JMichaelsPhoto: Personally, I'm excited about this new camera. I've never been a person too concerned with megapixels. I currently shoot with a canon 60D after shooting with both a nikon D90 and canon 5D for years. 12 mp is all I ever needed. Now, with the 60D, I am learning what the extra pixels mean to the work that I do. This may be a progressive learning experience for me, so I have no preconceptions of pixels when I see a new camera come out. Because if you look at it in the way that many are, with both the release of the 5DIII and D800, the expectations for the next iterations will be even higher. But if you don't have a concept for your personal needs, what good will those pixels be now, or in the future? The things I am excited about are the AF system and expanded ISO capability. Those two features alone make this camera quite interesting indeed (to me). I'll be saving my pennies.
I agree. I too am not worried about megapixels. I shoot with the Canon 5D (no mark). With 13 megapixels I find I have lots on image information without using up so much drive space. What I do hate is not being able to use auto focus in anything but ideal situations.
00112233: The specifications of the Mark III do not justify the almost doubling of price from the Mark II, mostly because they are very alike. So I am looking forward to see if the photo samples of the Mark III are double as good as the samples of the Mark II. And I must say I doubt it because the examples from the M II are exceptional. But it will be interesting to see those samples as mentioned. If the specifications of the M III had been quite different you know like say 32 MB resolution, etc. then this note wouldn't have been necesary. Thats why there will have to be a real difference in the resulting material thet this machine can deliver to justify the high price both compared to its predecesor the M II and the Nikon D800.
I recall that the Mark II had to go up in price once it was released. I wonder if Canon doesn't want to go through this again and has marked up the price so this doesn't happen again.
hsv557: i think its so funny that all the Canon people here saying they dont need more MP's were the same ones saying the MKII was so much better than the D700 because it had more MPs, and at the time all the Nikon fans were saying D700 was better as it performed better in low light, seems Canon people are learning stuff from Nikon people finally lol. Go Canon for listening to all the Nikon fans.
Uh.. that's not how computer noise works. Film sure, but not noise found in electricity.
This is wonderful news. I can now pick up a used 5D Mark II to replace my 5D for a song. I wonder how many die hard Canon owners won't see that this camera is almost identical to the current 5D Mark II?
The only thing that might be very good on this camera is the low light focusing, but to be honest we call it manual focusing today.
Maybe they will fix the bracketing feature with this model. Why I have to put the camera on timer so that it will take all three images is a joke.
Still not much to get excited about.