OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

DarthVader wrote in post #14022243
Somebody went to the Focus show in UK...

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10914​92

I haven't looked at the jpegs at all, transfer rate is slow (lucky these were not from a 36MP cam ).

I looked at the 25600 and again it looks very nice.
However it seems these images are shot in good light... would be very interesting to see what could be accomplished in low light situations

i like the shutter sound for the 5D3
this will make thinking to buy it hahahahaha
only for the shutter sound

tommykjensen wrote in post #14022208
Did you actually read the link Pekka and I posted?? It says specifically that the 5D3 HAS a dedicated AF processor.

Even though it has a dedicated processor, I'm curious to know if it applies to just the cross type AF points that wiil focus to -2EV. Will the same apply to the non cross type? If not it may be just as sensitive like in the older 45 AF point system. That to me isn't a bad thing.

bacchanal wrote in post #14022293
Not sure if it's been posted yet, but there are a couple of RAWs at:
http://www.canonrumors​.com …67.msg82562;top​icseen#new

They can be previewed in zoombrowser and can be opened in RawTerapee (but the colors are off).

Yup, was playin w/them in RT. The iso 6400 file is very clean (though the colors are amazingly off, so it's hard to tell too much)...I'd believe a 1 stop improvement in raw at high iso, over the 5d2, for sure.

If only that dude turn off NR. Would it have been that difficult?? I still see mushy jpeg shots.

woos wrote in post #14022436
Yup, was playin w/them in RT. The iso 6400 file is very clean (though the colors are amazingly off, so it's hard to tell too much)...I'd believe a 1 stop improvement in raw at high iso, over the 5d2, for sure.

I opened them up, and they look pretty damn good. The 6400 file is very useable. With some work, the 51K file would probably work too.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14022461
The 6400 file is very useable. With some work, the 51K file would probably work too.

you could shoot in a cave at ISO 51,000

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #14022405
I never said they made such a claim. I said they couldn't.

If they never made such a claim.. then what does it matter if they can't/couldn't make that claim? How can one possibly take issues with an unmade claim?

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #14022405
The complaint is with the overall tenor of the 5D3 in Canon's lineup relative to the D800 in Nikon's and the specifications of the two competing cameras in light of their relative prices...

But the problem is relative and subjective. Just because some wants higher resolution (36mp), others don't want more. Some are satisfied with 4fps, others appreciate 6fps. Some are okay with cross-type AF only bunched up in the center, others appreciate Canon spreading them out to the side.

While there is a $500 USD difference, again, there are likely less than 100 people worldwide (yes, I pulled that number out of my rear-end) that are "just getting into photography and ready to throw $5000 into the ball game to get started". If you're lens-invested, you are oftentimes stuck. Which seems to be the case with you since instead of switching to the D800, you're now going with the 1DX. So instead of paying $500 more than the competition, now you're planning to pay $4000 more. Makes sense to you but sure doesn't make sense to me.

And this last point, which is true and applicable to ALL photographers... you've been taking photos just fine with existing gear. No one says you have to upgrade your current gear.

In the end, I'm glad you are getting yourself a 1DX because someone's gotta pay Canon money to keep the R&D going. But IMO, if you're not going to use the 12fps, supposed improved video functions where it reduces jello-effect (and so far, I haven't seen any advertisement by Canon about how the 5D3's video compares to the 1DX), time-stamping your video for easier post-processing sync... not sure that the 1DX is worth 2x 5D3.

bacchanal wrote in post #14022293
Not sure if it's been posted yet, but there are a couple of RAWs at:
http://www.canonrumors​.com …67.msg82562;top​icseen#new

They can be previewed in zoombrowser and can be opened in RawTerapee (but the colors are off).

omg! RAW files! Finally!

Now to install zoombrowser.

I read somewhere here in this thread that the user manual was online..... link anyone?

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14022461
I opened them up, and they look pretty damn good. The 6400 file is very useable. With some work, the 51K file would probably work too.

i agree i think i will be able to use it up to 12800 and 25k is some instances.

ctnjason wrote in post #14022525
I read somewhere here in this thread that the user manual was online..... link anyone?

I believe you can download it off the Canon website.

woos wrote in post #14022436
Yup, was playin w/them in RT. The iso 6400 file is very clean (though the colors are amazingly off, so it's hard to tell too much)...I'd believe a 1 stop improvement in raw at high iso, over the 5d2, for sure.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14022461
I opened them up, and they look pretty damn good. The 6400 file is very useable. With some work, the 51K file would probably work too.

Fricks wrote in post #14022528
i agree i think i will be able to use it up to 12800 and 25k is some instances.

I can't get this to work right now on my macbook air.. But really guys, 1 stop noise improvement in raw? That is actually acceptable.

What about banding? Can you do some pushing on the shadows to see if it appears or not?

Okay, here's what I got from the 5D3 RAW files:

{CLICK FOR LARGER}

ISO 6400(100% crop, no noise reduction, straight from RAW)

IMAGE LINK: http://twilightscapes.​com …0-100crop-noreduction.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://twilightscapes.​com …400-100crop-reduction.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://twilightscapes.​com …0-100crop-noreduction.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://twilightscapes.​com …200-100crop-reduction.jpg

sploo wrote in post #14022363
Agreed.

Given that the 5D2 is admired as a great camera (with known shortcomings) and Canon have tackled those with the 5D3, we can be pretty confident it should be an even better camera. But, as you've pointed out, it doesn't exist in isolation.

Given (and, yes, I know Shadowblade is clubbing a dead equine about it, but he's right) that Nikon's had a decent DR advantage recently, Canon would have to take a step forward just to gain parity in that area. Up till now, they could at least dine on a MP advantage.

So, if the D800 ends up 'only' having similar DR to the 5D3, and has the MP advantage, and the 5D3 is considerably more expensive (nearly $1000 more in the UK market - £3000 vs £2400)... well... not good.

They are of course bound to be compared, given they occupy the "gripless pro body in the 3-4k USD range" segment (if you catch my drift).

There isn't a bunch of dancing guys in clean room suits in R&D putting a bunch of stuff together and slapping a sticker on it...

R&D takes years and LOTs of money. The development of the 5D3 likely started as soon as the 5D2 started selling. The planning and pricing to recoup those costs and time have been set long before any announcement by either company was made.

The fact of the matter is that R&D is not shared by either companies. It was said earlier that cameras weren't developed in a vaccum, but the reality is that they are while surrounded by NDAs and corporate secrecy. The 5D3 was fully hashed out in price and features (in several designs likely) long before they got indications of anything from Nikon.