Does the 5DmkIII really sucks as many people say ?

Google translate confirmed my rudimentary Spanish translation that the title "Por amor a las tetas" does indeed mean "For the love of tits". It's all very worthy of course as it is encouraging breast examination to pick up cancer early so it is treatable.
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
You cheater! :) Personally, I wouldn't say that the 5D3 sucks. Not at all. The problem with the 5D3 is that the price is a bit too high for what it offers, but it's a pretty nice camera indeed. And, as was obvious to me all along, that "price issue" is solving itself quite quickly too: at BH, the body-only is selling for $3200 (or $3300 with $160 worth of goodies), and the kit has gone down from $4300 to $3750. As long as it's cheaper than the D800 (as it should be, given its IQ for stills), it's a mighty contender.
Click to expand...
I was being facetious. I shoot lots of stuff with the 5dmk3. I never thought it sucks. Lot's of people complain that there wasn't a huge jump in detail from the mk2. I think Canon did that so that the mk2 and the mk3 could be mixed together. Now with Magic Lantern and the upcoming clean hdmi 422 out, the Mk3 is a great camera. ANd as a stills camera, you just can't beat it.
 
Clean HDMI out is definitely going to take it to another level. I am already quite happy with it's quality, but currently there is no other DSLR that offers a cleaner output, now that the aliasing and moire have been dealt with. Less noisy too than the Mark II, by quite a lot.
 
If Canon is willing to do 422 via HDMI, they could also improve the codec output. 50(+) Mbps IPB can surpass 50Mbps MPEG2 (C300) in efficiency and quality (420 vs 422: less compression artifacts. It's not likely they'll include the 50Mbps MPEG2 422 codec from the C300, though. H.264 spec allows for 422; here's a 10-bit 422 H.264 commercial implementation: http://www.evertz.com/products/9782ENC).
 
The 5d III is great, better than my old 5d II. All the new bells and whistles actually make a huge difference, and the ISO performance is absolutely killer
 
I think the people that are hating on the 5DIII are the ones that expected it to be revolutionary like its predecessors.

The 5DC was the first full frame digital SLR for a decent price and the photo quality to this day is amazing and sharp.

The 5DII was the first full frame digital SLR with video and so good that an entire episode of House was shot on it, not to mention the new favorite video camera for wedding and event videographers.

The 5DIII? Well...it did make improvements over the 5DII in terms of video, but most of the changes were related towards still photography. The AF system is brand new, silent shooting mode, HDR mode, FPS boost, etc. I think most people were hoping that the 5DIII would shoot RAW or at least compressed RAW for video, had a flip out screen for video work, would be mirrorless, etc.

So you can see that even though the 5DIII is a nice upgrade, it just didn't take us a big leap forward like the 5DC and the 5DII, and was updated more in mind for the still photographer, well because it is a still camera.

Also the price point for some is a very high, though I have heard the 5DIII has come down in price a lot since release. And the 6D coming out in a month or so will really change things up, I read the high ISO on this camera will be even better than the 5DIII, not to mention $1400 cheaper, that is a new 35L lens right there.
 
yoclay said:
Less noisy too than the Mark II, by quite a lot.
Click to expand...


The MKIII is more noisy (around 30 IRE) and more soft. Period. But yes, in the very high ISO's the MKIII is less noisy.

I couldn't care less about "bells and whistles" with regard to the MKIII. I much prefer the simpler menus of the MKII and a much sharper image that can easily be managed to minimize or eliminate the aliasing.
 
I've since convinced myself that 5DII is a better camera so I won't be tempted to upgrade. 5DIII's video's so beautiful it hurts - my pocket.
 
Chris Santucci said:
The MKIII is more noisy (around 30 IRE) and more soft. Period. But yes, in the very high ISO's the MKIII is less noisy.

I couldn't care less about "bells and whistles" with regard to the MKIII. I much prefer the simpler menus of the MKII and a much sharper image that can easily be managed to minimize or eliminate the aliasing.
Click to expand...
If you "could care less" than why post. It's a stills camera (one of the best on the market) with a video function that works quite nicely. Period. With Magic Lantern, the video IQ is greatly improved with waveform, spot meter, live audio, peaking, punch focus while recording, zebras. There is still a LARGE place for the HDslr. Stealth and low footprint being one of them. Multimedia shoots. Low light shooting. Lots of pluses to the Mk3 and Hdslr. I've filmed in all sorts of places where a full featured video camera would get shut down immediately if without permits. Gh2 and soon Gh3, more great cameras. Plus, the weather sealing on the Mk3 is superb. It can go about anywhere anytime. Now it will have 422 out in a few months. Thats just another nice feature to have. Use it as a B cam to your C300 or whatever. Use it as an A cam for interviews. It's just another tool. WHo here has ONLY ONE camera, really?
 
Chris Santucci said:
The MKIII is more noisy
Click to expand...

You're joking, right?

Chris Santucci said:
and more soft. Period.
Click to expand...
Post sharpen.

Chris Santucci said:
The MKIII is more noisy (around 30 IRE) and more soft. Period. But yes, in the very high ISO's the MKIII is less noisy.

I couldn't care less about "bells and whistles" with regard to the MKIII. I much prefer the simpler menus of the MKII and a much sharper image that can easily be managed to minimize or eliminate the aliasing.
Click to expand...

So you don't care about a much improved screen, completely artifact free image, headphone jack, proper audio controls, superbly good low light, 29mins of recording, proper video mode toggle... Alot of the upgrades seem small (except lowlight and moire) but will make a significant difference in everyday scenarios and actual shooting...you know, stuff pixel peepers and chart dwellers won't get :) As far as I'm concerned, the mk3 is a massive improvement and I would gladly pay the price premium.
 
Chris Santucci said:
The MKIII is more noisy (around 30 IRE) and more soft. Period. But yes, in the very high ISO's the MKIII is less noisy.

I couldn't care less about "bells and whistles" with regard to the MKIII. I much prefer the simpler menus of the MKII and a much sharper image that can easily be managed to minimize or eliminate the aliasing.
Click to expand...

There's really no question that the MKIII is a better camera than the four-year-old MK II, especially for video purposes. While the improvements might not worth the cost to some users, you can't reasonably argue that the MK II offers better video quality or more features than the MK III.
 
ras815 said:
There's really no question that the MKIII is a better camera than the four-year-old MK II, especially for video purposes. While the improvements might not worth the cost to some users, you can't reasonably argue that the MK II offers better video quality or more features than the MK III.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The mark III is all around a better cam than the II. It sharpens considerably better (the II is an aliasing mess) and low light is wayyy better. There is no way to claim that the II is better in anything. The II is not sharper than anything. It may "appear" that way as a lot of in focus parts alias and cause shimmering.

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that some people prefer the II. There is just no way. Yes, I've used both. III hands down.
 
KyleProhaska said:
It's important to note that Chris uses the Moire Filter in his MKII and prefers that image over the MKIII.
Click to expand...
It's a bummer just when you thought you've finally found a smart solution, then a month later something much better came up. The only way is to convince yourself that what you have is still better - to feel better.
When you slap on the moire filter, the image actually softens like the MKIII. The filter's demo has post sharpening.
 
ras815 said:
There's really no question that the MKIII is a better camera than the four-year-old MK II, especially for video purposes. While the improvements might not worth the cost to some users, you can't reasonably argue that the MK II offers better video quality or more features than the MK III.
Click to expand...


If you say so.


nikon_obsessed said:
It's a bummer just when you thought you've finally found a smart solution, then a month later something much better came up. The only way is to convince yourself that what you have is still better - to feel better.
Click to expand...


Dude, I bought a Scarlet recently and skipped the MKIII completely. I don't really need to "convince" myself of anything here in order to "feel better." I get paid to shoot and I am a huge fan of the MKII, especially with the anti-aliasing filter. I saw people run out and order the MKIII without even reading one review and hey, that's fine, but unless you need to shoot in very low light or have a need for AF, the MKII is still a better camera IMO.
 
Last edited:
Chris Santucci said:
If you say so.





Dude, I bought a Scarlet recently and skipped the MKIII completely. I don't really need to "convince" myself of anything here in order to "feel better." I get paid to shoot and I am a huge fan of the MKII, especially with the anti-aliasing filter. I saw people run out and order the MKIII without even reading one review and hey, that's fine, but unless you need to shoot in very low light or have a need for AF, the MKII is still a better camera IMO.
Click to expand...

Good, enjoy your Scarlet then. And your Mk2. Mk2 is a fine camera. So is the FS100, FS700, C100, C300, Gh2, Sony, panasonic, RED, Arri, Panavision. They all make people money. It's a big world with lots of needs. The Mk3 fits right in there just like the rest of them.
 
This is directed toward the OP.
I had the GH1 and GH2, I love the sharpness and crispness of the quality..with good lighting. The only problem I had was getting the jobs. My wife and I are the exclusive videographers for the Jackson family for the last 4 years, we do a lot of work on the side as well, we get a lot of music video producers and Hollywood producers that come from hearsay or our ads, the problem is..9 out of 10 times they say" Do you have a Mark II" or "what do you shoot with ?" We lose customers when they find out that we shoot with a gh1 or gh2..true strory
 
JoeJITSU said:
This is directed toward the OP.
I had the GH1 and GH2, I love the sharpness and crispness of the quality..with good lighting. The only problem I had was getting the jobs. My wife and I are the exclusive videographers for the Jackson family for the last 4 years, we do a lot of work on the side as well, we get a lot of music video producers and Hollywood producers that come from hearsay or our ads, the problem is..9 out of 10 times they say" Do you have a Mark II" or "what do you shoot with ?" We lose customers when they find out that we shoot with a gh1 or gh2..true strory
Click to expand...


Your doing something wrong.....

As an editor and shooter, people just want me on the job. They honestly do not care what camera I use ( as long as it's hd). Work speaks for itself, just like the man Phillip Bloom who you have in your sig, unless it's a really high paying job where the client wants a RED, 9 times out of 10 they will trust your judgement....
 
Chris Santucci said:
the MKII is still a better camera IMO.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. That's not even a subjective statement which we could then discuss. There are no aspects where the II is better than the III.

Or come to think of it... I like the placement of the zoom button more on the II. That's about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top