half of the price goes to pay for the advertisement in dpreview
Does this mean there will be a Magic Lantern for 5D3?
forgets to install an aperture ring
Marty4650: I'd say this is an inexcusable defect for a $3500 camera. And it will be pretty expensive to fix, since a "firmware upgrade" can't do the work of a light seal. I imagine that all the 5DIIIs sold will have to be shipped back for a modification now.
Canon simply must do better quality control testing. It's really a lot cheaper to get it right the first time.
I will be very surprised if 9/10 DSLRs on the market don't have the same "problem". Nobody's had it affect their photos.
The 550D is leaking from the viewfinder pretty massively. That's it, I want my money back! After taking thousands of shots without a problem I suddenly realized the camera's unusable.
mgrum: "In video mode with the 1D C there is still no peaking or magnification of the image with the 1D C, which Smith said is because the camera is built on the 1D X chassis the functions other than 4K and 2K recording have not been changed."
That is fair enough, but why then do Canon feel they can charge over double the price for what is effectively a 1DX with different firmware? This must be the least effort anyone has put into developing a product ever!
The price is determinded by the value to the consumer, not the effort that went into it.
Compared to this, the 5D3 seems like such a small improvement over 5D2. Its videos are too blurry, there's no clean HDMI and the camera still has serious rolling shutter. Its price will be dropping pretty quickly.
Philip Bloom has an excellent review of the 5D3's video mode @ https://vimeo.com/39292404. I wonder if the D4 and the 1DX are better, though. Looking forward to those cameras as well.
Inars: As allways, Nikon have a better skin tone.
The differences are down to the choice of the picture style. But in theory, yes, Nikon's sensor is capable of better color reproduction. Not sure that we can see it in the video, though.
rocknhead: Excellent report. Only prob i have is in my opinion handicapping the canon by using a nikon lens with an adaptor on the canon. That does not seem to me to be an apples to apples comparison. I would have thought to be fair you would get say a good tamron lens and use a lens made for each camera. I understand that by using the exact same lens you are getting a bettercomparison in the cameras BUT it is my opinion that would not over weigh the handicap put on the canon camera by using an adapter and a nikon lens.
They are both great cameras. If i did not have a lot of money in canon lenses (5d mkii) I would prob buy the nikon if i was starting over today.
I dont quite see how nikon can put that much technology for that money.
The adapter doesn't have any glass elements in it. In optical terms it's just like putting a different mount on the same lens.
Alec: Earlier today I found myself on the business end of a Big Black Camera, lol, being shot in a film scene. ... the camera being RED5 (in a 4K/800iso/24p mode - I'd spied a look! :). A couple of useful things about that setup:
1) The camera supports 3 monitors: the cameraman's, the focus puller's, and a large director's one. This wasn't some cheapie video output replication - each of these had different markers and things exposed, appropriate for their role.
2) The focus puller uses a wireless manual focus servo worn around his neck. Basically a detached focus ring, with focus marks to be executed in a given scene penciled in on the focus ring's white band. Everything was measured with a tape measure and I reckon this ring had adequate length of travel and fidelity of calibration.
3) Sound is completely separate. A separate crew member manages a shotgun mic on a boom with a recorder. That's what the clapper board is for.
"Earlier today I found myself on the business end of a Big Black..." - sounds like you had a lot of fun! :D
4k capture is great if you output to 2k, but native 4k viewing is not really useful. How close to the screen do you have to be to resolve the difference? It can't be more than 3 feet for a 24" screen with perfect eyesight. That's almost too close to watch movies. I mean, would we see the difference between a native 12 MP and a resampled 2 MP film projection at the cinema?
I think it will stop at 4k for viewing and 8k for capture and editing. Color depth and framerate will be the frontier after that. As for framerate, it will peak at 60p for viewing because that's where the emotional impact peaks. That will change only when movies go interactive, i.e. turn into video games.
Personally, I think that the D800 sample images look much better. I see a special immersive quality in them. 5D III images, on the other hand, look a lot like the ones from my 550D, just with vastly better detail retention at higher ISOs. Otherwise, the feel of the images is exactly the same...
Jokica: 5DIII will not continue selling success of 5DII. MHO
If it's hackable, it probably will.
Adler1970: LOL! Ha ha ha ha ha! Canon tweaked the AUTOFOCUS in the 5D mark-2 and called it a 5D mark-3, which is NOT competitive with the Nikon D800!YES, something is wrong with the strategy of Canon.
Moire and rolling shutter control, 2 stop improvement in ISO performance?
frankenshots: What would be your best guess on the meaning of "improved" weather sealing? This is one of the drawbacks of the 5DII for landscape photography (which is my primary interest). I worry that "improved" means "not really weather-sealed". Which makes the camera, as great as it sounds, too expensive to take out in dicey weather for someone on my budget.
This is not a camera for landscape photography. Get the D800 model without the anti-aliasing filter.
If they can hack the firmware, this camera could be a big deal for videographers and indy filmmakers. Moire and aliasing suppression, better quality output, improved per-pixel resolution and good high ISO performance.
bradleyg5: Yawn, wake me up with they hit F/0.8. f0.95 is not terribly impressive when you only have to produce an image circle 1/4th the size of fullframe. sure the intensity of light is high, but the total amount of light passed through the lens is not worthy of that price tag.
It's ONLY the diameter of the aperture and nothing else at all. It's hard physics. Longer and brighter lenses have less DOF only because their diameter is bigger. Shorter and dimmer lenses have more DOF only because their diameter is smaller. Cropping is completely irrelevant. Take a shallow DOF photograph and crop it in Photoshop. The DOF will not change, no matter how much you crop it.
To estimate how much DOF you will have, take the focal length of your lens and divide it by the relative aperture number. Hence, a 58/2 lens will have an aperture of 29 mm on all the camera formats ever invented. The DOF will be the same regardless of weather you've mounted it on a mobile phone or a full frame camera. Only the magnification of the picture will be different.
@REapper DOF depends on one thing only -- the diameter of the aperture. This is therefore in all respects the same as a 17.5 mm f/0.95 lens on a full frame camera, only the image circle is smaller and you need to crop the image. Cropping, however, doesn't reduce DOF or the amount of light falling on the same area of the sensor. It just changes the apparent focal length.
JMartinP: I think her arguments are brilliant! I'll use this for my next salary negotiation. "Since I only work one day a week, I should make at least five times more per hour than my colleges working full time"
"And then, after I've spent all my money, I'm left with no profit. That's how hard my job is!"