How YOU can help shape the Canon 5D Mark III

"we are listening to you" is a very nice marketing line, but I'm pretty sure most things we could ask for (no line skipping, better codec, 10-bit 422 HDMI out) take years to be included in a product, because they require changes in the chips themselves

so yes, they may be listening, but most of the stuff we could say, it's too late

fortunately, people like shane hurlbut have been under NDA with canon for months already, so maybe we're in for a nice surprise... or maybe they'll release a hybrid body with all we want for $10K, and in exchange the next generation of dslrs (the stuff I can afford) will feature "better codec" (meaning soccer-mom-ready 18mbps H.264), autofocus while recording, editing in-camera, and many other things that may help them sell more cameras to regular users, but that I don't need at all



edit: for things like "please nikon let me properly control exposure in video mode", or anything ML adds to canon cameras (which is no small deal), then yes, it's all software, it should just take a couple of months to get it working
 
People are smarter these days so if we know what sensor will be inside then we know what to expect
 
any size sensor crop from full frame i.e. super35, 2/3"

any size sensor crop from full frame i.e. super35, 2/3"

My #1 request right now would be a full frame sensor that lets you select any size frame crop i.e. super35, aps-c, micro 4/3, 2/3", 1/4" etc.
it would effectively turn primes into zooms, and let me use just about any lens ever made
 
100% pentaprism view is something the 5D has been needing ever since the MkI.
The rest of the specs seem plausible. I don't think we'll see sensor cropping at this level, after all Nikon reserve that for the D3x.

Just a nasty twisty thought, there's no mention of video because there isn't any video. Would certainly make a lot of 'togs very happy.

Dave
 
no pain said:
My #1 request right now would be a full frame sensor that lets you select any size frame crop i.e. super35, aps-c, micro 4/3, 2/3", 1/4" etc.
it would effectively turn primes into zooms, and let me use just about any lens ever made
Click to expand...

+1 to that. Give me the option to crop, higher bit rate, new codec, and full HDMI out for monitoring/recording and I'd probably plunk down the cash.
 
I very much doubt you'll see that on a 5DIII or any other DSLR. Not unless they can make the tech useful for 'togs, and even then provided it doesn't add to the cost.

It could, just conceivably make it into a 1Ds IV level camera, but that'll be double the cost of a 5DIII

Remember we're talking DSLR here, a photographer's tool, not a film-maker's. Canon will be very careful not to pi$$ off photographers with added costs for things they don't want. (The $ signs added with intent)


Dave
 
Last edited:
daveswan said:
I very much doubt you'll see that on a 5DIII or any other DSLR. Not unless they can make the tech useful for 'togs, and even then provided it doesn't add to the cost.

It could, just conceivably make it into a 1Ds IV level camera, but that'll be double the cost of a 5DIII

Remember we're talking DSLR here, a photographer's tool, not a film-maker's. Canon will be very careful not to pi$$ off photographers with added costs for things they don't want. (The $ signs added with intent)


Dave
Click to expand...

I really doubt any still photographers are going to be pissed at having a fully capable cinema machine in their still camera even if they didn't use it. Yes, even if it cost me a few hundred more. Personally, I think Canon has to worry little about alienating photographers with added features that they don't want. They will always ***** about something, and they will always still buy Canon. The cinema side of the 5DIII will be invisible to the stills guy if he wants to pretend it's not there. The extra processing power for cinema will also be used for features he does want like frame rate, buffering speed etc. The only thing that Canon could do to piss off stills guys is to continue to ride on the current AF system in the 5DII. That would put alot of them up in arms. I would say that most of them have come to accept that the 5D series is now a dual purpose imaging machine, and they think it's kinda cool their stills camera is being used on Hollywood features.



As far as giving Canon input: Well, Hurlbut and the rest of the interested Hollywwod community have been giving Canon an earful for the last 2+ years. I'm sure there is little we could add that they haven't. If their partnership with Technicolor hasn't signalled their intent, I don't know what has. The 5DIII looks like it's going to be a significant effort to be a decent cinema camera.
 
Last edited:
f64manray said:
I really doubt any still photographers are going to be pissed at having a fully capable cinema machine in their still camera even if they didn't use it. Yes, even if it cost me a few hundred more. Personally, I think Canon has to worry little about alienating photographers with added features that they don't want. They will always ***** about something, and they will always still buy Canon. The cinema side of the 5DIII will be invisible to the stills guy if he wants to pretend it's not there. The extra processing power for cinema will also be used for features he does want like frame rate, buffering speed etc. The only thing that Canon could do to piss off stills guys is to continue to ride on the current AF system in the 5DII. That would put alot of them up in arms. I would say that most of them have come to accept that the 5D series is now a dual purpose imaging machine, and they think it's kinda cool their stills camera is being used on Hollywood features.



As far as giving Canon input: Well, Hurlbut and the rest of the interested Hollywwod community have been giving Canon an earful for the last 2+ years. I'm sure there is little we could add that they haven't. If their partnership with Technicolor hasn't signalled their intent, I don't know what has. The 5DIII looks like it's going to be a significant effort to be a decent cinema camera.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. If we were talking features that are just ridiculous for a stills cam, (xlrs and all sorts of inputs/switches/etc) then yeah Canon won't do that to it's photography base. Invisible features though that are a product of better processing and codec for video...there is NO good reason for Canon not to continue to grow and improve this area of their business. They obviously find it important enough to make at least 5 different commercials that are completely centered around the video feature.
The things I think we'll see are not REVOLUTIONARY, merely evolutionary advances that will please the video segment and at the same time holding their photography based customers.
XF 4:2:2 codec, improvements to the method of deriving 1080 (made pssible with DigicV), and some other features already available on lesser cameras (zoom/tele mode, etc.) That's actually not that much compared to what the 7D added over something like a T1i.

When the 7D first came out...I said to myself WOW...1080 24P, 1080 30P, 720 60P, PAL/NTSC switchable etc..you have to remember many dedicated video cameras didn't have/still don't have those features. Then came the video on you tube of a guy showing the aliasing.....people wanted to kill him! He's like whoa...I'm just pointing out that it's there.
Anyway, I think the 5DMK3 will provide another one of those WOW moments.
If Canon wasn't serious the 7D never would have had such things. It would have shot one frame rate at one resolution with little to no control over the video. All logic shows that Canon has been steadily adding functionality/features since the 5DMK2. To just stop defies that logic.
 
I have to respectfully dissagree with f64manray and pulpfiction007 here.

I post a lot on the Amateur Photographer forums, the membership ranging from enthusiastic dablers through very serious amateurs (With RPS distinctions) to pros, and retiered pros, (And not a pixel-peeper in sight).

At a guess I'd say less than 10% take video seriously, 50-60% are neutral and the rest hostile, from moderate to veherment, in fact a year or so ago one normaly very laid back member launched a spectacular rant to the effect that he didn't want anything to do with video, was totally peed off at having to pay for stuff he didn't want, and if he did want video he'd buy a camcorder. This rant produced quite a large proportion of supporters, the majoraty IIRC.

As I recall, a poll a while ago produced a majority of people hostile to video in their cameras. If they're representative of the wider photographic community, then Canon will have to tread very carefully indeed not to pi$$ them off (Again $ signs intentional)

If I thought it would do any good I'd launch a poll on the subject of video in a hypothetical 5DIII but I'd probably get flamed and incur the wrath of the mods.

Dave
 
You ARE right about a percentage of photographers being hostile about video...but I think Canon's view on this goes something like - If you don't want it, you don't have to use it....it's really a simple solution. Now, improving video features at the expense of improving the stills features - That's what REALLY angers the photographers. If Canon gives them great DR, great high ISO shooting and a VAST improvement on the AF system - they'll be lining the block for the 5DMK3 (no doubt grumbling the whole way about the new video features)

Their wallets will still be open, and that's after all what motivates Canon/or any other business the most...which is also why I think they will continue improving the video...not grounbreaking, but improvements none the less. I think with what you've mentioned for improvements and what I've said - we're in agreement on that one (nice invisible improvements the photogs won't notice!)
 
daveswan said:
I have to respectfully dissagree with f64manray and pulpfiction007 here.

I post a lot on the Amateur Photographer forums, the membership ranging from enthusiastic dablers through very serious amateurs (With RPS distinctions) to pros, and retiered pros, (And not a pixel-peeper in sight).

At a guess I'd say less than 10% take video seriously, 50-60% are neutral and the rest hostile, from moderate to veherment, in fact a year or so ago one normaly very laid back member launched a spectacular rant to the effect that he didn't want anything to do with video, was totally peed off at having to pay for stuff he didn't want, and if he did want video he'd buy a camcorder. This rant produced quite a large proportion of supporters, the majoraty IIRC.

As I recall, a poll a while ago produced a majority of people hostile to video in their cameras. If they're representative of the wider photographic community, then Canon will have to tread very carefully indeed not to pi$$ them off (Again $ signs intentional)

If I thought it would do any good I'd launch a poll on the subject of video in a hypothetical 5DIII but I'd probably get flamed and incur the wrath of the mods.

Dave
Click to expand...

A poll? Where? On some forum like DPR where everyone is pissed off about everything. Where many are even pissed off that Canon isn't migrating to a smaller MP count. That guy was bitching about paying for features that he doesn't use? What a blithering idiot. The original 5D was $3,299 US. The 5DII was $2,699 US. Just what was he paying for again that he wasn't using? I paid $3,299 (therabouts) for my 5DII and Canon threw in the 24-105L with it. People bitching about Canon adding more capability for hundreds less?? Un frick'in believable. What that complainer got was the 1DsIII sensor for 2,699 for his stills work, and he's still *****'in that Canon threw in a Cinema camera that for better or worse is being compared to RED camera in every other video thread on the net. Again, unbelievable. But looking at the current state of politics, utterly believable. The only polls that Canon is listening to are the cash register polls. They risk nothing. I hope they piss those guys off even further. Maybe they can start trolling ebay for old 5D's.
 
I really don't understand what still photogs have to complain about. In the past there was a clear distinction between motion and stills cameras because of the amount of film they carried. But today if we can get an small SLR that does a variety of frame rates, more power to it. Now we're just working on getting the quality and color to be as rich for motion as for stills.

There really should be no war between stills and motion. We're all about shooting great images.
 
roxics said:
I really don't understand what still photogs have to complain about. In the past there was a clear distinction between motion and stills cameras because of the amount of film they carried. But today if we can get an small SLR that does a variety of frame rates, more power to it. Now we're just working on getting the quality and color to be as rich for motion as for stills.

There really should be no war between stills and motion. We're all about shooting great images.
Click to expand...


Also to add to this...in a way history is repeating itself. Lucky for us SOMEONE at Canon and Nikon had the same thought (for obviuosly different reasons) as Lumiere, Muybridge and Edison...to make the photgraphs move. Now I know this is an apples to oranges comparison,(as we already have video cams/film cams) but anyway...the idea of having photographs/moving photographs in one camera should not anger anyone....there are some great photographers doing very interesting multi-media work with theses cameras.
I think many of the photogs that hate it still think of "video" as that horrible abomination that is separate from film, even though they themselves abandoned film shooting some years back. The same thing is happening with motion film, only it will take a while longer...but with the Alexa, Red, Sony, and Panasonic offerings it may be sooner than later. The DSLRs are just another part of this whole convergence/end of an era "thing" taking place before our very eyes.
This ain't your father's video is what I'm trying to say.
 
Canon will do what Canon will do.

You know, I'll be happy if we get the XF codec, I very much doubt if We'll get anything better, we may even get the old H264 just with better down conversion.

I also have great respect for the chap who ranted about video in DSLRs, if he's pissed off, then Canon had better tread warilly.

As for all those adverts people keep banging on about, the only Canon adds I've seen have been posters in the tube, and then they just go on about the vari-angle screen on the 60D. (Don't watch much commercial TV, it's mostly lowest common denominator rubbish)

Incidentally members of the AP forum have a very low opinion of the dpr lot.

And when I talked about convergence in DSLRs I got a reply which was almost the mirror image of f64manray's

Anyway I'm done talking about what Canon will do next since it's all just bootless speculation.

Dave
 
True, it may be a strong marketing line. I can't argue with that. But sending Canon your thoughts takes a few minutes. Somebody reads those emails. If we continue to request the same features, they'll listen. I mean, Sony, of all companies, is now doing a pretty great job at asking and implementing features. Canon is enjoying their new video market, as evidenced by the Technicolor picture profile (if nothing else), and will want to stay current in the post AF100/F3/FS100 landscape. I think the 5Dmk3 will entice us much like the 5Dmk2 did in 2009.
 
Maybe it's stupid question but why can't cannon make a DSLR that is totally slanted towards video?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top