OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14008834
The D300 is a terrible camera, totally, TOTALLY agree!!

In terms of ISO yes, completely, however Canon does it with it's crop bodies also, even in raw.

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14008822
We all should know (by now) that Canon nukes the luminosity noise. This isn't something new. The new G1X is doing the same thing at high ISO. Hairs melt together. This is why RAWs are preferrable. NR to taste is always the best way. Can we all agree?

Yep, I agree with you 100%

solara wrote in post #14008699
And as asked by someone else earlier, anyone know if it will have the ability to microadjust at both ends of a zoom like the 1DX?

I've been combing through the reviews for that very item and have seen nothing yet. Anyone know for sure? A link to a review would be much appreciated!

watt100 wrote in post #14008841
I don't know but the ISO 25,600 samples are stunning

http://www.digitalrev.​com/photo_detail?id=26​27550

Hard to tell at that res tbh...

Phillhdr wrote in post #14008619
Due to the price 3k in the uk, can't see many upgrading from the Mk11, in 12 months when the dust settles and prices drop, it might be a different thing.

yea innit

palmor wrote in post #14008843
Yup I agree.. this got lost about 200 pages back but the Canon in camera NR just leaves the images yuck

ISO6400, 7d shot RAW+jpg so it is the same image earlier today. The jpg was shot with "standard" NR in camera

Great example...exactly what I'm talking about. My XT, 30D, 1D2, and 5D all did the same thing too. This shouldn't be a frickin' newsflash to anyone.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14008856
Hard to tell at that res tbh...

I disagree.... you can still get an overall impression of how the noise is going to look in most output sizes...

Pixel peeping is nice but sometimes it leaves you unable to view the larger picture...

Color and contrast are still preserved at higher ISOs, and detail appears to be as well (Alamby looks nice and sharp)

mafoo wrote in post #14008796
Well, to be honest, after looking through your photos, I am not sure for what you shoot, why you would even are looking at new equipment. Your studio shots are amazing, and unless you print them very large, I doubt a D800 or a 5D Mk III will generate any better results.

Amazing work man.. I am impressed.

Thanks! I do print large every once in awhile for clients but that's mostly land/cityscape stuff. I guess the easiest way to put it would be if I'm going to upgrade to the D800 I'm going to get a weather sealed, +15MP, option for no AA filter, reliable and tested 51pt AF, great high ISO when needed and all that for $500 less than the 5diii. If I were to upgrade to the 5diii I would get +1mp, insane AF system that I probably won't even come close to pushing, +2fps faster, similar build quality that isn't fully weather sealed, possible heavy AA filter from the discussions earlier in the thread, and great high ISO when needed for $500 more than the D800.

So basically, do I want to spend $500 more and get 1 more mp and an AF that is so far beyond what I need for what I shoot or spend $500 less and get a completely new camera with 15 more mp to work with and a fully sealed body? On paper, the lead, for me anyways, goes to Nikon. Let's be honest though, most of us don't need to upgrade and it's an option between want and need. I need more mp to work with on detailed shots but I want a better AF.

KenjiS wrote in post #14008885
I disagree.... you can still get an overall impression of how the noise is going to look in most output sizes...

Pixel peeping is nice but sometimes it leaves you unable to view the larger picture...

Color and contrast are still preserved at higher ISOs, and detail appears to be as well (Alamby looks nice and sharp)

Because it's Alamby!

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #14008766
I'm honestly quite disappointed in the 5D3.

Yes, it's a nice camera that is a significant upgrade from the 5D2 in almost all areas. In a vacuum that would be enough.

Unfortunately for Canon they introduced this camera into the real world and not a vacuum. Their main competition just released a better device for less money. There is nothing compelling about the 5D3 in the market. The only thing it appears to do a little better than the D800 is frame rate and in almost all other areas it falls short (resolution, weather sealing, price...)

Yes, those of us married to Canon via investment in lenses, etc. are going to stay but new buyers would be pretty foolish to chose the 5D3 over the cheaper and better D800.

At least the 1Dx, in its space, is the clear leader with higher resolution, faster frame rate and so on.

I ignored the 5D3 pre-order emails. My 1Dx pre-order stands...

Got to agree with every word you said. Honestly, considering the 1DsMKIII was in the 7400.00 price bracket, the 1Dx is looking like a real bargain.

watt100 wrote in post #14008841
I don't know but the ISO 25,600 samples are stunning

http://www.digitalrev.​com/photo_detail?id=26​27550

I for one am comforted to know I'll be able to shoot my unwilling assistant under harsh trade show light!

miguelr wrote in post #14008377

yep, or max out your credit card

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14008912
I for one am comforted to know I'll be able to shoot my unwilling assistant under harsh trade show light!

the ISO performance is so good you wont even need any extra lights

ni$mo350 wrote in post #14008897
Thanks! I do print large every once in awhile for clients but that's mostly land/cityscape stuff. I guess the easiest way to put it would be if I'm going to upgrade to the D800 I'm going to get a weather sealed, +15MP, option for no AA filter, reliable and tested 51pt AF, great high ISO when needed and all that for $500 less than the 5diii. If I were to upgrade to the 5diii I would get +1mp, insane AF system that I probably won't even come close to pushing, +2fps faster, similar build quality that isn't fully weather sealed, possible heavy AA filter from the discussions earlier in the thread, and great high ISO when needed for $500 more than the D800.

So basically, do I want to spend $500 more and get 1 more mp and an AF that is so far beyond what I need for what I shoot or spend $500 less and get a completely new camera with 15 more mp to work with and a fully sealed body? On paper, the lead, for me anyways, goes to Nikon. Let's be honest though, most of us don't need to upgrade and it's an option between want and need. I need more mp to work with on detailed shots but I want a better AF.

I would venture to say that you would be paying more, in the long run, for inferior glass with Nikon. I may be dead wrong, so please feel free to correct me, but it might be worth it to spend the extra $500 when you have glass that Nikon can't even touch.

ni$mo350 wrote in post #14008897
Thanks! I do print large every once in awhile for clients but that's mostly land/cityscape stuff. I guess the easiest way to put it would be if I'm going to upgrade to the D800 I'm going to get a weather sealed, +15MP, option for no AA filter, reliable and tested 51pt AF, great high ISO when needed and all that for $500 less than the 5diii. If I were to upgrade to the 5diii I would get +1mp, insane AF system that I probably won't even come close to pushing, +2fps faster, similar build quality that isn't fully weather sealed, possible heavy AA filter from the discussions earlier in the thread, and great high ISO when needed for $500 more than the D800.

So basically, do I want to spend $500 more and get 1 more mp and an AF that is so far beyond what I need for what I shoot or spend $500 less and get a completely new camera with 15 more mp to work with and a fully sealed body? On paper, the lead, for me anyways, goes to Nikon. Let's be honest though, most of us don't need to upgrade and it's an option between want and need. I need more mp to work with on detailed shots but I want a better AF.

Well, if you are used to shooting with the 5D2, then the Nikon AF will be far better then what you are used too (even if the Canon one turns out to be slightly better).

If you are in the world where MF is what you should really be using (if one could afford it), then I personally think the Nikon D800E is about as close as one could currently get in the DSLR world.

Tuff choice, due to the cost to change. You need to change all your lighting too?