5D MKIII specs

[squig]

Why, do you want to take a picture of him.

Certainly sounds like he'd like to :kali:

Can't we all just get along?
Peace brother :love4:

I've been doing some pixel peeping. If you look at those jpegs http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/r...s-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples/slideshow and you downscale them 3x and crop them 16:9 you get a 500k 1920 x 1080 image. 24 of them is 91Mbit/s if my lousy Math is correct. No it's not the holy grail (RAW) but it is potentially like shooting 24 jpeg quality frames per second which would be a huge improvement.

 

[Emanuel]

That's what it sounds like to me.

I'm also curious about autofocus in movie mode. I see no mention of it anywhere

Neat video is always useful indeed. But as we well know, the more noise free the better. Any word on the tracking autofocus to be available during the video recording? I read some other people asking but no input yet. Any information?

Confirmed this morning and said by a Canon rep. Video division is NOT interested to let 5DIII to have continuous autofocus. They are not even happy with this launch but the 5DII success can't be robbed by Nikon. So, some compromises had to be done. Clean HDMI follows. And he even admited, it is embarassing Nikon to offer it.

The funny is the most part of video shooters don't give a damn for AF. But that's not the idea of the video division executives. Just as funny or curious note. Food for thought too.

Yet on the 5DII, it was said that was a surprise for the video division the huge sales for motion capture acquisiton. 5DII became a milestone inside the company. Top executives don't even want the video guys of inside to complain about. Therefore, the firmware update, etc. This time, they had to keep something in order to protect their high end. Or they risk to close it. They obviously fear the DSLR movement, they can't stop it anyway. Even 'cause Nikon is waiting for selling glass.

Hey, that was an informal conversation on the phone. Nuff said anyhow ;-)

There is an open thread here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?276535-AF-Nikon-1-Canon-0&p=1986096715#post1986096715

 

[squig]

Sounds like some healthy internal strife @ Canon. Can't wait for a MKIII vs C300 shootout. I think the IQ could be closer than a lot of people think.

Overheating is one thing that could still be an issue. I read that DIGIC5 runs 20% hotter than DIGIC4.

 

[alpi69]

I doubt the 5D comes that close to the C300 in terms of resolution, sensitivity, DR. From what I saw so far it is quite a gap. If it is a gap worth 10.000 is anyone´s decision of course.

As some here say: "once resolution is good enough" pretty much any cam can do it nowadays.
But from my experience clients get used to the next step fast: they don´t like "the good enough approach". It might work for Indy films on a small budget, but commercial work, broadcast docs etc will soon have new standards. The 5D has the FF look, but other than that a 600D with magic lantern is the better tool for small budgets. Not even speaking about a hacked GH2 which still beats the 5D in image and budget discussions.

@Barry green: Thanks for your rant. Totally agree. When I entered DVXuser in 2k4 we were happy for progressive recording.....

 

[Razz16mm]

5DIII seems like a reasonable upgrade to an incredibly successful product for Canon. Why mess with success?

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

Hey Ken, I'd say double your estimate. IMO the C series is going to be around the 7-8.5k range. Mainly because its 4k and I'll bet they uses the same sensor as the c300 or one from that family

Discussion/conjecture about the "C" DSLR is welcome. I've been trying to guess what that cam might sell for, too.

It won't have a mirror, so that lowers its cost, but it'll probably need new electronics, which raises its cost. I suspect the main reason it'll have a relatively high price is because the market for cinema cams is fairly small. E.g.: Small compared to a cam like the 5DM3.

Can't wait to see camera-original footage from a final production version of the 5DM3, especially some that shows how much the aliasing/moire issues have been addressed. Cheers.

 

[J Davis]

It won't have a mirror

agree and therefore should have a high resolution EVF along with HDMI and HD-SDI for monitoring and probably an AV connection for a unit like the c300 top piece

 

[steventimothy]

I doubt the 5D comes that close to the C300 in terms of resolution, sensitivity, DR. From what I saw so far it is quite a gap. If it is a gap worth 10.000 is anyone´s decision of course.

I just watched Philip Bloom's shootout; I don't know about resolution and DR, but the low light capability of the C300 is incredible; it certainly blows away the 5D Mk II and the other DSLR's. The 5D Mk III would have to drastically improve in that regard to match the C300.

 

[J Davis]

They obviously fear the DSLR movement ...

I have to disagree Emanual ... Canon didn't fear it, they embraced it !

Now, there is now a whole new division. Before there is the DSLR division, there is the video division ... and now the Cinema EOS divison.

$40,000+ EF mount cine lenses, the c300 as a spear head, announced c series dslr's, support center in hollywood and Nov 3 launch event which was introduced by Martin Scorcese and Mr Mitarai (canon's global ceo and chairman).

None of the other manufacturers, Nikon, Panasonic or Sony have done this.

edit: (just remembered)
Also there was commissioned films by high level film makers from our community including Vincent Laforet and a film from Ron Howard.

As good as this 5D3 is, its not from Canon Cinema EOS, the video is good, but incidental to the purpose of the 5D3. I'm expecting a lot of great things from Canon.

 

[Will Turner]

I insinuate that camera manufactures, like Canon, are intentionally limiting the codec in the 5DmkIII so that it doesn't compete with higher tier products, and am I ruining DVXuser?

Uh, well, yeh... thats the standard business model of the entire planet. Not just camera companies.

 

[KyleProhaska]

Man, the whining never ends for some people here. I would love to make some sort of commentary on DVXuser and how it compares to occupy wall st. or the entitlement mentality of most kids and young 20 somethings, but I'll keep my mouth shut.

Be thankful for what we have! I still look at my 5D MKII and see a miracle. We're spoiled folks, big time.

 

[Will Turner]

Man, the whining never ends for some people here. I would love to make some sort of commentary on DVXuser and how it compares to occupy wall st. or the entitlement mentality of most kids and young 20 somethings, but I'll keep my mouth shut.

Be thankful for what we have! I still look at my 5D MKII and see a miracle. We're spoiled folks, big time.

Exactly! I even count my GF1 as a blessing. Phenomenal technology. I can shoot shallow depth of field HD video with a camera I can fit in my jeans pocket, that is AMAZING.

 

[jideobi]

Man, the whining never ends for some people here. I would love to make some sort of commentary on DVXuser and how it compares to occupy wall st. or the entitlement mentality of most kids and young 20 somethings, but I'll keep my mouth shut.

Be thankful for what we have! I still look at my 5D MKII and see a miracle. We're spoiled folks, big time.

You make it sound like Canon had be giving the 5d out for free. I brought mine with my hard earned cash. We the customers make canon a lot of money.

 

[maarek]

I for one feel extremely glad about the current state of technology. Just shot a bunch of stuff with the Canon 7d, Sony nex-5n and a pocketcam. All of them looked better than stuff I got eight years ago. A s35mm camera which I can jam in my winter jacket? Put on a 55m f1.2 canon fd lens with an adapter, get crazy looking footage. Man what times we live in.

And now the 5d mark III which will hopefully get rid of almost all the complaints I've had with DSLR footage. Mainly moire and aliasing. What times!

 

[aalleexx]

yeah but we make a lot of money with those tools, I know my cameras have paid themselves many many times over

 

[HHL]

The new game: TECHNOLOGY

The new game: TECHNOLOGY

Yeah, because that lousy DVX with its lousy 1/3" chips, horrible lowlight performance, and terrible codec was so bad that nobody did anything useful with it. Like, say, get multiple Oscar nominations, or win Best Cinematography awards at Sundance. Twice.

Cameras are good enough today. You do realize that at the time that you wrote that post, complaining about how "awful" it is that we have such horrible cameras, at this exact moment the #1 film in the country was shot on the PRIOR generation of the camera you're complaining about in this thread, right?

If you can't find a camera on the market today that is more than good enough for any reasonable shooting scenario, it ain't the camera's fault, either you're not looking hard enough or your expectations are ridiculous.

An AF100 puts out a better image than the Varicam that shot "Planet Earth" -- and costs 1/15th what that Varicam cost. An F3 beats the hell out of the F900 that shot innumerable movies (including Star Wars: The Phantom Menace) and costs about 1/8th what that F900 cost. The 5D puts out lousy video, but apparently good enough to serve the purposes of the #1 box office film in the country, and it cost - what, $2800? The hacked GH2 puts out an image that embarrasses the reigning Betacam SP cameras that dominated broadcast video for years and years, and it costs under $1,000. The HPX250 has a codec on it that's as good as the HDCAM SR system used to shoot Star Wars: AOTC and Star Wars: ROTJ and costs what, maybe 1/50th what that system cost.

Yeah, the manufacturers are really punishing us, aren't they?

Sorry, no sympathy here. Anyone griping about today's tools should spend more time looking in the mirror and pointing the finger at themselves, rather than at the evil "planned obsolescence" greedy corporations who continue to provide utterly amazing products for relative pennies.

In the old days (circa 2004) we here at DVXUser used to say "hey, wow, thanks manufacturers for giving us new amazing products, now we can go out and do wonderful things with them." And it was a great time and a great place.

Today the manufacturers give you a damn STILLS CAMERA that turns out footage good enough to be used in the #1 movie in America, and when they turn out an updated/even better model we hear "whine, gripe, it's awful, how dare they, these manufacturers are horrible to us." Really? Seriously?

I have nothing but respect for Barry Green. Barry you da man!

Your point: Cameras are good enough, are you good enough?
Point taken, no questions asked.

Something to consider.

Back when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth....the evolution of motion pictures and the supporting mechanics might be compared to violin making. Truly an art. A rare and committed family of artisans committed themselves (and their lives) to the art form of "Motion Pictures". These artists took chemicals and "piles of saw dust" and turned it into pure imaging magic. Changes to their methods and tools were infrequent and why should they?....their image quality was unequaled. Indeed, they ruled the Earth.

OK....as time transpired, (Roman Empire)....companies that specialized in something called "Electronics" entered the fray. This group was more mathematician than artist....and their image quality showed that fact. Not nearly as aesthetic as their artist inspiration (that they didn't even dare use the same name, even the act of "filming" was called "video"....and their inferior quality implied that those who used the medium were also inferior...) The groups changed their methods much more frequently. 2-3 times a decade even!!! Of course that was, in part, because their image quality had so much room for improvement.

Our story moved forward, (British Empire/American Revolution)....Electronic companies started using something called "Computers" to edit and or cut that inferior video. Soon film was being edited using those same computers. (Maybe there is some use for those silly "Electronics" companies after all, thought the artists...) More and more, electronic companies were using computers. More and more, the artists were using computers....still not a replacement for their precious heritage (film), but computers and something called "Software" were valuable tools in the artists arsenal.

The modern age...(The Jetsons) Computers and software drive companies, entire sectors of the modern infrastructure. Cell phones are given away free that have more technology and capability than "Personal Computers" had only years before. Cell phones are routinely used as primary capture devices to capture photos, video, audio/sound. "Electronic companies" now make more money from video games than they do selling electronics. Community based software companies dominate the landscape. The "Internet" impacts nearly every facet of business. Software is updated on a regular basis....if not, competitors roll in, and "clean everyone out". Entire "planets" are built and destroyed in a matter of years (see "MySpace" and "Napster".) The same electronics companies who make image capture devices abide in the same world....same rules. As soon as new technology is deployed, the internet clamors for the next version....NOT BECAUSE IT IS IMAGING....but because IT IS TECHNOLOGY.

The future....(next week) Cell phones are fast encroaching on PCs, Internet usage, imaging capture of all types, and communication companies GIVE THEM AWAY, (for the cost of 2 years of blood money, lol). Updates to FREE SOFTWARE are launched on a minute-by-minute basis. That free software is more capable than software that build GIANTS like Microsoft. (Open office anyone? Google docs? Wordpress? Free....free...and free.) If a technology is in your hands, it is already out dated. No one is exempt. Imaging is now on the technology train....and it's a hard life, let me tell you. (I work in the Tech sector and we're rolling out new versions of our software as we speak. We already have plans for new versions up until the year 2015....welcome to my world Canon!)

So, my point is this: Canon can and will do better than the 5d Mark III. They'd better watch out. They are walking a fine line. They're trying to "protect" their "high-end" cameras by holding back technology developments (better said DEPLOYMENTS) in "lower-end" product lines. They are assuming that the future holds "high end cinema" as a product category. (They same way we thought video rental stores, music stores in malls, would always be viable product offerings.) Compact cameras are being threatened by cell phone cameras as Cine Cameras are being threatened by Video Cameras (F3 anyone?) (...and ***gasp*** DSLRs) The cycles for development are much shorter on cell phones and they are clearly more determined because that technology block is more hotly contested. Do I think that MOST movies, in the future, (next 10 years) will be shot on a cell phone? Give me a break. Purpose built technology is the only way to go when hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line. But the landscape is MUCH FLATTER. And Canon sees its self as a technology company....so it had better act like one. If it does not, they'll be playing rounds of golf with Kodak....the KING OF THE DINOSAURS....once MIGHTY, and now slain.

Welcome to the NEW GAME. We EXPECT better, faster, cheaper. We EXPECT that cost difference has real reasons (not just product differentiation/marketing.) And we the consumer TOGETHER...OWN these companies. (Just ask Netflix and their over-confident CEO) If Sony thinks S-Log should be an add on that costs 3,500 dollars, let them try to sell it. When few people bite, they have to find a new price range (how about less than 1k?). And if that doesn't work out so great, they'll just have to include it as a feature of the camera AT NO COST. I KNOW it's DOG EAT DOG, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.....please know that it's better this way. Canon made their deal with the devil when they jumped on the "TECHNOLOGY" train. (Again, that deal was much better than the alternative that Kodak chose which was to pretend that Dinosaurs still ruled the Earth.)

Final statement:

Canon is a technology company. I expect them to act like one. If they can't handle the expectations, they'd better take a close look at Kodak and see if that is a better future/option for the their company.

Yes, as Barry so directly pointed out: Cameras are good enough to make movies on the highest level, AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. (Even a DSLR....Even on the big screen...Even the number 1 film in America.)

The fact that we all receive updates to apps on our cell phones, browsers, networks, data storage and every other technology based object has ruined us all! (It has also allows those same companies to sell more product...)

Good job on the 5d Mark III Canon!

(Hope and pray that Nikon doesn't figure out this video stuff, because they're going to throw in the kitchen sink!!!) And of course if they don't you'll still have the budding Chinese camera companies, Panny, Sony, and countless others trying to take a piece of "your" pie. I'm sure you've already met Jim Jannard too, lol!

And just to "keep it real"....we all know why you didn't include HDMI out and it wasn't because you're not capable of including it technologically. We'll see how many of your competitors notice the same thing....this story is far from over Canon.​

Mad love to DVXUsers everywhere!!!!!!

ps.....any bets that HDMI out is actually ALREADY IN the 5d Mark III and that it's just disabled, (they know this one is close). I wonder what will happen when the Magic Lantern people start poking around in there.....hmmmmm.....that will be interesting won't it. LOL!

pps....sorry for the novel, I know I'm an idiot! LOL! Cheers!

 

[Kholi]

xD I wish all of you could be sitting where I am right now. Think the complaining is bad now, try looking at the different formats back to back on a massive screen for a few hours. As much as we all complain about incremental advantages, we're still fighting for them in comparison to what Epic and Alexa are doing.

Even me saying "oh, MKIII needs to get to GH2 level" ... well... what is that in comparison to 5K? It's like looking at a DVD version of real life...

xD But I guess that doesn't help anyone.

 

[stefancolson]

With the influx of technology has come a much larger and faster spread of information. What doesn't sit well with many are corporate mandated choices to limit or exclude features from a product that have little to no cost or technical barriers to implement in order to protect the integrity of their products positioned higher up the chain. Even though every rational person understands that the corporate model is due some of the credit for the technology in our hands today, it still doesn't feel right that between a dedicated, passionate group of people who design our cameras and our dedicated, passionate group that uses them stands a room full of people in suits (with sometimes shockingly little understanding of the wants and needs of the markets their products serve) who will arbitrarily inject decisions that affect the end product in a significant way.

Including things like improved codecs, S-Log, clean HDMI out, etc. have become marketing/strategic decisions instead of technical ones. Hitting technological limits is one thing (aliasing/moire in the mkII due to limitations of Digic IV and sensor readout spread for example), but running against suit-decreed limitations solely for the sake of bolstering profits never feels right.

It's a wonderful time to be a film-maker, and game-changing advancements are coming at a blinding pace. Just because technology is rapidly advancing is no reason to become complacent. I'm thrilled with what's available (and constantly astounded at what we can now do cheaply and easily that would have been nigh-impossible with 2004 equipment), but will continue to approach new announcements with cautious optimism.

 

[maarek]

Including things like improved codecs, S-Log, clean HDMI out, etc. have become marketing/strategic decisions instead of technical ones. Hitting technological limits is one thing (aliasing/moire in the mkII due to limitations of Digic IV and sensor readout spread for example), but running against suit-decreed limitations solely for the sake of bolstering profits never feels right.

Think about that when you buy a new processor. All of the cheaper ones are basically the same as the faster ones, except features disabled.

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

agree and therefore should have a high resolution EVF along with HDMI and HD-SDI for monitoring and probably an AV connection for a unit like the c300 top piece

... and, I wonder if Canon's "C" DSLR will be full-frame or APS-C?

Which then raises the question: Which lens mount? If it's a full-frame cam, it would probably be a EOS-only mount, right? If it's an APS-C sensor, then they can offer a choice of EOS or PL mount, like the C300. A good argument can be made for either approach.

I love the idea of a full-frame cam (with big fat pixels) that uses EOS lenses and records up to 4K RAW (or lightly compressed) video at up to 60p. Wouldn't be cheap, but might be possible for less than the cost of a Scarlet. Kinda a baby Alexa. Wouldn't that be sweet?

Meanwhile, the 5DM3 is a step in the right direction.