There it is ... 5D3 announced

Well, there it is, the 5D3 is announced.

It's a full frame 7D with some extras leaked from the 1DX (so
probably the "Mark III" is a misnomer).

Nikonians will gloat over the approx. 1.25 pixels more per pixel
(linear resolution), as it's 22 MPix "only". True, if you
(or your customers) demand more than 22 MPix (and upsampling a
bit isn't gonna work), you should consider switching to Nikon.
(Or maybe there'll be a 45 MPix FF soon --- that'd be the pixel
size of the 7D.)

1DX buyers will (hopefully) feel that their 14 fps and 100.000
pixel AF tracking and an additional stop of ISO settings (both
normal and extended) are enough of an advantage for the money
versus the 6 fps and the (other than that complete) 1DX AF.

And I guess the 5DII is gonna get cheaper, too, now, so the
world is fine again in Canon-land with just a cloud over the
peaks of the 28MPix+ mountains. (I am still fine with ~8MPix
(OK, I am strange); let's see in a few months what the real high
ISO capabilities are (which is where I am limited by my camera).
The hints (high base ISO, gapless microlenses, better sensor
technology) are all there ...)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkiii/

-Wolfgang

On 3/03/2012 4:19 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Well, there it is, the 5D3 is announced.

It's a full frame 7D with some extras leaked from the 1DX (so
probably the "Mark III" is a misnomer).

With both the D800 and 5DIII, while they might not match the specs of
the "full pro with grip" cameras, there seems to be nothing "held back"
to make them cheap - both have 100% VF, pro grade AF etc.
So "pro" featured FX camera just got a lot cheaper, but there's no sign
of a budget/entry FX model.


Nikonians will gloat over the approx. 1.25 pixels more per pixel
(linear resolution), as it's 22 MPix "only". True, if you
(or your customers) demand more than 22 MPix (and upsampling a
bit isn't gonna work), you should consider switching to Nikon.
(Or maybe there'll be a 45 MPix FF soon --- that'd be the pixel
size of the 7D.)

The results from measurebaters will keep some of the forums alive
(number of posts) but (brain-) dead for years, with many trying to deny
the obvious.

1DX buyers will (hopefully) feel that their 14 fps and 100.000
pixel AF tracking and an additional stop of ISO settings (both
normal and extended) are enough of an advantage for the money
versus the 6 fps and the (other than that complete) 1DX AF.

And I guess the 5DII is gonna get cheaper, too, now, so the
world is fine again in Canon-land with just a cloud over the
peaks of the 28MPix+ mountains. (I am still fine with ~8MPix
(OK, I am strange); let's see in a few months what the real high
ISO capabilities are (which is where I am limited by my camera).
The hints (high base ISO, gapless microlenses, better sensor
technology) are all there ...)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkiii/

Hopefully Canon has dealt to read noise/pattern noise issues at base ISO.
I think I read that Canon claim that the 5DIII is "two stops better"
than the 5DII. This would be very interesting, as IIRC the QE of the
5DII is about 33%, the 1d Mk IV about 44%.
Two stops improvement from 33% requires 132% QE, which is better than
perfect. But anyway...

Me wrote:
On 3/03/2012 4:19 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Well, there it is, the 5D3 is announced.

It's a full frame 7D with some extras leaked from the 1DX (so
probably the "Mark III" is a misnomer).

With both the D800 and 5DIII, while they might not match the specs of
the "full pro with grip" cameras,

The 5DIII has a grio announced with it (dear, but available).

there seems to be nothing "held back"
to make them cheap - both have 100% VF, pro grade AF etc.
So "pro" featured FX camera just got a lot cheaper, but there's no sign
of a budget/entry FX model.

5D, the original cheap FX.
5DII, the original cheap high resolution FX with video.

Have you really forgotten them so fast?



Hopefully Canon has dealt to read noise/pattern noise issues at base ISO.

This isn't very interesting to me, I worry more over high ISO
pattern noise.

I think I read that Canon claim that the 5DIII is "two stops better"
than the 5DII. This would be very interesting, as IIRC the QE of the
5DII is about 33%, the 1d Mk IV about 44%.
Two stops improvement from 33% requires 132% QE, which is better than
perfect. But anyway...

But anyway, you misread that. There's the "noise reduction"
and the "JPEG" part.

-Wolfgang

On 3/03/2012 4:17 p.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 3/03/2012 4:19 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Well, there it is, the 5D3 is announced.

It's a full frame 7D with some extras leaked from the 1DX (so
probably the "Mark III" is a misnomer).

With both the D800 and 5DIII, while they might not match the specs of
the "full pro with grip" cameras,

The 5DIII has a grio announced with it (dear, but available).

there seems to be nothing "held back"
to make them cheap - both have 100% VF, pro grade AF etc.
So "pro" featured FX camera just got a lot cheaper, but there's no sign
of a budget/entry FX model.

5D, the original cheap FX.
5DII, the original cheap high resolution FX with video.

Have you really forgotten them so fast?

Yes. "Bruce" who posts in this forum and apparently works as an gamma
minus class salesman (or epsilon class cleaner?) in a camera store
accused me of being a "neophyte" for suggesting that they were obsolete.
Perhaps his boss has given him an unachievable target to quit old
stock without dropping his pants, or he's unhappy carrying masses of
full cartons of D700s to the dumpster out the back. He should take more
soma.
Out with the old - in with the new. It is unfordly to suggest other
than that.


Hopefully Canon has dealt to read noise/pattern noise issues at base ISO.

This isn't very interesting to me, I worry more over high ISO
pattern noise.

I think I read that Canon claim that the 5DIII is "two stops better"
than the 5DII. This would be very interesting, as IIRC the QE of the
5DII is about 33%, the 1d Mk IV about 44%.
Two stops improvement from 33% requires 132% QE, which is better than
perfect. But anyway...

But anyway, you misread that. There's the "noise reduction"
and the "JPEG" part.

Ahhh - I missed that. So the comment was intended for pixel peepers who
shoot jpeg. Nothing more needs to be said.