The Canon EOS and Photography Forums

Just thought I'd start a thread for questions and comments about the new Canon EOS 5D MkIII

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5D_MkIII_preview.html

Did the new flash have RF wireless communication? I did notice the little "link" light which would imply that.

Yep, that's the -RT designation (radio transmission?). The new Speedliite controller has it too.

Pity they didn't build some sort of wireless control into the body, even if it was optical via a popup flash like the 7D has.

But yes, Canon seem to be adding radio wireless now, with a specified range of up to 30m (though I suspect you will get more than that, but reliability will drop with distance).

The 600EX-RT is also 100% compatible with earlier cameras, speedlites and controllers which use optical wireless communication.

Hi Bob,

Is there an issue or concern with IQ when the camera is used with an older lens like the  24-105; 100-400,  or others?

Marc

No, why should there be? The optics of a lens don't change depending on what it's are mounted on.

If you're concerned about the slightly higher pixel count revealing flaws, remember that the EOS 7D has a higher native sensor resolution than even the new Nikon D800. If a lens looks OK on a 7D, it's certainly going to look OK on a 5D MkIII (at least over the APS-C area) and if it looks OK on a 5D MkII, it's going to be perfectly fine on a 5D MkIII.

Even if we ever get a sensor that's noise free and so good and so high in resolution that it shows up every flaw in a lens, the images will still be better than those taken with cameras with lower resolution sensors. You can always downsample!

Canon will be selling the 5D MkIII with the 24-105/4L IS USM as a kit. They certainly wouldn't do that if they had any concerns over image quality.

Bob,

Any thoughts on the new software function in DPP, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) ?

According to Canon:  New in DPP v3.11 is Digital Lens Optimizer – a new tool designed to drastically improve image resolution by taking the final image closer to how it was seen by the photographer.

Did Canon say anything about this? Is it only for the new 5D or maybe compatibel with older models?

It's compatible with .CR2 files generated by EOS bodies made since 2006 (I think that's what they said).

Basically 29 lenses are supported (they didn't say which ones) and there's a database of aberrations including things like coma, astigmatism, vignetting, longitudinal and transverse CA, distortion etc. which is used to optimize the image. Correction for all these will optimize the image. It won't make it perfect since you can't fully correct them (it's tough to unblur a blurred image), but it will correct them to a greater extent than DPP does now, or any other software package does.

No word on when it will appear, but I assume it will ship with the 5D MkIII and shortly after that be available for download as an update for the current version of DPP.

Thanks, Bob. That was interesting.

I am a little curious about how to use this new tool in combination with the regular sharpening tool?

From Canon: This (DLO) creates exceptionally detailed, high-quality images.

Maybe you have to choose which one to give emphasis to? If DLO really is that good maybe it will require different sharpening?

We will see when it gets available. Anyway, it is nice to see that DPP is getting more features.

I guess we'll have to wait to find out! Correction for things like distortion, CA and vignetting don't affect sharpness. If the new DPP also makes corrections of some sort for things like coma and astigmatism (and that isn't going to be easy), it will only affect the edges and corners of the image since they are off axis aberrations which don't affect the center. DPP could, I guess apply some non-uniform sharpening which could affect only the outer parts of the image.

However this is all speculation until Canon either publish details of what they are doing (and that's very unlikely to happen since they won't want to give away their secrets), or the new version of DPP is released and we can actually see what it does.

Bob

Excellent hands on review.

Sadly I see no 5DMk3 bragging rights over the new Nikon D800. Of particular interest is the D800's claim to autofocus using f/8 but I have seen nothing mentioned regarding the 5DMk3 on autofocus that makes a similar claim. IMO, the Nikon D800 trumps the 5DMk3 soundly ( at least on paper) not to mention a lot cheaper. Maybe lower noise at high ISO's will help salvage it.

Bob,
Thanks for your response.
I appreciate your assistance.
Regards,
Marc

Marc - you're welcome.

As for AF at f8, the EOS 5D MkIII doesn't have it, Neither does the new EOS-1D X. I believe Canon's position on that is that they traded off the old f8 focusing of previous EOS-1D bodies for improved AF at f5.6 and faster.

I guess that makes sense since the majority of users will be using lenses f5.6 and faster most of the time, though as a nature phototographer who has used quite a few long lenses, AF at f8 would have been useful to me at times. With professional lenses it's really only an issue with the 500/4, 600/4 and 800/5.6, though AF with the 300/4 and a 2x would be nice too!

I will admit that if the 5D MkIII had had a built-in flash, AF at f8 (with a new AF system), a 36MP sensor and the same noise level as the 5D MkII - and a price under $3000 - I wouldn't have been disappointed. Luckily I'm not in the market for such a camera at the moment, so it's only an academic issue for me.

 It will be interesting to see how the sensor of the 5DMkIII performs once DxO evalutes it. Nikon's new FF D800 with it's 36 mp Sony made sensor has surged to first with a highest score ever at 95 total.  Remarkable.

Nikons seems to have a Sony developed sensor with very low shadow noise so dynamic range will be better than the 5D3. At low iso, at least. I do not think you will see much improvement in DR from Canon. At least not in raw files. Color purity is probably higher on the Nikon, but will you be able to see it in prints? I am not so sure about that. For color critical work, perhaps? Maybe Bob knows more about that?

I bet Dxomark will give the 5D3 a score that is a little bit higher. Nikon will continue to rule! :-)

PS! I would not mind having either cameras but I do not need them. I like to push files so I would probably have gone for Nikon. Just maybe...

Hello,
I’m thinking about upgrading to a full frame camera.  Currently I have Canon 50D and I think my skills outgrown it.  I’m looking at Canon 5D – I just can’t decide if I should go with Mark II or Mark III.  Personally, I don’t see much technical difference between the model besides a more megapixels, newer Digic chip and 64 point auto focus.  So I’m leaning towards the Mark II, however I feel somewhat iffy about getting a hardware that is 4 years old.  Any thoughts on a matter?

I'd probably not do anything for a month or so. In that time we're going to see a lot of comparisons between the 5D2 and 5D3, plus a shakedown of the 5D3 to see if there are any bugs in it. For most people I suspect the 5D 2 will be fine. The exception might be if you need the fastest most accurate tracking AF performance. I suspect the 5D3 AF system will be better. It should be since it's the same as the one in the 1D X (though the 1D X has extra processors to boost the performance even more). If you don't need the better AF, (presumably) lower noise and the HD video tweaks, the 5D2 might be better value for money.

I think the hardware is just fine. Image quality is still excellent and a step up from the 50D. If you are fine with the focus system you have today you will probably be fine with the focus system in the 5D2. The focus points do not cover the frame as much as the 50D does though. It will require a different approach.

I made some of my best prints when I was using my old XTi/400D. You have to work a bit harder when you don`t have super fancy autofocus. I would not mind a brand new 5D3 but I do not need it. Better glass on the other hand is always welcome.

Here is Ken Rockwell's Opinionated take:
"So, yes, the Mark III is better than the Mark II, but if you actually work for a living and the extra $1,300 means something to you, get the Mark II while you still can and put the money into some fast lenses. DSLRs are a rich man's sport, and most of you guys are doing OK, so if you have the dough, of course get the Mark III. The color-fringe correction is a big deal for me for use with Canon's ultrawide lenses; you can see the difference in real pictures, unlike this high ISO or high megapixel baloney, which you can't.

As always, only you can answer Is It Worth It — to you. If you earn your living with it, it is. If not, it's a toy, so it's a question of how much cash you've got to throw at this hobby, The 5D Mark II is still a superb camera, better than anything from Nikon — until the D800 came out. Even the original 5D is better technically than anything from Nikon under $8,000 or the D800, and used 5Ds go for about $1,000, total. The worst thing about the original 5D are its crappy ergonomics and hideous LCD; its images are spectacular. "


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

He has at least 50 different opinions on the same matter. But sometimes you will find something useful. He is a techie guy, probably has a lot of knowlegde, just wish he could be more consistent.

I agree that the 5D3 is a bit pricey compared to the D800.

Thanks... I kinda made that decision, but always feel better getting approval from the guys :-)

Here is someone a little less...opinionated...

http://www.lightandmatter.org/2012/equipment-reviews/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-5d-mark-ii-who-should-buy-the-mark-iii/

Can't say I put much faith in KR. His stuff tends to be controversail/opinionated and not always based in fact.

Don't think he actually uses a 5D for example.

I have a 5D and use it for portrait work and when I need full frame for lens testing. It's a good camera but the AF system is somewhat basic by today's standards (though works fine for my needs) and it lacks Live View which I find very useful when testing lenses of when using older manual focus lenses adapted to EOS use. Doesn't have video either, though that's not something I personally miss.

My primary camera is an EOS 7D. In most respects it outperforms or equals the 5D except when a full frame sensor is needed.

I've used and reviewed the 5D MkII, though I don't actually own one. If I did and I was happy with it, I'd see little need to "upgrade" to a 5D MkIII. However if I was unhappy with the AF and/or I was into serious video work and/or if I needed more very low light capability and/or if I needed faster continuous shooting I'd certainly think about upgrading. The 5D MkIII seems to be significantly better in those areas. Of course if I REALLY needed the best possible performance increase in all those areas then I might look past the 5D MkIII to the EOS-1D X and spend even more money!

If I was going to upgrade my 5D, it would be to a 5D MkII rather than a 5D MkIII because of the cost difference.

If I didn't own any lenses and I was starting from scratch, I'd certainly be taking a very close look at the Nikon D800. Seems to be a very capable camera at a lower cost than the 5D MkIII.

Bob,
Re your use of canon 5d for your portrait work: Can you explain what you gain by using this camera compared to using your 7d with a 1.8 or 1.4 lens?
Thanks,
Barry

For an equivalent view, you blur the background more with full frame than with APS-C. So, for example, an the 85/1.8 on my 5D gives me more background blur than my 50/1.8 on my 5D, even though they both have approximately the same angle of view when shot from the same distance from the subject.

The 5D may also have a slight edge in image quality, even though the absolute resolution is slightly lower.

Thank you, Bob. It helps me decide whether to stay with my 7d or sell and go to 5d mark 3. My decision seems to boil down to birds. The APC really is superior for that application and I don't know whether I would miss the extended range.

If I was a "birds in flight" photographer I'd probably stick with the 7D.  AF is good, frame rate is good and APS-C gives you better resolution than an equally cropped 5D MkIII image would (and it's also slightly better than a cropped Nikon D800 image would be). The only reason to change to a 5D MkIII would be if the AF system of the 5D MkIII turns out to be much better than that of the 7D for tracking small moving subjects. I doubt that will be the case, but I'd wait until I saw comments from one of the leading "birds in flight" photographers on the subject before I bought anything.

Hello All,
I got a little bit of hands on time with Canon 5D Mark II tonight.  I noticed that its AF system is a bit frustrating – IQ of it is far less then Canon 7D or even 50 D.  Maybe I’m not used to the camera or I’m not worthy of a good camera – but this is quite worrisome to me.

MkII or MkIII?

I wouldn't be surprised if the AF of the 7D could beat that of the 5D MkII. However image quality from the 5D MkII should NOT be lower than that of the 7D, and certainly not lower than that of the 50D - unless you are shooting the 5D MkII(I) at a much higher ISO setting than that of the 7D/50D

Hi Bob,
Unlike you I don’t expect getting a new camera for a few years.  It seems excessive to splurge $3500, however if that’s what I got to do – I guess I would have to do that.  As somebody said long ago “I’m not rich enough to buy cheap stuff..” Well, not cheap but as we all agreed technology moved along in 4 years…

We all have to decide whether we want the "state of the art' items or items that are "good enough". Very often "good enough" really is good enough - in fact not just good enough but perfectly fine. For example the 24-70/2.8L  USM is a very good lens. Is it quite as good as the 24-70/2.8L II USM? No, on an optical bench the MkII lens tests better. Would most photographers notice the difference? Probably not. I'm sure there is a relatively small group of photographers who would, buy you have to ask yourself if you are in that group.

Not everyone needs or can even benefit from the very latest technology. If you can, then it's often an expensive ride!

I have a very simple view when considering a new camera such as the 5D MKlll.  When I bought my 40D it met my needs and my needs have not changed ergo the 40D still meets my needs.  I reckon that the thing that limits the quality of my images is still my ability as a photographer.  If I want a really large print I revert to film and a 6x6 camera.  Not sure how a planar lens compares with a Canon lens for sharpness but I guess it would give it a good run for its money.

Ken

That's an excellent philosophy if you have the self control! Those new cameras and lenses are so tempting and there's always a little voice at the back of your head that's telling you that if only you had a new camera your pictures could be so much better. Of course the important word there is "could" and not "would". As you so rightly say, unless you're such a good photographer that you are pushing the limits of your existing equipment right to the edge, an upgrade probably isn't going to do a lot for your photography.

I think it all boils down to what you shoot and how you shoot it, not what you shoot it with. Of course if everyone realized that the economy would tank and Canon and Nikon would go out of business, so don't tell anyone else the secret.

Not afraid that Lytro style cameras in a few years would push everything we own out of the business :-P LOL

P/S I decided that I might wait a few month... and see where the prices settle... if it still be at $3500, I will just do a gap plug and buy 7d on the cheap...

I was almost ready to rob a bank (LOL) and purchase the Mark III, and then read the sensor report by DXO Labs comparing it to the new Nikon D800. Even though the high ISO performance of the MarkIII is far superior to the other, the performance of the Canon falls short in their tests for normal ISO shots.

So Bob, what does this mean? Is the Canon not up to snuff? Will this get folks switching to Nikon? Or is DXO wrong?

Thanks,
Barry

DXO is not wrong. IQ is as expected. It is marginally improved. From what I have seen you can push the MIII files more without seeing banding than you could do with the MII. So it looks as they have at least some improvements compared to the MII.

IMO increasing DR at low iso`s is a matter of priority from Canon. I think Canon see the current DR at low iso`s as "sufficient". I also believe they can improve it if they wish to do so. I think it is a calculated choice.

Switching is expensive. Canon knows that too.

If I really needed two more stops of DR for landscape work I would buy myself a Nikon. Or maybe a K5. They are getting cheap now. And a couple of fast primes from Sigma.

The D800 looks like a very good camera indeed. If I didn't have any investment in DSLRs or lenses and I wanted to spend around $3000 on a full frame camera body at this point I'd buy into the Nikon system. It seems like their sensor readout electronics are cleaner than Canon's.

The D800 is also cheaper than the 5D3 and it has a built in flash (which I think can act as a wireless controller). Overall I'd say it's a better camera at a lower price as far as image quality goes at low ISO.

The 5D3 probably has a high ISO advantage, not least because it's capable of ISO settings two stops faster then the D800

It's yet to be fully determined how well the two AF systems operate and I don't know what video comparisons have been done.

I suspect that both the 5D3 and the D800 will deliver equally good results for 95% of the normal needs of most users. If a 5D2 was good enough, the 5D3 will be better. But if we are talking about "spec sheet" king of the hill in the $3000 DSLR region, it looks like the D800 gets the prize.

If you have a bag full of lenses and a 5D MkII, not upgrading seems like a reasonable action at the moment, unless you simply can't live with the AF system of the 5D2.

It would be interesting to know which company or companies manufacture the sensor chip and the readout/amplification chip for the Canon and Nikon cameras, and where exactly is the problem with the Canon devices compared to the Nikon. If Canon's weak link is due to deficient  internal chip manufacturing capability, they could be thinking of outsourcing. I suppose that I view this latest Mark III deficiency as a major debacle for Canon since we have all become highly sophisticated users who want nothing less than the best that technology has to offer, and I feel pretty certain that executive heads may be living in fear at this moment.

I have heard that Sony makes the Nikon chips and that Canon makes their own.

I think Canon is focusing (hah!) more on video.

And we can be sure that Canon has been cutting one of the Nikon/Sony chips apart to understand how it has higher DR with smaller pixels. And if it is not the chip, than it must be the OpAmp module. That may be outsourced too. I believe that Burr Brown made them for several camera manufacturers a few years ago.

Canon make their own DSLR sensors in house. With CMOS, much of the readout circuitry is built onto the CMOS chip (that's one advantage of CMOS). CCDs are much more likely to use external amplifiers and readout electronics. I'd assume that all the circuitry that Canon use is developed and manufactured in-house.

Up to now Nikon have been using Sony sensors a lot. I don't know if they have officially acknowledged Sony as the manufacturer of the D800 sensor, but I assume is is outsourced as I don't think Nikon have in-house semiconductor/sensor fabrication facilities capable of making full frame CMOS sensors.

At this point it's not 100% clear why the D800 images seem to be cleaner in the deep shadows then the 5D3 images. There is some evidence that they are, at least at lower ISO settings. Whether this is from intrinsic pixel/sensor construction, readout electronics, amplifier noise or is due to some additional noise suppression electronics prior to digitization it's hard to say since neither Canon nor Nikon ever give design details of their sensor circuitry.

I'm following the discussions and at some point when the fog starts to clear I'll probably do a writeup on the D800 vs 5d3 situation. Right now I haven't had my hands on either of them for extensive testing but I should get a 5D3 to look at at some point. Whether I could get hold of a d800 at the same time I don't know, but I will give it a try.

If Canon do learn anything from Nikon, I don't think we'll see the results very soon in a FF DSLR. They've only just released the 1D X and 5D MkIII so there's not really any room in the lineup for something else without treading on the toes of their latest cameras. Not only that but it probably takes a minimum of 12-18 months to get a camera into production. I suppose it's possible that we might see something interesting as the next generation of the EOS 7D though. The 7D is now 2.5 years old. I have absolutely no complaints about mine and no desire to "upgrade" it, but Canon certainly must have the 7D Mk II in development by now. 3 years is about the lifespan of a DSLR model these days. Maybe something with 25MP, low noise, high ISO and high DR, priced in the $1600-$1800 region would shake things up.

Agree. Have you seen this http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html ? It is interesting to see the difference in the shadows. It is huge.

I am still convinced this is a matter of priority and money and I am not so sure we will be seeing something completely in a long while.

Another thing to consider is the new and advanced raw processing capabilities. Adobe has taken another step forward with the new 2012 processing engine. I have been trying it out and I am impressed. Every camera will of course benefit from this but cameras like this new Nikon will no doubt benefit even more from it.

Yes...very big issue for Canon. People are now talking seriously about switching to Nikon and some, like myself, are not going to purchase a Mark 3 until Canon gets it act together.

I would not be surprised if Canon holds production of this camera until they update the sensor issue, and then refit those cameras in circulation.

As far as switching is concerned my feeling is that for non-pro's like me, it is totally out of the question. In fact Canon's deficiency is probably wonderful news because Nikon is forcing the acceleration of product development and release timing.

But it surely is a most interesting time to be into photography!

Nonsense.
Canon will do nothing about the sensor "problem". Unlike Nikon, they are marketing the camera to two markets: still photography and Video. Canon will not release an "improved" model, nor retrofit any old cameras.

I don't think Canon cares about pixel-peepers or DXOMark.

I agree. Canon made the camera that Canon wanted to make. They made the improvements they wanted to make, mainly in the AF system. They would not recall the camera because there is nothing wrong it. It's a perfectly fine camera. a better camera then the 5D MkII is, which itself is a perfectly fine camera.

The very last thing Canon will do is say "Opps, we made a mistake, the Nikon D800 is so much better that we're going to have to recall all the 5D3s and retrofit them". Never, ever going to happen. Not in a million years.

However, Nikon seem to have set a benchmark, which is good. You can bet that the next Canon EOS to be released, which I'm guessing may be a 7D update, will be designed keeping the D800 in mind.

However I don't think Canon will ignore pixel peepers, reviews and DxOMark. I think they wiill take note of what's being said when setting the direction of their R&D efforts.

It seems to me that the latest Canon offerings are really aimed at control/software improvements rather than sensor hardware.

For examples look at the almost confusing AF systems and the "silent control" :
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/5d3_silent_control_video.shtml?categoryId=12

(Which is really aimed at videographers.)

I wonder if Canon has some sensor improvements coming down the pike, and they wanted to test some non-sensor struff to put into a new flagship camera.

However, what we don't know is how much the C and 4K video cameras are diluting still camera and sensor development. After all, almost any of the sensors developed in the last 5 years are way overkill for the video market.

I think Keith is right. Canon's main priorities with the 5D3 were to make it a better handing camera than the 5D2. They did a lot to the speed of the camera and the autofocus system as well as providing additional controls, especially for the video side of things. They clearly weren't going for higher resolution. In fact for the 1D X they lowered the pixel count from that of the last 1Ds so up to this point resolution hasn't been at the front of their thinking. Perhaps the D800 may redirect their priorities a bit.

They don't seem to have been concentrating on improving image quality so much, though they did make a modest improvement in RAW SNR and a more sizable improvement in JPEG SNR, but those are small incremental improvements, not breakthroughs in technology. The JPEG improvement will be of more interest to real world shooter (sports, photojournalists) who need images fast, while improvements in RAW files are probably of more interest to pixel peepers and art/portrait photographers who have the time to optimize every single image.

I presume the feedback from their pro users on the 5D MkII was something along the lines of "The image quality is fine, but it's a bit slow and the AF isn't state of the art when it comes to tracking". Canon addressed those issues and seem to have put a lower priority on large improvements in image quality. It is better than the 5D2, but not that much better.

Well, I suppose we will eventually find out what happened. It would be interesting to get answers to these questions:
   1. Is Canon holding back higher DR or is their technology sub par?
   2. Did they lack industry intelligence about their competitors product?

In the final analysis it would also be informative to learn the percentage of Canon full frame customers that are wedding photographers, landscape photographers, wealthy hobbyists, etc. Knowing the breakdown would help figure out what really is going on in Canon's organization.

One other point is that if Sony is indeed Nikon's chip supplier, did they attempt to sell product to Canon too, or could there be a non-compete clause working.

It gets more interesting every day...

You mean if Sony is Nikon's chip supplier could they also sell to Canon I think. In principle that could go either way. It 100% depends on what the Sony-Nikon agreement is.

It's rather a moot point though as Canon is not going at tell the world that they can't make the sensors for their own cameras which are as good as those made by Sony. I'm sure Canon could make a sensor similar to that of the D800. I don't think Sony has any secret technology.

I suspect it's a matter of policy and planning more than technology and where the research dollars (or yen) are being directed.

Again I don't think it's a matter of Nikon being better, but Nikon being different. If you had wanted a high speed camera with an advanced AF system and ISO up to 102400 you'd have been disappointed by the D800. If your first priority is resolution and DR at low ISO settings, then the D800 is the camera to beat. I think most pixel peepers and forum warriors are in the high resolution/high DR camp.

I corrected my mis-type. Thanks, Bob.

I can't help but imagine what is going on within Canon's product planning team right now. The pressure has got to be enormous for those individuals who plan and execute the product line. I have done product planning for Honeywell and other lesser known companies, and right now I feel grateful to be retired and not on the firing line anymore.

Good point, Bob. The MII has been a bestseller and I think the MIII will be a bestseller too. There`s a a limit too how much time and money the R&D department can use. ( very obvious... ) Then there is the the planning and they decided the course. They must have done something right when you look at the numbers?

There are other aspects to consider like ergonomics. I have large hands and Nikon does not fit well in my hands. I have tried every model and the front grip is not as deep as Canon`s grip. I once called Nikon and they sent me the D700 to try out. The 24-70 + D700 is an excellent combination but the ergonomics dit not fit at all. IMO it is not made for large hands. I measured the front grip and and Canon had the deepest grip which made it easier to hold. I was suprised because I have heard so many good things about Nikon and their ergonomics. Canon on the other hand sits like glue in my hands.

However, I do wish for a low-noise sensor from Canon at some point.