Hey there photo nerds. We’re all in this together and today Canon just added more fuel to the HdDSLR fire – the much-anticipated Canon 5D MK III is here. They made some interesting choices on pixel count, recording modes, etc. So let’s review the skinny of it all.
Here’s some highlighted specs:
_22.3MP Full-Frame CMOS Sensor
_3.2″ Clear View High Resolution LCD
_DIGIC 5+ Image Processor
_61-Point High Density AF
_Full HD 1080/30p and 720/60p Formats
_Built-In HDR and Multiple Exposure Modes
_Extended ISO Range (50-102400)
_Up to 6.0 FPS Continuous Still Mode Shooting
_Dual CF and SD Memory Card Slots
_Magnesium-Alloy Construction
The curve balls for the people I’m talking to? The no 1080 at 60p. Please note I HAVE NOT touched one of these cameras – unlike Nikon, Canon doesn’t trust me with a 10-foot pole and I get no advance copies of these cameras.
The look? She’s small and sleek. Click thru a range of images of the camera via the above tabs.
Now, not unlike what I’ve done with the recent launch of the Nikon D800 and Nikon D4…rather than me spouting off about having played with the system or telling you what your feelings about this system should be, I’m turning the tables back to you. What’s your take? Love, hate, indifferent? Insights? I know that Canon folks, including, ahem, Chuck Westfall read this blog, so your comments on this post – glowing or otherwise – might help inform Canon and the rest of the camera manufacturers about what your thinking…
Link to all the Canon 5D MK III details and/or purchase here via B&H.
Nothing groundbreaking. Borrrring.
Honestly, as a Canon user, I am a little disappointed with this release. The hype and added cost doesn’t add up to the few new features. There is virtually no difference between 21.1 and 22.3 megapixels, and the added AF points don’t justify the added cost. Although, from what I have seen from reviews so far, it does have fantastic ISO performance. But then, ask yourself, is it worth the added $1500, compared the the 5DmkII?
On a side note, I would have preferred an update to the 7D.
Considering it has the AF of the 1DX, the cost increase is probably justified. A few wedding photogs I work with are getting on for the AF performance and slight increase in ISO performance. Then, the MKII is a fantastic second body and the can get rid of their old 5d classics. that 20MP spot is usually perfect–files sizes aren’t ridiculous (like they will be on the d800) but it is very easy to make large prints even after some cropping (a necessary evil at times).
Just my $.02
I’m not convinced with the price being so high but ISO and AF is not the only changes, the new Processor is a beast and with a better processor means better video quality. The GH2 proves a cameras processing power is extremely important.
I want it, mostly as a still camera. It’s like a 1DS in a smaller, lighter body. But I can’t afford it, so whatever. I’ll probably pick up a 5DM2 when they hit $1200 on the used market.
if your waiting on picking a 5dii up for 1200,get ready for some long nights. it will be a least 2 years before it hit that price.
I think it will be great for Canon shooters that “need” something beyond the MkII. I’m not surprised by the MP count either… It’s like Canon is confirming that the MP race is finally over and we can get back to just making photos instead of counting pixels. THANK GOD! I, for one, am tired of hearing about “MP-this” and “Great ISO-that.” We supposed to be Photographers, not Statistics Wizards.
It’s funny because it always used to be the other way around. Nikon always did more with less and got ridiculed for it Now that Nikon just ripped Canon a new one with the megapixel count, the Canon fanboys are all, “oh you don’t need all of that” Not that I need all of those MPs, I just find it amusing.
do they (Nikon) make their own sensors now?
Nikon might have some in-house development of sensors, but I don’t know if it’s a mass-produced thing. I know that the Nikon D7000 has the exact same sensor as the Pentax K-5… A Sony Manufactured one.
Agreeed with Jeremy
Don’t go crapping on the ISO specs. Just because you don’t need it doesn’t mean I don’t. I shoot bands in low-light all the time. I’m allowed 3 songs of their set, and no flash. You ever try shooting people running around in dim red lighting with no flash and hand holding?
I agree with you on the MP thing, though.
Megapixles on a 35mm sensore are shite after 16-18, Yes I’m a Nikon Guy, Yes I’m a photojournalism student. Sensor size should dictate the megapixles not the user or company… ISO is a wonderful thing. I love the D3s, with a passion, and will love the D4 even more. Would I pay a grand more for the MkIII for auto focus and ISO over the mk II, You bet your ass I would. Do I think I should have to? No. The 5DmkII was under developed. Auto focus and ISO are the only things to worry about when you’re a photojournalist. I’m sorry that I don’t have the 2 seconds of AF search time that the 5DmkII affords, I need AF yesterday.
Rob, ISO is a valuable tool, just like it is in film, but one thing that we forget sometimes is that high ISO doesn’t make crappy light better, it just makes it brighter. I do shoot rock clubs from time to time, and I would rather bribe the manager with $40 to let me set up flashes than run high ISO any day. Better Light = Better Pictures.
AMEN!
More MP’s IS better. It sounds silly, but with more sensors you can always grab better detail at the same MPixel resulting file. Look at Nokia’s 41mpixel phone. Sounds dumb, but it is working! Don’t forget that due to the Bayer pattern, 36 pixels is in fact 12 mpixels per colour! An iPad 3 is 9 megapixel if we count like cameras.
36 mpixel means smoother bokeh curves, better diagonals, less rough edges on weird colour transitions. You can always decide to output at 5D resolution! I think we will move to 1 billion pixel sensors with very smart on chip processing that allows gapless resolution choices in the future.
As a 5D Mark II user, I can say I’m not particularly impressed with this. The enhanced AF doesn’t thrill me to the point that I’d spend $1,000 more than I did on my MkII, nor does the HDR mode (though multiple exposure mode is kinda cool, still not a deal-maker)
I also don’t use SD cards and so the dual slot doesn’t do much for me. I own 1 SD card and it’s in my camcorder.
The extended ISO range is possibly the only thing that would entice me at all, being that I primarily shoot rock bands in concert/low light situations, however with the glass I’m currently using, and the MkII, I don’t feel that it’s worth upgrading.
I’ve got no qualms with the current video abilities on my camera, and quite frankly, my AF grid crapped out some time ago and I can only use the center point, which I knowingly work around when needed. I’ll probably just wait to see if the MkII comes down in price as a result of the new model and maybe grab a second body, since my current backup body is my old Rebel XT.
Overall, not impressed.
I have to agree. I put off buying a 5d mk2, waiting to see what would come out on the mk3. I waited a really long time too! But I really don’t see anything that justifies the $1000 premium that Canon wants for it (more like $1500 now as the mk2 is deeply discounted). I’m a Canon shooter and I shoot landscapes and portraits and I think I’ll be switching to the D800 despite the cost of the all the new glass I’ll need.