OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

krb wrote in post #14004025
Not too bad.
100% crop from an ISO 3200 image:

Look closer, specifically at the model's hair (you'll have to look at the full image, the relevant parts aren't in the crop).

Lots of smearing, to the point that you can't make out the strands of hair in some parts. There's been lots of NR applied.

The 6400 shot looks fairly watercolor painting ish to me, hard to say, though. The 3200 portrait sample looks purdy darn good to me though. The ISO 100 shots, it's hard to tell much from. I don't know that the 100 shots look much different from shots from a 5d2, so we'll hafta wait and see how the shadow noise is...

What we can say for sure is...image sample number 8...that's either a helicopter up there or they have some scary bug on the sensor, ahh!

bps wrote in post #14003976
Anyone want to see some file samples from the 5D MIII?

http://web.canon.jp …ng/eosd/samples​/eos5dmk3/

Bryan

Why does ISO 3200 (the bride) look better than ISO 800 (the first aurora)? Frankly, I think the ISO 6400 looks darned similar to what I get out of my 5D Mark II.

mritchy wrote in post #14004089
Lol, thanks! While more megapixels would have been a nice touch at this price, I have no reason to believe that this is going to be a failure. When they said they took the AF system right out of the 1DX and put it in the 5D III, I was shocked. Aside from weather sealing, what is the 1D series known for? SUPER AWESOME AUTO FOCUS. Well, here you have it at half the price.

true, true, of course as an enthusiast I don't mind the right amount of pixel, and as a past owner of the 5dmkii, i recall how fast those pixels add up, both on memory cards, and the HDD, of course upgrading the HDD is always a better remedy ido have many high speed cards 2 16gb,many 8gb,one 32gb, and so on, but still, as a semi casual user, 22 is plenty for me, and now AF to add to boot!!

K6AZ wrote in post #14004066
I'll say it again - be very careful making judgments based on JPGs. I want to see RAW images and for that matter RAWs from the 1D X and D800.

I agree... however if the Canon is still only 95% of the Nikon, I will still buy the Canon. Got all Canon glass, and I know how to use the buttons/menu system very well.

Unless there is a huge difference (and in favor of the Nikon), I can live with second best

themadman wrote in post #14004073
Hmmm... I like it... soo.... who's pre-ordering?

Not yet. I'm very interested, it's certainly the sort of camera I've been waiting for. The negative (at this stage) is the price, it's affordable but more than I'd like to pay. At least waiting for the price to drop will mean there will be a lot of information about the relative pros and cons of the camera.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #14004115
Why does ISO 3200 (the bride) look better than ISO 800 (the first aurora)? Frankly, I think the ISO 6400 looks darned similar to what I get out of my 5D Mark II.

The bride at ISO 3200 has had heavy NR applied - you can see it in the hair.

Also, the aurora shots are a tough test of shadow noise. The ISO 800 shot looks like it has some serious noise issues.

As usual the sample images look like ****e, taken by some 2 year old. (Except for the landscapes and snowboarder pic, they were competently captured)

As usual, someone has decided to apply a concussive grenade worth of Noise Reduction to the images.

I mean, just look at Image 2, it's like a bloody cartoon.

Look at Image 6, I am now repulsed by the 300 f/2.8LII IS if that is the IQ of that lens - it looks worse than a 18-55 kit lens

Havn't read through all 25 pages, any mention of projected price...

there are some sorely needed features, like the upgraded autofocus, where canon exceeded my expectations, and hopefully more robust bracketting. No mention of radio flash control, but I am sure its there. all that said, with the same pixel density as the 5d2, it needs to show significant improvement in DR/shadow noise at iso 100, and at least a 1 stop improvment in high iso for me to be worth the update. Of course crippling of 5d2 autofocus proves to be real genious, since it still sold so well, and there was so much room left to improve on.

woos wrote in post #14004112
The 6400 shot looks fairly watercolor painting ish to me, hard to say, though. The 3200 portrait sample looks purdy darn good to me though. The ISO 100 shots, it's hard to tell much from. I don't know that the 100 shots look much different from shots from a 5d2, so we'll hafta wait and see how the shadow noise is...

What we can say for sure is...image sample number 8...that's either a helicopter up there or they have some scary bug on the sensor, ahh!

Look at the ISO 800 aurora shot - most of the sky is shadows, so it's a pretty good test.

Yeah. So I really want one. Now I just have to figure out how to pay for it.

Slow Canon servers. I want to have an opinion on image quality too, dadgumit.

I'm surprised no one questioned about the $3499 tag. I think $3k would have been justified.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14004130
The bride at ISO 3200 has had heavy NR applied - you can see it in the hair.

Also, the aurora shots are a tough test of shadow noise. The ISO 800 shot looks like it has some serious noise issues.

Didn't you JUST say this 5 posts up... now I think your doing it just to annoy me