5D MKIII specs

Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

10 bit log...I know.

Canon know they will sell tonnes more C-DSLR's if they are priced like a pro DSLR.
 
Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

If and when this comes out Kholi I think it will be 8Kish - or +. Kholi what's your guess?

Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/pappasarts
 
If it's built from a 1DX body, as Canon intimated, then I would expect it to cost *at least* 1DX money.

And I don't see why it should steal sales from the C-300, they're different tools.

Back to the 5DIII topic (Sort of)

ATM my finances are so threadbare as to force me to wait and save. Even a GH2 is out of the question, the money I had put aside for one plust fast cards went on central heating repairs.
 
my bet for the price of the 4K camera would be $8K if it's on a DSLR body without pro connectors, $20K if it's on a C300 body with all the pro connectors, ND filters, etc; if they sell it for leas than $6k it probably means they've crippled it too much (crappy plastic body, 8 bit 420 at a bitrate that's not enough for 4k, etc)
 
Last edited:
NormanBates said:
my bet for the price of the 4K camera would be $8K if it's on a DSLR body without pro connectors, $20K if it's on a C300 body with all the pro connectors, ND filters, etc; if they sell it for leas than $6k it probably means they've crippled it too much (crappy plastic body, 8 bit 420 at a bitrate that's not enough for 4k, etc)
Click to expand...

At least 4k with 420 and insufficient bitrate would still downscale to 2k well. I think at least.
 
on the pigeon shot, I think it's high shutter speed and lack of motion blur that is giving you the feeling of sharpness and detail
as for the other one, it does seems sharper than others I've seen; what's clear by now is that high ISO is crazy clean!!

I'm 90% sure I'll buy a 5D3 too, for stills (the other 10% being the possiblity of switching to the D800)
 
dustylense said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZkMgy_t-bI&feature=related
Seems pretty detailed to me
Click to expand...

Really? Not to me. Watch 1080 and pause it at any time throughout the pigeon video, and notice the blocks... well... pretty much everywhere. In this case, it looks more like compression artifacts to me, so I think this is just a bad example. I'm in the market too and wanted to pull the trigger when this cam came out, but now I'm waiting to get my hands on one and do my own testing. I still think it's just too early to tell, as the footage that's out there seems to be all over the map.

If you're a photo guy and are already invested in Canon glass, of course, this is the next logical step. Cheers
 
ryan brown said:
Really? Not to me. Watch 1080 and pause it at any time throughout the pigeon video, and notice the blocks... well... pretty much everywhere. In this case, it looks more like compression artifacts to me, so I think this is just a bad example. I'm in the market too and wanted to pull the trigger when this cam came out, but now I'm waiting to get my hands on one and do my own testing. I still think it's just too early to tell, as the footage that's out there seems to be all over the map.

If you're a photo guy and are already invested in Canon glass, of course, this is the next logical step. Cheers
Click to expand...

I just watched it on the Apple TV 3 (1080p version) on my 80 DLP system and it looked quite nice. The unicycle video looked even better. I don't think the 5dmk3 is the answer to all our prayers, but it is a very nice improvement (especially the high ISO's). Too me, the reduction in moire on the video side is very welcome. I own tons of Eos glass and will be very happy to take advantage of them at full frame (especially my 17 T/S). But again, I make 75% of my $'s off my still photography business. Let's just wait to see what the Eos Cinema side has to offer here with the upcoming announcement.
(looking forward to shooting up to 6400 ISO without worry.....)
 
Josh over at dvinfo mentions-

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F5F5FF"]One note: with the 5d2 I always turned sharpening to minimum to reduce moire. When I tried this with the 5d3 (level 0) footage was horribly soft (unusable). Sharpening at 2 to 3 seems to be the sweet spot. Above this digital nasties creep in.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-e...274-first-impressions-rough-ready-sample.html
 
squig said:
Josh over at dvinfo mentions-

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F5F5FF"]One note: with the 5d2 I always turned sharpening to minimum to reduce moire. When I tried this with the 5d3 (level 0) footage was horribly soft (unusable). Sharpening at 2 to 3 seems to be the sweet spot. Above this digital nasties creep in.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-e...274-first-impressions-rough-ready-sample.html
Click to expand...
It looked great to me.
 
squig said:
Josh over at dvinfo mentions-

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F5F5FF"]One note: with the 5d2 I always turned sharpening to minimum to reduce moire. When I tried this with the 5d3 (level 0) footage was horribly soft (unusable). Sharpening at 2 to 3 seems to be the sweet spot. Above this digital nasties creep in.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-e...274-first-impressions-rough-ready-sample.html
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who feels that sharpening +2 causes the skin to look too plasticy in those screenshots? Video looked good, however, so I guess in motion it's not too bad.
 
squig said:
Josh over at dvinfo mentions-

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F5F5FF"]One note: with the 5d2 I always turned sharpening to minimum to reduce moire. When I tried this with the 5d3 (level 0) footage was horribly soft (unusable). Sharpening at 2 to 3 seems to be the sweet spot. Above this digital nasties creep in.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-e...274-first-impressions-rough-ready-sample.html
Click to expand...

These frame grabs are encouraging. I'm especially happy to see that under-exposed flat surfaces don't have horrible gradient banding (a common issue with the GH2).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top