New 5D MarkIII, is this what we've been waiting for?

Mirrors will be gone in the future. Sony has demonstrated this already. The less moving parts in a camera the better for manufacturers. I also remember the argument that digital stills would never replace film. Guess what?
 
James0b57 said:
Unless you are shooting at iso6400+ and can't see the person you are filming. Then it will be nice to have an EVF. ;) Realities aside, I relate.
Click to expand...

I was referring to still photography in a situation where you can see what you are shooting. Of course these days the final judgement of a still is the studio in on the laptop plugged into the camera 2 seconds after you shoot it. I shoot with a 5D 2 in the studio and a 60D on the run. For video work in the field the articulating screen is the only way to go or I would find myself on my stomach a lot of the time. In daylight it's impossible to see anything and the screen is just a great tool for framing. It's true that these cameras are getting so smart you don't even have to see the image clearly when we rely on the camera technology to record the image. Just would have liked an articulation view screen and it could be used daily just like the 60D.
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
I was referring to still photography in a situation where you can see what you are shooting. Of course these days the final judgement of a still is the studio in on the laptop plugged into the camera 2 seconds after you shoot it. I shoot with a 5D 2 in the studio and a 60D on the run. For video work in the field the articulating screen is the only way to go or I would find myself on my stomach a lot of the time. In daylight it's impossible to see anything and the screen is just a great tool for framing. It's true that these cameras are getting so smart you don't even have to see the image clearly when we rely on the camera technology to record the image. Just would have liked an articulation view screen and it could be used daily just like the 60D.
Click to expand...
Yes, I use the heck out of the 60D flip screen. Very useful feature.
 
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment said:
Because with a viewfinder you are looking directly through the lens (via a mirror) not seeing a digital representation, skewed by god knows what, of the image.
Click to expand...

First, I don't want to see through the lens because that is not what my audience will see. I want to see through the sensor as they will. That was not possible with film, for obvious reasons, but now we use digital sensors and the mirror compromise (it was always a compromise) does not have to be used anymore.

But more importantly, your statement is a technological argument, not a conceptual argument. I believe we have hit the point now with the newer screens that EVF's actually offer more than OVF's without any of the traditional compromises due to underdeveloped technology. What EVF's are you used to?
 
Zephyrnoid said:
Please explain why DSLR's even HAVE mirrors anymore?
Click to expand...
They have mirrors because no EVF has a high enough resolution. If the pixel density in the EVF was the equivalent to the iPhone's 'retina display' with no visible pixels then there would be no need for a mirror.
 
jideobi said:
For me the canon 5d mk2 is a very good camera but has 3 serious issues

1. Moire
2. Aliasing
3. Lack of detail especially on wide shots


The 5d mk3 is a great camera because it solves the above problems
Click to expand...

I would have pre-ordered this camera for a solve on 1 & 2. I have used my 5D mk2 for TV commercials, interviews, music videos, etc and the only thing most clients ever ask me about is these issues. Always a conversation about how to work around and precautions we can take. Now, if all information is true, I just get to say, "It's a non factor." So for me, everything else is just icing on the cake. Yup, clean HDMI, 4:2:2 internal compression, flip out screen, etc would have been great, but if I need something different in a camera, I'll just have to rent it. For me this camera is like having a Leatherman. It can do a bunch of things and you love it, you don't want to be with out it, but sometimes it's just easier to have a screwdriver.

chris
www.chrismcguinnessdp.com
 
It could just be my next camera *IF* I can come up with £3k, and *IF* it will still be a viable cam in 5 yrs time, since I don't aim to change cams more often than that.

I'm now waiting to see what the actual not-further-compressed footage looks like, and how much extra the C-DSLR will be, though I've a gut feeling it will be north of £6k and so well out of any sane budget for me.

As I'm strictly a hobbyist I don't have mad clients demanding insane resolutions from me, but OTOH since I'm not making money from my cams, anything I spend is *GONE*

Ah well
 
Jester2138 said:
First, I don't want to see through the lens because that is not what my audience will see. I want to see through the sensor as they will. That was not possible with film, for obvious reasons, but now we use digital sensors and the mirror compromise (it was always a compromise) does not have to be used anymore.

But more importantly, your statement is a technological argument, not a conceptual argument. I believe we have hit the point now with the newer screens that EVF's actually offer more than OVF's without any of the traditional compromises due to underdeveloped technology. What EVF's are you used to?
Click to expand...

I use a pro grade external monitor for video, but we aren't talking about video. we are talking about what makes pro and semi pro still photographers happy because they are the primary market for DSLRs in this price range and the vast majority of them still want an OVF. Even if you replaced the OVF with an EVF it would need to mimic an OVF in form factor the sense of being viewed through an eyecup.

As an earlier poster noted Arri is in the process right now of creating an OVF for the Alexa. People want to see through the lens, it's just so ingrained into the brains of photographers.
 
Indeed

There are plenty of photography "purists" who hate video on DSLRs as it is (Just check out Canon Rumors) getting rid of the OVF and replacing it with an EVF which screams "video camera" to most 'togs and you'd have legions decamping to Nikon in a flash
 
Zephyrnoid said:
...Please explain why DSLR's even HAVE mirrors anymore?
Click to expand...

Good question. I imagine it's the same reason the first horseless carriages looked like horse carriages, with wooden-spoked wheels and wooden boxy bodies. After a discontinuity such as the transition from horse power to the automobile - or from film to digital photography - it takes a while to engineer out vestigial features - and sometimes even longer for consumers to accept their disappearance.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Until the first time you're shooting outside and it starts raining getting the camera fairly damp before you can bust out the umbrellas. Or the first time you drop it and the plastic body shatters.
Click to expand...
Hehe, yeah. That's why it would be cheaper than the pro weather sealed alloy model.
 
Kholi said:
No Average Joe TV 13 hours ago
Essentially, the improvements to the camera are beneficial to our stills division, more than our motion. C300 is the way to go.

http://vimeo.com/37937681

From someone with their hands on the camera.
Click to expand...

If you can afford the C300 well and good, personaly I can't. The question I have to ask is: Can a 5DIII replace both a 5DI for stills and a 550D for motion? And can I afford it?

The answer to the first is "I don't know, I'll wait till I see original footage" the answer to the second is "maybe, with a loan"

As to EVFs, I've tried the one on the NEX7 and disliked it intensely, much MUCH prefer mirror / pentaprism, Why will some people not accept that for some, EVFs don't come close to a real VF?
 
Jester2138 said:
First, I don't want to see through the lens because that is not what my audience will see. I want to see through the sensor as they will. That was not possible with film, for obvious reasons, but now we use digital sensors and the mirror compromise (it was always a compromise) does not have to be used anymore.

But more importantly, your statement is a technological argument, not a conceptual argument. I believe we have hit the point now with the newer screens that EVF's actually offer more than OVF's without any of the traditional compromises due to underdeveloped technology. What EVF's are you used to?
Click to expand...

+1

I am looking at DSLRs from the point of view of video, not photo.
I really wont buy a "stills are first" camera since I dont do stills first.
The video is still a secondary consideration on the Canon DSLRs. Its time for a video focused DSLR ala GH2.
 
I actually am fairly upset at the leaked raw footage. While canon absolutely has sufficiently killed moire and aliasing, the amount of detail and resolution in that video is hardly any better than a 5dmk2, and nowhere near an fs100, c300, or even a gh2. I desperately wanted to update from my 7D, and I truly prefer canon for stills, but it is clear at this point to me that if it doesnt have their new "C" cinema branding (and likely price tag to match) it wont have a proper focus on great video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top