5D MKIII specs

squig said:
The sensor score is off the chart http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D4-review/Sensor-performance The question is will the C-DSLR be in the price range of a D4+ninja or will it be priced closer to an F3 or C300?
Click to expand...

I think what the D4 shows is what we can expect from Nikon in its next dslr, because its price range is because of its flagship photo camera spec. Now the d800 will be much more affordable and I hope in the next 18 month a D701 (that is d4 sensor in a d800 body) for about $ 2500/3000, for the full frame look. But you will see much more affordable apsc refresh like a Nikon d400 aps and below.

For the C-dslr I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I feel that it will be higher than the general slr range. It could still be gound breaking. For me I would really like to get a real upgrade in a gh3 that could be hacked for the low budget dslr shooter and a c300 or even better F3 image (Iso does not have to be a good as) in an af-200 body.
 
NormanBates said:
the D800 is selling A LOT better than the 5D3: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941
it seems that higher pixel count and lower price are driving the stills shooters to the Nikon camp
on the video side, the D800 seems to have very awful aliasing/moire issues, but this lack of detail on the 5D3 won't help it either, specially given that its price puts it in close competition with the AF100 and FS100


RE: D4 dxomark results
to put it in perspective... http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings
if you forget about the medium format cameras, and don't look at DR tests at ISO 100 but at 400 and over, the D4 is the king (or basically tied for the title) in every single dxomark test
Click to expand...

The d800 is ground breaking photographically, that is why it is selling that much. With a little research you will see why. The details is really approaching the 40 mp medium format camera, with high ISO just a little lower than the Nikon flagship and with DR at least in the 14/15 stop range. For video we will have to see on during the next week as the cameras come out.
 
No one is buying a 5d3 for wide shots, many people use these cameras for medium shots and closer with DOF. Also the camera is king at night. Personally the Gh2 would not make sense to me as far as recording wide scenes as I like to selectively focus on the environment. I can pull up many many beautiful videos shot on the 5d. Don't judge this camera by a person not using it towards it's strengths.
 
vision_filmz said:
No one is buying a 5d3 for wide shots, many people use these cameras for medium shots and closer with DOF. Also the camera is king at night. Personally the Gh2 would not make sense to me as far as recording wide scenes as I like to selectively focus on the environment. I can pull up many many beautiful videos shot on the 5d. Don't judge this camera by a person not using it towards it's strengths.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's not hard to make any camera look like junk if you don't know what you're doing. Yes, even the venerable GH2.
 
Kholi said:
You and me both.

Every time a new clip comes around it pushes me further away from even thinking about it.

Hope the EOS-C Full frame DSLR is much better... I really do want full frame.
Click to expand...

OMG, that looks like $HIT! I know it's all in the settings that screwed this footage up. I've seen way better from other posts. However the photo side of the camera wouldn't look that horrid even with those settings. The video should look like a downsized photo to 1080P if all things are done right inside the 5DMIII. However it appears quite the opposite.

Amazing how the GH2 looks for 700 bucks!

Hopefully the 4K camera will be something on a whole other level. To bad Scarlet didn't come in around 5 to 6K. Then it would be for me a no brainier camera for personal ownership. This DSLR trickle down bull$hit needs to get the hell out.



Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/pappasarts
 
Last edited:
How quickly everyone forgets the amazing videos shot on a 5d mark ii...... Do I need to start posting videos? Please people, give it time. Yes the resolution appears to not have improved, but I know for a fact , that camera is not being used to the best of it's abilities. Heck I can pull up t2i footage that looks better than that. Also lets not forget the amazing quality you can get from doing time lapse.... Look at this video shot on a 5d Mark ii and you tell me that resolution is all that matters? Art is always king, learn your tools

 
From the videos posted, the D4 looks the best so far, but this is a $5,000 camera. If you put an FS-100 or AF-100 next to it I wonder how it would hold up? The still side is a lot of the price though. I will be watching as Canon has let me down a bit.

That is true and kind of a low blow at the same time! This is a camera thread and yes, resolution does matter when four years have passed between models! I expected true 1080p (at least 800 lines) out of these cameras.
 
squig said:
This is where Kholi says "See I told ya so". It doesn't look great. :violin:
Click to expand...

Nah I'm not gonna say anything like that. There will still be people who like the look, and those people should use it. At the end of the day it's all good enough. Use what you like and get on with it, of course.

With that said, some of us aren't here to root for "good enough", and that's alright, too. (Not directing this at anyone in particular, including you Squig.)
 
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
Because it's Canon? ;-)
Click to expand...

xD I know you were joking, but for the sake of entertaining that... how much did the XL-H1 cost which was feature packed? THen how much did the XH-A1 cost? Same camera, smaller body, less features. XH-G1?

But, it's a serious question... what makes people think or assume that it's more than 6K?
 
My guess now is that we're going to start asking if the 5d3 even looks as good at the Mkii... for video that is. Yes, moire is gone, but so too, it seems, is the magic.
 
Kholi said:
But, it's a serious question... what makes people think or assume that it's more than 6K?
Click to expand...

Start with years of disappointment that no manufacturer has got it right in the sub 6k bracket and they so easily could have. I do think it will be 5-7k though. If it's 5k or under and can produce an image anything like the C300 I'll be stoked. I could care less about HD-SDI, XLRs, etc. I just want VistaVision!
 
squig said:
Start with years of disappointment that no manufacturer has got it right in the sub 6k bracket and they so easily could have. I do think it will be 5-7k though. If it's 5k or under and can produce an image anything like the C300 I'll be stoked. I could care less about HD-SDI, XLRs, etc. I just want VistaVision!
Click to expand...

I would caution anyone against being too optimistic regarding a 4k eos cinema dslr price. If Canon were going to give you a C300 image for 5k, there would be no 16k C300, regardless of hd-sdi and xlr's. Honestly, think about the likelihood of that.
 
cowpunk52 said:
I would caution anyone against being too optimistic regarding a 4k eos cinema dslr price. If Canon were going to give you a C300 image for 5k, there would be no 16k C300, regardless of hd-sdi and xlr's. Honestly, think about the likelihood of that.
Click to expand...

So why have a 5k FS100 and a 13K F3 with the same sensor?

The people in the C300 market won't go without their HD-SDI etc. If that wasn't the case why aren't they shooting with hacked GH2s? Because they have the money to spend on a pro solution.

I suspect it will just be 4k off the sensor like the C300 and not 4k recording because that could hurt the C300 sales, but Rodney Charters said in a recent interview that he and a lot of people in the industry don't really care about 4k files if they can get great looking 2k. I concur.
 
cowpunk52 said:
I would caution anyone against being too optimistic regarding a 4k eos cinema dslr price. If Canon were going to give you a C300 image for 5k, there would be no 16k C300, regardless of hd-sdi and xlr's. Honestly, think about the likelihood of that.
Click to expand...

What was the difference between XL-H1 and XH-A1?

If I remember right, how it went down, it was pretty much agreed upon by XL-H1 users that Canon had been smoking something strange if they thought the few minor differences in the two cameras meant the H1 should cost so much more or the A1 should cost so much less.

But Canon still released the A1.

I'm not saying that it's gonna be 6K, but just saying "because the C300 is 16K" doesn't mean anything at all. So, a few early C300 users are gonna be grumpy while Canon brings more loyal glass users from the tiny niche that we are into their fold. Is that all the consequence of birthing a 6K Full Frame EOS-C DSLR, without Built in NDS and bells and whistles, brings?
 
squig said:
So why have a 5k FS100 and a 13K F3 with the same sensor?
Click to expand...

Boy... if you only knew... but yeah this is kind of a good example. F3 has clear advantages over FS100, I think you'd be able to clarify why someone should get a 16K C300 over a 6K EOS-C DSLR just as easily.

Again, not saying it's GOING to be that much, but the reason people assume that it's gonna be 10K or more is kind of old thinking.
 
Last edited:
There will obviously be something that lends itself to cinema if the C is on the camera afterall. My guess is that regardless of the specs it will have clean hdmi out. That alone will be worth it for a lot of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top