Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 5D MK III specs leaked- what do you think guys?  (Read 12980 times)
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 860



« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2012, 06:33:38 AM »
ReplyReply

According to my inbox the MK 111 is "creativity redefined".

That should solve all our creativity problems then  Wink

Here's a screengrab of a useful specs comparison that arrived in my Inbox, courtesy of a major UK retailer...so these are official.

Set against the 1DX, it looks rather similar (the fps being the only major difference)...looks like it will undercut it at close to half the price, in the same way as the 5DII undercut the 1DsIII.

Ray
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 06:36:40 AM by ondebanks » Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 865


« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2012, 06:57:11 AM »
ReplyReply

If you put it this way (as in the table Ray provided), 1DX makes sense for a very small fraction of Canon market while 5d MK III / MK II fills the rest of the market share. There won't be many photographers needing 12 fps if they already have 6 fps.. (same for high ISO)
Which makes me wonder- what exactly is the target group of 1DX? What am I missing?
Logged
NBP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 184


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2012, 07:27:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Wrong section mate ...

Not at all. The 'discussion' in the other section is just full of noise from the pixel peepers whinging about the lack of MP's to wank over.  Wink
This section is where actual working photogs can have a more sensible discussion/insight into the camera.

As a food photog who ditched MFDB for Mk2's a year ago (with a very satisfactory outcome), I'm very interested in the 61 point AF for example, as I commonly have PoF outside of the Mk2's 9 points
I do T/S studio stitching a lot too, so 22MP's is fine with me too.
Gonna hold off for a couple of months & let the field tests come, but I'm pretty sure I'll order one before too long.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2012, 08:10:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Wrong section mate ...
... whinging about the lack of MP's to wank over.
Has this forum been completely taken over by us Australians?
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2012, 11:11:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Not at all.

For video it doesn't line skip or produce moire.  It also has sound sampling.

Right there, I write the check.

Then the fact that the iso is higher and better autofocus.

Right there, I write the check.

$3,5000  . . . That's the cost of a  few cables from RED.

Right there, I write the check.

Seriously, I never like the 5d2 . . . except it shot the most versitile still file I've worked with, though I don't peep into the shadows at microscopic level.

People will complain about 22mp, (no client will know or care), but client's will know and care when you can produce a stunning still image and good video.

Right there  . . . I write the check.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 12:16:21 PM by bcooter » Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 850


« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2012, 03:13:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Where in the specs does it say that it doesn't do line skipping to derive video frames?  I'm trying to figure out if this camera derives video frames from downsampling full-frame captures, or by something short of that.  Because if it does full-frame captures for each video frame, it would be significant.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2012, 03:36:52 PM »
ReplyReply

 Because if it does full-frame captures for each video frame, it would be significant.
...

At best it would do a remake of the Nikon 12 ftps image sequence (wich is not too bad either). I'd like to see if they are still stucked in 8 bits, a nice little free tour into posterization; what will be the max bitrate? surely low. I'd be very surprise to see something higher than 60 fps. We can expect an audio monitoring, a minimum, thanks Canon ! but won't be XLR conec anyway, and I'd like to have some view of the bottom to see the screw mount in wich I have zero faith it will be more stable (that's not a complain because it's due to the design of those still bodies wich are on the oposite of ideal. The motion camera is long on the axis of the lens, it's for a good reason, while the still camera is perpendicular, very bad for stability). No need to say that there will not have built ND filter, Ô sweet mattebox and I'd be more than surprise if the AF work as well as the B4 Fujinons and be sure that the same robocop zacuteries will be required to make all that work minimaly properly wich means at best double the cost of the camera body, wich makes instant access to some proper video cameras. And oh yeah, those super rock solid mini hdmi...ideal for intensive use on set. And for the moiré festival, it remains to be seen if this device will be moiré-free. 4K ? dream-on. Raw? dream-on 2. What yes wouldn't surprise me is an inboard connection with instant QT send-to-Vimeo function. Yes, a Vimeo and Youtube buttons in the menu. I'm kidding but they are perfectly capable to do it, I'm afraid.
Welcome to comboland. Sorry, multimedia, multimedia.

I'd get 2 cheap 5d2 instead and work with 3 capable cameras.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 04:46:51 PM by fredjeang » Logged
DeeJay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2012, 04:35:34 PM »
ReplyReply

5D mk3 samples look very average. They have the same Canon look. Soft haze, flat colour and low micro contrast and detail. Infact they look no different to my old Canon 5D Mk1 minus some noise - just more MP , they're bigger versions of the same thing.

I could care less about it's movie functions and it's inflated price is ridiculous.

No cheque writing here. My 20 year old relationship with Canon is done.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 04:53:17 PM by DeeJay » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2012, 04:39:36 PM »
ReplyReply

For video it doesn't line skip or produce moire.  It also has sound sampling.

Right there, I write the check.

Then the fact that the iso is higher and better autofocus.

Right there, I write the check.

$3,5000  . . . That's the cost of a  few cables from RED.

Right there, I write the check.

Seriously, I never like the 5d2 . . . except it shot the most versitile still file I've worked with, though I don't peep into the shadows at microscopic level.

People will complain about 22mp, (no client will know or care), but client's will know and care when you can produce a stunning still image and good video.

Right there  . . . I write the check.

IMO

BC



You hit the nail on the head. Well said by someone who's livelihood depends on the tools.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 06:49:46 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Lester
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2012, 05:18:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The bottom line is what ever works for you, if you think the Canon 5D mkIII works for you, then get it.
Logged

I am a old fart, over 60
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2012, 05:37:13 PM »
ReplyReply

This is how I look at the cost.

Let's say you bought the 5DII at release at $2,700.

You can't afford to be without a camera, so you wait until you have the 5D3 in your hands to sell the 5DII. 

If you can sell the 5DII at $1,500, the net cost is $2,700 - $1,500 = $1,200   Divide by 3 years of use, true cost to use is $400 per year!

Considering that 35mm pro color film & developing is $.33 per frame here in the US - the break even point in using the camera instead of film is 1,200 images per year!  (3x400.) With $1 per frame 6x7 color film, it comes to 400 images.

Quite a bargain I'd say.  The acquisition price is almost irrelevant. What is important is the true cost of ownership, or acquisition price less the depreciated value at the time you sell it.


Next question: Should I upgrade?

Let's say the 5DII is worth $1,500 right now. Maybe in 2 years you can sell it for $700? Cost per year is $400.

Compare that to the 5D3 at $3,500. Lets say you could sell it in 2 years at $2,000 (where 5D2 was at 3 years). Cost per year of $750.

So incremental cost is $350 per year for the 5D3 instead of the 5D2.

But if the 5DII already has 90K shots, and you might need a new shutter at $400, the net cost of the 5D2 goes to $800 + $400 = $1,200 vs. $1,500 for the 5D3.

So - is the 5D3 worth the incremental $300, or $150 per year? For my purposes, it has always been worthwhile to upgrade based on those types of calculations.

All figured into the cost of running a business. 

Best,
Michael
Logged
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2012, 06:43:23 PM »
ReplyReply

This is how I look at the cost.

Let's say you bought the 5DII at release at $2,700.

You can't afford to be without a camera, so you wait until you have the 5D3 in your hands to sell the 5DII. 

If you can sell the 5DII at $1,500, the net cost is $2,700 - $1,500 = $1,200   Divide by 3 years of use, true cost to use is $400 per year!

Considering that 35mm pro color film & developing is $.33 per frame here in the US - the break even point in using the camera instead of film is 1,200 images per year!  (3x400.) With $1 per frame 6x7 color film, it comes to 400 images.

Quite a bargain I'd say.  The acquisition price is almost irrelevant. What is important is the true cost of ownership, or acquisition price less the depreciated value at the time you sell it.


Next question: Should I upgrade?

Let's say the 5DII is worth $1,500 right now. Maybe in 2 years you can sell it for $700? Cost per year is $400.

Compare that to the 5D3 at $3,500. Lets say you could sell it in 2 years at $2,000 (where 5D2 was at 3 years). Cost per year of $750.

So incremental cost is $350 per year for the 5D3 instead of the 5D2.

But if the 5DII already has 90K shots, and you might need a new shutter at $400, the net cost of the 5D2 goes to $800 + $400 = $1,200 vs. $1,500 for the 5D3.

So - is the 5D3 worth the incremental $300, or $150 per year? For my purposes, it has always been worthwhile to upgrade based on those types of calculations.

All figured into the cost of running a business. 

Best,
Michael

I agree totally. I kinda did the same calculation but added in " time it took me to get the product color correct from a dslr file" when i bought my mfdb system. Never regreted it ONCE. As many ppl forget its the cost of ownership. I dont care what brand name is on my camera. I buy the equipment that does the best job possible for my needs. I use both MFDB and dslrs + film cameras.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2012, 07:56:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Last time I looked, this was the MF Photo forum, not the video forum, not the HI-ISO shoot in the dark forum, not the I shoot sports forum, and not the $500 a year is nothing forum.

Also, I might as well light up the elephant that has crept into our dark circus tent: Just about everyone here has a 5D2, anyway, and will have a 5D3. It's called backup. So the question is not whether to get the 5D3, it's whether it's worth bothering to set up the MF kit.

So why doesn't some kind soul here put a model against a wall, get a makeup artist to do up her face with something that doesn't look like either cement or shrinkwrap, light her eyes properly, find a 5D3, 5D2 and some Phase,  set the poor 5D to STILL PHOTOS and ISO 200  shoot the poor anorexia victim to exhaustion with studio flash and/or modeling lights, and then develop with LR and C1, and show the results so we can judge skin tone and color?

Edmund

PS. I never saw anything more idiotic than Nikon's fake circus shoot for the D4, with studio flash etc. Some years ago I was assigned to shoot a couture show in the Cirque d'Hiver in Paris. I couldn't see the clothes, it was so fashionably dark, my camera was an old 1Ds, but the pictures got printed quarter page in some magazine anyway. Nikon's ad won't tell me what their camera will do in the real world - why do they bother faking it when they have a good product?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 09:34:10 PM by eronald » Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2012, 09:28:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, that was useful!

One key reason that this thread is here is the amateur whining in the other thread.

At least folks are a bit more professional here. And as you mentioned, these are tools that most photogs will consider alongside higher resoltution tools.

The posts you mentioned were directed at actual comments up thread.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2012, 09:42:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, that was useful!

One key reason that this thread is here is the amateur whining in the other thread.

At least folks are a bit more professional here. And as you mentioned, these are tools that most photogs will consider alongside higher resoltution tools.

The posts you mentioned were directed at actual comments up thread.

Speaking of professionalism, the only pictures I take these days are made while chasing my 1 year old *indoors* with the Nikon D3x, no flash,  and an 85mm set at F2.5.  After a few months of this, I've finally figured out how the AF needs to be set, and yes it can actually do that!  And yes, I think this has definitely improved my own speed at age 56 Smiley

Edmund

Edmund
Logged
NBP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 184


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2012, 12:54:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Last time I looked, this was the MF Photo forum, not the... Etc, etc, etc.


Whatever.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1015


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2012, 01:01:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Videographers can have their 5DIII. If they spend 20k for a videocamera and more, $3.5k is peanuts. For still photographers this camera is very late and pricy. With grip it costs almost as much as a 1DIV.
For the asking price it should have an articulated screen, AF in LV and video, non crippled 1DX AF and integrated wireless connection.
I'm pissing, err... I'm passing.
Eduardo  
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2012, 01:13:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of ...........


Since i have Canons, RED's, Nikons, Leica, Phase/Contax and sony I think I'm somewhat camera agnostic.

Except at the end of the year I see a trend on what I used most, what I billed most from each project, what camera I go to most.

In the end, it's always the Canons and usually the 5d2.

It just works, the video is ok, the stills are great, the camera is kinda cheap and plastic but it just works, under continuous light, low light, a billion watts of strobe . . . it just works.

For still work, that I do for myself on lower paying editorial, I'll shoot the Contax because I like it.  I'm not sure if it's a better file, I just like the camera, but for work, that pays real money it's always the other cameras that get more use.

In fact I'd use the Canon a lot more for video except for dialog it's difficult to sound sample and moire was an issue.  With the 5d3 that might be in the past.

This week we're shooting and are moving 14 cases of stuff.  Heavy cases of stuff, with the RED's, continuous lights, PL mounts, sticks, sliders, Canons, studio strobe.  14 cases!

We thought about bringing the Contax because after 14 what's another case?, but it's still another 75 bucks to fly it each time, another set of things to charge and another thing to work with.

So it stayed home even though some of the imagery "might" be better with a digital back.

Now with the 5d3, if it all works well, we can leave the large RED's at home, the PL mounts at home, the HMI's at home and shoot this gig and a lot of others with just a Scarlet, the 5d2's and some LED's and lower watt HMI's.  The strobe lights also stay home and the best part is the Canon lenses fit on the Scarlet.

$3500 might seem high for such a camera, but in the digital world it's bloody cheap.  We just spent 5 grand on drives last week, just for off site backup, so when it comes to cost of a camera that shoots a professional grade still and video, this  is exactly where professional cameras are going.  I'm almost positive of that.

BTW:  price even some cheap PL mount lenses and you'll be quite happy that the 5d3 will shoot video.

Money matters and as my segment has moved to additional and added forms of content, there is a lot of expense involved, people to hire, different skill sets to learn.  Does spending 10x the price to get the the same or close usability of a 5d3 make a difference to the bottom line . . . you bet.

But the bet I'll make is Canon will sell the s*** out of these cameras.  Maybe not like the 5d2, but remember that camera was on backorder forever.



IMO

BC

P.S.

Of the three images I posted the first was shot with a single hand held LED and a fill card, the second with a hand held LED and no room light, the third with a bron hmi.

That's not just cost effective, to me that's bloody amazing.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 02:05:46 AM by bcooter » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2012, 02:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Now with the 5d3, if it all works well, we can leave the large RED's at home, the PL mounts at home, the HMI's at home and shoot this gig and a lot of others with just a Scarlet, the 5d2's and some LED's and lower watt HMI's.  The strobe lights also stay home and the best part is the Canon lenses fit on the Scarlet.

$3500 might seem high for such a camera, but in the digital world it's bloody cheap.  We just spent 5 grand on drives last week, just for off site backup, so when it comes to cost of a camera that shoots a professional grade still and video, this  is exactly where professional cameras are going.  I'm almost positive of that.

BTW:  price even some cheap PL mount lenses and you'll be quite happy that the 5d3 will shoot video.


Absolutly. But what I find very frustrating is the design part, not the brain, nor the price. There are lots of things to like-love about the Canons, motion included...and as much frustration.  Everybody talks about convergence, multimedia and new ways, lenguages and requirements; but we are stucked again in a still body design quickly adapted for motion. It's almost like this 5D2 was accidental.

You won't tell me that those big companies can't put their best designers-engineers on the drawing board and come with a totally different design that instead of complicating the setting would help the image maker to free himself from complications in both still+motion imagery.
But no. So, amazing? Yeah, and at the same time amazingly frustrating.

And they don't do it because if they would bring such a camera on stores at 3000 bucks, they could close immediatly their video-pro and still-only factories. They protect their own production, understandable, giving us tools that are on the way but aren't there. Unless an independant manufacturer like Red will not force them to accept the game-rule, we'll keep going to see this situation.

I'm sure that there is an engineering solution that would fit both still and motion imagery requirements, and I'm sure they have the designs already developped in secrecy; but IMO the response will not be in a 50 years old still camera design nor in an Alexa cine design. Something new has to come and to me Red Epic-Scarlet is the closest but Red isn't cheap, it's a serious investment for the photographer although a gift for the motion prods. So it's compromises and more compromises but nothing that really answers satisfactory to the today's requirements, or the convergence claims if you wish, in a world that spend less money in production costs.

You were talking about the Canon XL1, this indeed a very good example of a tool extremely well designed that frees the shooter from hasssles and useless complication setting. If those new camera could just featured the half of the XL1 design goodies, I'd be more than happy. But today, convergence: rien du tout ! Toujours la même éternelle chanson.

 

That's why I think that those chirurgical upgrades, more of the same but one more conector here, a little less moiré there, 2 more megapixels over there, highly compressed codecs on still bodies arquitecture that were designed just after the Lumière brothers, aren't that exiting at all. We are indeed in a transitory period.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 06:30:59 AM by fredjeang » Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424


« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2012, 03:01:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I pre-ordered the Nikon 800E when it was announced and was looking forward to it. However, I took a look at sample Canon 1DX images rezzed up and compared side-by-side to the Nikon 800.

Canon 1DX ISO 400 rezzed up was better on noise than NIKON 800 100 ISO. If the 5D3 performs as well as the 1DX - which I would expect from previous history - I am going to cancel my 800E order.
Did you manage to get you hands on stable-firmware Raw's?
You didn't just compare based on low-res JPGs, did you?
Such high-end decision should be based upon serious tests.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad