Canon 5D Mark III Rumors

rhys216 wrote in post #12273941
That dude was just looking to show off, and is obviously just being false, when he implies he's trying to encourage others to take better pictures, normally I don't mind a little trumpet blowing, but not when the person tramples over other peoples photography to do so... it's just poor etiquette.

Exactly!

On that note i will buy a 5dmkIII on day one if it incorporates the 7D autfocus system with cross points. Im not a fan of focus/compose. Im not knocking it but thats my personal experience.

Buckeye1 wrote in post #12273911
We will start the debate again same time next year for the 5D MK IV or the 7D MK III, or the 1D MKX....Canon is doing this for a reason. If they come up with a perfect camera, then no one will buy their other lines. Only the pros can afford such a perfect Canon body, and every one else will go else where. Why do you think there has not been a 18-200 F1.8 L IS lens? You think because Canon can make one? Think again...they want you to buy four lenses instead of one.

Fall too far behind the competition, and you don't sell any...

vipergts831 wrote in post #12273906
This is a gear thread. Isnt that the point? To speak about gear in a hypothetically titled cameras thread? He can come in here and speak about it since thats the point. Had his rant been elsewhere then your comment is warranted but the putdown of his images isnt. Suggesting what could have improved his images would work but this "start taking better pictures" Helps no one because what might be great images to you could be horrible images to someone else.

While I agree with you and I think that the comment was too harsh, I cannot take that guy serious either. And not because his picture are not nice but because I don;t see in any of them that 5dII AF would struggle a bit. he shoots static where he doesn't use 7d AF not even to 10% of his capabilities.
It's like a landscape photographer would come here to complaing about 5dII AF. Would you take that guy serious?

theviper wrote in post #12273473
I find it funny that pretty much all of the people **** about the 5D2 are 7D owners who could not afford the 5d2 and were never in the market for one in the first place

I love these "you're too poor for one anyway" statements. Clever, very clever, and definitely not used enough. I'd like to see this uttered many, many more times, because... you know... you just can't get enough of this type of insightful, witty, funny-because-it's-true witticisms. Almost as good as the "you just want a 1Ds for cheap" remarks.

I had cash in hand for a 5DII before it was announced. Then the AF turned out to be practically identical to the 5D, so I kept my 5D, spent my money elsewhere, and haven't spent a penny on Canon gear since--not out of spite but because I'm set for lenses and they don't make the camera I'm looking for. Yet.

There's no rule saying Canon must match Nikon blow for blow. But there's also no rule against wishing that they would put out a competitive product in a particular market segment. Not demanding, not throwing my toys out of the pram if they don't, but realistically speaking they're not getting any money out of me because there's nothing to entice me. I'm not the center of the universe, but it seems that there are many others who have a similar desire for a similar camera spec and price. Surely there's a market out there for people like us? How big, I can't say. Maybe not very big, in which case Canon made the smart move to leave us out in the cold.

No, the 5DIII won't be a failure if it doesn't have better AF. The 5DII certainly isn't, not in terms of sales. But it would definitely be a disappointment for those of us hoping (not unrealistically in light of the D700's relative specs) for something better from Canon in this segment.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #12273987
I love these "you're too poor for one anyway" statements. Clever, very clever, and definitely not used enough. I'd like to see this uttered many, many more times, because... you know... you just can't get enough of this type of insightful, witty, funny-because-it's-true witticisms. Almost as good as the "you just want a 1Ds for cheap" remarks.

I had cash in hand for a 5DII before it was announced. Then the AF turned out to be practically identical to the 5D, so I kept my 5D, spent my money elsewhere, and haven't spent a penny on Canon gear since--not out of spite but because I'm set for lenses and they don't make the camera I'm looking for. Yet.

There's no rule saying Canon must match Nikon blow for blow. But there's also no rule against wishing that they would put out a competitive product in a particular market segment. Not demanding, not throwing my toys out of the pram if they don't, but realistically speaking they're not getting any money out of me because there's nothing to entice me. I'm not the center of the universe, but it seems that there are many others who have a similar desire for a similar camera spec and price. Surely there's a market out there for people like us? How big, I can't say. Maybe not very big, in which case Canon made the smart move to leave us out in the cold.

No, the 5DIII won't be a failure if it doesn't have better AF. The 5DII certainly isn't, not in terms of sales. But it would definitely be a disappointment for those of us hoping (not unrealistically in light of the D700's relative specs) for something better from Canon in this segment.

Agreed. It also has a lot to do with buying a camera that offers the most for what you shoot. FF for me wasnt enough to purchase a 5DmkII even though i could afford it with no issue. The 7D provided a more complete product for myself. Nikon has it right with the D700. You want more FPS? Add the battery grip. Fair enough. They have an expanded focusing system as well (although all of their cross type points are in the middle of the frame!). Those are things that canon can do and exceed.

keyframe14 wrote in post #12273980
While I agree with you and I think that the comment was too harsh, I cannot take that guy serious either. And not because his picture are not nice but because I don;t see in any of them that 5dII AF would struggle a bit. he shoots static where he doesn't use 7d AF not even to 10% of his capabilities.
It's like a landscape photographer would come here to complaing about 5dII AF. Would you take that guy serious?

Allow me to clarify my statements then

I concur that in terms of speed/tracking i dont use my 7D's capabilities as much as intended

-One reason is the 7D's AF points cover a greater area and theres more of them, Where the 5DII would have an issue is that theres less chance theres a focus point where i want focused meaning id have to focus recompose to attain proper focus and thats kinda EH, from my perspective the 5D's points are clusted too close in the center

-Also when i bought the 7D I did a lot of wildlife shooting on the 30D (IE birds and ETC) I admit since i got the 7D, I havnt done as much birding, I'm trying to get back to it this year though, This is what i wanted the 8fps and the better autofocus for..thats also what motivated me to upgrade as i wanted a usable ISO1600 and better AF for birds

-The 5D II I tried in a store when i was considering the outlay seemed to have pretty slow focus and seemed to struggle a bit in the relatively decent light in the store which is a bit brighter than my low light 7D pictures, I was trying it out with the 24-70 f/2.8L which isnt regarded as a poor focuser of a lens, Perhaps it was a dud 5DII or the lighting in the store mucked with the 5D's focusing system....

-And i guess i sohuld mention i have given thought to a 5DII anyways, Despite my ire towards the AF system...id LIKE the image quality and that but now it seems a bit silly to buy when i know its end of life and i can either get a cheap 5DII used or a new 5DIII

Buckeye1 wrote in post #12273911
We will start the debate again same time next year for the 5D MK IV or the 7D MK III, or the 1D MKX....Canon is doing this for a reason. If they come up with a perfect camera, then no one will buy their other lines. Only the pros can afford such a perfect Canon body, and every one else will go else where. Why do you think there has not been a 18-200 F1.8 L IS lens? You think because Canon can make one? Think again...they want you to buy four lenses instead of one.

That's simply daft and demonstrates your understanding of lenses. It would be the size of a small car and cost as much as a house which would hardly be practical or economical. The Sigma http://www.sigmaphoto.​com …500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma is hardly a practical transport option, given it's the size of a rocket launcher

rhys216 wrote in post #12273941
That dude was just looking to show off, and is obviously just being false, when he implies he's trying to encourage others to take better pictures, normally I don't mind a little trumpet blowing, but not when the person tramples over other peoples photography to do so... it's just poor etiquette.

I can agree with this. What I said was poorly presented and lacked anything in the way of manners. Plus, it was in the wrong thread.

So with that in mind, I'd like to apologize to both KenjiS and anyone else offended by my statements.
And yes, I do mean that.

I'm sorry.

It was a moment of arrogance and I let it get the better of me.

^^^
No probs IMO mate, I respect that your big enough to admit that as well as apologize as well, theirs plenty of others that wouldn't.

vipergts831 wrote in post #12273906
This is a gear thread. Isnt that the point? To speak about gear in a hypothetically titled cameras thread? He can come in here and speak about it since thats the point. Had his rant been elsewhere then your comment is warranted but the putdown of his images isnt. Suggesting what could have improved his images would work but this "start taking better pictures" Helps no one because what might be great images to you could be horrible images to someone else.

I agree with this as well.

Again, it showed an arrogance that is not usually so becoming of me. My apologies.


However, despite my heavy-handed abrasiveness, I do stand VERY FIRM with this axiom: At the end of the day, light and composition will always remain more important than sharpness, High ISO performance, or any of the other perks higher-end equipment give us. Light and composition are the bread and butter to everything essential in photography. Everything else is just gravy...

Wait, that made no sense at all. Hehehe. Oh well. I think everyone gets the point.

^^^
I don't think anyone would disagree with that, it's just right now, were talking gravy...

SimplyShane wrote in post #12274483
However, despite my heavy-handed abrasiveness, I do stand VERY FIRM with this axiom: At the end of the day, light and composition will always remain more important than sharpness, High ISO performance, or any of the other perks higher-end equipment give us. Light and composition are the bread and butter to everything essential in photography. Everything else is just gravy...

I don't understand how striving to perfect the tools is mutually exclusive of striving to perfect the craft.

These concerns coexist.

Rgardless, we're talking tools here in this thread and in this sub-forum.

+1, as a budding photographer, I think most of us are looking to improve upon ALL areas.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12274545
I don't understand how striving to perfect the tools is mutually exclusive of striving to perfect the craft.

These concerns coexist.

Rgardless, we're talking tools here in this thread and in this sub-forum.

"Perfecting the tools" involves much more technique than camera...

But that's just my opinion. Either way, you are more than welcome to discuss whatever it is that you feel is necessary. It is not my place to judge. Please carry on! Don't let me interrupt any longer.

Happy shooting.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #12273789
currently, not even close, and why I don't switch? because I have multiple lenses and i still have some hope that next camera canon won't screw up.

rhys216 wrote in post #12273832
OMG, Seriously
So even though you got a tone of £$€ invested in Canon only gear, it's just like switching car insurance right?

Hm...

Let's look at the past 3 years.

Canon 5D2... same 9-point AF, added MFA, added HD Movie, 21mp.
Nikon D700... same 51-point AF as the D3, but 12mp. Has a lot of other goodies.

Nikon D3s... same lame 12mp, but incredible high iso performance.
Canon 1D4... added video, but questionable low-light focus using AI Servo.

Canon (with the exception of the 7D), look at the 60D downgraded to what some call the "super rebel". T2i, T3i basically identical with changes in swivel LCD.
Nikon, D7000, D5100, sensor improvement, iso improvement.

If nothing else, Nikon has shown that in the past 3 years, since the introduction of the D300 and D700 that it continues to be photographer-centric. And Canon has shown that it's craming more pixels and standardizing video. So it would make sense to shoot Nikon from this point forward for those who are frustrated with Canon. Sure you'd lose some $$$ from selling your Canon lenses... but with the way things have been going in recent years... seems like you will continue to be better served with a Nikon system anyway.