Canon 5D Mark III Rumors

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #13898603
Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. Way to look out for the consumers there.


I think we talked about this in the D800 thread but you never answered (maybe you did and I missed it): I saw no such thing in those full res D800E sample images and asked you to point out specifically where you were seeing moire. I'm still waiting, genuinely curious what you're seeing.

Plus you're trying to make it sound like removing the AA filter isn't a big deal being merely one of four filters. Really? It fundamentally changes the whole image chain, eliminating the need for Bayer demosaicing. Have you shot with an AA-less sensor? If not you might want to look around more and see just how much of a difference it makes.

Uh... ok. There are plenty of reputable photographers and gear sites that are excited about this. Just because you aren't doesn't mean it's a dumb idea and only gullible people will fall for it. It's not attractive to me either, but I fully understand how it would be to others.

Nope, ive not been in the D800E thread, so i think you have me confused with some other guy.
I was trying to point out that the D800E wasn't "filterless", but still had three over the sensor. While I agree that for some users the lack of an aliasing filter might be beneficial, it's not for general use....which means most of us. I think the manufacturing figures that Nikon have announced bares this out, correct me if I'm wrong here but I think it's 100,000 D800 per month and only 1000 D800E. That's a huge difference in numbers.
I see lots of gear sites getting excited becuase it's something new to type about...if it's truely benficial then i'll need to see the benefit and not to be told it's better because Nikon has just done it to a niche camera while trying to parody what MF backs have been known to do. (I hope this makes sence, I'm just back home after a very long day). That just sounds like marketing spin to me. The Aliasing filter on DSLR's has been there for years and it's there for good reason. I'm sure it's removal will give some pixel-bator a thrill when viewing at 100% but I just can't see this having much baring in a print, regardless of print size.

x_tan wrote in post #13898643
Many people say that 5Dc is better than 5D2 in digital noise.

Can't say that I've seen anybody else claim that, and my eyes tell me 5DII is better (I own a 5D Classic). 5DII is at least 2/3 of a stop better per pixel, and when you downsize it to 5D Classic resolution it's even better.

I'm looking forward to get a 5D3 with 1Dx's lower / 18MP sensor for better high ISO preferment.

If 5D3 has 22MP as CR, then I have to get 1Dx - Hate to carry the heavier 1D(anything).

18MP to 22MP isn't going to be an appreciable difference--not in resolving power nor in per-pixel noise performance.

oooo it's late...here opps nearly 1am....I'm off to bed! nite nite!

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #13898479
Isn't it amusing that Nikon have had problems with the D700 stealing sales from the D3....hullo....wasn't that obvious Nikon? Canon have been far smarter with their product seperation, I guess Nikon are just learning that.

Nikon have only taken the AA filter away from the D800E...that's only one of the four filters infront of the sensor. From the samples I've seen Moire and jaggies are a serious problem. No supprise really, I think it's a dumb idea. Nikon have taken something away an important piece of tech and tried to tell every one that it's a feature....only the gullable will fall for this.

I am a landscape photographer and no I don't need 36mp. I'm also a professional wedding photographer and I really don't need 36mp.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/23849425@N06/

I don't think removal of the AA filter is a dumb idea. If you know how to avoid moire, it's not going to be a big deal. When I was using the M9, it wasn't a big deal either. Good on Nikon for giving people the option. In case you didn't know CaptureNX and LR4 will have moire removal tools. Also, moire is a minute detail unless you're a pixel peeper. Shame on you!

rick_reno wrote in post #13898675
I'm interested in the D800e, and I saw nothing in any of the images posted to indicate a problem. If you know where some are that exhibit a problem, please post a link to them.

I don't think it's an issue either. The current Leica M9/M9P users aren't complaining at all.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #13898682
Nope, ive not been in the D800E thread, so i think you have me confused with some other guy.

Yeah, my bad. I was confused.

It's definitely not for everyone. Not for me either. As you said the production numbers bear that out.

I can appreciate the need to see it yourself, but there are real benefits to be had there. If you are truly interested there's a lot of material out there demonstrating the benefits and drawbacks of an AA filter-less sensor. The AA sensor smooths out jaggies and makes sensors less (not completely) moire prone at the expense of resolving power/detail retention. It's a tradeoff that works well for the majority of shooters out there, but removing the AA in exchange for more clarity is a valid approach as well depending on one's shooting needs.

Get some rest and hope tomorrow is a better day for you.

Nikon coolpix 8700, I use that camera. I'm not insecure enough to blame my bad photos on lack of proper equipment.

I hear what you are saying about the Aliasing filter.

I'm wondering if the rumours about the 7D will being updated and that the 5DIII/X is both a 5D and 7D replacement are true. It's an interesting idea and is leading me to contemplate a thin down of my DSLR list. I can sell a 5DII and a 7D and pretty much fund a 5DIII....sweet!
As much as I like the 7D, it's IQ isn't a patch on the 5DII (let alone a 5DII/X). It's AF is excellent, but it's inability to swap out viewscreens is limiting.
but the UI and ergonimic updates are brilliant. It's such a better camera in most regards to the 5DII, which looks and feels very out dated in comparision.
The 1.6x crop has it's clear advantages, but it's IQ is it's biggest let down. It's quite noisy (ISO) and I think I can do nearly as well with a full frame camera but using a 1.4x TC when I need the extra reach.
The thought of a 22mp, 7fps, low iso noise 5D replacement has me very excited.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #13901184
I'm wondering if the rumours about the 7D will not recieve a replacement and that the 5DIII/X is both a 5D and 7D replacement. It's an interesting idea and is leading me to thin down my DSLR list. I can sell a 5DII and a 7D and pretty much fund a 5DIII....sweet!

Not a good idea for Canon - it would leave them with a full-capability action camera (1Dx), a cut-down action camera (5D3), no hi-resolution body for landscape/studio work, and no high pixel density body for wildlife/birds/other long telephoto use. Compare that with Nikon's D4 (action) and D800 (full-capability high-resolution and high pixel density camera, able to cover both areas due to good AF) and Canon comes out the loser.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #13898682
Nope, ive not been in the D800E thread, so i think you have me confused with some other guy.
I was trying to point out that the D800E wasn't "filterless", but still had three over the sensor. While I agree that for some users the lack of an aliasing filter might be beneficial, it's not for general use....which means most of us. I think the manufacturing figures that Nikon have announced bares this out, correct me if I'm wrong here but I think it's 100,000 D800 per month and only 1000 D800E. That's a huge difference in numbers.
I see lots of gear sites getting excited becuase it's something new to type about...if it's truely benficial then i'll need to see the benefit and not to be told it's better because Nikon has just done it to a niche camera while trying to parody what MF backs have been known to do. (I hope this makes sence, I'm just back home after a very long day). That just sounds like marketing spin to me. The Aliasing filter on DSLR's has been there for years and it's there for good reason. I'm sure it's removal will give some pixel-bator a thrill when viewing at 100% but I just can't see this having much baring in a print, regardless of print size.

Can't help but think of this 'perspective' as anything other than influenced by sour grapes...

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13901211
Can't help but think of this 'perspective' as anything other than influenced by sour grapes...

??? Not really sure what you are driving at here

Shadowblade wrote in post #13901201
Not a good idea for Canon - it would leave them with a full-capability action camera (1Dx), a cut-down action camera (5D3), no hi-resolution body for landscape/studio work, and no high pixel density body for wildlife/birds/other long telephoto use. Compare that with Nikon's D4 (action) and D800 (full-capability high-resolution and high pixel density camera, able to cover both areas due to good AF) and Canon comes out the loser.

I would be greatly surprised if Canon totally abandons the high-megapixel market segment, especially now that Nikon has assumed leadership in it.

I don't think Canon responds directly to any Nikon model--and certainly not on a "wait-and'see" non-strategy--but I do expect that Canon has been well aware for years that Nikon was working on a high resolution model, and would have been preparing their own best effort in that direction to be released about the same time.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #13901239
??? Not really sure what you are driving at here

I'm getting at the way you seem to be trying to spin some of the clear benefits of the D800, as negatives or 'dumb' features that only dumb or gullible people will fall for, when even a person with modest reasoning skills or experience in such matters would know that Nikon offering such features and choices to the photographer is a good thing, and certainly isn't dumb.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13901542
I'm getting at the way you seem to be trying to spin some of the clear benefits of the D800, as negatives or 'dumb' features that only dumb or gullible people will fall for, when even a person with modest reasoning skills or experience in such matters would know that Nikon offering such features and choices to the photographer is a good thing, and certainly isn't dumb.

Actually, I think the D800 is a fantastic and remarkable machine. It's just that I think people are confusing it with the niche market D800E. I have stated that for my needs a 36mp sensor isn't what I'm currently looking for, but I'm sure it will fly off the shelves once it's available. And i am sure that it will be an excellent photo capture device. But the D800 is a very different intended market to a D800E and I can't help but think that many photographers will buy one of the latter because they have been told that loosing the alising filter is a good thing. I can see that some photographers when comparing a D800 to a D800E will get the latter becuase they percieve that it's something a bit extra or a bit special, where they would most probably have their photo needs better serviced with a D800. I also think that you are confusing my D800E / aliasing filter reaction with a more general anti-Nikon or anti-D800 vibe that is prelavent on other forums (which I don't post to). This is a Canon forum, a 5DIII specific thread and I am not digging the D800 or the manufacturer....I'm just questioning all the fuss over the AA filter.

From my point of view, I can't see the point in an expanded workflow to correct regular moire and aliasing issues as a bonus. I can't see that squeezing a little bit more detail out of an already state of the art pixel density 35mm sensor has much more merit than getting a D800 and adding a wee bit of USM to the shot. It's not a snub on Nikon or the D800, just a curious observation concearning how photographers can react to marketing spin or hype. I wonder if there is a new wave of gear rivalry that seems to be squaring up....to AA filter or not. As if it's the new photo-mojo.

I didn't really find the D700 offered me much when compared to what i already had (a 5D at the time). I liked the camera a lot, but prefered the D3 more. I chose a 5DII becuase my pair of 5D's were very old and a bit knackered, so it was time to chop them in for the new model. I found the detail and low iso noise increase beneficial, but that's not why i bought them. When the D800 was announced I was suprised by the higher MP and lower fps, but for me 20ish MP is really quite enough and offers me the sort of detail level that I am more than happy with. I can print large AO and A1 prints with a detail level that is superb. I might waver from that position once I get to play with a few 36mp files but currently, 20ish mp is fine for me. If you want or need more....then go for it. It's your money and your photography.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #13901758
the D800 is a very different intended market to a D800E and I can't help but think that many photographers will buy one of the latter because they have been told that loosing the alising filter is a good thing.

Yes in most cases and forms of photography it is a good thing, especially when combined with increased pixel density.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #13901758
I can see that some photographers when comparing a D800 to a D800E will get the latter becuase they percieve that it's something a bit extra or a bit special, where they would most probably have their photo needs better serviced with a D800. I'm just questioning all the fuss over the AA filter.
From my point of view, I can't see the point in an expanded workflow to correct regular moire and aliasing issues as a bonus.

I think your using premature 'presumptions' of regular moire issues to justify your position. As someone has already pointed out, moire was pretty rare with the m9, which has a much lower pixel density than the D800E, thus it should be even less of an issue with the D800.
How about the workflow benefits of being able to ditch the sharpness slider, and instead very occasionally have to touch the moire slider.
I actually think most 'still' photographers will be better served with the 'E' for a number reasons, including better ISO, the ability to apply more noise reduction before an image becomes less than sharp, and of course the approximate 30% boost in resolution as their is no point having 36mp, and blurring out the extra resolution, although it does seem the D800 AA filter isn't exactly overly strong itself.