...Canon has also evolved the sensor technology, reworking the internals of each pixel on the way to producing what is promised to be a considerably less noisy sensor than its predecessor (and the 5D Mark II was already pretty good in this respect). Westfall indicates that at moderate-to-high ISO sensitivities, the 5D Mark III has about a two-stop advantage over the 5D Mark II. As an example, he says, an ISO 3200 picture shot with the new model has roughly the dynamic range, noise and other characteristics of an ISO 800 picture shot with its predecessor.
He emphasizes that the bulk of the higher ISO image quality improvement comes from enhancements to the image sensor itself, as opposed to heavier-duty noise reduction being applied once the picture has been converted from analog to digital form. The only camera from Canon that will beat the image quality of the 5D Mark III at higher sensitivities, says Westfall, is the EOS-1D X..."
I am hoping... :-)
John
-
Their R&D department is one of the best in the world
says who ?
-
Interesting review from someone getting their hands on a pre-production model;
http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html
"Canon have made the anti-aliasing filter thinner to get higher quality - BUT - if you decide to put cheap lenses on this camera you may find them wanting"
Haven't seen that mentioned elsewhere.
-
Well, I guess I am in a category that makes the 5DIII a sort-of welcome camera for me. I'm retired, and my shooting has been only to produce prints that I occasionally exhibit and sell. I sprung for a camera and lenses that I could not really justify a number of years ago, and the camera was great for my purposes: I bought a 1DMkII and filled the bag with Canon's 100-400 IS, 16-35 2.8, 500 f/4 IS, 15mm fisheye, 100mm 2.8 macro, and 28-135 IS (replaced with the Tamron 28-300 VR). Oh, yeah, almost forgot the Canon 50mm f/2.
While I do mostly city and street shooting, I also use the 500mm for the occasional bird shot. I also do panos and in high contrast settings I do HDR, using brackets of 3 or 5 shots. Many of my shots are in buses and subways, Grand Central Terminal, churches, etc., so I valued the high (for that time, at least) ISO of 1600 and 3200. With very careful use of 3rd party NR programs I've been able to denoise and keep sufficient detail for attractive prints in those cases.
The 1DII is on its 3rd shutter box after 2 very premature failures, and I would eventually have sprung for a 1DV or so when the 1DII finally gave up the ghost. However, with Canon's announcement of the 1DX at roughly 1/3 more than the 1D series would cost, I knew that I could not justify the cost of a 1DX. The Nikon D800 had me drooling, except for my substantial investment in Canon glass. The 36mp also would mean that despite the drop of my 1.3 crop factor, I would be able to get the same bird pix and have enough pixels to crop and bring the bird to the same size in the resultant frame.
Now, with the announcement of the 5DIII, I have a reasonable replacement for the old 1DII when it dies. While I wish it were a 36mp camera, the 5DIII's 22mp full frame will still allow some cropping. From viewing samples at high ISO, I see that I could use the 5DIII at much higher ISO than I can use the 1DII for my frequent low light shooting.
I am very pleased to see bracketing of up to +/- 3 EV, and using 2, 3, 5 or 7 frames, which makes the 5DIII very useable for my HDR shooting. I am sure, also, that the AF and exposure capabilities of the 5DIII are far superior to my long-in-the-tooth 1DII, and I will be glad to use 14 bit depth color.
Not pleasing is the $3500 price, a full $1000 more than the 5DII's. Nor is the $495 price I saw on the vertical grip, almost a necessity for me as I have big hands, big lenses and like the added support the grip gives me, not to mention the convenience of the extra controls for vertical shooting.
All in all, though, I'm relieved to have the 5DIII arrive for when the 1DII finally croaks.
-
I just love it how Ken Rockwell phrased it: "The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is the best digital SLR ever made... by Canon." (emphasis mine)
-
I just love it how Ken Rockwell phrased it: "The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is the best digital SLR ever made... by Canon." (emphasis mine)
KR has no idea how good the camera is. He's not yet touched one much less shot with one.
-
The samples posted on the Canon site are rather poor. For instance the gal in red against the cloudy sky was shot at f16, which gives it a distinctly 6mp feel. Nikon had the good sense to limit its D800 test-shooters to f8!
Dpreview has a comprehensive set of ISO comparisons with lots of dark, out of focus areas. ISO 3200 never looked so good but frankly I had hoped for even better.
-
I think the 5D and X are a bit close together, why would anyone that does not make a living on Sport/press opt to spend the extra on the X.
I think this is going to come down to what they can deliver at higher ISO.
If the 1DX can deliver at 12800 what the 5D3 delivers at 3200 (for example), then that's a game changer for wedding folks too.
-
This is extremely disappointing news from Canon.
It really looks like Canon has lost it's way or has just decided to narrow it's offerings. The new 5D3 has nothing that I need that the 5D2 doesn't do well enough already. It seems to me that it's more of a 7D upgrade, a high end prosumer camera body. I'm really confused. I guess I'll continue to use my 1Ds3 and 1D3 for lifestyle work and move over to Nikon for my architectural and landscape work if the D800 lives up to it's expectations. Canon makes two fabulous shift lenses and no camera to go with them...... makes no sense. I do use the 5D2 for video but the 5D3 upgrade is nothing special in that regard. Dedicated video cameras like the Sony F3 or even the FS100 are years ahead already. Even the D800 offers better HDMI output.
Not everyone needs more megapixels, including me on half my work. But for the other half - there is no substitute. The convenience of a 35mm sized body with 36MP at a reasonable price is fantastic. Well maybe Canon will announce something before the D800 is on the shelves to save their market share, otherwise I predict a lot of Canon gear for sale in the near future.
Scratching my head.
-
The same people that rushed out and bought the mkII for it's video capabilities and made a whole new genre of film making. That's probably a much bigger market than architectural photographers not successful enough to use MFDB.
A bit harsh there, don't you think?
There are a number of architectural photographers that choose to work with a 5DII over MFDBs for a number of reasons. Some of those reasons have even been posted on this site:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/digital_tool_for_architecture.shtml
-
I do use the 5D2 for video but the 5D3 upgrade is nothing special in that regard.
It seems that the mk3 is able to use all sensels for video, while the mk2 does line-dropping. If true, this should give a significant improvement to aliasing and noise-performance.
-h
-
It seems that the mk3 is able to use all sensels for video, while the mk2 does line-dropping. If true, this should give a significant improvement to aliasing and noise-performance.
This would be big news! Where do you hear that?
-
KR has no idea how good the camera is. He's not yet touched one much less shot with one.
That has never stopped him before. You should read what he wrote about the Pentax 645D.
-
There are ISO jpg examples over at dpreview. Noises levels look rather good at 3200 and 6400. There appears to be a slight drop in contrast though as the ISO increase at high level.
I am shooting with a 1DS3 and moving to the 5D3 would be a real option. Better all round performance and less weight. I wouldn't really miss the built in vertical grip of the 1DS3 and the 5D3 looks less toy like than the 5D2 from a pros point of veiw.
We will need to wait for a production version to be tested to see how the noise and DR stack up against the current generation of cameras.
-
The same people that rushed out and bought the mkII for it's video capabilities and made a whole new genre of film making. That's probably a much bigger market than architectural photographers not successful enough to use MFDB.
The improvements in video are significant to those using the camera for professional video work and will generate a lot of upgrades.
That's quite a statement for someones who is not even an architectural photographer.
-
That has never stopped him before. You should read what he wrote about the Pentax 645D.
And the D800. He's never touched that camera either.
-
That's quite a statement for someones who is not even an architectural photographer. Totally Clueless?
Totally clueless ? no. I might not be a professional architectural photographer, although I know a few that are, but I am a television professional and know the impact of the 5D2 and size of that market very well. Any knowledge of that market Kirk ? It doesn't seem to feature in your CV.
-
I shoot Panasonic and Nikon, and so have no dog in this fight, but I suspect that the only place you might see a faint difference between a Nikon D800 and the Canon would be in yard-long prints. So, let me give you some basic "pro" thinking about this problem. "Do I make yard-long prints? No." Now, there may be a few people who actually sell yard-long prints, probably numbering in the dozens, but for the rest, the megapixel count will mean almost nothing. For one thing, most people can't print well enough to make much of the difference in megapixel count. I haven't handled the camera, but the sample pictures I've seen suggest that it'll be a good, solid, high-ISO camera that might be better thought of as a cheaper, and perhaps slightly better, competitor to the new Nikon D4.
I have to say, though, that I really don't see the point in the emphasis on film-making. If I were a film maker, I'd get a movie camera. If I were a pro photographer who wanted to expand into video, I'd get a movie camera. If I wanted to take video pictures of my kids, I'd get a (cheap) movie camera.
-
I really don't see the point in the emphasis on film-making.
Profit.
Canon have sold huge numbers of 5D2s just for video work. It created an entire new market no one really saw coming. Giving the HDSLR crowd what they want keeps them happy and on-board with Canon, which in turn keeps their profits up. Why's it so expensive ? because they'll pay it.
-
I shoot Panasonic and Nikon, and so have no dog in this fight, but I suspect that the only place you might see a faint difference between a Nikon D800 and the Canon would be in yard-long prints. So, let me give you some basic "pro" thinking about this problem. "Do I make yard-long prints? No." Now, there may be a few people who actually sell yard-long prints, probably numbering in the dozens, but for the rest, the megapixel count will mean almost nothing.
Good point, except you forgot to take into account that the more megapixels, the bigger it makes your....
;)
I have to say, though, that I really don't see the point in the emphasis on film-making. If I were a film maker, I'd get a movie camera. If I were a pro photographer who wanted to expand into video, I'd get a movie camera. If I wanted to take video pictures of my kids, I'd get a (cheap) movie camera.
Speaking as someone who works in films. Cameras like the 5D are very popular as they produce better images for considered film making than anything else that is affordable. Besides once it is rigged up, there's not much difference in use anyway as the camera body is just a recording medium to attach film making kit to. For run and gun video shooting however, then you need a more tradtional video camera form factor. If shooting videos of kids, your pocket camera or phone would be better suited. But that's not what DSLR video cameras tend to be used for.
-
Totally clueless ? no. I might not be a professional architectural photographer, although I know a few that are, but I am a television professional and know the impact of the 5D2 and size of that market very well. Any knowledge of that market Kirk ? It doesn't seem to feature in your CV.
+1 for totally clueless......
-
So, let me give you some basic "pro" thinking about this problem.
why do you think that most of people who are buying such cameras are "pro" ? nowadays - most are amateurs or pro wannabes... and their line of thinking is (in most cases) different.
-
Rhossydd, Then why are you making broad statements about a professional specialty that you don't even participate in? I have many "friends" in the broadcast and motion picture industry but I don't make broad statements about those specialties. You are totally clueless about the architectural photography profession.
-
Rhossydd, Then why are you making broad statements about a professional specialty that you don't even participate in?
Do you seriously think the specialisation of architectural photography makes has any significance to Canon's camera development program compared to the impact of the video market ?
-
It is indeed clueless to make a statement like that and reflects a complete amateur with nothing of value to contribute.
-
Quit changing the discussion and defend your statement. What is your specific expertise to make this statement about 5DII buyers who professionally shoot architecture.
architectural photographers not successful enough to use MFDB.
Its real simple just defend that statement.
-
Why are you bothering?
A statement like that is made by a fool with no idea.
-
Quit changing the discussion
I think you're the one guilty of that.
But to answer your question, the discussion at the point you're quoting me from was about who the biggest market for the 5D3 will be (and who bought the 5D2). Architectural photographers or video users. We know the answer to that, irrespective of what kit they're using.
Guess I hit a nerve here eh?
-
So I guess its not defensible?
And FYI I could buy an entire MF digital system just on what I was spending every year on 4x5 film, processing and scans just a couple of years ago. More clueless nonsense. Come on, just defend your statement.
-
The Canon CPN web masters probably do not realize their site is not allowing these images to show properly. Hence extracted here so you can view each ''.jpg''. I have added their shooting data. Enjoy...
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/01_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Shutter speed:
1/4000sec
Aperture:
f/4.5
ISO speed:
200
Shooting mode:
Manual exposure
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Focusing mode:
AI Servo AF
AF area select mode:
Manual selection
Drive mode:
High-speed continuous shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Standard
Sharpness:
3
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/02_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF17-40mm f/4L USM
Focal length:
17mm
Shutter speed:
1/125sec
Aperture:
f/11
ISO speed:
200
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
-1/3
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
Drive mode:
High-speed continuous shooting
Exposure setting:
HDR Art Vivid
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Landscape
Sharpness:
4
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/03_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF135mm f/2L USM
Shutter speed:
1/250sec
Aperture:
f/2.8
ISO speed:
100
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Centre-Weighted Average
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Manual selection
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Exposure compensation:
+1/3
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Portrait
Sharpness:
2
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Standard
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/04_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Shutter speed:
1/125sec
Aperture:
f/11
ISO speed:
100
Shooting mode:
Manual exposure
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Focusing mode:
Manual
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Colour Temperature (5200K)
Picture Style:
Standard
Sharpness:
3
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/05_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
Focal length:
78mm
Shutter speed:
1/640sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
100
Shooting mode:
Manual exposure
Metering mode:
Partial
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Daylight
AF mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Spot AF
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Picture Style:
Landscape
Sharpness:
4
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/06_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF17-40mm f/4L USM
Focal length:
24mm
Shutter speed:
1/4sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
1600
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
0
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
Drive mode:
High-speed continuous shooting
Exposure setting:
HDR Art Standard
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Landscape
Sharpness:
4
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/07_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Focal length:
25mm
Shutter speed:
1/100sec
Aperture:
f/5.6
ISO speed:
100
Shooting mode:
Manual exposure
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Focusing mode:
Manual
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Portrait
Sharpness:
2
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/08_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Shutter speed:
1/30sec
Aperture:
f/5.6
ISO speed:
1600
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
-1 1/3
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Manual selection
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Standard
Sharpness:
3
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
Adobe RGB (1998)
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Disabled
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/09_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
Focal length:
76mm
Shutter speed:
1/500sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
400
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
-1/3
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Spot AF
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Landscape
Sharpness:
4
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Low
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/10_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Shutter speed:
1/640sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
200
Shooting mode:
Manual Exposure
Metering mode:
Evaluative
AE lock:
On
Focusing mode:
AI Servo AF
AF area select mode:
AF Point expansion
Drive mode:
High-speed continuous shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Colour Temperature (5200K)
Picture Style:
Standard
Sharpness:
3
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/11_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Focal length:
35mm
Shutter speed:
1/25sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
25,600
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
0
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Spot AF
Drive mode:
Self-timer operation
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Landscape
Sharpness:
4
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Low
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/12_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Shutter speed:
1/800sec
Aperture:
f/4
ISO speed:
100
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
-1
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Manual selection
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Standard
Sharpness:
3
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
Adobe RGB (1998)
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Disabled
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/13_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Focal length:
85mm
Shutter speed:
1/160sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
100
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
-1/3
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Spot AF
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Standard
Sharpness:
3
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/14_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
TS-E17mm f/4L
Shutter speed:
1/60sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
800
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
0
Focusing mode:
Manual
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Exposure setting:
HDR Natural
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Landscape
Sharpness:
4
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/15_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Focal length:
200mm
Shutter speed:
1/125sec
Aperture:
f/10
ISO speed:
100
Shooting mode:
Manual exposure
Metering mode:
Centre-Weighted Average
Focusing mode:
One-Shot AF
AF area select mode:
Manual selection
Drive mode:
Single shooting
Exposure setting:
Multiple Exposure (Bright)
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Portrait
Sharpness:
2
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Disabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/16_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Focal length:
18mm
Shutter speed:
1/5sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
6400
Shooting mode:
Aperture-Priority AE
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Exposure compensation:
0
Focusing mode:
Manual
Drive mode:
Self-timer operation
Aspect ratio:
3:2
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Auto
Picture Style:
Landscape
Sharpness:
4
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Enabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
On
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/17_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Focal length:
50mm
Shutter speed:
1/3200sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
400
Shooting mode:
Manual exposure
Metering mode:
Evaluative
Focusing mode:
Manual
Drive mode:
Low-speed continuous shooting
Exposure setting:
Multiple Exposure (Dark)
Image quality:
Fine
White Balance mode:
Colour Temperature (5200K)
Picture Style:
Standard
Sharpness:
3
Contrast:
0
Saturation:
0
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
RAW image processing:
Enabled
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Disabled
Chromatic Aberration Correction:
Disabled
Distortion Correction:
Disabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/18_cinc_big.jpg
Camera:
EOS 5D Mark III
Lens:
EF85mm f/1.2L II USM
Shutter speed:
1/1000sec
Aperture:
f/8
ISO speed:
6400
Shooting mode:
Manual exposure
Metering mode:
Spot metering
Focusing mode:
Manual
Drive mode:
High-speed continuous shooting
Exposure setting:
Multiple exposure
Image quality:
Fine
Flash:
Off
FE lock:
Off
White Balance mode:
Colour Temperature (2500K)
Picture Style:
Portrait
Sharpness:
2
Contrast:
2
Saturation:
1
Colour tone:
0
Colour space:
sRGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer:
Disabled
Peripheral Illumination Correction:
Disabled
Dust Delete Data:
No
Live View Shooting:
Off
-
Newb amateur here
Fab new bazillion-point AF, but for the bird-in-flight shooter and others using long teles with TC, it doesn't much matter. The IQ improvement at high ISO would be greatly welcomed by those of us still shooting with f5.6 or f8.0 slow long glass, but without AF at those apertures, the better high ISO IQ goes to waste, at least for BIF or fidgety songbirds. On the other hand, if I don't have a 500 f 4 in the immediate budget, why would I have the 5DMkIII in the immediate budget?
-
Hmmmm,
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/02_cinc_big.jpg
1:1 this is the perfect example why someone would want a Nikon for that type of photography.
OTOH, other pictures are better and have more punch than the D800.
It seems we have two very different cameras that will unavoidably be compared because of their positions in their respective manufacturer's lineup and their near simultaneous release while in fact, they seem to have their strength in different fields.
-
The Canon CPN web masters probably do not realize their site is not allowing these images to show properly. Hence extracted here so you can view each ''.jpg''. I have added their shooting data. Enjoy...
Hmmm.... allow me to nominate your post for the worst misuse of bandwidth in the history of LuLa ;)
-
Yeah, I don't understand the reason for that post?
Here is the Japan site if there is a problem with Europe:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
-
Yeah, I don't understand the reason for that post?
Here is the Japan site if there is a problem with Europe:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
Those are different pictures
-
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/02_cinc_big.jpg
Is it just me, or am I seeing something like heavy handed post processing on many of those samples? For instance, the obvious skyline darkening from a too loose mask at upper left on the .jpg URL noted just above? Nikon gave us much more finessful D800 samples.
Anybody have links to some 5D3 raw files?
-
I think you're the one guilty of that.
But to answer your question, the discussion at the point you're quoting me from was about who the biggest market for the 5D3 will be (and who bought the 5D2). Architectural photographers or video users. We know the answer to that, irrespective of what kit they're using.
Your analysis of potential market demographics for the 5D3 is irrelevant to your presumption that architecture photographers who use a 5D2 instead of a MFDB must not be very successful.
Or perhaps you think that Canon never intended the 5D2 be used for architectural photography. Guess they should've told us before we bought all those 17 and 24 TSE lenses...
-
From a commercial photography point of view this camera makes a lot of sense to me (as an owner of too many Canon lenses to switch back to Nikon). First off two stops cleaner iso means less lighting gear that I have to fly around the country, with the ability to shoot at 400iso that looks like 100iso. Built in HDR will hopefully mean less time needed to be combining bracketed exposures which when shooting the interior of a hotel room is up to 7 sets of 3 exposures. Better AF might mean that it's actually a useful feature unlike the current version. A sensor that has much less problems with moire and aliasing means that I can video an interior at an f stop greater than 2.8 without worrying what's happening to the image in the background behind the subject (less time fixing in post).
For the past four years I've averaged around 180 shoot days per year which when combined with pre and post production means that any new piece of equipment that saves time and money is worth it. This camera pays for itself very quickly and when was the last time your clients said they needed to use your files bigger than A2?
Derryck.
-
It seems that the mk3 is able to use all sensels for video, while the mk2 does line-dropping. If true, this should give a significant improvement to aliasing and noise-performance.
-h
the minor resolution upgrade seems puzzling, but is Exactly 1920x3 - seems they could pixel bin 9 pixels to 1 for high def video.
-
For the past four years I've averaged around 180 shoot days per year which when combined with pre and post production means that any new piece of equipment that saves time and money is worth it. This camera pays for itself very quickly and when was the last time your clients said they needed to use your files bigger than A2?
So true. I started using my 5D as opposed to 4x5 film for commercial shoots when the last local E-6 lab shut down. I figured it would hold me until I figured out how I really wanted to shoot digital. I enjoyed it so much after 30 years of lugging around a 4x5 that I stuck with it. A DSLR was liberating in terms of production and creatively. When the new T/S lenses came out and the 5DII I was locked in. Interestingly in that time not a single client has ever complained (and I have allot of top name national clients) about file size or IQ. On the contrary with the 5DII I got some complaints about file sizes being too large.....seriously.
-
Totally clueless ? no. I might not be a professional architectural photographer, although I know a few that are, but I am a television professional and know the impact of the 5D2 and size of that market very well. Any knowledge of that market Kirk ? It doesn't seem to feature in your CV.
The problem with your statement wasn't related to the market size of architectural photographers vs video for canon, it was the way you implied any architectural photographer using dslr did so because they couldn't afford MF, which came across in a demeaning tone. In fact most architectural photographers use both.
-
the minor resolution upgrade seems puzzling, but is Exactly 1920x3 - seems they could pixel bin 9 pixels to 1 for high def video.
There have been quotes bandied around that this will be the DSLR for video use.
As was said earlier in this thread, the 5D2 had a serious impact on professional video use for TV and other areas.
I would not be surprised to find that Canon were specifically targetting all of those that bought the 5D2 for video work with this current camera.
-
Getting shot of inventory probably. The more interesting question is will the MKii still be coming off a production line ?
I doubt the mkIII will be easy to get for a long time based on past experience.
The Mark2 is not being discontinued, it will still be coming off a production line. Canon's strategy will most likely be similar to Nikon's with the d700.
-
One point many seem to miss when lamenting the lower pixel count of the 5DIII versus the D800 is that the D800 will have to have the very finest glass, focussed with critical precision and with no motion blur for the modest resolution increase to be even visible. It will absolutely punish any slight misfocus if viewed at the sort of resolution that requires such a high pixel count. It's likely some landscape/studio photographers will be able to benefit but, for any handheld use in anything but the best light, those extra pixels are a waste of card space. Sure, 36 sounds more impressive than 22 but, since pixel counts got over 12Mp, the benefits of more pixels have got lost by real world factors in the majority of photographs taken.
Time will tell how good the 5DIII really is versus it's Nikon/Sony/Leica competition. For now, however, it looks like most real drawbacks of an already very popular camera have been addressed in this new model.
I'm neutral in this debate, not having any modern Canon or Nikon gear. If I was to go with one or the other, the decision wouldn't be made on the pixel count!
Don
-
Nikon has a 10 page "technical paper" on the 800. They have examples of how diffraction limited the sensor is beyond f/8.0. So yes, the incremental advantage of the 36 vs 22 MP will be useful only on the largest physical prints with best technique.
I actually have both on pre-order. I have an order in for the 800E and the 5D3. I need a new full frame camera.
The bias will be toward Canon for me, however, as I have at least 7 high end Canon lenses.
I shoot almost 100% high quality studio lighting at ISO 100, either in the studio or on location. Focus has never been an issue. For me it will all come down to comparing images at 24"x36" and 44"x66".
I just sold all of my 4"x5" equipment (6 cameras) to make a commitment to 1 digital camera.
Michael
-
I looked at some of those pictures.
The portrait (15_cinc_big) looks quite impressive, but the colorful autumn landscape scene (02_cinc_big), looks like an upsampled 6MP file.
Lot of smudging, unnatural edges on the trees against the sky, and oversaturated colors. Not what I would expect from a $3,500 camera.
-
The sharpening on the autumn trees was set quite high, at "4.". The portraits were at "2."
All in sRGB too so that they look good online. Really hard to tell much from those. The trees did look very "crunchy." :o
Michael
-
Yes, the autumn trees look terrible. Must be the processing/sharpening or prehaps jpg/sRGB compression. I would expect way better from my 1DS3.
Early days yet. I would wait for a production model or at least a few more samples before passing judgement.
I have looked at many early Nikon D800 jpg sample shots, these also vary in quality.
-
I have read all the remarks in several threads running simultaneously.
Some thoughts:
Small increase in pixel count - neutral.
Improvements in focussing and metering - good move.
Improvements in video capture - neutral for me but excellent for those doing serious video capture.
Dynamic range - unknown quantity notwithstanding the HDR mode.
For me the single biggest issue with regards to any camera or camera system is usable dynamic range.
This affects IQ much more than almost any other issue besides difficulties with accurate focussing IMHO (itself a byproduct of the amazing resolution and precision of current sensors).
If dynamic range is much better (than the 5D II) then combined with the other improvements then this is a formidable camera indeed.
I tend not to be so excited about pixel counts > 30 megapixels with 35 mm sensor sizes since realtime resolution will not really improve due to limitations with lenses related to small sensor elements.
My $0.02 worth.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
The Canon 5DIII would be a killer camera if it was 2010. This is the camera that Canon missed to make 3 years ago, that's the problem. Canon is late, very late. For the first time since I bought my first dslr, I won't buy the immediate upgrade. Not enough improvements and the price is crazy. Nikon D800 has been the most exciting camera since the original 5D. The Canon 5D3 is the most boring new camera since the Canon 30D.
The best thing: The spell is finished. This is a good opportunity to exercise control and enjoy what we have. I'm not jumping ships but Canon will lose many clients soon.
Eduardo
-
To get things in perspective, an increase in pixel count of approximately 63%, comparing the D800 with the 5D3, is not huge but is definitely worth something.
If one considers an image resolution of 240ppi as being the minimum for critical viewing of a print, then the 5D3 image is good for a 24"x16" print without interpolation, and the D800 good for a 30"x20" print, approximately (actually a bit larger, like 31.5"x21").
If one needs to crop because the lens was not long enough, to get the FoV that a 7D would produce with the same lens for example, then one ends up with an 8.7mp image, hardly better than the resolution one would get from an old 20D.
If one crops a D800 image to the same degree, bearing in mind that the Nikon DX format is slightly larger than Canon's cropped format, one gets a 14.2mp image (36.3/2.56).
I never got the opportunity to upgrade my 20D to 14mp. Canon usually seems to upgrade its cameras in small increments of pixel numbers, from 6mp to 8mp to 10mp to 15mp to 18mp, with cropped format, and 11mp to 12.7mp to 16mp to 21mp to 22mp with full-frame.
Perhaps the most interesting upgrade in the 5D3 is the claimed 2 stops of better DR. If this proves to be two stops of improved DR across the entire ISO range, then that would be fantastic. It would mean that the DR at high ISOs would be on a par with the Nikon D3s, and DR at base ISO on a par with the Nikon D7000.
If the improvement in DR only applies at high ISO, as it does with the D3s, that's still a big plus, but just not as awesome.
According to DXOMark DR tests, the D7000 pixel, although smaller than the 5D2 pixel, has over 2 stops better DR than the 5D2 pixel at base ISO. At equal print sizes, the DR of the D7000 image is only 2 stops better. ;D
-
The 5D mark 3 looks better than I thought it would. For the mass market, I think 22 megapixels is about right. 36 like in D800 is more than most want. Sure I'd like a higher number for my landscape work. But a 22 megapixel good AF quite fast good low light is a nice all-arounder. And improved build quality, yay! If one is waiting around for a D800 response I understand it is a bit of disappointment though.
Don't judge image quality too much based on compressed jpegs. They always look bad. The autumn scene was also shot at 17mm with a 17-40 zoom, not great optical performance, but I think they demonstrated the in-camera CA removal feature for jpegs...
It does seem like high ISO is much improved as well as DR at base ISO. We need RAWs to know for sure.
What most users complained about the 5D mk 2 was 1) poor DR, 2) poor AF, 3) poor build quality. All this seems to be addressed, with some added bonus. I think it will be a hit, even though D800 is the better landscape camera due to its higher resolution.
-
Cheers Ginger. I can't find the specs anywhere though. Spot metering has been kept to the central AF point in previous models.
According to the Canon Profesional Network European Site (to which I supplied a link earlier in this thread) the spot metering is central only:
Metering Modes
TTL full aperture metering with 63 zone Dual Layer SPC
(1) Evaluative metering (linked to All AF point)
(2) Partial metering (approx. 6.2% of viewfinder at centre)
(3) Spot metering (approx. 1.5% viewfinder at centre)
(4) Centre weighted average metering
see full specification at: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii.do)
Note that these CPN pages have a tabbed interface with the detailed specification being on the 'Specification' tab.
Regards
Nigel
-
Not seeing any chatter here about the new flash system. For me *that* is the hot announcement for the day.
See this site: http://pixsylated.com/blog/ (http://pixsylated.com/blog/)
There is already a review and the first of two videos about the flash.
There is also information on the Canon Professional Network European Site at:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/accessories/speedlite_600ex_rt.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/accessories/speedlite_600ex_rt.do)
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/accessories/speedlite_transmitter_st_e3_rt.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/accessories/speedlite_transmitter_st_e3_rt.do)
(Please note that these CPN pages have a tabbed interface with extra information available on the tabs.)
Regards
Nigel
-
The sharpening on the autumn trees was set quite high, at "4.". The portraits were at "2."
All in sRGB too so that they look good online. Really hard to tell much from those. The trees did look very "crunchy." :o
Michael
It should also be noted that the autumn trees picture was also using the in-camera HDR setting (Exposure setting: HDR Art Vivid) and is therefore a composite from a number of images - I wonder if there was some softness (before the high sharpening) due to subject movement (or camera movement) between the images.
Regards
Nigel
-
I checked these D4 samples out late last night:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/03/nikond4studiosamples
The lack of significant improvement over the D3S is good news for Canon.
Digital Rev showed a side by side on the noise improvement of the 5D3 over the 5D2 at high iso in their Video blog
The 1DX and 5D3 will find favor with some. It looks like Canon have made great cameras. The 1DX could be a new king of low light with the 5D3 not far behind.
The D800 looks cheap compared to the D4 given it is almost the same in many ways. That makes the 5D3 look pricey. Canon have played the Marketing segment card by cutting the 5D3 back in areas, so that price difference is all the more obvious. Build not quite that of the 1 series and the flagship new metering not included.
I suspect the 5D3 will be good enough and the missing 1 series bits and increased price will not have that much of a negative impact on potential buyers when people consider what this new camera can do...
-
What most users complained about the 5D mk 2 was 1) poor DR,
Really? I don't remember seeing many of those, at least not here at LL.
DR seemed to be mostly a non issue for Canon shooters until the announcement of the 5D3. Especially those photographers using both a 5DII and a MFDB were seemingly just assuming that what they were getting with the 5DII was simply the DSLR standard. ;)
Phaseone is going to suffer most from the likely much improved DR of the 5D3 because many of their customers will finally realize that the DR advantage of the backs isn't that great compared to modern DSLRs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Really? I don't remember seeing many of those, at least not here at LL.
DR seemed to be mostly a non issue for Canon shooters until the announcement of the 5D3.
After the introduction of the D7000, there was quite a lot of noise about Canon DR at base ISO.
-h
-
Newb amateur here
Fab new bazillion-point AF, but for the bird-in-flight shooter and others using long teles with TC, it doesn't much matter. The IQ improvement at high ISO would be greatly welcomed by those of us still shooting with f5.6 or f8.0 slow long glass, but without AF at those apertures, the better high ISO IQ goes to waste, at least for BIF or fidgety songbirds. On the other hand, if I don't have a 500 f 4 in the immediate budget, why would I have the 5DMkIII in the immediate budget?
Canon has not rulled out fixing the F8 on the D1X so it could follow the same tweak could be made to the new 5D3
Canon has not confirmed it will no longer make 1.3 crop sensors. It would not surprise me if the 7D2 was moved up from 1.6 to 1.3 Crop with improved AF etc.
Hold out until more news comes of fixes or new bodies to suit your needs...
-
The D800 looks cheap compared to the D4 given it is almost the same in many ways. That makes the 5D3 look pricey. Canon have played the Marketing segment card by cutting the 5D3 back in many areas, so that price difference is all the more obvious. Build not quite that of the 1 series. Distortion correction not included. The flagship new metering not included.
Distortion correction is included, see this extract from the specification on the Canon Professional Network European website (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii.do) note you have to select the 'Specification' tab to see):
Image Processing
Highlight Tone Priority
Auto Lighting Optimizer (4 settings)
Long exposure noise reduction
High ISO speed noise reduction (4 settings)
Auto Correction of Lens Peripheral illumination
Chromatic aberration correction
Distortion correction
Resize to M1, M2 or S
RAW image processing - during image Playback only
Multiple exposure
HDR images 5 presets
(Bold text is my highlighting.)
Regards
Nigel
-
Distortion correction is included, see this extract from the specification on the Canon Professional Network European website (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii.do) note you have to select the 'Specification' tab to see):
Image Processing
Highlight Tone Priority
Auto Lighting Optimizer (4 settings)
Long exposure noise reduction
High ISO speed noise reduction (4 settings)
Auto Correction of Lens Peripheral illumination
Chromatic aberration correction
Distortion correction
Resize to M1, M2 or S
RAW image processing - during image Playback only
Multiple exposure
HDR images 5 presets
(Bold text is my highlighting.)
Regards
Nigel
Hi Nigel
Thanks for finding that. I have read so many Canon specs with that very bit missing it seemed intentional. I am very pleased to see that they have included as it would have been a amendment to code already available for Marketing sake. Nice to see they have not done that!
I have amended my text
Cheers
B
-
One point many seem to miss when lamenting the lower pixel count of the 5DIII versus the D800 is that the D800 will have to have the very finest glass, focussed with critical precision and with no motion blur for the modest resolution increase to be even visible. It will absolutely punish any slight misfocus if viewed at the sort of resolution that requires such a high pixel count. It's likely some landscape/studio photographers will be able to benefit but, for any handheld use in anything but the best light, those extra pixels are a waste of card space. Sure, 36 sounds more impressive than 22 but, since pixel counts got over 12Mp, the benefits of more pixels have got lost by real world factors in the majority of photographs taken.
Time will tell how good the 5DIII really is versus it's Nikon/Sony/Leica competition. For now, however, it looks like most real drawbacks of an already very popular camera have been addressed in this new model.
I'm neutral in this debate, not having any modern Canon or Nikon gear. If I was to go with one or the other, the decision wouldn't be made on the pixel count!
Don
One aspect of the higher resolution of the D800 is diffraction. On my 1Ds mkIII I see a clear difference in 100% details going from f/8 to f/11. The D800 would need to be stopped down to f/5.6 to get all details.
This means for landscape shooters that they either will not utilize the full resolution of the D800 or will have to do focus stacking. I'm certainly not saying that all landscape pictures need to to be stopped down to f/8 but a large percentage of how I shoot need to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 and sometimes f/16 where a real serious loss of resolution is seen. Less so on a print up to a super A2 which the largest I can print on my Epson 3880. I have tested focus stacking using Helicon Focus and I probably have not quite fine tuned it yet. I see some types of pictures work just fine, but others have serious halo problems.
I'm not trying to defend Canon or saying that the D800 is the wrong product for landscape, but for sure the resolution advantage will not always be seen in reality.
-
One aspect of the higher resolution of the D800 is diffraction. On my 1Ds mkIII I see a clear difference in 100% details going from f/8 to f/11. The D800 would need to be stopped down to f/5.6 to get all details.
This means for landscape shooters that they either will not utilize the full resolution of the D800 or will have to do focus stacking. I'm certainly not saying that all landscape pictures need to to be stopped down to f/8 but a large percentage of how I shoot need to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 and sometimes f/16 where a real serious loss of resolution is seen. Less so on a print up to a super A2 which the largest I can print on my Epson 3880. I have tested focus stacking using Helicon Focus and I probably have not quite fine tuned it yet. I see some types of pictures work just fine, but others have serious halo problems.
I'm not trying to defend Canon or saying that the D800 is the wrong product for landscape, but for sure the resolution advantage will not always be seen in reality.
I'm sure diffraction will further reduce the theoretical resolution advantage the D800 has over the 5DIII, especially in the important area of landscapes. I notice, though, that often photos taken with apertures small enough to be affected by diffraction look sharper, simply because less of the scene is out of focus. It will be interesting to see how images from these cameras compare at, say, f16. I sometimes stopped down to f19 or f22 in film days and got wonderful enlargements - we simply didn't pixel peep then!
Don
-
I'm another who is of the opinion that more than 20-something megapixels in a 35mm full frame format is pretty much a waste. That's simply because of the small sensor format and the huge amount of magnification required to take it to large print dimensions. Lens diffraction, focus inaccuracy, and every other quality issue are magnified equally, so it's between difficult and impossible to get much more than 20-something MP of true resolution out of any 35mm format sensor. You certainly can get more pixels, but they don't necessarily translate into more information or better print quality. I'd think those who truly need more resolution than a good 20+ MP 35mm format camera can provide would be far better off spending their money on medium format. It costs considerably more, but an increased MP count in a larger format makes a difference that can actually be seen. Perhaps 30 MP would be nice, but it's on the far outside fringes of what's usable with the best prime lenses (certainly not any zoom), stopped down to their optimal apertures (say F5.6 or possibly F8), mounted on a camera that's fused to bedrock, or at least a very heavy tripod. Not many people actually shoot like that. Of course all this is just my opinion, and it along with $5 will buy a fine cup of coffee somewhere.
-
It should also be noted that the autumn trees picture was also using the in-camera HDR setting (Exposure setting: HDR Art Vivid) and is therefore a composite from a number of images - I wonder if there was some softness (before the high sharpening) due to subject movement (or camera movement) between the images.
Regards
Nigel
Thanks for that Nigel. Good spot!
-
Canon has not rulled out fixing the F8 on the D1X so it could follow the same tweak could be made to the new 5D3
Canon has not confirmed it will no longer make 1.3 crop sensors. It would not surprise me if the 7D2 was moved up from 1.6 to 1.3 Crop with improved AF etc.
That would be one great way to piss off big time the millions who have invested in APS-C lenses!
There are similar talk on the Nikon side about the D400 being a D800 with a D4 sensor, but I don't see this happening either. This would show a total lack of respect for the customers who have been supporting you all along.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One aspect of the higher resolution of the D800 is diffraction. On my 1Ds mkIII I see a clear difference in 100% details going from f/8 to f/11. The D800 would need to be stopped down to f/5.6 to get all details.
This means for landscape shooters that they either will not utilize the full resolution of the D800 or will have to do focus stacking. I'm certainly not saying that all landscape pictures need to to be stopped down to f/8 but a large percentage of how I shoot need to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 and sometimes f/16 where a real serious loss of resolution is seen. Less so on a print up to a super A2 which the largest I can print on my Epson 3880. I have tested focus stacking using Helicon Focus and I probably have not quite fine tuned it yet. I see some types of pictures work just fine, but others have serious halo problems.
I'm not trying to defend Canon or saying that the D800 is the wrong product for landscape, but for sure the resolution advantage will not always be seen in reality.
ok, let us see... APS-C sensor, F11, K10D/10mp vs K5/16mp, 40/2.8 fix... shall be a good idea what FF @ F16 will do
F11 @ 10 mp = 2011 / 1950 / 1865 (center/border/extreme corner, lw/ph)
F11 @ 16 mp = 2372 / 2315 / 2284 (center/border/extreme corner, lw/ph)
-
One aspect of the higher resolution of the D800 is diffraction. On my 1Ds mkIII I see a clear difference in 100% details going from f/8 to f/11. The D800 would need to be stopped down to f/5.6 to get all details.
Yes... that has been the case for many years. You would see even better detail with your 1ds3 at f7.1. In fact f8 is already very far from the aperture you need to have good front to back DoF on many subjects, so is f11 in fact.
It really boils down to what you call critical sharpness. Deciding that 22mp is the perfect compromise is arbitrary at best.
MF is not better, very far from it. The key metrics affecting diffraction is pixel pitch. The truth is that the MF lenses used on an IQ180 start to suffer from diffraction at the same time D3x lenses start to suffer from diffraction, meaning at around f8. So what about 39mp backs? It is correct to say that the aperture starting to be affected by diffraction is higher since they have a larger pixel pitch... but this effect is more than compensated by the fact that you need to use a longer lens to reach the same composition everything else being equal.
Anyway you look at it you will find that the smaller format is superior to achieve more DoF.
Anyway, there are 4 well known solutions for this that have been used by photographers for years:
- focus on landscape styles that do not require everything to be in focus,
- compose so as to avoid having close subjects in your composition. Hansel Adams grand landscape comes to mind as a perfect example,
- use T/S lenses or movements
- use DoF stacking
I'm not trying to defend Canon or saying that the D800 is the wrong product for landscape, but for sure the resolution advantage will not always be seen in reality.
True, just like the potential of the 22/24mp cameras was already very challenging to tap into from a DoF standpoint. Yet, the areas that is sharp will benefit significantly from the added details for a given print size.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes... that has been the case for many years. You would see even better detail with your 1ds3 at f7.1. In fact f8 is already very far from the aperture you need to have good front to back DoF on many subjects, so is f11 in fact.
This contradicts with my real experience but...
It really boils down to what you call critical sharpness. Deciding that 22mp is the perfect compromise is arbitrary at best.
I believe that the sensor in the 5D Mark III has been designed primarily for HD video performance.
The images that come out of the 5D Mark III are 5760 pixels wide at full resolution.
5760 = 1920 x 3 (1920 is the horizontal resolution of 1080p or HD video on BluRay/TV)
There is no way that is a fluke or arbitrary.
My money is on that sensor size allowing for cleaner/better/faster video to be extracted from it.
Unfortunately I don't know enough about how video is encoded from the sensor to know if this makes 3 to 1 pixel binning easy, allows moire to be almost reduced or something else.
-
That would be one great way to piss off big time the millions who have invested in APS-C lenses!
There are similar talk on the Nikon side about the D400 being a D800 with a D4 sensor, but I don't see this happening either. This would show a total lack of respect for the customers who have been supporting you all along.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think Canon have already upset some 1.3 users. A 1.6 crop on a 1.3 sensor is easy to do, if the Canon crop lenses could also be made fit that would ease worries. Moving the 7D2 to 1.3 does not end 1.6 Camera's in any case. A Full frame upgrade for the old 1 series 1.3 sports Cams was always on the cards. Time will tell what Canon does next. They will respond where market demand takes them (hence their recent hint they would make a higher MP Cam to match Nikon if the market wants it)...
-
ok, let us see... APS-C sensor, F11, K10D/10mp vs K5/16mp, 40/2.8 fix... shall be a good idea what FF @ F16 will do
F11 @ 10 mp = 2011 / 1950 / 1865 (center/border/extreme corner, lw/ph)
F11 @ 16 mp = 2372 / 2315 / 2284 (center/border/extreme corner, lw/ph)
That's a good indicator. I just went through the exercise of comparing the same models of Canon lenses tested at Photozone where they have sometimes duplicated their results using two different bodies, the 8mp Canon 350D and the 15mp Canon 50D.
8mp on cropped format is equivalent to a little under the 22.3mp of the 5D3, in terms of pixel density or number of pixels per unit area of sensor. The 15mp of the 50D would be equivalent to a 38 or 39mp FF sensor that used the same pixels.
In all the examples I compared at Photozone, the same models of lenses consistently produced higher resolution at all aperture tested up to F11, in the centre of the image as well as the borders of the cropped frame, using the 50D body. I didn't notice any tests at F16 at Photozone, but my own tests have indicated there is still some resolution advantage at F16 using a 50D, although small. The cut-off point where there would be no resolution advantage to, say, a 39mp full-frame sensor, is beyond F16, probably around F20 and certainly F22.
Of course, it goes without saying that the greatest increases in resolution are always apparent at the apertures where the lenses are sharpest, usually around F4 to F5.6. Most lenses are pretty much equal at F11 and F16.
When a manufacturer produces an upgraded lens which is sharper than the previous model, one generally does not hear complaints that the additional sharpness is only apparent at F2.8 to F5.6 and therefore not of much use because DoF is so shallow at such apertures. ;D
-
That's a good indicator. I just went through the exercise of comparing the same models of Canon lenses tested at Photozone where they have sometimes duplicated their results using two different bodies, the 8mp Canon 350D and the 15mp Canon 50D.
Klaus is adamant about one point and always has been: The results may not be used for comparisions between different camera systems.
"Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems. This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters."
Therefore your deductions are based on false assumptions and therefore worthless.
Ciao, Walter
PS: EF 100/2.8 USM Macro on 350D was tested to f/22
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1
-
Therefore your deductions are based on false assumptions and therefore worthless.
Even though the tests may not be comparable in a 1:1 fashion, I think it is hard to conclude that such a comparision has exactly no value.
If MTFx0 is interpreted as an absolute measure, estimated in some test A, then a different test B that tries to estimate the same should not be too far off from each other if each test is reasonably accurate?
-h
-
http://forum.photozone.de/
and ask Klaus himself, please. These are his data sets which are messed up here and I think he is the very person whose opinion about this messup is relevant.
As stated in Klaus' quote you have different data sets with a different processing as input therefore the results are not compareable without putting those differences into context.
Ciao, Walter
-
Klaus is adamant about one point and always has been: The results may not be used for comparisions between different camera systems.
yawn... some how all tests (slrgear, lenstip, photozone, feel free to suggest more) consistently show that increase in megapixels (yes, on different systems - exactly the case we have here) always lead to increase in resolution until the very extreme stopping down... so there is no reason to believe that FF 36mp in camera w/ AA compensated (D800E) will deliver the same (and not more) resolution as FF 22mp on 5DmkIII w/ AA filter @ F11 or F16... feel free to show a 3rd party test (we assume tripod, MLU, remote shutter release - please no hand holding of consumer level, double trombone, 28-300 zoom @ 300 w/ VR/IS switched off) where that is not the case and yes, please feel free to show that on different systems with 1.5+ increase in megapixels between both
-
yawn... some how all tests (slrgear, lenstip, photozone, feel free to suggest more) consistently show that increase in megapixels (yes, on different systems - exactly the case we have here) always lead to increase in resolution until the very extreme stopping down
I always gave those "this new sensor with higher pixel count will outresolve lenses, therefore image quality will decrease"-posters a hard time. You are addressing the wrong person, I think.
Ciao, Walter
-
PS: EF 100/2.8 USM Macro on 350D was tested to f/22
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1
great... so let us see how 8mp ->15mp delivers on 1.6x APS-C sensor w/ Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro :
8mp @ F16 = 1663/1640
15mp @ F16 = 1973/1956
F16 @ 1.6x cropped APS-C...
so you think F16 on FF w/ 22mp w/ AA -> 36mp w/ AA compensated will yield no difference ::)
-
I always gave those "this new sensor with higher pixel count will outresolve lenses, therefore image quality will decrease"-posters a hard time. You are addressing the wrong person, I think.
Ciao, Walter
I see no hard time in your postings... I saw no tests (again - tripod, MLU, remote shutter release and no consumer grade lenses) that backup your point.
-
Do we have a personal problem?
Those guys and postings I mentioned are/where at a german speaking forum and not here.
And "my point" is about messing with numbers/test results not indended to be used this way.
Ciao, Walter
-
Klaus is adamant about one point and always has been: The results may not be used for comparisions between different camera systems.
"Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems. This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters."
Therefore your deductions are based on false assumptions and therefore worthless.
Ciao, Walter
PS: EF 100/2.8 USM Macro on 350D was tested to f/22
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1
I think you've misunderstood those warnings. Photozone primarily tests lenses for comparison purposes. It is reasonable to suppose that such warnings apply only to the evaluation and comparison of lens quality. For example if one wanted to compare a particular Nikon lens with a Canon equivalent, one couldn't because the results at Photozone are always a product of both lens performance and sensor performance, and one wouldn't be able to separate the performance of the sensor from the performance of the lens. Likewise, if one wanted to compare a lens that had been tested on the 8mp 350D, with a newer or upgraded lens that had only been tested on the 50D, one would have great difficulty interpreting the results because the 50D is likely to make an inferior lens appear as good as a better quality lens on the 350D.
What I'm doing cannot be described as comparing different camera systems in the sense the warnings apply. The lens is the same, the camera body is different but from the same manufacturer, as opposed to the body being the same but the lenses different.
When comparing lenses, the camera body should be the same but the lenses are obviously always different. In both cases the camera systems are different in their own way. If the Photozone results are valid for comparison of different lenses on the same body, then they are equally valid for comparison of different bodies on the same lens. But they are not valid for comparison of different lenses on different bodies. Got it?
The fact that different sensors have different strengths of AA filters is unavoidable. The AA filter is part of the camera, like a lens coating is part of a lens. So what! One presumes that the higher the pixel count, the weaker the AA filter.
What we are concerned about here is, if it's technologically possible for a high pixel-density sensor to continue to deliver more resolution at f stops that we know are in part diffraction limited. If part of that process consists of using a weaker AA filter (or no AA filter at all in the case of the D800E), and better RAW converters, then that's fine by me.
I'm hardly likely to complain when I see a surprisingly sharp and detailed result at F16 from my new D800, "Boo! What a cheat! Nikon has used a weak AA filter and a new, more sophisticated RAW converter." ;D
By the way, thanks for bringing to my attention those results down to F22. What we see here is that an 8mp sensor at F16 delivers more resolution than a 15mp sensor at F22. However, what's interesting also is that the 15mp sensor continues to deliver more resolution at F22 than the 8mp sensor at F22. That is a susprising result. I wouldn't have thought it likely. My own tests have demonstrated that the resolution of the 10mp 40D and 15mp 50D are visually the same on the monitor, as regards detail at F22, using the same lens.
-
yawn... some how all tests (slrgear, lenstip, photozone, feel free to suggest more) consistently show that increase in megapixels (yes, on different systems - exactly the case we have here) always lead to increase in resolution until the very extreme stopping down... so there is no reason to believe that FF 36mp in camera w/ AA compensated (D800E) will deliver the same (and not more) resolution as FF 22mp on 5DmkIII w/ AA filter @ F11 or F16... feel free to show a 3rd party test (we assume tripod, MLU, remote shutter release - please no hand holding of consumer level, double trombone, 28-300 zoom @ 300 w/ VR/IS switched off) where that is not the case and yes, please feel free to show that on different systems with 1.5+ increase in megapixels between both
Interesting to see that a Nikon 50mm lens at f/8 on D3 resolves exactly as f/16 on D3X. So basically doubling pixel count on the D3X is eliminated by stopping down from f/8 to f/16.
-
and in Canon land the 1Ds mkIII 50mm f/1.4 lens at f/22 is about the same resolution as 50mm on 40D at f/8
As comparison the 85mm f/1.8 on 1Ds mkIII at f/8 (gives the same resolution as the 50mm f/1.4 on the 1Ds mkIII at f/8).
The 40D is 10MP and the 1Ds mkIII is 21MP. So a similar patterns as expected from the Nikon resolution tests by DxO.
-
However stopping down the D40 to f/22 as well as the 1Ds mkIII gives a lower resolution on the D40 than on the 1Ds mkIII.
According to tabel 3 in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml they should have about the same resolution 4MP. This is clearly not the case so the assumptions in the article are not correct.
-
Not sure what you guys are trying to prove: that more megapixels is pointless because when shot at f/22 the resolution will not be better than at f/8 at less megapixels?
The way I read it is that up to f/22 there will be resolution advantage of more megapixels. Not to mention that no self-respecting digital photographer will shoot at f/22 if he can get away with shooting with f/8 or in-between.
-
Comparing MTF50 values when varying sensor resolution, lense quality and diffraction limits might not be a perfect indicator on the likely degree of "sharpness" obtainable by proper sharpening and deconvolution. I think that the PSF of each of those can have distinctly differing shape for a given e.g. MTF50.
-h
-
Not sure what you guys are trying to prove: that more megapixels is pointless because when shot at f/22 the resolution will not be better than at f/8 at less megapixels?
The way I read it is that up to f/22 there will be resolution advantage of more megapixels. Not to mention that no self-respecting digital photographer will shoot at f/22 if he can get away with shooting with f/8 or in-between.
Well, basically DxO has measurements by which one can assess the resolution by fstop and camera sensor megapixels. They show that doubling the megapixels are negated by stopping down from f/8 to f/22 caused by diffraction. They also show that at f/22 a doubling of megapixels do increase the resolution which is in contradiction to the article linked to. So it raises some questions:
1) What level of resolution increase will an increase from the 21MP of the 1Ds mkIII or the 22MP of the 5D mkIII up to the 36MP of the D800 give when stopped down to e.g. f/16.
2) What change in the resolution tables (table 3 in the linked to article on Lula) should be done to reflect reality rather than a seamingly over conservative calculation?
I have for some time relied (maybe naively as I haven't done any real world resolution tests to check it) on the accuracy of this table and I certainly have to revise my opinion on that. I have done test shots stopping down and seen the lost of resolution on the screen on real world subjects but that is hard to translate into excact loss of resolution in terms of megapixels or lp/mm. So only recently did I check the DxO measurements in the way shown in this thread.
-
Well t seems this is not the camera for a lot of you landscape shooters. I am more all around shooter, low light street work and I need a low ligth camera then my m9 and lighter then the mk1v . the 5d mk11 is useless as the focus in f1.4 60 th sec when you have to got iso 6400 is a joke and it simply does not mf very well. so I am happy with better low light and real af. But you never know if canon has something else to come out later for you landscape guys
-
Dealers have known for several days, but today it's official ... the 5D Mark 2 has just had it's price reduced to $2199 and is not being discontinued. Same strategy as Nikon with d700.
-
Well t seems this is not the camera for a lot of you landscape shooters...
I think you are right. It seems geared toward two distinct categories of users: wedding photographers (note new flash system) and videographers. In contrast, Mark II was quickly embraced by landscape photographers and raised to the status of a preeminent landscape camera. Hence this disappointment with Mark III, which was expected to raise the bar in a similar fashion Mark II raised it compared to the original 5D. Instead, it is another textbook example of "too little, too late".
I smelled the problem a couple of years ago when Canon refused to innovate in order to keep the distance it initially created vs. Nikon and others in digital quality, and instead started using bean-counters' mantra "why would we do that, when competition is still playing catch up?" (my recollection of a Chuck Westfall's interview). Well, problem with that philosophy is that competition is not only aiming to catch up, but to surpass. And they did. Translucent mirrors (Sony), high-iso quality (Nikon), dynamic range (Pentax, Sony, Nikon), megapixels, mirrorless bodies, etc. Nikon 14-24 zoom is often used by discriminating Canon users, with an adapter, of course.
"Asleep at at wheel" phrase comes to mind. Or "resting on laurels".
-
Interesting to see that a Nikon 50mm lens at f/8 on D3 resolves exactly as f/16 on D3X. So basically doubling pixel count on the D3X is eliminated by stopping down from f/8 to f/16.
Not so. You've missed something very crucial. Whilst it may be true that the D3 at F8 resolves as much as the D3X at F16, this only applies at the plane of focus. Away from the plane of focus, the D3X at F16 resolves much more than the D3 at F8.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the D3X at F16 and at the plane of focus resolves significantly more than the D3 does at F16 and at the plane of focus.
-
Not so. You've missed something very crucial. Whilst it may be true that the D3 at F8 resolves as much as the D3X at F16, this only applies at the plane of focus. Away from the plane of focus, the D3X at F16 resolves much more than the D3 at F8.
Why would it be like that?
Also, I'm pretty sure that the D3X at F16 and at the plane of focus resolves significantly more than the D3 does at F16 and at the plane of focus.
Correct and that's what I posted in one of the examples using the 1Ds mkIII as an example.
-
Why would it be like that?
Because F16 provides a much great DoF than F8 using cameras with the same size sensor. When comparing resolution advantages of same size sensors that have different pixel counts, it's only sensible to use the same lens at the same F stops. You will then find that the sensor with a substantially greater number of pixels will deliver more resolution at all F stops up to, and perhaps including, F22.
Resolution at F22 is the puzzling bit. I find it susprising that a Photozone test of the Canon 100/2.8 Macro at F22 shows the 50D producing significantly more resolution than the 350D with the same lens at F22. It's the sort of result one might expect if the 50D image had had 100% detail enhancement in ACR sharpening, which the 350D image lacked. In this sense, improvements in RAW converters can skew the results to some degree, but it's clear from tests from other sources, including my own, that we haven't yet reached the point where increased pixel count ceases to provide further resolution at all the commonly used F stops.
-
Interesting to see that a Nikon 50mm lens at f/8 on D3 resolves exactly as f/16 on D3X. So basically doubling pixel count on the D3X is eliminated by stopping down from f/8 to f/16.
the point is that D3X will resolve more @ f/16 than D3 @ f/16...
-
the point is that D3X will resolve more @ f/16 than D3 @ f/16...
And the point is also that we kinda know when using F16 to acheive a good DoF that we're sacrificing at least a little sharpness at the point of focus.
So it's rather nice to know that using the same size sensor with double the number of pixels allows us to get the same degree of sharpness at F16 as the older sensor provided at F8, plus the benefits of the significantly greater DoF that F16 provides.
Wow! It feels like I just upgraded all my lenses. ;D
-
Hi,
Yes, the D3X will resolve marginally better at f/16 than the D3 at f/16, probably.
This is an old test I made using Imatest: (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/stories/difractionlimit.gif)
Another question how much of the sharpness lost at f/16 can be recovered using deconvolution. Worth looking into.
The diagram here and other tests ( http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1 )I made led me to see f/16 to be the smallest aperture acceptable for normal shooting.
Best regards
Erik
the point is that D3X will resolve more @ f/16 than D3 @ f/16...
-
Hi,
Yes, the D3X will resolve marginally better at f/16 than the D3 at f/16, probably.
This is an old test I made using Imatest: (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/stories/difractionlimit.gif)
10-15% in your picture is not "marginally"
PS: were the bars mislabeled ? higher bars should be 1.6x crop 18mp 7D vs lower bars 1.5x crop 10mp A100
-
Hi,
I'd say that Slobodan has a good point, as he often does. Regarding resolution, the more you have the more do you have to loose. I generally agree that we loose resolution when stopping down beyond optimal aperture. But some resolution can be regained with deconvolution sharpening. Technically I would say that advanced sharpening in CS5 with gaussian spread function and well chosen radius can recover amazing amount of detail.
Our vision is most sensitive to detail at 50% MTF (according to Norman Koren http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html ) but resolution is limited by lower MTF (like around 20%).
The article here shows the effect of sharpening: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=2
Best regards
Erik
Well, basically DxO has measurements by which one can assess the resolution by fstop and camera sensor megapixels. They show that doubling the megapixels are negated by stopping down from f/8 to f/22 caused by diffraction. They also show that at f/22 a doubling of megapixels do increase the resolution which is in contradiction to the article linked to. So it raises some questions:
1) What level of resolution increase will an increase from the 21MP of the 1Ds mkIII or the 22MP of the 5D mkIII up to the 36MP of the D800 give when stopped down to e.g. f/16.
2) What change in the resolution tables (table 3 in the linked to article on Lula) should be done to reflect reality rather than a seamingly over conservative calculation?
I have for some time relied (maybe naively as I haven't done any real world resolution tests to check it) on the accuracy of this table and I certainly have to revise my opinion on that. I have done test shots stopping down and seen the lost of resolution on the screen on real world subjects but that is hard to translate into excact loss of resolution in terms of megapixels or lp/mm. So only recently did I check the DxO measurements in the way shown in this thread.
-
Hi,
I would say that stopping down to f/16 made the 10MP A100 into a 5.6 MP camera while it made the 6 MP D7 into a 4.4 MP camera. Time to do more testing with more recent stuff.
Best regards
Erik
10-15% in your picture is not "marginally"
-
When comparing f/8 with f/16 and f/22, remember that the resolution projected by the lens is not linear, meaning that the lens itself may resolve better or worse af f/8 compared to f/22 regardless of the diffraction problems with the sensor.
I don't believe that this issue is as easy as it just being based on the sensor pixel size and diffraction pattern.
-
Hi,
The way I see it there are advantages of increasing resolution, probably at least to 50 MP, but I also agree that the resolution advantage is easy to waste.
Here are the advantages of increasing resolution:
- Better detail at optimal aperture
- Less aliasing, so OLP filtering can be reduced or with the D800/E eliminated
- Less jaggies on thin lines
There are really only two "down sides" of increasing resolution:
- Increasing resolution will reduce DR somewhat, doubling resolution (from 25 to 50 MP) will reduce DR by 1/2 stop.
- File sizes increase
I don't think that the 36 MP the Nikon has compared to the 5DIII's 22MP does change the world, but it is certainly an advantage for the Nikon. Nikon probably also has a healthy lead in DR, due to their Sony Exmoor based sensor. Although little data has been seen for either system I'd say extrapolating from images and data regarding D7000 and D7 is a valid method.
In my view, the upgrade Canon made is a welcome improvement for Canon users, on the other hand it is first with the D800/D800E Nikon owners have access to a high resolution camera at reasonable price and superior DR at low ISO.
Sony Alpha 77 and NEX7 has put 25MP in APS-C, that correspond to 52 MP on full frame. Now, dream about a nice Alpa body with a Phase IQ248 with 148MP CMOS sensor from Sony. Wouldn't that be a nice dream? Except the price tag, of course, a real nightmare!
Best regards
Erik
I'm another who is of the opinion that more than 20-something megapixels in a 35mm full frame format is pretty much a waste. That's simply because of the small sensor format and the huge amount of magnification required to take it to large print dimensions. Lens diffraction, focus inaccuracy, and every other quality issue are magnified equally, so it's between difficult and impossible to get much more than 20-something MP of true resolution out of any 35mm format sensor. You certainly can get more pixels, but they don't necessarily translate into more information or better print quality. I'd think those who truly need more resolution than a good 20+ MP 35mm format camera can provide would be far better off spending their money on medium format. It costs considerably more, but an increased MP count in a larger format makes a difference that can actually be seen. Perhaps 30 MP would be nice, but it's on the far outside fringes of what's usable with the best prime lenses (certainly not any zoom), stopped down to their optimal apertures (say F5.6 or possibly F8), mounted on a camera that's fused to bedrock, or at least a very heavy tripod. Not many people actually shoot like that. Of course all this is just my opinion, and it along with $5 will buy a fine cup of coffee somewhere.
-
I must admit I find it puzzling that anyone should hold the opinion that more than 20 odd megapixels on the full-frame 35mm format is a waste when both Canon and Nikon have already been producing cropped versions of 46mp and 36mp full-frame formats for a couple of years or more.
Are the 18mp of the Canon 7D and the 16mp of the Nikon D7000 also a waste? Whatever the problems regarding focussing accuracy, lens limitations, adequate shutter speed, print quality etc that one imagines might afflict the 46mp and 36mp FF formats, the same problems should already be afflicting the 7D and D7000. But I haven't heard too many complaints.
Perhaps there's a failure here to understand the basic concept that a 46mp full-frame image cropped to 18mp actually would have the same quality and resolution as a 7D shot taken from the same position using the same lens at the same aperture and the same shutter speed (provided the crop is from the centre and has the same aspect ratio, and provided the pixel quality and processing of the 46mp is at least as good, and there's no reason to doubt that it would be, although there may be a reason for frame-rate to suffer.)
As I see it, for economic reasons manufacturers of DSLRs have always given us cropped formats first, and then the full expanded version much later, after sensor fabrication has becomes more economical with improving technology.
Basically, Nikon have now given us the expanded version of the D7000 in the form of the 36.3mp D800, but Canon has not progressed hardly at all beyond the expanded version of their 8mp 20D, as regards pixel density.
However, I don't wish to appear too negative. When the 5D3 is available for testing, we might get a few pleasant surprises, hopefully with regard to noise and DR performance.
-
no complaining, but i never found the small increase in resolution from the 20D to 40D or 40D to 7D to be much of an argument for up-grading. in each case my decision was based on improvements such as better UI, improved autofocus, etc. making the cameras more useful. for IQ, the 5D was better than any of the crop frame cameras, and the improvement in resolution and noise with the 5D2 made this upgrade a much easier decision than the crop frame cameras. i would still prefer the 7D to have fewer pixels if it made a meaningful reduction in noise.
given the usefulness to me of lower noise combined with better weather seal, improved UI, frame rate, bracketing, etc. of the 5D3; ugrading is not going to be a terribly difficult decision - and i probably won't be able to wait until the price comes down, as it should. as sexy as more resolution sounds, my experience with crop-frame cameras is that improbing the pixel density beyond that of the 20D will return small noticeable return in resolution and i'd still rather have lower noise
-
Yawn worthy indeed!
-
no complaining, but i never found the small increase in resolution from the 20D to 40D or 40D to 7D to be much of an argument for up-grading.
It's no susrprise you would find the increase in resolution from the 8mp 20D to the 10mp 40D of little significance, but an upgrade from the 10mp 40D to the 18mp 7D represents a worthwhile increase in resolution. The 7D also has about a 1/2 stop improvement in DR compared with the 40D, at equal print sizes.
The 40D represents a 26mp full-frame, and the 7D a 46mp full-frame.
-
i feel the need to photograph some brick walls or a sheet of newspaper.
i think i need to get out more. :-\
-
Although not scientific, I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2. Using my Leica R lenses on the 7D, I felt it would be a great travel camera for my fine art work but after two trips I decided the images just don't look as good. They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have. Could be there is some truth to the density of the photosites just becoming too much? As always, until we see lots of objective tests by people we trust, all the rumors are really worthless. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon pulled the plug on a high MP camera because to many of their WA lenses just can't handle it yet. Let's see how Nikon pulls it off. In the end MF may still be the only option for very high quality images. Maybe size does matter :-0
IMO
-
... I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2. ... They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have. Could be there is some truth to the density of the photosites just becoming too much?
Could you gives some extra details, like which models of 5D and 1Ds you mean, the choices of aperture sizs and shutter speeds involved in your comparisons, and whether you are comparing equal sized prints or crops to an equal number of pixels, as with 100% on screen viewing?
Because if you mean 5D Mk II or 1Ds Mk III, there is a difference of resolution which means be able to get the same display size with higher PPI from those 35mm format cameras, but if you mean earlier models it would be the reverse. Likewise, comparisons at equal ISO speed (and thus with different aperture diameter, diffraction effects and DOF at equal shutter speed) would skew one way, while comparisons at equal effective aperture size (and so different f-stop, and so different ISO speed for equal shutter speed) would skew in a different direction.
But in one respect, the combination of higher resolution (more pixels per mm, and so more lp/mm) with shorter focal lengths and greater degree of enlargement that typically go with the use of a smaller format like the 7D is likely to have the effect of revealing lens and optical limitations more, through that greater degree of enlargement. More so if for some reason comparisons are done at equal f-stop, meaning with smaller aperture size, more diffraction blurring and less OOF blurring with the smaller format.
-
Although not scientific, I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2... They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have...
7D is known as a soft camera, no matter how you compare it and slice it and dice it. See Darwin Wiggett's review (http://goo.gl/N0pw7).
-
Although not scientific, I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2. Using my Leica R lenses on the 7D, I felt it would be a great travel camera for my fine art work but after two trips I decided the images just don't look as good. They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have. Could be there is some truth to the density of the photosites just becoming too much? As always, until we see lots of objective tests by people we trust, all the rumors are really worthless. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon pulled the plug on a high MP camera because to many of their WA lenses just can't handle it yet. Let's see how Nikon pulls it off. In the end MF may still be the only option for very high quality images. Maybe size does matter :-0
IMO
You're referring to the benefits of the larger sensor, not the disadvantages of pixel density. All else being equal, including pixel density, the larger sensor will tend to deliver better SNR at 18% grey where it's noticeable, on smooth areas and skin tones for example, and better tonal range.
We've all heard of the benefits of MFDB. They are due to the larger sensor. The difference in sensor size between the average MFDB and full-frame 35mm is actually greater than the difference in size between the cropped-format 35mm and full-frame 35mm.
-
You're referring to the benefits of the larger sensor, not the disadvantages of pixel density. All else being equal, including pixel density, the larger sensor will tend to deliver better SNR at 18% grey where it's noticeable, on smooth areas and skin tones for example, and better tonal range.
We've all heard of the benefits of MFDB. They are due to the larger sensor. The difference in sensor size between the average MFDB and full-frame 35mm is actually greater than the difference in size between the cropped-format 35mm and full-frame 35mm.
The most common 22MP, 30MP, 37MP, and 40MP MFD backs and cameras are size difference between 1.28 and 1.5 from 35mm. That sounds a lot like the difference between 35mm and APS.
-
The most common 22MP, 30MP, 37MP, and 40MP MFD backs and cameras are size difference between 1.28 and 1.5 from 35mm. That sounds a lot like the difference between 35mm and APS.
My mistake. I meant to write, the differences in sensor size between cropped 35mm format and ful-frame is actually greater than the difference between FF 35mm and the average size of MFDB. One of the exceptions would be the IQ180 which is very close to full-frame MF. Earlier models such as the P45 are actually cropped-format MFDBs.
The essential point is, the additional light-gathering potential of the larger sensor usually translates to smoother and better tonality at the same or similar ISOs, or at least at base ISO in the case of MFDBs which tend not to have good high-ISO performance as a result of differences in sensor design.
-
I am with you that size matters.
-
I am with you that size matters.
I guess we could say a lot of females would agree. ;D (Sorry! Couldn't resist. Apologies to all females ;D ).
-
to those that have had the camera i their hands for a few days i would like to ask if there is much difference in the mirror slap between the II and III? i can sometimes feel the camera jump in my hands especially with the longer zoom at those shutter speeds you think should get away with, does the silent shooting mode help with this?
it's not a deal breaker as i'll probably be upgrading to a III but this is one area i'm hoping to see an improvement in.
-
to those that have had the camera i their hands for a few days i would like to ask if there is much difference in the mirror slap between the II and III?
Mirror slap is much improved in the III over the II. The entire action is noticeably better damped. It's a satisfyingly softer "snick" compared to the "thunk" of the II. If it were an automobile engine, the one in the III is tuned for quieter, smoother, faster performance. Have yet to try the silent mode so can't speak to that.
-
to those that have had the camera i their hands for a few days i would like to ask if there is much difference in the mirror slap between the II and III?
Perhaps this link helps
http://www.gallery.photoglow.co.uk/canon-5d-iii-videos/h19548676#h19548676
Henk