OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

Max Powers wrote in post #14007291
True enough. Everyone seems up in arms that they didn't get the best camera in the world in the new 5D lol.

The nikon may be ahead of the game a bit, but really, that's been the case for a few years.

I can totally see those doing high end advertising work for magazines and such preferring the more MP's of the Nikon.

I just don't see the need as a wedding photog. Even my landscape stuff I don't see the need. With landscape it's more about the story of the image, the power of the scene, emotions you try to evoke - it's far far less than having every single minute detail rendered in as much detail possible. We don't look at a landscape with our eyes and get down on the ground and look at a blade of grass with a magnifying glass and say "Oh...well this part of the scene is a little messed up..." - that's just ridiculous. Those that look at a photo in this manner just don't understand landscape photography and have more learning to do.

I think that the 5D3 offers everything that I would want - the dual card slots for backup is really nice as a wedding photog - as is the new AF system, the better IQ (though we will need to wait on that to see actual results), etc. It has a manageable MP number although I wish that the sRAW stuff had more of a 14MP/8MP or so split rather than 10/5. There are some interesting features for the landscapes as well - additional bracketing options, HDR in camera could be interesting, supposedly we have greater dynamic range and improvement in low light performance. Again that is where we have to wait for some actual results. By the time I buy one, there will be other wedding and landscape photographers who have posted 5D3 images.

Combine all of this with the new 70-200 MkII I got, plus perhaps the new 24-70 MkII (will wait on user images before buying that) and I have no doubt that a 5D2/5D3 combo with those two lenses will have me very happy when I'm shooting weddings.

Saxi wrote in post #14007300
It's a completely different sensor, so keeping it at 21 would been completely arbitrary as it was a complete redesign anyway. I think 22 is just where it landed in the balance of IQ & size.

I know it's a brand new sensor, but 22MP is not that far from 21/18MP. I'm sure we will b!tch a lot less if we get the 1DX 18MP sensor. The MP crowd would be disappointed but at least it will satisfy whoever wants low light and IQ.

22MP is not low but it's not high either, same with the 6fps. It's hard to know what Canon try to position this camera vs the rest of the market. It's really a slight boost in all aspect of 5D2 instead of a revolutionary 5D3 that we all wanted.

tats wrote in post #14007346
Let see some fire sales in the FS section. Hope all this negativity lets me steal someones 35L

I'm with you on this one! Really wanna bag me a 35L

Just sold my 35L for $1125... Nice chunk of the money needed for this new camera

Max Powers wrote in post #14007357
That's been addressed, you would figure people would be ecstatic!

People just love to complain, this forum is overridden with it. Sad.

It AMAZES me that everyone used to say that Nikon took a better approach with the D700 than Canon did with the 5D MKII, keeping the pixels down and making really clean high ISO... now Nikon turned the D800 into a super high megapixel camera.. and it's what everyone wants. Just go buy a Nikon!

Now the examples were posted on DigitalRev, although a little small.

Details look amazing...

http://www.digitalrev.​com/album?id=2627543&p​hotoView=DV

LOUD NOISES!

Numenorean wrote in post #14007368
I can totally see those doing high end advertising work for magazines and such preferring the more MP's of the Nikon.

I just don't see the need as a wedding photog. Even my landscape stuff I don't see the need. With landscape it's more about the story of the image, the power of the scene, emotions you try to evoke - it's far far less than having every single minute detail rendered in as much detail possible. We don't look at a landscape with our eyes and get down on the ground and look at a blade of grass with a magnifying glass and say "Oh...well this part of the scene is a little messed up..." - that's just ridiculous. Those that look at a photo in this manner just don't understand landscape photography and have more learning to do.

I think that the 5D3 offers everything that I would want - the dual card slots for backup is really nice as a wedding photog - as is the new AF system, the better IQ (though we will need to wait on that to see actual results), etc. It has a manageable MP number although I wish that the sRAW stuff had more of a 14MP/8MP or so split rather than 10/5. There are some interesting features for the landscapes as well - additional bracketing options, HDR in camera could be interesting, supposedly we have greater dynamic range and improvement in low light performance. Again that is where we have to wait for some actual results. By the time I buy one, there will be other wedding and landscape photographers who have posted 5D3 images.

Combine all of this with the new 70-200 MkII I got, plus perhaps the new 24-70 MkII (will wait on user images before buying that) and I have no doubt that a 5D2/5D3 combo with those two lenses will have me very happy when I'm shooting weddings.

Yeah, good reply. Then again, those who do this professionally could surely go with a fully professional camera.

giCe wrote in post #14007294
a number of posts here are hilariously sad...
Some has a hard-on for Nikon whereas others for Canon, trying to justify their brand because they had invested tens of thousands in their photography equipment.

Bicker all you want, do you really think your photos will look that much different in a real world scenario whether it be a d800 or 5d3, let alone d700 or 5d2? Do we not get great pictures already with existing gears available?

The reason why there are multiple imaging companies out there is because they all produce great products. The market dictates if a product line is a success or a failure. You can argue d800 is better than 5d3 or vice versa all you want with limited specs online and artificially bias samples from both sides. But what it comes down to is that both Nikon and Canon make a great product respectively, enough so to have a healthy customer base from both sides. Considering the history of past number of decades I have no reason to doubt that it will continue.

Can't we all just look forward to have our hands on these cameras OURSELVES and see which one YOU like best? There's really no benefit convincing people that one is better than the other. If anything a monopoly in Canon or Nikon will actually hurt us as consumers.

Well now you're just making sense. Stop it

I'm gowing to bow out of these discussions since I see no reason at this time to buy a 5D3. I'll be looking for the fire sales of 1Ds3 and 5D2 bodies, I could use another backup.

Invertalon wrote in post #14007403
Now the examples were posted on DigitalRev, although a little small.

Details look amazing...

http://www.digitalrev.​com/album?id=2627543&p​hotoView=DV

Are these really sooc? They look so much better than all other samples I've seen today.

Hmm.

ching wrote in post #14007383
I know it's a brand new sensor, but 22MP is not that far from 21/18MP. I'm sure we will b!tch a lot less if we get the 1DX 18MP sensor. The MP crowd would be disappointed but at least it will satisfy whoever wants low light and IQ.

22MP is not low but it's not high either, same with the 6fps. It's hard to know what Canon try to position this camera vs the rest of the market. It's really a slight boost in all aspect of 5D2 instead of a revolutionary 5D3 that we all wanted.

Canon seems to put a lot into protecting the 1D line of cameras. I think using the 1DX was not an option because they would worry about losing 1D sales. I think in the end, it would probably be cheaper for them to just use it as it is already developed.

I like 22MP, I'd be more than happy with 18MP if it gave me better IQ. I think anything over 10MP is enough for 99% of all work. I much rather see IQ than MP anyway, it also makes it much easier on storage. (Storage is cheap, but not when your keeping 3 copies of all data and using SSD).

2 stops is not slight boost, it is huge! If they sacrificed IQ then it is a just sleight of hand.

Looks like they have had some sharpening, also very low res

Shadowblade wrote in post #14006736
It says they've increased the quality of the AA filter. Not that they've weakened it, or kept it the same.

Look at the images, not at the marketing spin.

An honest question to you, seeking an honest answer. The official video on CPN refers to software handling the moire in video, the site refers to the quality of AA filter, Ascough, who in my opinion would no way jeopardize his reputation as a photographer because he is a Canon Ambassador, says that the AA filter is weaker. We know that the samples of JPGs we see (not the ones on CPN, since no one yet refers to them, which are much better in my opinion) are undergone the in-camera NR (that seems to be very strong, thus the +2 in jpg mentioned everywhere). We have no clue what the RAW files are, except the opinions of 2 great photographers, which both refer to +2 stops.

What makes you so sure that the images produced by mark III are inferior of these of D800, and this is also because of a stronger than 5d II AA filter, when everything points the other way?

I am not saying that mark III is better than D800, but I am pretty sure that no one can also claim that D800 will win this battle hands down, as you claim (I think you have said that only fps is better in mark III)