So I took the 5D MkIII to Loftus for some Super Rugby .....

[Deneys]

Auto White Balance is way off - the pinks look blue

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Auto White Balance is way off - the pinks look blue

HAHAHAhahahaha

[kobuspotgieter]

Well... where to start...

I think the feature I like most is the low light performance and Image Quality. I think it's a solid stop better, some say 2 stops. If you are willing to get a JPEG as a result, it's even more.

I see that you are again a little more optimistic than most.

DXO (whom you don't like) rate the ISO as "virtually a 1/2 stop" better. The rest of the IQ a tiny bit better in some cases and a tiny bit worse in others.

If one will be able see any of this in print is questionable.

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

I see that you are again a little more optimistic than most.

DXO (whom you don't like) rate the ISO as "virtually a 1/2 stop" better. The rest of the IQ a tiny bit better in some cases and a tiny bit worse in others.

If one will be able see any of this in print is questionable.

I am not sure how to respond to that.

I could get ISO1600 past my stock reviewers in the past, now I got ISO10,000 and ISO12,800 images added to my galleries. I don't really care what DXO says about the sensor, I am getting cleaner images that can be better processed either by me or by somebody that buys the image from me.

To me, in my world, I really do not care if you can see the difference in a "print" or how it "displays". I care that a stock agency reviewer looks at the image and decides that the quality is good and that a designer or retoucher can take that image and work it into a design for an ad campaign or whatever use they need it for.

I want to get paid paid for my images and I get the tool that makes my life easier. Right now, today, the 5DmkIII is that camera.

Did you ask me my opinion just so that you can tell me I am wrong?

I am giving you my opinion, and my opinion is from the results that I get from the camera. If you don't agree with my assessment of the camera, get one, shoot with it, and then tell me what you don't like. I will respect your opinion on the matter and maybe even agree with you... who knows...

[daddie2610]

I enjoyed your well constructed answer Sean....Did you ask me my opinion just so that you can tell me I am wrong?

[kobuspotgieter]

I am not sure how to respond to that.

I could get ISO1600 past my stock reviewers in the past, now I got ISO10,000 and ISO12,800 images added to my galleries.

WOW. That is 3 stops !!

Would you mind to post a link to one of those ISO 12800 images?

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

WOW. That is 3 stops !!

Would you mind to post a link to one of those ISO 12800 images?

http://www.ODPMagazine.co.za

or

[kobuspotgieter]

http://www.ODPMagazine.co.za

or

Would you mind a link to the big files at the stock agency?

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Would you mind a link to the big files at the stock agency?

... Just before you comment on the size... These ARE sized down. At ISO10,000 the images become softer and to get it sharp, I size down (I do not sharpen because it causes halo's and artifacts). The image quality is, however, good enough to be able to use this technique which the 5DmkII could not do. As you can see from DxO the tonal range, Dynamic Range and Colour sensitivity remains good at high ISO, unlike the 5DmkII which tended to drop away rather drastically at the end.

[kobuspotgieter]

These ARE sized down.

....... to 6mp

It brings a little perspective then.

[robert_s]

....... to 6mp

It brings a little perspective then.

But DxO's 8mp is fine?

[BrerFox]

Well... where to start...

I think the feature I like most is the low light performance and Image Quality. I think it's a solid stop better, some say 2 stops. If you are willing to get a JPEG as a result, it's even more. To me, that means that you can handhold inside a cathedral, for instance, and get high MP images that can sell. For a wedding photographer, it means lots more "non-flash" shots, and available light shots.

The rest are more "feature upgrades" - doing the old stuff better...

AF is down to -2EV

AF sensors lock nice and solid, even with backlight and lowlight. The AF also feels generally sharper than the old 5DmkII (had both running with the same lenses side by side, and swopping cameras every few seconds to get a "gut feel" for AF response) I think the 41 cross type sensors, 5 double cross type etc has a little something to do with that...

The AF point coverage is also 10% or something like that wider

AF Sensor points can be locked or assigned to rotation (so you can have an AF focus point and mode assigned to portrait left, portrait right or horisontal shooting) this seems arbitrary, but when a shoot picks up speed and you quickly rotate, it's nice to have the focus points more or less set on the eyes, no matter which way you turn the camera. Saves time and keeps the momentum going.

Light meters are waaay more accurate during Av or TV shooting

ISO is much closer to actual ISO than most cameras

The new AF modes track action very well, so if you are shooting movement in studio or on location, it's a much simpler action (think kids on a swing, model walking across a backdrop type shots)

Then there is the results from movie modes (which I like because I actually use it for stock and BTS video) but may not be relevant to the majority of photographers here.

Also, filling the buffer is not so painful... It clears quite fast if you have decent speed cards, and shooting JPEG-L and RAW gives you 7 Shots (closer to 9 because the buffer clears actively) that moves up to about 14 shots if you shoot only RAW

The dual card slots are nice because now you can shoot main images on the CF card and preview shots to ipad's or screens for a creative director to peruse with a JPG-S through a fairly cheap eye-fi.

This is probably the most helpful piece I have read about the 5D3 to date. Thank you, Sean.
Yes, it is your subjective experience and you shoot in a very different environment to me, but you give me something
tangible to work with. I can select the pieces that apply to me and fill in the gaps elsewhere.
To be honest, I can see why 5D2 users who were expecting a leap forward in IQ are disappointed.
The leap is not as big as 5D1 to 5D2, nor as big as the competing D800. For those expecting a Superman
come-back to the number-one slot, the 5D3 is not delivering the kudos. On the other hand, it does seem a
more mature and well-rounded camera, that appeals to a wider audience (if they are prepared to pay the premium).
In practice, I have found that some of the cameras that work well for me have been evolutionary (like the 1D4)
rather than revolutionary (1D3) have ranked amongst my all-time favourites.
Whereas the 5D2 was a second-tier camera that was elevated to 1D3S pro levels in terms of "studio-cred", I
wonder where Canon are now going to position the 1DX. Is it going to deliver the super-sensor performance
that the market was hoping for in the 5D3?

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

....... to 6mp

It brings a little perspective then.

Yes it does... I am glad you finally understand what I am referring to. I may be sizing down to a 6mp in that particular shot, because I wanted to sharpen the image somewhat and even out the luminance noise (I want to sell an image that is commercially viable and good enough quality to push through a second level of post processing), BUT, and this is the big but... you can print it as is from the camera and get a very satisfying result that does not smack of chromatic noise like the Nikon D3 or similar Canon 7D

I Look at the camera's abilities for what it can give me. A wedding photographer will not be sizing down for A1 prints because they don't have to. It will print very close to clean with an almost beautiful noise pattern, very similar to a medium ISO film texture.

[kobuspotgieter]

A wedding photographer will not be sizing down for A1 prints because they don't have to.

You are exaggerating again. Or we differ hugely on what is acceptable. Bear in mind that your photo is a very clever one with no blacks, a very deep background with the ambient light well balanced by the fill light on the model etc. Maybe the best best situation for very high ISO. Not typical for a low light wedding scene.

Anyway - I downloaded the file from iStock. Will feed it to the Epson tomorrow. Will see what I get.

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Anyway - I downloaded the file from iStock. Will feed it to the Epson tomorrow. Will see what I get.

Well... thank you... appreciate the support... so are you planning to print a 6mp file to what size? what will it tell you? I think what you actually wanted is a full size, unprocessed file, no?

Why you did it is a bit baffling. I am pretty sure you could have found a 5dmkIII close to you and do your own tests, and if I am not mistaken, you are a Nikon shooter... why the infatuation with the 5DmkIII?

Bear in mind that your photo is a very clever one with no blacks, a very deep background with the ambient light well balanced by the fill light on the model etc. Maybe the best best situation for very high ISO. Not typical for a low light wedding scene.

Sheesh... I don't really know why I bother. There shouldn't be noise in black... that is because it's erm... BLACK. highlights is where the camera sensor functions best, and therefore least noise... even tone, out of focus areas is where noise typically show up... check your own camera. Noise hides in areas with lots of detail, it shows up in even tones.

I wasn't trying to be "clever" to make a fool of the Nikon shooter. The shoot was set up and I was going to shoot it with my mkII and a bunch of speedlites. As luck would have it, I received my mkIII that afternoon, and ended shooting it almost straight. The shoot was for my own gallery project. That's all.

[kobuspotgieter]

There shouldn't be noise in black...

I wasn't trying to be "clever" to make a fool of the Nikon shooter.

Maybe read this then : http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D80...led-tests.html

I do think the shot was clever. That is suppose to be a compliment. I am not naive enough to think that you will do a clever shoot to embarrass Nikon shooters.

I am having this discussion because I am a bit fed-up with this typical internet claims on IQ and noise performance after each new product announcement. Heck, the 40D was claimed to be 2 stops better than the 30D, the 50D bettered that by 2- 2 1/2, then the 7D bettered that by another 2 - 2 1/2. If that were to be true, the 7D must be 6-7 stops better than the 30D. The 5D2 was claimed to be 1 -2 stops better than 7D. Now the 5d3 is 3 stops better than 5D2. Add this 4 -5 to the previous 6 -7 and the 5d3 should be 10 to 12 stops better in low light performance than a 30D.

You are a very prominent member on this forum, regularly acting on behalf of the owners of this site. It is my impression that your imagination is running away with you after the recent new product announcements. Because you are regularly acting on behalf of ODP, I am afraid that your claims might be seen as if it is the official view of ODP. ODP has many loyal customers, even from the small little town I live in, because they are seen as giving good honest advice. I am afraid that your exaggerated claims might harm this.

All I am trying to do is to scale down the exuberant claims to more realistic values. From a sales point of view, better let the performance be a surprise than a disappointment.

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Maybe read this then : http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D80...led-tests.html....

I meant that there shouldn't be noise in black if the image is supposed to show it as black.

The D800 handles noise a lot different than the Canon. Both have good points and bad points (The Nikon has much better dynamic range than the canon up to about ISO1200 to ISO1600. The Canons have better noise control (uncorrected, actual pixels) than the Nikon ). I am very happy that the Nikon shooter can recover detail from deep shadows as in Fred Miranda's example. I do, however, not think it's a realistic expectation to lift deep shadows like that... but that is my personal opinion. Kudos to the Nikon D800 for being able to recover that amount of detail. If you need to do that regularly, then it's a great camera for you...

Now... down to the nitty gritty of the matter.

You are very welcome to come to the shop and take my 5DmkIII out for a day and tell me exactly what you think of it. I give anybody that asks my opinion on the camera, and have absolutely no benefit from promoting it in any way. I push just as many Nikon bodies as I do Canon. It depends on what the user aims to do with the camera, and where they plan to grow to. I am definitely not the "voice of ODP" and do not speak on their behalf. My opinions are my own. Where I thought my experience may be lacking, I asked others to give input.

I personally like the 5DmkIII, just like I enjoyed the 5DmkII and the 5DmkI. Although I put my name on the list when they were announced, I wasn't going to get the mkIII because I didn't think there was much of a difference and rather wanted to wait and see if a larger MP body comes out, but I changed my mind after playing with it for a while.

This is the 5DmkIII:
A great studio and and general use camera with enough megapixels to do very decent commercial work. It now also handles surprisingly well during fast paced action, ALTHOUGH I feel it's not a "sports" camera. It tracks AF quite well but is a bit slower in initial AF acquisition when the subject is close by and the angle and speed changes direction quickly or moves away from the camera. It is more than capable in low light, locking focus surprisingly well and better at handling noise than it's predecessor at every ISO level I have tested at, the difference increasing as the ISO goes up. Although I have only been able to test the RAW files with BETA and RC candidate Raw converters, work arounds and plugins, I have the distinct impression that the 5DmkIII favours more luminance noise now than chromatic noise (something we saw in the 60D as well) this is definitely more pronounced if you shoot JPEG or use in Camera RAW conversion to JPEG. Because Luminance noise is more pleasing to the eye and shows up less in printing, it may also benefit users that have to print large prints for events. The claims that the mkIII can be as much as 2 stops better at noise handling may stem from this. Noise handling is quite improved over a smaller sensor body like the 7D (as can be seen in DxO Testing as well as on various other well known sites like DPReview) DxO feels that the Signal to Noise Ratio of the 5DmkIII is 1/2 a stop better than the 5DmkII (about 0.6dB difference measured compared to the 3.5dB to 4.1dB difference between the 5DmkIII and the 7D)

What others say: (and no... not a single one of the people quoted claimed it was perfect or without some flaw or improvement they wanted)

Phillip Bloom: (Phillip Bloom is a reviewer I trust for all the video requirements I do have)

"Stills mode is massively improved but that is not the reason I bought the camera. It’s all about the video quality for this review, but wow the stills function improvement is HUGE.

Build quality is just superb. It feels like a solid camera, and so far it has got rather wet due to the New Zealand weather and it is still working just fine!


Low light is ENORMOUSLY improved. I have not gone all the way to 12,800…it’s noisy but usable if absolutely needed. More importantly 3200 is pretty damn nice… the mk2 compared to this is just plain ugly!"

Jeff Ascough:

" I have to say that Canon have addressed every issue that we had with the 5D Mark II and built a stunningly good camera. The more you handle it, the more you realise that there has been a lot of input from professional photographers into this camera, and if you are a photojournalist or anyone that shoots in that style, this is the perfect camera for you. Obviously it isn’t a speed demon like the 1DX and you have to watch the buffer when shooting dual cards with high ISO in high speed drive mode, but that is to be expected. The camera produces staggeringly good files at all ISO speeds, it focuses quickly and accurately, it is built like a small tank and is as quiet as a church mouse with a Leica if you want it to be. What else do you need from a camera?

So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability. The camera is what every Canon user has been waiting for and then some."

Ryan Brenizer:

"More importantly, Canon has built a near-perfect wedding camera. Great at high ISOs, accurate and customizable autofocus, speedy and quiet operation and with versatile RAW resolution, this camera is finally a worthy companion to Canon’s huge array of lenses. On either the Nikon or Canon side, you can’t use the camera as an excuse anymore."

Frank Doorhof:

"Some reports on the net claim there is no difference between the MKII and MKIII, to be honest I wonder what and how they test because the difference is HUGE. From what I see I can now say that ISO3200 and ISO6400 are more than usable, ISO3200 actually looks better than ISO1600 on the MKII, sometimes just a LITTLE bit of luminance noise control takes away “all” the noise without making the image look like a soft mess. I’m more than impressed to be honest. But not only with that, I also have the feeling that on the higher ISOs the dynamic range is MUCH better than on the MKII"

DxOMark:

"The Canon EOS 5D Mark III delivers very good performance in low-light (2,293 ISO), placing it in 5th position in the DxOMark Sports Score ranking. Canon had announced improved sensitivity for its 22.3 megapixel sensor thanks to a new gapless micro lens array, claimed to better capture the light. The performance meets expectations there with almost ½ Stop more than the 5D Mark II, and the Canon EOS 5D Mark III proves its mettle for shooting concerts, sports events, or in extreme low light conditions."

David Murphy:

"All photos except the 1st one were shot at ISO 12,800 in RAW + JPG. I wasn’t able to install the newest version of DPP tonight, so these shots are the JPG versions. From what I can tell, it looks like a 2 stop improvement over the Canon 5D mkII. In the 100% crop below the high ISO noise is visible, but the detail is there. You can read the IN and OUT fairly well. It looks pretty good if you ask me!

Another thing I noticed immediately was how much of an improvement the auto focus is, compared to the mkII. I did a few tests focusing on the coconut trees. It was about 1/2 an hour after sunset, and I could barely see the outline of the trees against the dark sky. The central AF sensor locked on every time on the first try."

Bob Atkins:

"Overall the new EOS 5D MkIII looks like a significant advance over the 5D MkII. Much better autofocus, improved metering, improved speed, improved video capability and probably improved image quality, at least based on the comparisons of "out of camera" JPEGs that I've seen. No it's not perfect and it's not the camera some might have wished for, but then no camera ever will be. That's the nature of incremental progress."

Brent Stirton:

"The other revelation about the sensor is the ability to truly work in low light. This isn’t some hype; this isn’t a case of setting up a camera and a tripod in a studio under perfect conditions and shooting an image at [ISO] 1600 and saying ‘look how good it is’. That’s just not the ‘real world’ for me. The real world is being able to go into some dark basement in some dark place, covering a difficult issue, and being able to make a picture that I previously could not have made because the sensor capabilities just didn’t make it possible. Previously, if I shot this [type of picture] it would be noisy and there would be all sorts of problems with the file."

[BenBotha]

I do think the shot was clever. That is suppose to be a compliment. I am not naive enough to think that you will do a clever shoot to embarrass Nikon shooters.

I am having this discussion because I am a bit fed-up with this typical internet claims on IQ and noise performance after each new product announcement. Heck, the 40D was claimed to be 2 stops better than the 30D, the 50D bettered that by 2- 2 1/2, then the 7D bettered that by another 2 - 2 1/2. If that were to be true, the 7D must be 6-7 stops better than the 30D. The 5D2 was claimed to be 1 -2 stops better than 7D. Now the 5d3 is 3 stops better than 5D2. Add this 4 -5 to the previous 6 -7 and the 5d3 should be 10 to 12 stops better in low light performance than a 30D.

You are a very prominent member on this forum, regularly acting on behalf of the owners of this site. It is my impression that your imagination is running away with you after the recent new product announcements. Because you are regularly acting on behalf of ODP, I am afraid that your claims might be seen as if it is the official view of ODP. ODP has many loyal customers, even from the small little town I live in, because they are seen as giving good honest advice. I am afraid that your exaggerated claims might harm this.

All I am trying to do is to scale down the exuberant claims to more realistic values. From a sales point of view, better let the performance be a surprise than a disappointment.[/QUOTE]

This is "funny". A photographer posted that he is happy with his new camera, loaned it to somebody else that was also happy with the performance, none of them compared it to another brand. Yet we have an argument about brands, accusations of preferential treatment of certain brands, "false" advertising etc. When I posted a thread 6 months ago about world wide camera sales the same person accused me of being a fanboy. If the tool satisfies the owner and other people using the same tool, it only means that they are happy with their purchase and not that a different brand of tool is not as good as theirs.

Ben

[Francois Retief]

Posted by Ben Botha - This is "funny". A photographer posted that he is happy with his new camera, loaned it to somebody else that was also happy with the performance, none of them compared it to another brand. Yet we have an argument about brands, accusations of preferential treatment of certain brands, "false" advertising etc.

Ben - I agree with you. Unfortunately most of the threads on this forum and also on other DSLR forums eventually degenerate into a Canon vs Nikon issue.

Am I allowed to say that I love my 5D3 and think it is a great camera ? I loved my 7D but have not touched it since I got my 5D3 a few weeks ago. The 5D3 just feels more comfortable and competent. The AF is very responsive and perhaps the best feature of this camera. The high ISO capability is very good and I agree with Sean's comments regarding this. The frame rate of 6 fps is adequate for bird and sports photography (in my opinion). AF tracking is very good so for birds in flight this beats the 7D even if the 7D has a higher speed. The 7D with the higher speed would perhaps get a few more bird take-off and landing shots than the 5D3. The only other advantage of the 7D is the 1.6x crop factor which effectively turns my 500mm lens into a 800mm lens. So I am using the 1.4x extender more - AF is of course then a bit slower (the camera only sees half the light) but still feels faster than the 7D without converter. These are my impressions after having the camera for about 3 weeks.

Arthur Morris, a well respected bird photographer, has decided to use his 5D3 for almost all his bird photography and his 1D4 only where he needs the extra reach. This will be similar to my gear strategy i.e. use the 5D3 for all bird photography and the 7D only where I need the extra reach.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/...gear-strategy/


http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/...ii-im-in-love/

[BrerFox]

Posted by Ben Botha - This is "funny". A photographer posted that he is happy with his new camera, loaned it to somebody else that was also happy with the performance, none of them compared it to another brand. Yet we have an argument about brands, accusations of preferential treatment of certain brands, "false" advertising etc.

Arthur Morris, a well respected bird photographer, has decided to use his 5D3 for almost all his bird photography and his 1D4 only where he needs the extra reach. This will be similar to my gear strategy i.e. use the 5D3 for all bird photography and the 7D only where I need the extra reach.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/...gear-strategy/


http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/...ii-im-in-love/

Yes, but remember that Arthur Morris also said that the 5D2 was great for birds too. Yeah, right.