5D MKIII specs

How about this....Whatever camera that you are holding in your hand doesn't give you the right to be a snot! This is a 5dMK3 thread and 99.8% of you haven't even smelled one yet.
 
dustylense said:
How about this....Whatever camera that you are holding in your hand doesn't give you the right to be a snot! This is a 5dMK3 thread and 99.8% of you haven't even smelled one yet.
Click to expand...

I've smelled one, held it in my hands and shot with it.

I can tell you, it is GREATLY improved. The image is better, the construction is more solid and it has the wonderful quality of being invisible. What do I mean? I mean the rolling shutter is so greatly reduced and the moiré is so much less an issue that I just ceased to think about that stuff. Add in the additional value of MUCH better handling in low light and lessened artifacts in the shadows as well as much better autofocusing for stills and I would say that it is worth every penny. It is just a much more solid tool and will have greater longetivity than the Mark II. It is unequivocally a second generation product with some very balanced thinking behind it as to the nature of what needed to be improved and which was. As someone who works in both photography and video, regularly, I can say that one of my two camera bodies will definitely be a Mark III.

I will wait for April 15th before I make a decision as to what the second one will be.
 
Last edited:
-Sandro- said:
I agree with what you're saying , we're going to the subjective area here though. BUT I THINK (hope) what everyone (at least I) wanted was a good/decent/UPGRADE of (and no, fixing moiré only which already that filter does is not an upgrade) the video quality in all the 2012 DSLRs from the 5d to the next 1200D which is very possible for them to do. Instead they're giving the same quality to the new series BUT you get a 4k no one* could ever afford since it will cost at least $5k IMHO! So they're asking more money basically, wouldn't it be more remunerative for them to -destroy- the competition with an amazing $800 650D both photographer and videographer would buy in millions instead of giving only real HD video to 4k camera the mass cannot afford?
Click to expand...

Let me give you this perspective, if I could shoot stills on my FS100, would it really make any difference to me? No, why on earth would I bring my FS100 when it's so much more bulky than the 7D. There comes a point where sometimes you have to decide what is good stills wise may not be good for video. It's certainly speculation on my part, but, at the same time, they've got do decide which makes sense for the still shooter.

The anti-aliasing filter in the 5dm2 is designed for shooting full resolution stills shots. If you leave the add-on filter in there when shooting full resolution stills, I have to imagine it is going to degrade the image. Further, as you may already be aware, any really wide shots get blurred edges. You have to make a compromise.

Just because you find that using the filter you can add in afterwards is acceptable, I don't want to have to do that. Canon DID upgrade the 5Dm3 if it has less moire. To say otherwise makes absolutely no sense. If I add ND filters internally to my camera design, that the previous model didn't have, it's an upgrade. Just because I can screw them on the front of the lens or use a matte-box doesn't negate the beauty of having them built in (which I miss on the FS100 dearly that I had on my AF100).

Maybe the cDSLR is $5k, I have no clue where it's going to come in. But here is the thing, I have the FS100 which costs me $5.5k and it certainly has things I don't like about it, but it is what it is. if the cDSLR outperforms my FS100, how could I argue with the price? Trying to extrapolate how something is priced relative to performance is not just a linear sliding scale.

You can be sure of one thing though, I bet Canon has a lot better idea of how to market their cameras then we do. They have the numbers, while we might think they are missing a huge opportunity, I doubt it. I work in product development and I see what people online say about what we think or what we do, and then I have the insight to see what happens inside a company as well. Canon isn't stupid or they wouldn't be around.

But let me lay this out for you.

If the 5Dm3 costs $3.5k as is, but might have cost $4k or $4.5k to add in more features, do you think still shooters who could care less about video are going to be happy paying for more? I know plenty of people who have ZERO interest to shoot video with their still cameras. Zero. So while many people here would gladly pay a little more for more, that doesn't mean the average still shooter who buys a 5D might want that.

People can wax poetic about how great the GH2 is, but the fact of the matter is, I know ONE person (who I met on here) locally who has one. ONE. But, I could list off 30-40 people locally probably that I have met that use a Canon DSLR to shoot video or stills.

You tell me, who knows how to market their DSLR cameras and get people to buy them? What motivation does Canon have to do anything different than how they are? They are already dominating where I live and their only competition is Nikon, who they have to beat on a stills front, because I've yet to be blown away by Nikon video shooting nor have I EVER seen anyone locally use a Nikon on a video shoot.

For Canon, the EOS video line is just going to add a whole new segment of users they never had (C300) and cover the in betweens with things like the cDSLR. While I always want more for my money, they seem to be doing a pretty good job making customers AND money.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Some people did make a big deal about resolution, that said, the hugest cries about the 5Dm2, 7D etc was the moire/aliasing. Given I have a 7D I can tell you, that ultimately, the moire was THE highest thing on my list I did not like about the 7D.

Second on that list is rolling shutter. As I've stated before, we shoot a lot of kinetic action at times. We had to stop doing this with the 7D as it looked horrible. You can get by with skew, which is the slant in the image, as I've seen movies with it, that said, most times, jello which is the vertical compression decompression is a lot worse (in my opinion) and is a huge distraction. I mean, if you hold a rope in your hand and move back and forth, the wind drag alone creates a skew in the rope you are holding. It's something at least your eye has seen. With jello, unless you eat a lot of jello AND play with it, is something you probably don't see that often.

If you are a 5D shooter right now, going to the GH2 is going to be A LOT harder than going to the 5Dm3. First, the crop sensor means none of your lenses are going to shoot the same. Second, from what I can tell so far, you are still going to deal with the same rolling shutter on the GH2 compared to the 5D. And of course third, none of your automatic lenses are going to work without an adapter that isn't here yet.

If resolution is all that matters to you, and you aren't invested, then sure, a GH2 sounds like a good idea. If low light, rolling shutter, Full Frame means more to you, than the 5Dm3 is for you. It's not one wins the other loses, it just depends on what you need.

I know this gets repeated a lot, but let me say it again, the 5Dm3 is a stills camera first, period. Until the GH2 is a better stills camera than the 5Dm3 then trying to compare them as to what Canon's motivation is will not make sense. Canon has already told you they are making a Full Frame camera that is 4k that looks like the body of the 5Dm3. Seriously, if you think they are trying to pull one over on you, ask yourself, then why would they tell you about the cDSLR in the first place? Obviously they are working on the camera everyone seems to want, and guess what, the 5Dm3 is not it. If they wanted to dup people into getting the 5Dm3 then release the cDSLR I could see the complaint, but clearly, they understand.

If I were to try and guess what they did, they put together the stills requirements first, then, they looked at the needs of a still photographer using a 5D to see what would make sense for them. The whole reason video is in the 5D in the first place, as far as I was told, was so that reporters out in the field could actually shoot some video as well, and not need 2 pieces of equipment. I feel like they looked at what processing power they had with what they made, and tried to put in as much as they could WITHOUT the price sky-rocketing for them.

If the 7Dm2 has all the same advancements as the 5D for APS-C, I will replace my 7D without question. I use my 7D as a stills camera first. The thought of moire free (or reduced heavily) and better rolling shutter, count me in.

If you can't see the value in the 5dm3 at $3500 then accept the reality that the camera isn't designed or marketed for you. I had to learn this with the C300 no matter how much I felt about the price. I am NOT the target audience. Period. Sure, it doesn't change the fact it disappointed me that they've taken so long. But at the same time, I don't see the cost of the C300 as trying to "rip me off" because, as I said, that implies it was targeted for me.

I see the same with the 5Dm3. Look at it from a stills perspective, or ask a stills shooter who is interested in getting one to evaluate the cost. Everyone ALWAYS wants something for cheaper, that's natural. Did I want to pay $5500 for my FS100, no, I'd have gladly paid less.

Had this been the cDSLR and the performance was what we are seeing, well then yes, I could understand the complaints.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. Good post sir.
 
Rick Burnett said:
If you are a 5D shooter right now, going to the GH2 is going to be A LOT harder than going to the 5Dm3. First, the crop sensor means none of your lenses are going to shoot the same. Second, from what I can tell so far, you are still going to deal with the same rolling shutter on the GH2 compared to the 5D. And of course third, none of your automatic lenses are going to work without an adapter that isn't here yet.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right, and fully agreed.
Fortunately, the three factors you've noted have been considered on our end. Wider lenses: investing in 16mm glass. We're looking at older Bolex and Zeiss glass from the Arriflex lines. Additionally, we don't use automatic lenses. Most, if not all of our glass are Nikkor AI, Zeiss C/Y and a Super Takumar M42 mount.

The 2x's crop is already setup though. For a 50mm, use a 24mm, for a 20mm, use a 10mm and so on.
A couple of the choices we're looking at now:
1: http://www.ebay.com/itm/120864537338?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
2: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ZEISS-SUPER...58669351?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item41588f6f27

Now as far as the "marketing" comments are concerned, that's neither here nor there to me. From heavy experience with these cameras, I'm most definitely thankful for what they've allowed me to accomplish. However, the core setbacks have become all too restrictive and I guess I've simply "grown out of them" at this point.
I just love the freedom of having a DSLR as a video camera though. Getting all your guerilla shots that a normal (but gorgeous) FS100 couldn't get due to size and stealth factor.

I just don't see the point in suffering with shoddy image quality any longer. The benefits no longer outweigh the drawbacks the way they once did.
Hopefully the 4K DSLR will remedy this. Then we can all hold hands and sing jolly Canon melodies once more...provided it isn't hamstrung all to hell.

But, until then....

mico said:
Man you had me with your leave it alone post but now you're just being rude. This is a Canon 5klll thread and I guarantee you lately its all canon bashing and the Gh2 fanboys running rampant on every thread trying to justify I don't know what. Play with your Gh2 and like you said leave it alone. What you're' writing has been written a million times already so there must be other reasons besides what you find glorious about the Gh2 that others don't.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? I'm a GH2 fanboy now? hahaha
Um...if you need to label someone in an "us versus them" debate, sure then. Whatever.
 
Last edited:
I think this camera is a great bang for the buck. Its a great imrpovement spec wise to the old 5D. If it corrects the moiré and aliasing problems of the previous generation and resolves just a bit more lines, for 3500 USD its a steal. You know, 3500 USD is the price of one 256gb SSD card for my Red Epic. For 3500 USD you get a camera capable of shooting Movies with quality. And don't forget you still have the technicolor Cinestyle profile, which should work better with both new codecs.
 
Let's chill out kids. Something I will tell you though. In my born country, smaller but much older than yours, there's a saying which says who doesn't want to be wolf, should not dress their skin : D Anyway, this 'my girl is prettier than yours' speech is proper of teenagers, not professionals. What I know is we need to be complacent over here because both type of posters can be found among us ;-)
 
-Sandro- said:
(and no, fixing moiré only which already that filter does is not an upgrade
Click to expand...

That is just ignorant. The filter doesn't really work. It takes away your ability to shoot wide angles without blurred edges and stills.

Fact of the matter is, everyone wanted Canon to fix mostly two things. Moire/aliasing, rolling shutter. And these weren't something that were small. These were HUGE ISSUES in the 5d/7d lines, especially in 720p mode.
 
maarek said:
That is just ignorant. The filter doesn't really work. It takes away your ability to shoot wide angles without blurred edges and stills.

Fact of the matter is, everyone wanted Canon to fix mostly two things. Moire/aliasing, rolling shutter. And these weren't something that were small. These were HUGE ISSUES in the 5d/7d lines, especially in 720p mode.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really work? Do you own one? Have you ever used one?
I own two. It works.

Yes, if you go under 24mm on FF it doesn't. But that still accounts for the vast majority of focal lengths most people shoot with.
It is a very viable way to squeeze more life out of a 3.5 year old camera and it makes the 5DMII a good B-roll unit as technology moves forward into the next generation.
 
yoclay said:
It doesn't really work? Do you own one? Have you ever used one?
I own two. It works.

Yes, if you go under 24mm on FF it doesn't. But that still accounts for the vast majority of focal lengths most people shoot with.
It is a very viable way to squeeze more life out of a 3.5 year old camera and it makes the 5DMII a good B-roll unit as technology moves forward into the next generation.
Click to expand...
what a filter? do you have a link?
 
maarek said:
That is just ignorant. The filter doesn't really work. It takes away your ability to shoot wide angles without blurred edges and stills.

Fact of the matter is, everyone wanted Canon to fix mostly two things. Moire/aliasing, rolling shutter. And these weren't something that were small. These were HUGE ISSUES in the 5d/7d lines, especially in 720p mode.
Click to expand...

Yeah with this quality they're giving I'd really LOVE to see how "good" the 720p video will look!!
OK guys I guess we all have different priorities. OK they FIXED some issues BUT it is NOT acceptable in 2012 to give this video resolution so I will not consider this an upgrade and the reason Canon will remain the top seller is because people are defending the company. And in a way I admire Canon, they use people to earn money doing the least possible. This is marketing strategy at its best.
 
Last edited:
-Sandro- said:
Yeah with this quality they're giving I'd really LOVE to see how "good" the 720p video will look!!
OK guys I guess we all have different priorities. OK they FIXED some issues BUT it is NOT acceptable in 2012 to give this video resolution so I will not consider this an upgrade and the reason Canon will remain the top seller is because people are defending the company. And in a way I admire Canon, they use people to earn money doing the least possible. This is marketing strategy at its best.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call this 4K launch as the least possible. Canon is appreciated by customers granted the quality of their offers. They top, that's the only reason. Whether some like whether not, Canon 5DII was one of the best camera sales success ever. Motion picture realm included. For Canon's surprise.
 
-Sandro- said:
Yeah with this quality they're giving I'd really LOVE to see how "good" the 720p video will look!!
OK guys I guess we all have different priorities. OK they FIXED some issues BUT it is NOT acceptable in 2012 to give this video resolution so I will not consider this an upgrade and the reason Canon will remain the top seller is because people are defending the company. And in a way I admire Canon, they use people to earn money doing the least possible. This is marketing strategy at its best.
Click to expand...

Maybe because we like the product? You are even more a Panasonic "tool" than us.
 
yoclay said:
... [the 5DM3] I can tell you, it is GREATLY improved. The image is better, the construction is more solid and it has the wonderful quality of being invisible. What do I mean? I mean the rolling shutter is so greatly reduced and the moiré is so much less an issue that I just ceased to think about that stuff. Add in the additional value of MUCH better handling in low light and lessened artifacts in the shadows as well as much better autofocusing for stills and I would say that it is worth every penny. It is just a much more solid tool and will have greater longetivity than the Mark II. It is unequivocally a second generation product with some very balanced thinking behind it as to the nature of what needed to be improved and which was. As someone who works in both photography and video, regularly, I can say that one of my two camera bodies will definitely be a Mark III. I will wait for April 15th before I make a decision as to what the second one will be.
Click to expand...

That's encouraging news. Hopefully we'll have 5DM3 camera-original 1080p files to review & edit in our NLEs soon. And yes, waiting until NAB in mid-April seems prudent. Thanks for your report, yoclay.
 
I'm surprised so many people expected so much from the 5DIII in video terms.

When Canon announced their C- line and most importantly, a C-DSLR... That, to me, signified the end of the 5D line being the head of the video DSLR range (my only exception was that the 5DIII might have been launched as the C-DSLR.... but that has proved not to be the case).

Canon are working on an actual cinema DSLR... until that comes, don't expect anything more than 1080p with the improvements that people asked for.
 
Last edited:
Jay Birch said:
I'm surprised so many people expected so much from the 5DIII in video terms.

When Canon announced their C- line and most importantly, as C-DSLR... That, to me, signified the end of the 5D line being the head of the video DSLR range (my only exception was that the 5DIII might have been launched as the C-DSLR.... but that has proved not to be the case).

Canon are working on an actual cinema DSLR... until that comes, don't expect anything more than 1080p with the improvements that people asked for.
Click to expand...

Testify!
I have to agree.
Other than the product cycle improvements, the only thing that will make Canon DSLRs improve overall video quality and functionality will be the hack upgrade community.
I remember being a part of that online movement that petitioned Canon to implement 24p on the 5DII and that was amazing.
Something like that isn't going to happen again because now they've restructured their cameras to accommodate consumer's and professionals needs.
With the DSLR and C-DSLR distinction, consumers/professionals are now told to make a choice.
A. Are you a photographer first, videographer second? Use the XD/XXD cameras
B. Are you a videographer/cinematographer first, photographer second? Use the C-XX cameras
C. Hack? We don't know what you're talking about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top