Canon 5DIII announcement

[nutmac]

Aside from whopping $3500 price tag, 5DIII seems like a great upgrade. Highlights for me are:

• Autofocus. Many 5DII users are saying center AF is good enough, but a camera of this class should be better than that. Early reviews from professional photographers indicate autofocus is finally fixed and works flawlessly in nearly all the cases.
• + 2 stop improvement. ISO 12800 seems highly usable.
• Viewfinder: 100% coverage, 7D/1DX like focusing screen.
• More solid body construction, improved grip, better ergonomics, and locking mode dial.

That said, $3500 is hard for amateur enthusiast like me to swallow. But I want full frame so badly. Ugh.

 

[Sideonecincy]

That said, $3500 is hard for amateur enthusiast like me to swallow. But I want full frame so badly. Ugh.

Exactly the same thought I had. I have a 7D right now and I am perfectly happy with it but want to go full frame. I don't see spending $2300 to upgrade especially since this is just a hobby.

 

[wheezy]

The raw cost of the FF sensor is roughly 10x's that of a standard 1.6 Crop sensor. From a silicon wafer they can produce 200 1.6 sensors, from that same wafer they get 20. There's your major price difference and why it's so much more money.

I'm a little bummed it went up.. what, $700 for the body - but I'm not surprised that it went up. Keeping the body around $3K would have been quite welcome for sure.

It is a lot for an amateur to swallow.

 

[VirtualRain]

The recent price increases are strictly a function of currency effects and the effects that have had on profitability at Canon... http://www.tokyotimes.co.jp/2012/canons-yearly-profit-reduced-by-strong-yen/

Sadly, the price is out of my league - especially if you include the 24-70 II. I don't think I could stomach moving to a 5DII from my 7D that would be two steps back to make one forward... so I guess I'm sticking with crop for now.

 

[firestarter]

The raw cost of the FF sensor is roughly 10x's that of a standard 1.6 Crop sensor. From a silicon wafer they can produce 200 1.6 sensors, from that same wafer they get 20. There's your major price difference and why it's so much more money.

So much more money than what? The full frame 5DII? Or the Nikon D700, D800, Sony A850 or A900?

That price difference is coming from someplace else!

The price increase is strictly a function of currency effects and lack of profitability at Canon... http://www.tokyotimes.co.jp/2012/canons-yearly-profit-reduced-by-strong-yen/

More likely.

It'll remain to be seen whether Canon can maintain the price of the D5III (and the 24-70 II), since this time 'round Nikon look like they have a really competitive alternative in the D800.

 

[rebby]

The raw cost of the FF sensor is roughly 10x's that of a standard 1.6 Crop sensor. From a silicon wafer they can produce 200 1.6 sensors, from that same wafer they get 20. There's your major price difference and why it's so much more money.

I'm a little bummed it went up.. what, $700 for the body - but I'm not surprised that it went up. Keeping the body around $3K would have been quite welcome for sure.

It is a lot for an amateur to swallow.

An old document but a good read on sensors nonetheless.

 

[fcortese]

I will more than likely sell my 5DII for the III. I feel it will give me more flexibility when chasing my grandkids around the house in low light situations, or when the little buggers are jumping and running around. The early dpreview review seemed to me to support some significant improvements over the 5DII. As already pointed out, this really should not be called the 5D Mark III but some other xD camera because it has so many different upgrades and appears to be the bastard child of a 7D & 1D X mating encounter. Anyway, I am not immediately jumping in with a pre-order. I still would like to wait for the actual camera to be released and see how some experts and labs test drive this puppy. But as I said in the first sentence, I'll probably eventually get this-most likely by the end of the year unless the practical reviews on the real deal prove otherwise.

 

[righteye]

At last a Canon with Multiple Exposure facility and its got some advanced facilities, not since film has this been possible on a Canon.
Dual card slots, whatever your status this is good an instant backup and no computer or gizmo required!

 

[WRP]

Another thing many of you are missing about the price. Sure, if you want it NOW it will be $3500. Give it a few months until supplies equalize and everyone has it in their hands. You'll be able to get it for -$3000 by this time next year.

 

[rcappo]

While there are improvements to the 5Dm2 that this new one has, only the HDR and $300 GPS adapter are ones that I would like to have over my 5Dm2. It would be a hard choice if I didn't have either camera and was just starting out.

I focus manually (with the 17 TS-E it is all that there is), so the auto focus doesn't do much for me, even with the other lenses I have, I haven't had a problem focusing. I have had problems with Av and Tv mode not being smart enough, and wanting to have the camera pick an Auto ISO up to 200 (but use 100 when possible)...

I am still wanting Canon to get into the medium format game with some 50-80 MP mass produced camera. I don't care about frame rates or high ISO levels. I find ISO 400 too noisy on the 5Dm2. Right now I have to stitch together 4-16 shots taken with an 85mm lens to get a high res version, but it does look very nice.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Another thing many of you are missing about the price. Sure, if you want it NOW it will be $3500. Give it a few months until supplies equalize and everyone has it in their hands. You'll be able to get it for -$3000 by this time next year.

Not if it follows the same course as the 5D Mark II (note that this chart omits the first two years, during which time the intro price of $2700 didn't drop at all):

It took over two years for the Mark II to come down even one red cent. It finally shed $200 in late January of 2010 (it was introduced in 2008). So it's highly optimistic of you to expect the Mark III to lose $500 in one year. I doubt that Canon will be so generous.

While there are improvements to the 5Dm2 that this new one has, only the HDR and $300 GPS adapter are ones that I would like to have over my 5Dm2.

I suspect that the image quality will noticeably surpass the Mark II. Given all that has been said about the new sensor of the 1DX, that same technology on a 22MP sensor has got to make a nice difference in dynamic range. What will probably happen is that once reviews come out with raw data analysis (dpreview and DxO in particular), people will suddenly be a lot less conflicted about upgrading to the Mark III. Just a hunch.

 

[firestarter]

^^^ You can get a slight discount by buying with a kit lens then selling on. I bought my 5DII with the 24-105, and made about $400 (over and above the extra cost of the kit) by selling that on.

 

[Policar]

So curious about the video functionality on this one. If it's pixel binning to 1920X1080 SRAW (as most claim) then debayer from that, that will reduce aliasing, but also reduce the resolution to just over 720p (because the debayer process can only recover about 70% of linear resolution, which is why most video cameras oversample). Fwiw, the 5D seems to have, in effect, 1920X750 resolution, from line skipping, debayering, and downscaling. A 30% downgrade from that won't be terribly welcome, even if it means a reduction in aliasing and improvement in low light. And this seems to be the case. I'll be ecstatic if it's not. I love shooting video on Canon dSLRs and no aliasing sounds incredible--but a major reduction in resolution would be a big compromise to make.

If the subjective merits of this camera are spot on (video noise, resolution, and skew, new codec is actually decent, low read noise for stills and not too much NR, good build quality) it could be an amazing product in general for sports, landscape, video, event etc. Of course people are going to complain about a jack of all trades without crazy specs, but this could be something really special.

Time will tell.

 

[WRP]

Not if it follows the same course as the 5D Mark II (note that this chart omits the first two years, during which time the intro price of $2700 didn't drop at all):

Image

It took over two years for the Mark II to come down even one red cent. It finally shed $200 in late January of 2010 (it was introduced in 2008). So it's highly optimistic of you to expect the Mark III to lose $500 in one year. I doubt that Canon will be so generous.

I said you'll be able to get it for -$3000, not retail. With refurbs coming in within a year and the Canon Loyalty Program (if they offer it that quick for this body) in a year you will easily get it for under $3K.

 

[Phrasikleia]

If the subjective merits of this camera are spot on (video noise, resolution, and skew, new codec is actually decent, low read noise for stills and not too much NR, good build quality) it could be an amazing product in general for sports, landscape, video, event etc. Of course people are going to complain about a jack of all trades without crazy specs, but this could be something really special.

Time will tell.

It does seem as though Canon has positioned the new model as an all-rounder. Perfect for someone who does landscapes, portraits, journalism, or studio work and also occasionally gets in some sports or wildlife shooting. I know nothing about video, so I have no idea how well this camera will suit the needs of today's videographers.

I said you'll be able to get it for -$3000, not retail. With refurbs coming in within a year and the Canon Loyalty Program (if they offer it that quick for this body) in a year you will easily get it for under $3K.

Refurbs plus loyalty program...OK, I guess I can see that in a year's time. And who knows, with this poor economy and stiff competition from the D800, maybe things will not play out as they did with the Mark II.

 

[VirtualRain]

It took over two years for the Mark II to come down even one red cent.

That's excellent info... it really says, if you have any intention of buying the 5DII in the next two years, you may as well do it immediately to maximize the amortization of your investment.

 

[Nostromo]

if this is accurate , I can keep my 5D2 without guilt . Doesn't seem to be any 'must haves in the list for me . But..... tune in tomorrow and let's see what the official announcement says .

I agree. Not even continuous autofocus for video is mentioned.

I also never read about any dynamic range enhancement.

 

[-hh]

While I've never owned a 5DII, the only thing I ever heard real complaints about was the auto-focus...

The lack of any meaningful improvement in the autofocus in the 5Dmk2 versus the 5Dmk1 was tremendously disappointing IMO, and that factor, plus a very negative Antarctica trip report (circa Jan 2009?) where a bunch of them croaked ... spin attempts to blame it all on 'Operator Error' didn't pass the smell test when it was found that basically no other cameras failed ... was enough for me to pass on the 5Dmk2; ended up with the 7D instead.

Why do you think that the 7D is better?

Basically, Canon said as much when the 7D came out.

The raw cost of the FF sensor is roughly 10x's that of a standard 1.6 Crop sensor. From a silicon wafer they can produce 200 1.6 sensors, from that same wafer they get 20. There's your major price difference and why it's so much more money.

That math is wrong, since:

Canon 1.6x crop sensors: 22.3 x 14.9 mm (3.32 cm²)
Canon FF sensors: 36 x 24 mm (8.64 cm² )

That's only 2.6x larger, not 10x.

For a notional wafer that produces ~200 1.6x sensors, it would yield ~77 FF wafers... if we assume all yield issues are the same, etc, then if a crop sensor is $500, the FF version is $1500. Of course, elements such as yield aren't the same ... personally, if I were designing that wafer mask, I'd put a cluster of FF's in the middle (where yield is usually better) and then populate and build out to the edges with the smaller 1.6x sizes .. less edge waste, if nothing else (if even smaller circuits could fill in out here also depends on the wafer's processing steps).

I'm not familiar with what Si wafers are going for now, but $50 for an 8" is a reasonably conservative estimate...the raw material is literally 'free' in comparison to GaAs and GaN (which can be $50K for a 4")...its final cost really comes down to the process steps, including precious metals content, and overall yield.

I'm a little bummed it went up.. what, $700 for the body - but I'm not surprised that it went up. Keeping the body around $3K would have been quite welcome for sure.

The 5D originally sold for $3299. Given all of the region's recent woes ... Tsunami, Earthquakes & Floods ... it isn't a huge surprise to see a modest bump.

It is a lot for an amateur to swallow.

Yeah, but try looking at the sticker on Canon's new 200-400mm with integral 1.4x converter: $11K MSRP. Suddenly, my fantasizing for a 400mm DO IS doesn't seem so farfetched.


-hh

 

[firestarter]

Not if it follows the same course as the 5D Mark II (note that this chart omits the first two years, during which time the intro price of $2700 didn't drop at all):

It took over two years for the Mark II to come down even one red cent. It finally shed $200 in late January of 2010 (it was introduced in 2008). So it's highly optimistic of you to expect the Mark III to lose $500 in one year. I doubt that Canon will be so generous.

Here's another interesting graph.

The US dollar lost 20% of it's value against the yen in that same time launch to Jan 2010 time period... so although we didn't see a price fall, Canon were effectively cutting the price all the way through to keep the $ figure constant.

Perhaps Canon have built in a larger introduction price this time, in order to protect themselves against further drops. Or perhaps we'll see stability, and that 20% drop Canon had to take for the 5DII will actually manifest itself as a $ drop too this time.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I also never read about any dynamic range enhancement.

I don't believe Canon ever includes dynamic range measurements in their specifications, but we can probably extrapolate a bit from this statement in an interview regarding the 1DX:

"There's a couple of things that we consider when we think about IQ: number one on this sensor is noise. It's clear the noise level is better… That helps us in terms of light capturing ability and increases the signal to noise ratio. In turn, that does nothing but help the dynamic range of the camera."

--Chuck Westfall, Technical Advisor in Canon USA's Pro Engineering and Solutions Division​

My understanding is that the new sensor in the 5D Mark III uses the same new technology as the 1DX, though the pixel size is of course smaller. So it will be inferior to the 1DX, but almost certainly better than the Mark II.

Here's another interesting graph.

The US dollar lost 20% of it's value against the yen in that same time launch to Jan 2010 time period... so although we didn't see a price fall, Canon were effectively cutting the price all the way through to keep the $ figure constant.

Perhaps Canon have built in a larger introduction price this time, in order to protect themselves against further drops. Or perhaps we'll see stability, and that 20% drop Canon had to take for the 5DII will actually manifest itself as a $ drop too this time.

That's a good point. The dollar:yen ratio could play as large of a role as supply and demand.

 

[AppleDroid]

Being a current D300 user with only DX lenses it wouldn't be hard to switch over to a Canon 5D MIII because I'd have to invest in new glass anyway but man the price for the body is really making that a harder decision to make.

The D800 is cheaper but it will also have enormous RAW files that I don't really want to deal with plus I've always been fond of 5D MarkII results so this revision got me really excited about switching finally.

Decisions decisions!

 

[Kebabselector]

Had a brief look at one today. Handling wise it's no different from the MKII (didn't expect it to be), Focus felt a lot better, though as the 8-15mm was the attached lens I really didn't get a chance to test it. Sadly the show models have the CF/SD slot taped up so I guess they don't want us to test it!

 

[firestarter]

Had a brief look at one today. Handling wise it's no different from the MKII (didn't expect it to be), Focus felt a lot better, though as the 8-15mm was the attached lens I really didn't get a chance to test it. Sadly the show models have the CF/SD slot taped up so I guess they don't want us to test it!

Was this at Focus on Imaging? Planning to call by on Tuesday.

 

[Kebabselector]

Yeah, they had 3 of them on display (just inside the entrance to Hall 10)

 

[stevendphoto]

I was really hoping that Nikon's recent advancements would make Canon more competitive, instead they continue to jack-up their prices every chance they get!

I paid $2500 for my 5DmkII and if I sold it for around $1800, that makes it a $1700 upgrade and I am not yet sure if that is worth it.

There are a number of features I like on the 5DmkIII, Dual Cards, High ISO, Faster FPS, better sealing, more advanced sensor, etc.

What really sucks is every Big Pro Canon Lens is Over $10k while there Smaller Pro Lenses are all over $2k...

sad....