Like most people, I am really interested in seeing its high ISO performance. I would also like to see an improved dynamic range. The 61 point AF is a major addition which was lacking in 5D Mark II.
Supposedly it's going to go for $3500. Not that it really matters for me. Convincing the wife that I need a $3500 camera to take pictures of the kids is going to be tricky.
I haven't had a chance to look over everything too closely yet but on first glance it doesn't look like there are a lot of huge changes from the Mark II. I guess an upgrade is the right word. More of an upgrade than a totally new camera.
Preview here. Naturally, I just bought their top Speedlight last week. :-/
Me too :)
Here are some sample images taken by 5D Mark III at various ISO's. I am quite impressed! Look at the Aurora shot at ISO 6400. Now way I get that with Mark II.
£3000 UKP? Really? £600 for the flash and then £300 for the transmitter.. I feel Canon are going the way of Apple - with the sycophantic fanboys to boot.
I just spent the last 4 years going backwards, getting rid of 1Ds3's and the likes, to get old school gear. There seems to be a new camera out every month offering not a lot of what I am interested in... sad but true.
I actually enjoy a bit of grain sometimes. Obviously this is an excellent tool that can do amazing things, but for me, I'm happy with my 400 ISO max old school Hasselblad and my even more dodgy Leica M8 with all its flaws.
£3000 puts it out of my reach. I wonder if the announcement of the mk3 will affect the price of mk2s, new or secondhand. If mk2 comes down in price then it could be a good announcement for me!
£3000 puts it out of my reach. I wonder if the announcement of the mk3 will affect the price of mk2s, new or secondhand. If mk2 comes down in price then it could be a good announcement for me!
Here's an interesting bit of info regarding 5D Mark II:
"The 5D2 will remain in the product line! The new Canon EOS 5D Mark III will be the third full frame sensor camera in the Canon line. The others are the 5D2 and the Canon EOS-1D X"
(Source: third paragraph under NOTES in this article.)
I'd probably be tempted by this if i didn't already have Nikon glass, as it is i'll be going the D800 way, shame about all those megapixels though, 36 is a silly amount i think.
The flash with radio slaving is interesting, but replacing all my flash units with the new units at $600 a pop to get radio slaving seems foolish since I can get the same result with pocket wizards at $200 a pop
I think I might forget FF for now. While for most people these are very minor things I really dislike having to use CF cards instead of SD, and while I very rarely use flash I prefer to have one in the camera for occasional fill-ins. I am talking about MKII here as I was hoping it will get cheaper after MKIII announcement. MKIII is well out of my price range and I have no plans for taking videos and most of improvements over MKII seem to be in that area.
PS I have also to remind myself in this "gear frenzy" that I am not a serious photographer and enjoy spontaneity much over the setup shots.
The things I see that are really interesting to me are:
1. MUCH improved AF matrix.
2. Improved ISO performance, seemingly by quite a lot.
3. Dual memory cards.
4. Even better LCD.
5. Expanded dynamic range with Digic 5
Those are what stuck with me. Not enough to tempt me to trade up, and I'm happy I got 5D2 when I did 'coz I don't see the above being worth a $1300 premium over what I paid. I'd rather trade up the 17-40mm for the 16-35mm instead.
I'm perfectly happy with my 5D Mk II and has been a significant upgrade from my 30D. I'll most likely be using it for a good solid 3-5 years at least. There are some significant upgrades with the 5D3, but like most have said the $1300 premium is a bit difficult to swallow.
That being said, I think the IQ on this bad boy is probably going to be awesome thanks to lower MP count and the Digic 5. The AF is much needed and the extra FPS are no doubt tempting.
The things I see that are really interesting to me are:
1. MUCH improved AF matrix.
2. Improved ISO performance, seemingly by quite a lot.
3. Dual memory cards.
4. Even better LCD.
5. Expanded dynamic range with Digic 5
Those are what stuck with me. Not enough to tempt me to trade up, and I'm happy I got 5D2 when I did 'coz I don't see the above being worth a $1300 premium over what I paid. I'd rather trade up the 17-40mm for the 16-35mm instead.
R.
Those are mainly the same advantages that were immediately apparent to me too Robert. Better weather resistance I see as a big plus too considering how much I have to shoot in the PNW rain.
They claim the ISO performance gains two stops. Even if in actuality it is one, this is appealing to me especially because all of my zoom lenses are f4 in an interest to save weight.
To me the achilles heel of the Mark II is the limited focus points and this alone makes upgrading to the Mark III very appealing.
But I will be making due with what I have for now, this new camera is rather pricey...
And why did they release this new flash unit with radio capability without the receivers to go with it? Do you expect people to buy several of these very expensive flash units to work as a set Canon? I don't see Pocket Wizard becoming less popular with this announcement...
I had concluded some time ago that I'd assess the MK III when it came out, and decide if it was worth migrating from my now 6.5-year-old 5D, which I still think makes beautiful images. I think the jury is going to be out for a while.
It looks like this camera is going to be a machine to be reckoned with, no doubt about that, but it also seems that they have taken the model in a direction that I don't need to go:
- I use center-point AF almost exclusively, so the 61-point AF is really not a big deal to me.
- I have no real use for 6 fps. On the rare occasions I shoot fast action, I don't spray & pray, I use pre-focus on expected action points and play the waiting game. I'm not a pro sports photog, so I have that luxury. OTOH, if I did have a camera with that kind of AF performance, it might change my MO a bit ;-)
- I'm interested in video, but I'm not shooting feature films, so the MK II's video performance would be more than enough.
- While the eventual street price is still a matter of conjecture, I have to say that the MSRP is higher than I am comfortable with. They are positioning it carefully within both their product line-up and against their competition, and we will have to wait to see how that pricing works out for them. I'm arguably just whining; the original 5D was introduced at in September, 2005 at $3299 USD, and in today's dollars that works out to $3794.
For me it all comes down to IQ, and there would have to be a *really* big improvement in that area over the MK II in order to get me to spend an additional $1500 for the MK III as opposed to just supplementing my 5D with a 5DII. I could get a refurbed 5D II for $1999, and I just may wind up going that direction. Given that the MK III has about the same pixel count as the MK II, there would have to be a quantum leap in noise and DR for me to feel it is worth the jump.
I'll be watching the reviews and real-world testing, and for now sitting tight.
