OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

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)

I'll reserve judgement on that until I see a higher res version as I'm not convinced there hasn't been any NR etc.

Low res images simply are able to hide a magnitude of sins, where the image would otherwise not be usable...

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Numenorean wrote in post #14008460
Useless for me. Though it's a new LCD, I doubt it allows me to look quite as critically as on my 30" monitor lol. Good for PJ's I suppose though. For me it would just waste time.

I'm just thinking able to quickly cull from the camera, but I agree it isn't something I would really use but it is neat none-the-less.

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #14008943
Like I said, if a new prosumer buyer is looking for a full frame and grabs the 5D3 over the D800 he should have his head examined...

I tend to favor the D800 over the 5D3, but I think your statement is going too far. The cameras each have distinct advantages/disadvantag​es and each person has the right to decide which are important without people telling them they need mental assistance.

HyperYagami wrote in post #14008667
So far the biggest improvement from Mark II has been the RATE button.

Yeah who cares about 61 point Af, 50% faster FPS, and 2 stops ISO...

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14008960
I'll reserve judgement on that until I see a higher res version as I'm not convinced there hasn't been any NR etc.

Low res images simply are able to hide a magnitude of sins, where the image would otherwise not be usable...

Agreed.

mritchy wrote in post #14008934
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.

I bet you also think Nikon glass is more expensive than all Canon glass as well. At least that's common internet regurgitation for people without experience in the Nikon world.

ching wrote in post #14008904
Because it's Alamby!

Yea, if you want to watch her eat ice-cream for 10 minutes, here is a video.

The title says something about an iMac review... but I never saw it

http://www.digitalrev.​com …pimped-imac/MTA2MzIwODI_A

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...

I don't know, I've been hearing the D800 IQ isn't all that great for the specs.

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!

FYI watch the video, he does a side by side between a 5DII and the 5DIII in it in the same conditions, Looking at it, the III pretty much blows the II away...

He says that 12,800 on the III is like 3200 on the II

Thats a pretty healthy improvement of 2 stops...

Nikon made the logical evolution of the 5DII
Canon made the logical evolution of the D700
Oh the Irony!

(Not a Haiku!)

mritchy wrote in post #14008934
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.

I'll say it again, I do love Canon's lenses but Nikon's glass isn't exactly crap if that's what you're trying to say.. The 35 f/1.4G looks awesome and will be a nice replacement for my 35L and I might go back to shooting primes for awhile in which case I'll pick up a sigma 50 and another Sigma 85 which kind of eliminates the issue that you brought up from the get go.

I know the Canon 70-200 2.8ii is phenomenal (I own it and love it) but you can't seriously tell me that throwing a 70-200 2.8G VRii on a D800 is going to suddenly produce bad shots. Plus, the Nikon equivalent is only showing $20 more than the Canon on BH. The 35L is about $200 cheaper than the 35G but the new Canon 24-70Lii is also $350 more than the 24-70 from Nikon which, from what I hear, is a phenomenal piece of glass.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14008960
I'll reserve judgement on that until I see a higher res version as I'm not convinced there hasn't been any NR etc.

Low res images simply are able to hide a magnitude of sins, where the image would otherwise not be usable...

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

In my eyes, there is no question the 5D3 image, is better. Hard to really compare the two, as one is shot in much brighter lighting, but the D800 shot really shows so noise (esp around the shadow of the camera on the table), while the 5D Mk III shot looks rather impressive.

Maybe a little noise in the shadows around her eyes and neck, but not at noticeable.

The dpreview shots do seem to have a significant amount of NR going on. The canonklub.cz shots look a bit more reasonable. The big plus is that I've yet to see any evidence of pattern noise in any of the shots. That would be an instant boost to usable DR even without other improvements.

From the initial looks of it Canon really focused on the important things with these new sensors. Sure, some folks would like more MP, but what's that really worth if you have pattern noise and significantly less DR than the competition? As Canon's answer to the D700 and the weaknesses of the 5DII, I think they nailed it.

Oh, and 41 cross types that are effective at -2ev? Nice!

KenjiS wrote in post #14008998
FYI watch the video, he does a side by side between a 5DII and the 5DIII in it in the same conditions, Looking at it, the III pretty much blows the II away...

He says that 12,800 on the III is like 3200 on the II

Thats a pretty healthy improvement of 2 stops...

I don't really care which body shot it...

The examples are crappy snapshots under horrible conditions. My point being, how many shooters will shop based on what you can do indoors under warehouse lights?

Personally, I think the dpReview samples make a lot more sense in terms of showing off the resolution, sharpness and noise progression.

Of course, I am eager to see real world images, but:

I shoot the 7D for landscapes and a few times a year get to shoot wildlife (at least once a year in Africa). The fps is lower than the 1D x or MkIV, so this will not be as perfect for birds in flight like a diving fish eagle, but it seems the 5D mkIII may be the compromise move up for me vs. the 1d models: 1) decent fps vs. the 7D, 2) full frame, low noise like/better than prior 5 models and 3) best focus system short of the 1d X.