I am thrilled with the 5D3

jmphotocraft

I am thrilled. I shoot in low light, and I shoot sports. I shoot portraits, landscape, travel, candids, my kids and their friends, and real estate. I shoot professionally part time. I'm replacing my 7D and 5DII with one 5DIII. (On the very rare occasion I need two bodies, I'll rent.) I can't wait. Here are my thoughts on a few items which have been hot topics in certain circles.

Resolution - I have no interest in or need for 36mp. A 28% increase in linear resolution does not tempt me. My house has room for four 20x30" prints, and about a dozen 16x24" prints, and I enjoy them from normal distances. I can get right up to them and count eyelashes just for fun. I don't worry about any artifacts I may see with my nose 6" from the glass. The rest of my photos are printed smaller or go in scrapbooks, or live forever in my computer. By the time my 6 year old daughter gets married, I'll probably display a slideshow on a 4K (8mp) projector. And my 9 month old 3.6 GHz (i.e. fast) iMac is slow enough dealing with 21mp.

I think it's ironic and funny how Nikon shooters have been saying for years how 12mp vs 21mp is no big deal. Suddenly there is a 36mp camera out there so anything less is a turd? Nonsense.

Noise - I am glad Canon didn't go to 36mp just to chase Nikon, because I believe a 22mp Canon sensor would have less noise than a 36mp Canon sensor. I believe this because on the DxOMark.com ISO test, cameras of the same or similar generation with lower pixel density usually score better. D700 vs D3X. Sony NEX-5n vs NEX-7. Canon 5DII vs 7D. Whether the D800 will have slightly better or worse noise is a moot point for me because a) the difference won't make it into print, and b) I am too invested in Canon glass to switch brands for 28% more linear resolution, and 2 fps less. Also I do not like what I see in this D800 sample:
http://mansurovs.com/...content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-Image-Sample-5.jpg


Dynamic Range - Interestingly, DxO scores for DR are the other way around - higher pixel density is better for DR. At least for Nikon. Canon 5DII scores slightly higher than the 7D. So maybe my 22mp 5D3 will be better for DR than a hypothetical 36mp Canon. Again - 5D3 vs D800 DR is a moot point for me, and I'll bet the visible difference will not be significant to me. If it is, I'll happily concede that point and continue enjoying my 5D3. The 6fps and not having to spend thousands converting to Nikon will more than make up the difference.

Thank you Canon. You have finally given me my perfect camera.

Here is where some will say I am a fanboy or an apologist, or that I am encouraging Canon to get lazy. Call me whatever you want if it makes you feel superior. Glad to be of service. I am not trying to take anything away from the D800, it is a boon for people selling very large detailed prints. I just completely reject the notion that the existence of the D800 makes the 5D3 a substandard camera. Will people like me make Canon lazy? No, there will always be Nikon and Sony to prevent that. But for me, Canon has definitely reached the point of "awesome enough". Sure, more DR will be welcome someday, but for the foreseeable future I am satisfied. I cannot wait to take delivery of my 5D3. Finally I can stop wondering when I will get real AF in a Full Frame body I can afford.

Nikolai

Come on, don't be shy, tells us how do you really feel! :-)rofl
--
FWIW, I'm very much in the same boat as you are (5D2 + 7D), although my shooting habits are far less diverse than yours. Originally I thought I'd sell my 5D2, but after doing some thinking I have decided to hold onto it as I often need/use a second body during a low light situation (sunsets) and 5D2 produces far superior images compared to 7D in this environemnt. Yet I'm still going to use 7D (at least until Canon comes out with its successor) for the proverbial "reach", which I need during such (typically well-lit) events like air shows, reenactments, etc.

Overfocused

I use a 5D2/7D also, if you call what I do with the 7D 'using it'

I use it so infrequently. But, I know later in the near future I will be traveling and I will regret not having it for wildlife - especially birds. Or, if I do weddings or more serious events I definitely carry 2 bodies. Like I said though, later. I got it for $1k new so that's pretty much why I got it knowing I'd use it way later.

I'll replace my MKII with the MKIII for sure if/when I get it, but I do want to keep a 1.6x camera to cover all my bases since eventually I will reach those bases

kdog

I have the 5DMKII and 7D as well. Unless I start shooting weddings all of a sudden, I'd sell the 5DMKII if I upgrade to the 5DMKIII and keep the 7D for the extra reach for wildlife. That will hold me until the 7DMKII comes out.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I am thrilled. ...

I think it's ironic and funny how Nikon shooters have been saying for years how 12mp vs 21mp is no big deal. Suddenly there is a 36mp camera out there so anything less is a turd? Nonsense.
...

I think it's ironic and funny how shooters have been deciding how in love they are with a camera before it even hits the shelves. Don't forget, both Canon and Nikon have a long history of serious imaging issues, from RF interference banding, to "err99" etc. etc. Oh and mirrors randomly falling out of cameras, that's a particularly dark closet for 5-series history. Who knows what lurks for ANY of the new cameras, Canon OR Nikon.

I think it was wise for Canon to stay at 22 megapixels, they played their card very well this generation. However, there's no way I'm counting this chicken until it hatches. Actually, I'm not counting anything until I'm sure that Nikon / Canon don't have a SECOND "affordable" full-frame DSLR up their sleeves for this generation. I'd be willing to bet an imaginary beer that Canon has a megapixel monster up it's sleeve, and Nikon has an affordable 16 MP model up it's sleeve. We're already hearing hints of a 24 megapixel DX camera, either a semi-pro D400 or a D7000 successor. So as far as I'm concerned, the Nikon D3s, D4, and D3X sensors are all fair game in the next 12-18 months. Considering that the D3X sensor beat the 5D 2 and 1Ds mk3 sensor, I'd be willing to bet a 2nd cyber-beer that if Nikon "s'd" the D3x sensor, they might squeeze 5D3-ish performance out of it.

What then, un-hatched chicken-counters?

At face value, as happy as I am for Canon shooters who finally have affordable flagship AF and a decent frame rate, ...I'm still happy to be a Nikon user, and if anything I hope for a new 12-16 affordable FX camera, not 22 and certainly not 36.

Respectfully,
=Matt=

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I think it's ironic and funny how shooters have been deciding how in love they are with a camera before it even hits the shelves. Don't forget, both Canon and Nikon have a long history of serious imaging issues, from RF interference banding, to "err99" etc. etc. Oh and mirrors randomly falling out of cameras, that's a particularly dark closet for 5-series history. Who knows what lurks for ANY of the new cameras, Canon OR Nikon.

This is why I buy locally, so I can easily deal with a warranty situation if I have to. But come on, you know what I mean. The 5D3 looks great on paper. If for some strange reason it doesn't perform as advertised, I will warranty it until it does.

Actually, I'm not counting anything until I'm sure that Nikon / Canon don't have a SECOND "affordable" full-frame DSLR up their sleeves for this generation.

Seems that the 5D2 at $2199 is that second affordable FF body. They're not discontinuing it.

I'd be willing to bet an imaginary beer that Canon has a megapixel monster up it's sleeve

That's only logical, but I would expect it to be a 1-series at $6800 or a 3-series at $3500 - $4500.

and Nikon has an affordable 16 MP model up it's sleeve.

That makes sense, but I would expect something like a D4 chip in a "D700s" for $3000 - not exactly "affordable", but that's where the D700 started. That would be a killer camera.

We're already hearing hints of a 24 megapixel DX camera, either a semi-pro D400 or a D7000 successor.

That would be a shame. I don't like what I see out of the NEX-7. I think Sony flew too close to the sun with that sensor.

So as far as I'm concerned, the Nikon D3s, D4, and D3X sensors are all fair game in the next 12-18 months. Considering that the D3X sensor beat the 5D 2 and 1Ds mk3 sensor, I'd be willing to bet a 2nd cyber-beer that if Nikon "s'd" the D3x sensor, they might squeeze 5D3-ish performance out of it.

What then, un-hatched chicken-counters?

Maybe according to DxO, but show me the photographs of the same subject where the D3X is distinguishable from the 5DII. Like I said, I am confident the 5D3 will be "awesome enough" for me to use it until it disintegrates in my hands. I won't be spending thousands to switch systems for a 1 or 2% upgrade.

Hey, OT, but I just heard that the D4, D3, D3s, D700 sensors are not Sony, but Nikon designed and fabricated by some other OEM...? What do you know about that? Is the D800?

ziggy53

jmphotocraft wrote: »

... Hey, OT, but I just heard that the D4, D3, D3s, D700 sensors are not Sony, but Nikon designed and fabricated by some other OEM...? What do you know about that? Is the D800?

Nikon often purchases DX imagers from Sony, which helps to explain why the Nikon D7000, Sony alpha 580 and Pentax K-5 all produce very similar results, both from measurements and image results. (The Sony SLT-55 is slightly behind, just because of the pellicle mirror.)

With the Nikon FX (full-frame) imagers, less is known about their point of manufacture. Regardless, the Nikon FX imagers are solid contenders and all are capable of spectacular results.

Matthew Saville

ziggy53 wrote: »

Nikon often purchases DX imagers from Sony, which helps to explain why the Nikon D7000, Sony alpha 580 and Pentax K-5 all produce very similar results, both from measurements and image results. (The Sony SLT-55 is slightly behind, just because of the pellicle mirror.)

With the Nikon FX (full-frame) imagers, less is known about their point of manufacture. Regardless, the Nikon FX imagers are solid contenders and all are capable of spectacular results.

Yeah a good general rule is, if you NEVER see a sensor show up on a Sony, then it's a Nikon exclusive. Nikon is very tight-lipped about where their 12 / 16 megapixel FX sensors are coming from, but the bottom line is that they're NEVER going to show up in any other (Sony) cameras. The D3X sensor and D800 sensor, on the other hand, are joint efforts and we will probably soon see a Sony 36 megapixel sensor. Of course it probably won't have the same low-light ISO performance as Nikon, since Nikon does their own processing, but it'll be good enough at base ISO that I bet landscape photographers will enjoy it.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

This is why I buy locally, so I can easily deal with a warranty situation if I have to. But come on, you know what I mean. The 5D3 looks great on paper. If for some strange reason it doesn't perform as advertised, I will warranty it until it does.



Seems that the 5D2 at $2199 is that second affordable FF body. They're not discontinuing it.



That's only logical, but I would expect it to be a 1-series at $6800 or a 3-series at $3500 - $4500.



That makes sense, but I would expect something like a D4 chip in a "D700s" for $3000 - not exactly "affordable", but that's where the D700 started. That would be a killer camera.



That would be a shame. I don't like what I see out of the NEX-7. I think Sony flew too close to the sun with that sensor.



Maybe according to DxO, but show me the photographs of the same subject where the D3X is distinguishable from the 5DII. Like I said, I am confident the 5D3 will be "awesome enough" for me to use it until it disintegrates in my hands. I won't be spending thousands to switch systems for a 1 or 2% upgrade.

Hey, OT, but I just heard that the D4, D3, D3s, D700 sensors are not Sony, but Nikon designed and fabricated by some other OEM...? What do you know about that? Is the D800?

I agree, the chances are high that the 5D mk3 will be a huge success. I'm actually more confident in this because of the higher price; if the 5D mk3 had these specs but cost $2700 like the 5D mk2 did at MSPR, I'd be kinda worried . IMO, $3500 means "we didn't cut any corners, you're getting a flagship-quality body in a 5-series package"...

I'm sure the 5D mk2 will stay around for a while, but if Canon's megapixel monster IS a 1-series, then the D800 at $3K will start looking better and better, IMO.

The bottom line is I guess you can't win every game at the same time. The 5D mk3 does get an award for probably being the MOST well-rounded camera in this generation, though. 22 is close enough to 36 for most, and sRAW1 trumps the D700's filesize advantage, and 6 FPS is close enough to the D700's gripped 8 FPS, plus the duall card slots and pro AF, etc. etc. I wish Nikon had a more "jack of all trades" camera to offer, but I'm also confident that not all the cards have been played yet in this new generation... And it almost doesn't matter anyways since I probably won't be able to afford anything Nikon makes for more than $3K anyways. Not when compared against the value of a $2200 D700, at least.

=Matt=

Stuart-M

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I think it's ironic and funny how Nikon shooters have been saying for years how 12mp vs 21mp is no big deal. Suddenly there is a 36mp camera out there so anything less is a turd? Nonsense.

To be fair, there have been plenty of Nikonians complaining about 36MP being too much.

Also, at this stage it is still impossible to know which sensor will produce the best high ISO images, maybe Nikon could have made some breakthrough and leapfrogged Canon despite the high MP. And I wish Canon had matched their price. But on the other hand, like you, I think ~20MP is about right from an image editing point of view.

jmphotocraft

Stuart-M wrote: »

To be fair, there have been plenty of Nikonians complaining about 36MP being too much.

Glad to hear there is some sanity in the Nikon camp. If you read dpreview's Canon forum, you'd think the Mayans were right.

Also, at this stage it is still impossible to know which sensor will produce the best high ISO images, maybe Nikon could have made some breakthrough and leapfrogged Canon despite the high MP.

I'm really not worried about the differences between the two cameras which are incrementally better than the other. I wasn't going to be switching brands unless something drastic happened. Like if the D800 could do this in one shot:



Also if the D800 had the D4 chip and 8-10 fps and the 5D3 was a slow 36+ mp and no "medium" resolution Canon was in sight, I'd seriously consider it!! But this is not what has happened. We have the D800 and the 5D3 and I am happy I don't have to be liquidating my lenses. I'm really confounded by all the negativity on the dpreview forum.

lensmole

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I think it's ironic and funny how shooters have been deciding how in love they are with a camera before it even hits the shelves. Don't forget, both Canon and Nikon have a long history of serious imaging issues, from RF interference banding, to "err99" etc. etc. Oh and mirrors randomly falling out of cameras, that's a particularly dark closet for 5-series history. Who knows what lurks for ANY of the new cameras, Canon OR Nikon.

I think it was wise for Canon to stay at 22 megapixels, they played their card very well this generation. However, there's no way I'm counting this chicken until it hatches. Actually, I'm not counting anything until I'm sure that Nikon / Canon don't have a SECOND "affordable" full-frame DSLR up their sleeves for this generation. I'd be willing to bet an imaginary beer that Canon has a megapixel monster up it's sleeve, and Nikon has an affordable 16 MP model up it's sleeve. We're already hearing hints of a 24 megapixel DX camera, either a semi-pro D400 or a D7000 successor. So as far as I'm concerned, the Nikon D3s, D4, and D3X sensors are all fair game in the next 12-18 months. Considering that the D3X sensor beat the 5D 2 and 1Ds mk3 sensor, I'd be willing to bet a 2nd cyber-beer that if Nikon "s'd" the D3x sensor, they might squeeze 5D3-ish performance out of it.

What then, un-hatched chicken-counters?

At face value, as happy as I am for Canon shooters who finally have affordable flagship AF and a decent frame rate, ...I'm still happy to be a Nikon user, and if anything I hope for a new 12-16 affordable FX camera, not 22 and certainly not 36.

Respectfully,
=Matt=

This may interest you.

120-megapixel CMOS Sensor
One of the factors determining image quality is the resolution of the image
sensor. A higher resolution enables images to be taken with higher defi nition
and a greater level of expression.
Canon, which has been working on its own CMOS sensors as image sensors
for digital SLR cameras for more than ten years, developed a 50 megapixel
CMOS sensor two years ago. The company has now succeeded in developing
an astounding CMOS sensor with a total of 120 million pixels each with a
size of just 2.2μm. Increasing the number of sensor pixels rapidly increases
the amount of data per frame, but this sensor supports up to 9.5 frames per
second even when used for still images.
Cases in which an ultra-high resolution CMOS sensor could exhibit its
potential include taking photos of greatly enlarged posters and partially
zoomed shooting using trimming or electronic zoom functions.

Matthew Saville

lensmole wrote: »

This may interest you.

120-megapixel CMOS Sensor
One of the factors determining image quality is the resolution of the image
sensor. A higher resolution enables images to be taken with higher defi nition
and a greater level of expression.
Canon, which has been working on its own CMOS sensors as image sensors
for digital SLR cameras for more than ten years, developed a 50 megapixel
CMOS sensor two years ago. The company has now succeeded in developing
an astounding CMOS sensor with a total of 120 million pixels each with a
size of just 2.2μm. Increasing the number of sensor pixels rapidly increases
the amount of data per frame, but this sensor supports up to 9.5 frames per
second even when used for still images.
Cases in which an ultra-high resolution CMOS sensor could exhibit its
potential include taking photos of greatly enlarged posters and partially
zoomed shooting using trimming or electronic zoom functions.

Yeah I heard about that sensor, but I think those are just feats of engineering, we're not going to see those in cameras any time soon unless I am VERY mistaken.

My prediction is that within 1-2 years Canon will have a 30-40 megapixel camera out, in the same range as the 5D mk3. Of course they COULD attempt to reclaim the $8,000 price point with a new "s" 1-series, but I doubt it in this economy. Like this whole topic has proven- people are much happier to "settle" for 22 megapixels at $3500, versus an extra 10-15 megapixels ~for 2.5X the price... A 5DX / 5D 3s will have to be $3-4K.

=Matt=

chrisjohnson

The high megapixel sensors are not a big challenge technically these days or a huge cost adder, assuming someone wants to make some quantities. They are just not very useful.

We will see how the market reacts to a 41 megapixel phone camera and the new Nikon benchmark. I hope people are savvy enough to value an all-round picture taking capability that does not crush their pc, drive up cloud storage costs, and ration their mobile bandwidth. It is very nice these days that all pcs are quick enough to manage photos, that storage is not a bottleneck, and that we can enjoy devices like the iPad.

5D3 is exactly where I want to be for the next few years. I am glad Canon is trying to understand customer needs instead of pushing technical limits for the sake of it.

Matthew Saville

goldenballs wrote: »

...all pcs are quick enough to manage photos, that storage is not a bottleneck, and that we can enjoy devices like the iPad.

I think we are headed in the opposite direction. PC parts are going to get cheaper, heck HDD's are less ten cents per gigabyte now. I don't think the megapixel "race" is going to end any time soon; some technologies level off and some just keep going, I think this is one that will just keep going. All we need to do is wait for computing etc. to catch up. It has been a long-standing tradition, ever since computers were invented, that you're always going to be needing a faster computer sooner or later. The industry isn't going to let go of that massive profit center. The next big thing is 3D, then next thing you know it all our videos will be in 4K or UDTV or whatever, and so on and so forth. It just won't sleep. I honestly wish it WOULD, but I don't think it will...

goldenballs wrote: »

5D3 is exactly where I want to be for the next few years. I am glad Canon is trying to understand customer needs instead of pushing technical limits for the sake of it.

I am glad Canon is trying to understand customer needs as well, however I do wish they had offered more compression / bit-rate options for those who want a more versatile offering. I suppose this is just the way it's going to be though; with Canon ONLY offering sRAW modes, and Nikon offering variable bit-rates and RAW compression, plus in-camera crop modes. We'll see what is going on in 5-10 years!

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

The D800 crop modes are really a non-starter. I shoot Full Frame for a reason. I suppose for someone switching from DX to FX, they can hang on to their DX lenses for a while, so that's nice. But otherwise it is weird to me that FX shooters are singing the praises of crop mode. Huh? And I hope you won't be using lossy compression - that discards data. I think Canon RAWs are already losslessly compressed.

Qarik

jmphotocraft wrote: »

The D800 crop modes are really a non-starter. I shoot Full Frame for a reason. I suppose for someone switching from DX to FX, they can hang on to their DX lenses for a while, so that's nice. But otherwise it is weird to me that FX shooters are singing the praises of crop mode. Huh? And I hope you won't be using lossy compression - that discards data. I think Canon RAWs are already losslessly compressed.

it's good for reach with out having to crop every shot. It like having the 15M crop body by pushing a few buttons.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

The D800 crop modes are really a non-starter. I shoot Full Frame for a reason. I suppose for someone switching from DX to FX, they can hang on to their DX lenses for a while, so that's nice. But otherwise it is weird to me that FX shooters are singing the praises of crop mode. Huh? And I hope you won't be using lossy compression - that discards data. I think Canon RAWs are already losslessly compressed.

Indeed if I could choose between the two, (without forfeiting the ability to mount DX lenses on full-frame, because that is something I LOVE) ...I would rather that Nikon gave up on a DX crop mode and just come up with a good sRAW mode. sRAW would be WAY more useful on the D800 than a DX crop mode. At 36 MP I could almost perfectly bin 2x2 pixels and still have enough resolution for most of what I do...

It is still pretty helpful though, to be able to jump to a crop while on the fly. Saves you quite a bit of post-production for high-volume telephoto work... And it gives you that "rangefinder" ability to shoot candids while seeing what's going on around the frame. Don't knock it till you try it, I suppose. Even though like I said I'd trade crop mode for sRAW any day... ;-)

=Matt=

khmerxbxboi

I sold my cheap Honda civic just to get it !!! saving right now..

chrisjohnson

@Matt. People have different visions of the future and tradeoffs will be for personal preference as normal. From some of your recent posts I see you value convenience very highly - so do I. I bought my last desktop computer three years ago (I hope), and I expect I am sitting behind my last Macbook Pro with its CD and hard disk. My next computer will be an Air style device with solid state memory and always on capability, and as much HD/cloud storage or as many super displays as I want to attach. It will be a bit less capable stand-alone but a lot more convenient. I am going to shoot a lot less RAW in future as cameras get better - getting it right in camera is a big time saver. I love the better bracketing and in-camera HDR. My feeling for a couple of years is that photography is trending to HDTV type norms and the latest iPad announcement just builds on that feeling. 5D3 addresses this very completely, at least on paper.

So unless one has some really specialist requirement I think 5D3 should hit a sweet spot for the next generation for many pro/ams. Sure, technology will progress, but I am not looking for a return to an out-of-balance system or a roll-your-own pc just because my camera is over-specced on file size.

I don't think any of this is enough of an argument to switch Nikon-Canon or viceversa - most of us have too big an investment in lenses, etc. However, for a Canon shooter this camera meets the expectation, at least for me. Newbies will not enter the market at this level unless they are stupidly rich or very cocky - most are better off starting with one of the many systems that both cheaper and more helpful to a beginner. Neither will 1 series photographers be thinking of downgrading. There are pretty clear reasons why a successful pro will continue to prefer the 1 when their business can afford it.

Brett1000

Nikolai wrote: »

I thought I'd sell my 5D2, but after doing some thinking I have decided to hold onto it as I often need/use a second body during a low light situation (sunsets) and 5D2 produces far superior images compared to 7D in this environemnt. Yet I'm still going to use 7D (at least until Canon comes out with its successor) for the proverbial "reach", which I need during such (typically well-lit) events like air shows, reenactments, etc.

I'm waiting until the new 5DmkIII is actually out in stores

Matthew Saville

chrisjohnson wrote: »

@Matt. People have different visions of the future and tradeoffs will be for personal preference as normal. From some of your recent posts I see you value convenience very highly - so do I. I bought my last desktop computer three years ago (I hope), and I expect I am sitting behind my last Macbook Pro with its CD and hard disk. My next computer will be an Air style device with solid state memory and always on capability, and as much HD/cloud storage or as many super displays as I want to attach. It will be a bit less capable stand-alone but a lot more convenient. I am going to shoot a lot less RAW in future as cameras get better - getting it right in camera is a big time saver. I love the better bracketing and in-camera HDR. My feeling for a couple of years is that photography is trending to HDTV type norms and the latest iPad announcement just builds on that feeling. 5D3 addresses this very completely, at least on paper.

So unless one has some really specialist requirement I think 5D3 should hit a sweet spot for the next generation for many pro/ams. Sure, technology will progress, but I am not looking for a return to an out-of-balance system or a roll-your-own pc just because my camera is over-specced on file size.

I don't think any of this is enough of an argument to switch Nikon-Canon or viceversa - most of us have too big an investment in lenses, etc. However, for a Canon shooter this camera meets the expectation, at least for me. Newbies will not enter the market at this level unless they are stupidly rich or very cocky - most are better off starting with one of the many systems that both cheaper and more helpful to a beginner. Neither will 1 series photographers be thinking of downgrading. There are pretty clear reasons why a successful pro will continue to prefer the 1 when their business can afford it.

Chris, now why would you want to go and say something so level-headed, logical, and agreeable? You get more response if you're provocative or argumentative!

...Oh wait, this isn't POTN etc... :-P

=Matt=

Overfocused

I may just actually sell my MKII and buy this camera with the $500 of the first $3000 in purchases credit card offer I just got. Lol

Tempting.