I'm awfully tempted... what's your initial experience with it? How does it compare to what you had before (I'm using a 7D). And... Post some photos!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who here has already sprung for a 5DIII?
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i know the camera's been announced, but i don't think it's even been released yet (or am i wrong?). nobody would have hands-on experience with it.
*edit*
so i was wrong. my bad.
*edit*
so i was wrong. my bad.
Last edited:
There were a few stores in Vancouver here that had stock on Friday. I've seen a couple of folks on here mention it as well.
It has been released. I've had mine for a few days now. It's the perfect solution for people like me who previously had two cameras (5D2 and 7D) to fulfill their needs. Its high-ISO capabilities are well above the 5D2, its auto-focus so far seems incapable of missing, and its low ISO shadow noise is much more clean than either of my other cameras were. It will make all of my work that much easier, and I won't have to schlepp two cameras around with me everywhere I go. I'm really happy with it.
Oooh... you're not making this any easier!
When you say high-ISO is well above the 5D2... the test shots I've seen appear to be about 1-1.5 stops better although I see some people saying 2 stops. What would you guess?
Oooh... you're not making this any easier!
It's somewhere in there. It's hard to eyeball a difference of a half-stop. Two stops seems very likely, but maybe it's only 1.5. I've only had the camera a few days and don't have much to go on, but so far, I'd say it's clearly a massive improvement.
If it is two stops better than a 5D2 that means its probably three stops better than a 7D?
I mean... that's like being able to shoot with f4 glass in low light and get the same shutter speeds as I'm getting at f1.4 with my 35L?! I guess conversely, that means where I was barely getting 1/50 at f1.4 I could shoot at 1/100 and f2 and still have cleaner images! That would be huge.
If it is two stops better than a 5D2 that means its probably three stops better than a 7D?
Yes, that's why I'm so excited about it. Although I did own a 5D2 along with the 7D, it was the latter that I used for my handheld, high-ISO, auto-focus stuff (which, by the way, is what makes me the most money by far). I used the 5D Mark II for my landscapes, and for those I always focused manually and shot at ISO 100. So yeah, I'm looking forward to something in the neighborhood of a three-stop improvement with high-ISO shots over my 7D...it's an extraordinary improvement.
I didn't even look at the specs. I can't be tempted by something I don't know about
Not to mention I don't need anything more than my 5DII. Its still a freaking amazing camera that takes insanely amazing pictures.
I didn't even look at the specs. I can't be tempted by something I don't know about
Not to mention I don't need anything more than my 5DII. Its still a freaking amazing camera that takes insanely amazing pictures.
Then for sure u shouldn't look at the 5D MKIII
I saw on POTN that you've gone from a 7D with 17-55 f2.8 to a 5D3 with 24-105 f4... I would do the same. Do you find anything lacking? Do you think you will miss that extra stop?
I'm thinking a 24-105 f4 and my 35 f1.4 will make a perfect combo... I can use the wide aperture prime when thin DOF is desired, while the zoom does pretty much everything else. However, I need to find some samples of portraits shot at the long end of the 24-105 at f4 to see how well it can isolate the subject and blur the background. Perhaps on FF f4 at 105mm will do nicely?
What are your thoughts?
Not sure if this helps, but I'm really impressed with how good the 24-105 works on the 5d mk iii. The DOF is much more significant.
![]()
untitled shoot-1848.jpg by kevinfl2011, on Flickr
untitled shoot-1848.jpg by kevinfl2011, on Flickr
Yeah, I keep seeing comments from crop upgrades like this... Can you explain this effect?
Thank you for that. I am waiting on mine to arrive and would love to play with the 24-105 as well as the 135L
----------
don't really understand the question. what exactly are you asking?
he focused on the cap to show how accurate the AF is and the blur (DOF) how it isolates the subject. in this case the lens cap. is that what you were asking?
It's too early for me to be able to comment much on the 24-105mm. As I said on POTN, focusing with it on the 5D Mark III is distinctly similar to using the 17-55 on the 7D: snappy and accurate with any of the AF points. Focusing was my main concern with losing the f/2.8, since wider apertures help cameras to focus well. Aside from letting light in for focusing, I never had much need for the f/2.8 of the 17-55, so I'm unlikely to miss it. My museum work requires stopping down and being stabilized, so wherever tripods are forbidden, I need IS, good auto-focus, and high ISO. The 5D3 + 24-105mm should be perfect for the job, though I won't really know for sure until I've tried it. I only hope that the IS will be as good as the 17-55 and that the more shallow depth of field won't eat into the high-ISO benefits too much (by forcing me to stop down more than I would have with the 7D).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts... what lens do you intend to use for your landscape work?
I've seen comments that seem to indicate f4 on a FF camera has narrower depth of field than it would on a crop body. And some research has answered my own question... It's the effect of having to zoom in more at a given distance to produce the same composition that results in a narrower depth of field. So, in the case of the pic above, if he shot that at 55mm on his 7D, from the same distance, he would need to shoot that at 88mm on his 5D to frame it the same. The depth of field at 88mm for that distance will be thinner than at 55mm.
Oh, for that work nothing will have changed. I used my 5D Mark II previously for landscapes, so I'll be using the same lenses as before. The 17-40mm f/4L and the 70-200mm f/4L IS are my two favorite landscape lenses. If I'm not hiking far, I'll probably bring the 24-105 with me as well, just in case I need to get in between 40-70mm.
As you say, DoF is shallower on FF because you have to be physically closer to the subject to get the same framing as on APS-C.
Also keep in mind that DoF is dependent on physical aperture size (i.e. diameter), not f/stop. So if you use an 80 f/2 lens on FF and a 50 f/2 lens on APS-C to achieve the same framing, DoF will be greater on the APS-C because the physical aperture of the 50 f/2 is smaller than the 80 f/2 (25mm vs 40mm).
Right. So if I'm accustomed to doing full body shots with the 35L on my 7D at f1.4-f2, I will find that on the 5D3, I may have to stop it down a bit more or the depth of field may be too narrow for the same subject/composition... since I'm going to be shooting closer to the subject with that lens.
Now, if bought myself a 50mm lens to use on the 5D3, my distance to the subject would be similar to when I was shooting the 35mm on my 7D... but now f2 on the 50mm lens is still going to provide shallower depth of field than the 35mm on the 7D at the same distance.
Sheesh. The moral of the story is that any feel I have for what's a useful depth of field is going to have to be relearned.
Right. So if I'm accustomed to doing full body shots with the 35L on my 7D at f1.4-f2, I will find that on the 5D3, I may have to stop it down a bit more or the depth of field may be too narrow for the same subject/composition... since I'm going to be shooting closer to the subject with that lens.
Now, if bought myself a 50mm lens to use on the 5D3, my distance to the subject would be similar to when I was shooting the 35mm on my 7D... but now f2 on the 50mm lens is still going to provide shallower depth of field than the 35mm on the 7D at the same distance.
Sheesh. The moral of the story is that any feel I have for what's a useful depth of field is going to have to be relearned.
There's an app for that. Simple DoF.
So I ordered a 5D3 kit. I figured I can sell my 7D and EF-S lenses and be left with a difference of around $1200-$1400 in the end. I'll end up with the 24-105L, 35L, and 70-300L which (IMHO) should be a terrific set of glass to work with. The only thing I'm missing is the UWA which I haven't been using much.
My justification for the added expense is that it's going to motivate me to learn the craft better with the goal of starting to turn this hobby into one that pays back in some way.
My justification for the added expense is that it's going to motivate me to learn the craft better with the goal of starting to turn this hobby into one that pays back in some way.
I'm of two minds about the whole justification thing when it comes to hobbyists. It's fairly straightforward for my own decisions because I make part of my living with photography, though a more prudent business person would surely make different decisions than I do. But for hobbyists, the investment equation is not a factor. I often wonder what conversations take place on forums dedicated to other hobbies...like doll collecting or something... "Do you really need the Barbie with the blue dress? What will she enable you to do that your Princess Barbie won't?"
I'm attempting to pretend that I don't even know it exists
I need some studio lighting first anyway. I've been a natural light (or just a flash or two) for...12ish years?
Its time for me to play with studio lights.