What you really want from 5D MKIII?

In body IS will not happen....

Basically I hope it will be a 7D with less noise at higher ISOs and more dynamic range.

In the best case scenario that includes some subtle things such as having a built-in controller for external flashes. Since the 5D series has no pop-up flash this would have to be implemented in some other manner.

5D owner here:

More MP would be nice for cropping, but not at the expense of overall IQ
Higher ISO range
I'm actually OK with the 9 point AF, but I'd like them to be spread out more and have better accuracy on the peripheral AF points
Joystick for controlling AF point while using grip in portrait mode

From what I know of the 5DmkII and what the rumors/spy shots of the supposed mkIII, I think i'd be pretty happy with it.

I actually like what I see. 80% of people DO NOT NEED more MP!!!!
So if 5D MKIII will have decent AF, super ISO and better DR - it will destroy D800

light_pilgrim wrote in post #13897595
I actually like what I see. 80% of people DO NOT NEED more MP!!!!
So if 5D MKIII will have decent AF, super ISO and better DR - it will destroy D800

+1 That's all I need as well.

EOSBoy wrote in post #13897687
+1 That's all I need as well.

But the question is "What you want" not need.

I voted for more megapixels! I think the 5D MKII is a portrait/landscape masterpiece. Why mess with success? Nikon has thrown a curveball at Canon and now it's time for Canon to answer. The D800 is what the 5D MKII was a few years ago. But the D800 has to get into the hands of professionals and amateurs alike very soon or Nikon loses. The element of surprise is key for Nikon.

All I know is this: it's a great time to be a photographer! So many legitimate choices as far as camera gear and lenses! I eagerly await Canon's answer to the D800.

12-15 extremely clean MP's.
Better high ISO and more dynamic range.
ISO down to 25 (or lower).
Better AF.
As gimmicky as it may sound, I wouldn't mind seeing a "sweep panorama" feature in there as well.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #13897595
I actually like what I see. 80% of people DO NOT NEED more MP!!!!
So if 5D MKIII will have decent AF, super ISO and better DR - it will destroy D800

Actually, I would like it all. That however, was not a choice. If one of the options was 36mp sensor, higher ISO, and better auto focus, I would have selected it.

dsit995 wrote in post #13897154
In body IS will not happen....

I agree - I think it's more likely we would see Sony develop "in lens" IS systems before we'd ever see Canon and Nikon go to "in body" - unless they were to come out with a different line of SLR cameras to sell side by side with the cameras they have been developing since before digital SLR cameras even existed.

I singled out Sony because they seem to currently be the only other camera maker competing with full frame and even APS-C size sensors in SLR cameras. Sigma does as well, but they seem to be an expensive "niche" brand. Has anyone here ever seen a high end 46mp Sigma camera body?

The only advantage of "in body" IS is cost (only after adding non IS lenses) - the advantages of having IS in the lenses are obvious and certainly far more desirable.

Delija wrote in post #13896674
How can a "frickin articulated screen" really be an issue? I can see why some people would think that an articulating screen is a plus. Others not care one way or the other, but I can't see how anyone would consider it a negative (particularly in such a strong way).

If it's a matter of being a "purist", then why buy a camera with auto-focus, built in exposure meter, or even a camera that doesn't use manually advanced film

I suppose I should have stuck a smiley in there - it was mostly a tongue in cheek comment. An articulated screen would not be a deal killer, but I personally for my style of shooting have never had a need for one. This thread is about what people want, right?

I have handled a 60D and I simply do not like the ergonomics and the button layout. Being very used to the 7D, it simply feels unbalanced to me. The screen also, again in my opinion only, makes the body look and feel strange. There are features that if one does not care to use can be ignored, such as a direct print button, or video, or autofocus, but a big screen sticking out would always be literally in my face. I am by no means a purist or elitist, and I certainly appreciate the many advances in photography since my old Argus days, but I can't view the articulated screen as anything useful TO ME.

I have never held a camera over my head to get a shot, or tried to get a shot from ground level pointing up, or anything where it would be necesssary. That's why I put the disclaimer in my original post.

I know this is one of those items that people seem divided on, like built in flash, or high MP count. I don't plan on losing any sleep over it, and I will wait until the real specs are announced to make my decision on whether or not to purchase one.

Delija wrote in post #13900135
The only advantage of "in body" IS is cost (only after adding non IS lenses) - the advantages of having IS in the lenses are obvious and certainly far more desirable.

The advantage of having IS in the body, is as technology advances, and you upgrade your body, you in effect upgrade IS for all your lenses.

Also, it takes an extra optical element for in lens IS. It doesn't for in body.

Lastly, not all lenses are made with IS. How would you like all the L primes to instantly have IS?

That would be cool if you ask me.

People are confused. They're thinking that increased resolution will reduce dynamic range and high ISO performance.

It will do no such thing.

What matters is the performance of the sensor per physical area of the sensor.

If you insist on comparing noise at 100% between sensors of very different resolutions, then of course you're going to see a difference. But that's because you're doing it wrong, not because the higher resolution sensor is performing more poorly.

If you want to properly compare high ISO performance between sensors, you must downsize the larger image to match the resolution of the smaller one. The reason is that what you really care about is how the final image looks, and the final image is going to have the same target resolution regardless of which camera you shoot it with. And since the larger resolution camera records more detail, you can't properly compare it against an upsized version of the lower resolution image, because now you've introduced two variables instead of one: noise and detail retention. Downsizing eliminates the latter. That only leaves downsizing the larger of the two images for the purpose of evaluating noise.

For evaluating detail, the proper method is to upsize the smaller image to match the larger image's resolution. If the larger image doesn't carry any more detail, this will make that apparent. But it's important to note that the sensor itself only records what it sees. If the detail isn't there to be recorded, that has nothing to do with the pixel pitch of the sensor and everything to do with the resolving power of the lens.


Dynamic range is dependent upon the signal to noise ratio of the sensor, which is a function of the sensor itself. It is the ratio of the brightest intensity that can be recorded to the lowest intensity that can be recorded. While one would think that pixel size would matter in this case, it doesn't, because with a higher pixel density sensor, the light is spread across more pixels, so they reach saturation at the same time a larger pixel covering the same area would. On the other end of the scale, the low light will cause some of the pixels to detect photons and others to not detect any, while the larger pixel will detect the total number of photons that the individual smaller pixels detected. Hence, same dynamic range.

As long as the manufacturer avoids producing a sensor with additional internal noise (crosstalk and such), there is no downside to having a larger pixel density sensor in terms of image quality. If you want the benefits of a lower resolution without going through the hassle of downsizing the image yourself, you can shoot in one of the lower resolution RAW formats that Canon so conveniently provides (e.g., mRAW on the 7D).


That leaves processing speed, file size, and other considerations that come directly from the fact that the images from the larger pixel density sensor have more data. If Canon can somehow figure out a way to pull the data from the sensor and resize it to lower resolutions (mRAW and such) very early in the pipeline, the rest of the pipeline can scale in speed with the resulting image size, and the end result would be a camera that has a speed that varies depending on the chosen target resolution. That is probably the only major obstacle that would prevent a larger pixel density sensor from becoming more useful in every way than a smaller pixel density sensor.

I'd like to see 5D3 stay close to the price of 5D2, and - with that in mind - would hope it would have:

- 19-point AF (similar to 7D, all cross type points so the outer ones are more usable, but with more emphasis on precision-related modes, less on speed/tracking-related)

- Prefer interchangeable focus screens instead of an active matrix (ala 7D), unless that's really necessary to accomodate the 19-point AF. The reason is that some specialty screens that can be useful would continue to be available, such as high precision Eg-S (manual focus lenses), crop line, and various third party. Grid display would need to be via interchangeable focus screen, unless the camera somehow incorporates both an active matrix and interchangeable.

- Focus bracketing mode (for focus stacking). Abitity to take a number of shots in a sequence with slight change of focus to each. Not sure how many need to be in sequence.

- Up to 9 shot exposure bracketing (for HDR).

- 32-36MP sensor (mRAW: 22MP? sRAW: 10-12MP?). Seems silly to not make this a big MP camera, since Canon already has a smaller MP FF sports/action model and considering the types of photography this camera is more likely to be used for.

- ISO 100 to 25600, expandable to L: 12, 25, 50 and H: 51200, 102400, 204800.

- Articulated LCD (geez folks...if you don't like it, simply don't use it... it's a handy tool for macro, studio, video and more that quite a few people would find useful, I'm sure... it also reverses completely face-in to nicely protect the LCD, if needed)

- Compatible with WFT dongle (such as 1DX uses, rather than a replacement grip)

- Much quieter operation/shutter mechanism (Elan 7/EOS 30 style)

- The new vertical grip of the "mystery camera" on CanonRumors, with the secondary joystick built-in.


- Dual memory slots? Sure, that would be nice, but not if it adds much cost. Compact Flash, please.

- 4 or 5 fps.

- No built in wireless flash control (buy an ST-E2 or 3rd party).

- No built in GPS (offer a separate module)

- No "in body" stabilization.... That's just plain silly to expect from Canon at this point. Like Nikon, they are clearly, fully committed to in-lens stabilization. If this is a problem, buy a Sony, Olympus or a Pentax... or just learn to hold a camera steady.

- Electronic level... Don't use it all the time, but it's nice that it's there on 7D. I'd find it even more useful on the FF camera, since I'm more likely to use it for the type of photography where I'd want to use the level.

- Mode dial lock (ala 60D).

- 1DX style focus Micro Adjust (lens specific and zoom lenses can be MAed at two or more focal lengths).

No comments on video-related features.... I don't use my DSLRs for video so really am not qualified to offer suggestions.

The 5D3 should remain an "entry-level FF", affordable, studio, landscape, portrait, wedding camera with top image quality, excellent low light performance. This is what the model has been in the first two versions - and sold very, very well. It should not try to become a sports/action camera. If Canon feels they need another one of those, well perhaps it's time to offer more FF models (3D?). But really I think they might want to be working on a big MP, top-of-the-line 1Ds3 replacement first.

amfoto1 wrote in post #13903454
I'd like to see 5D3 stay close to the price of 5D2, and - with that in mind - would hope it would have:

- 19-point AF (similar to 7D, all cross type pointsso the outer ones are more usable, but with more emphasis on precision-related modes, less on speed/tracking-related)

That's fine as long as they expand the layout to accomodate the frame size change. If they don't, then it'll just be a big center point, although it'll be a really nice one. They need to cover the rule of thirds locations.

You're arguing here that they should make the camera less capable than the D800?

A "sports/action" camera is not any worse at doing studio work, landscapes, portraits, and weddings, just by virtue of it being a "sports/action" camera, with one possible caveat: resolution. In this case, I agree that it should have a higher resolution, even if that makes the camera's burst rate slower.

Everything else has no negative tradeoffs. A sports-oriented autofocus system will work at least as well for those other uses (if not even better) than a more mundane system will. And the same is true of camera responsiveness. A more responsive camera is no worse at doing any of the tasks you state than one that is less responsive.


I think we're likely to wind up with a camera with a "bigger, badder" center point (i.e., 7D sensor shoved into the 5D2 without accounting for the frame size differences). Maybe the market will eat it up the way it has the last two cameras. I think that's rather questionable, however. The 5D classic was a big hit because it was the only midrange camera like it in the entire market. The 5D2 was a big hit because it was the only full frame DSLR to get high-quality video, and somehow that was a market waiting to explode. But now Nikon has thrown the gauntlet down. The D800 has resolution, responsiveness, professional autofocus, professional build, 100% viewfinder coverage with transparent LCD display, and top-notch video (if the specs are to be believed). If Canon produces something that is anything less than the D800 in any of those major categories, I expect it will not do nearly as well as its predecessors because for the first time, it will be inferior in at least one way without being superior in any way.