OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

Fricks wrote in post #14006326
They say its more weather sealed then 5D II

But not fully sealed like the D800..

Giorgos wrote in post #14006216
500$ for a grip? these guys are a joke.

Fricks wrote in post #14006221
about the same for the D800

That dose not make it right to rip us off all the time!!

Shadowblade wrote in post #14004565
Only for certain kinds of photography.

Some of us could care less about ISO 6400+ or fps, but need every extra pixel we can get.

and from your posts, it sounds like there are untold legions who do a ton of printing at 30x40 size.


i've never met anyone like that. at least who doesn't use a MF or LF camera, anyway.


all the very best,
narlus

Fricks wrote in post #14006385
Nice review with real life sample images (Pre production model) The noise in the 6400 image is terrible!!

http://blog.jeffascoug​h.com …s-5d-mark-iii-review.html

Checkout the Blue sky shot with iso 12800

ching wrote in post #14006476
Checkout the Blue sky shot with iso 12800

you mean the one shot at 12,800 ISO? What about it?

All this confirms my decision to get the 1DX.

Ricku wrote in post #14006442
But not fully sealed like the D800..

Hey you can't ask for too much!
At least they didn't cheap out on the 1DX AF

ching wrote in post #14006476
Checkout the Blue sky shot with iso 12800

Omfg. It's just absolutely terrible!why would anyone spend that kind of money on a camera without seeing extensive tests first! The NR just looks horrible!!!

ohata0 wrote in post #14005278
I think someone was wondering about focusing screens in this thread...
well if not, someone posted in another thread about it. looks like it's fixed...same as the 7D. I wonder why they aren't allowing interchangable screens w/ the 5DmkIII? They're doing it w/ the 1DX, so it's not like it's impossible.

This is a BS, Canon!!! It even did not stike my mind they could considering doing something like this, being used to be able to change the screen for ages on my EOS cameras!

Wait for RAW files guys...The jpegs never look as good, even with the 5D2. So much better detail with RAW, along with much less aggressive NR.

Stan43 wrote in post #14006494
All this confirms my decision to get the 1DX.

Because you'd rather spend $3000 more for weather sealing and more fps? Cool, if that's your thing.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14006434
Re: the AA filter

Take a look at the ISO 100 samples (from any website - they all show similar features). Now compare them against ISO 100 shots from the 5D2 taken with the same lens.

At ISO 100, there's minimal noise reduction, so you've taken that out of the picture. The pixel density is almost identical, as is the lens, so differences due to diffraction and magnification are out of the picture as well.

Now take a look at the fine details in the shots - the sharpness of each hair on the model's head, the fur on the rat. Much less detailed than the 5D2 shots.

Having eliminated noise reduction, diffraction and lens differences as a cause for the loss of sharpness, there is only one other possible cause - the AA filter.

These images show that the AA filter on the 5D3 is significantly stronger than that on the 5D2.

Guess you are right.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14006444

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

That's obviously over cooked.

I can post 5D2 iso 6400 shots that look better than that.

mafoo wrote in post #14006490
you mean the one shot at 12,800 ISO? What about it?

Looks terrible
I'm pretty sure 5D2 can do that...