Just updated: Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview with real world samples

soft???? really?

Yes it has the best DR at low ISO which is good for Nikon shooters ;) 5DIII is better than mkII but not as good as D800. The banding issue is still present.

I've thought about switching to Nikon, but will propably wait for Canon's rumoured high resolution camera.

Another thing is that Canon has an edge with the lenses IMO. The lineup is more complete and Nikon lacks some of the stuff like TS-E 17mm. I've checked many comparisons and charts, and it seems that many Nikon glass has higher CA and less corner sharpness. Telephoto zooms seem to better with Canon too.

Plus with adapthers its possible to use Nikkor etc. lenses on Canon body.

jard69: I think we all care about photography quite a lot, but this a forum about reviewing new cameras, you what else would you spect?

We are not going to complain about the figurines selected for the studio shots being ugly or not pleasently placed, we just want them to have challenging zones and well in focus to compare between models.

All the DSLRs ever made can give you marvellous shots, but in dificult situations, a newer one will perform better, may be you will be able to get focus where your actual one can't, or use a higer ISO so you can better stop motion of the subjects, and it all counts.

Agreed; most people do NOT need a new camera. But for anyone shooting fulltime, a substantially better autofocus, better focus in lowlight, a useful Auto-ISO, and silent shooting make it worth the cost. Anyone shooting photojournalistically now has a Canon that actually works FOR them instead of against them.

As i've been saying all along... DXO Mark's scores are extremely tendentious... Personally i don't go by their scoring methodology in any form whatsooever...

To be frank it isn't entirely necessary to have the same pictures captured from both camera's to formulate an objective assessment...

A low light score of 2853 is nothing short of ludicrous... because there is no way the D800 performs that well in ISO performance... there is severe colour desaturation... heavy handed NR and a dramatic loss in edge to edge definition & dynamic range which is apparent from the test images...

They're probably trying to factor in the frequency of SNR in their evaluation... the tiny pixel pitch on the D800 is definitely not doing their light manipulating algorithms anyfavours either... So how they achieve such a high score... well your guess is as good as mine...

@lensberg

Thou doth protest too much, methinks. ;-)

@ marike6 - :) :) :) :) :)

But seriously... my points pertaining to DXO Mark are made out of genuine concern... I am not disputing the fact that the D800 is shaping up to be a great camera... but at the same time you cannot undermine the vast technological improvements in the 5D III as some sort of "minor upgrade"...

Despite the fact that i may appear biased towards one brand... the reality of the situation is that i am impartial to a fault...

In the end i suppose both will be deemed outstanding camera's of this generation... it will all just come down to personal preference as to which system suits our needs better...

Maybe the IQ improvements are minor, but the 5D II was already good except for shadow DR. The rest of the changes for the 5D III are major. Maybe if you photograph lame snails, the 5D II AF was fine, but for those of us that like to use our cameras for a variety of landscape and action or lowlight work the 5D III is vast improvement.

seems that people photos is not a reality for MKIII

I'm a pro with mk2 and all TS-E lenses with some primes, i'm using it on a tripod with mlu and cable release %95 of the time. for my type of job 800E and zeiss primes will better suit and i believe extra money i pay will pay itself back.

Swapping $15,000 worth of lenses? That is why the Canon vs Nikon discussion is meaningless.

I have a D700 (15.000 photos).
Good DR, AF, high ISO results.
Now I know D700.
I will use D700 until breaking-off.
Meanwhile I will buy other lenses.

Hold your horses people! Why do you think every new buyer of these top end cameras has a bag full of lenses? MOST people who will buy either a D800 or a Mark III are new entrants into FF photography.

European and American zillionairs aside, China and India alone contain near 2.5 billion people with wealthier middle classes popping their pretty faces out to photograph the world.

The world is changing. In other words, lens, schmens!

Omit the 'but...' in your post. It's been said before and I'll repeat: these shots are so you can gain an understanding of colour, sharpness, DR, etc. You're not meant to be blown away by the tester's skills in artistic composition, dramatic storytelling or whatever inspiration it is that you seek. I could show you a some amazing shots taken with a disposable if that's what you're looking for.

@Niegel: In one lens rating table Nikons were at the top of the heap, Zeiss primes even lower than Nikon zooms...

I am getting 14-24, 24-70. 70-200 and 200-400 zooms for my D4 & D800, and I am not worried at all about the resolution available.

@Nigel Wilkins

Yep, even the price of a brand new Mk2 is really low, much lower than the D700. If it weren't for my investment in the Nikon system I'd be looking seriously at one of these as the Mk3 seems pricey.

Flash will no longer be updated for mobile devices, and that includes all the other ones too, not just Apple who used to be a bit backward in this regard, so the point is valid. HTML5 is the future, Flash is the past.

nicotinix - Maybe you should dump the ipad for an open system that supports all standards, not just the ones that make money for apple

D800 would be hard to find, IMO.

As usual, the photos are horrendous!

I had a darkroom, and used most of the tricks to make good prints (push, pull, fogging, dodging, burning etc). Some of those techniques are now used in RAW processing, and as a professional I need them, because so much more can be squeezed out of a RAW file than form a in-camera JPEG. It also makes shooting faster and safer, as small exposure mistakes can be corrected in post. Just the ability to adjust white balance at the office is priceless.

I did. I love RAW processing.

Gothmoth:

No, back in the film days people who were serious about photography didn't necessarily have a darkroom--though many did--but many times they most certainly paid for a lot of work by someone else in the darkroom.

Then there's the whole notion of a shared community darkroom at school or photo club, both still exist, in 2012.

Look 10 years ago when I first got my Canon G2, I didn't realize it could shoot in raw, and I was struggling to learn the gear and just plain Photoshop Elements (PSE did not extract raw then, raw extraction was done with Canon software). So I shot in jpeg for a few months, and got some wonderful pictures, however I was lucky that I didn't need to tweak color or white balance. Shooting in raw saves you from a wasted shot because adjusting the white balance or exposure of a jpeg can easily ruin the picture.

that is maybe true for amateurs.

but many pros have to shoot video too today (or earn more money that way).
and no... not only journalists.
afaik there are articles here on dpreview who describe the change in the industry.

why do you think the 5D MK2 was such a success?
a great part of it was because of the video features.

and stop the whining.. the boat has sailed.
it´s like hearing people complaining all day they have to pay taxes...
canon and nikon will do what maximises their profit that´s for sure.

...."to pay so much extra"....

and how much would that be?
your arguing out of the blue... without any facts.

you may spend some more money.. other would have to spend more if the camera had no video features. now.. what is fair?
what would you do as camera maker?

ISO 12800 certainly looks cleaner than the mkii. If you need that for your stills, then it's useful. If you don't, there's still no reason not to like all the other improvements. I shoot Nikon and I can still appreciate what Canon have brought to the table here. The AF alone would be worth the upgrade!

just to clarify the above:

you may spend some more money... other customers would have to spend more if the camera had NO video features, because they need an additional camera for video. they may even buy a camera that HAS video features from a rival brand.

only solution.... a split of the model line.
but that will not happen because the net effect would be a negativ one for the camera makers. much more effort and no benefit for them.

that´s like people complaining their mercedes has more then one seat but they always drive alone.....

it´s just a shortsighted argumentation... try to get the whole picture.

and if you really think the improvements are only for video, well you can always buy the 5D MK2 when you don´t see the benefit for still images.
i sure see the improvements in the 5D MK3.

the truth is if you shoot Raw there may be not much improvements over 5D2

try to use your brain.. and you will understand the analogy.

you can cry like a child and look like a clown all day.... it will not change the facts.
the fact is VIDEO is here to stay. all your whining will not change that.

It's inevitable everybody is switching to nikon!

they want to take photographs first and foremost.. not sitting in front of an PC and juggling sliders.

that said im a RAW shooter myself.

Henry M. Hertz:

What that also means is that these jpeg shooters, who'd worked with film, were never very interested in developing and printing in a darkroom. You know playing with the enlarger for hours. (The same basically applies to film scanning--they clearly had no interest in the subtleties--and there are a lot-- of that process either.)

@howaboutraw.

no... not at all.

i am a member of 3 camera clubs and from my experience it just means these people are OLDER. not to say everyone who is beyond their 50s is the same. :)

most of them had a darkroom. but they are not grown up with computers.

my father is a, now retired, electronic engineer (born 1947) but he avoids the PC whenever possible. he had to work with layout programs at work.
but that was (became) a part of the job in the 80-90s.

look at how many noobs you know for every computer freak in your surrounding.

i know many DSLR owners who don´t even know how to use MS paint.

it´s is misleading to thing the internet is a mirror of the real world.
people who are at the internet and website like these are normal not those who don´t like computers.

Henry M. Hertz:

Different tools, but pretty much the same thing. My father born in the early 1920s was perfectly happy working with computers, he didn't live into the massive digital photo era, but I see no reason why he'd have any difficulty with a raw extraction.

Interesting that there is so much fuss about PC editing being a pain. The darkroom was much harder to work in and a greater danger to our lungs. Truth is, a good photographer shouldn't have to do a lot of editing to create a great image if he(she) knows how to use the camera properly and understands exposure control. However, the other side of the truth is that some of the greatest landscape photographers spent more time in the darkroom than than they did on shooting the images which made them famous. So the question remains do we edit in the darkroom or Photoshop. Ansel Adams could have saved a lot of time if he could have used PS, and I bet he would have loved it.

he could learn it... you sure could learn to speak japanese or hindi if you want?

but he PREFERS to be out shooting and not sitting hours at a monitor adjusting RAW files.

and his JPG files are good, because he knows to take as good JPGs as possible.

people are different.. that is why there is JPG and RAW and not only RAW.

@edmond

"must".. when i hear that nonsense im tempted to show you images from pros who shoot JPGs.

ok i shoot raw myself. i love to work on the PC.
i like that i have full controll. i think most images can be visually enhanced shooting raw.

but "must"....? nah.
JPG is so good these days it is not a "must".

maybe for those who struggle with exposure and WB and need to adjust each and every picture.

im curious adler1970 and the other guys..... did you tell everyone back in the film days they had to have their own darkroom?

i bet not!

if you have shoot at that time at all.... :)

Gothmoth:

No, back in the film days people who were serious about photography didn't necessarily have a darkroom--though many did--but many times they most certainly paid for a lot of work by someone else in the darkroom.

Then there's the whole notion of a shared community darkroom at school or photoclub, both still exist, in 2012.

Look 10 years ago when I first got my Canon G2, I didn't realize it could shoot in raw, and I was struggling to learn the gear and just plain Photoshop Elements. So I shot in jpeg for a few months, and got some wonderful pictures, however I was lucky that I didn't need to tweak color or white balance. Shooting in raw saves you from a wasted shot because adjusting the white balance or exposure of a jpeg can easily ruin the picture.

i bet at least 60% of the customers of either the D800 or 5D MK3 will shoot JPG.

that´s my personal experience from camera clubs in my location.

of course you get a different result when you ask on internet forums where people are more accustomed to using a PC.

my father and my two uncle are photographing for over 40 years.
they have nikon and canon DSLR´s. but never touched an image editing program for more then just cropping and printing.

there are more people out there who never visit a photography forum then people who do.

and these 60%+ who shot JPG doesn´t need 21 MP ... not to mention 36 MP.

RAW is only useful if one struggles with exposures or ISO sensitivity selection by shooting the old TTL method and badly needs pp, nobody has shown RAW really with better details where it counts, and that is when the lighting gets quite dim.
the 5DMkIII allows one to venture into low luminance scenarios where others cannot keep up.
if you shoot in good light, no need for high ISOs even at the tightest acceptable apertures and shortest shutter speeds.
at least its in-camera JPEGs are unrivaled if one avoids the 'beginner-default' settings, and speed-ISO-apertures are optimally chosen (w/ ExpSim LV), they will be publish-worthy straight out of the camera in the field.
i think vast majority of those shooting for clients wanting 'publish-now' deadlines will predominantly be delivering JPEGs right after they shoot rather than wait for offline pp w/ a computer. that's why Canon designed even custom RAW-to-JPEG conversion in-camera, so 'final JPEG interpretations' can be set for publishing.

sdyue, are u in the publishing industry and fully understand the process flow of the industry?

@ sdyue Of course RAW has better detail and it has better DR. And if you shoot mixed or difficult artificial lighting, RAW allows you to adjust WB after the fact, instead of being at the mercy of the cameras AWB or having to shoot a grey card to create a Custom WB. I couldn't imagine any photographer who cares about their images, or is on a paying job shooting JPEG.

Amen about publishing! If you are anywhere near publishing, you NEED raw! Especially if you're going to both web and press. sRGB and CMYK both clip hugely in different places. If you go straight to one, you're hosed for color gamut on the other. Adobe 1998 helps, but in the end, that clips the gamut too, just less. Raw allows you to go to any color space and have the most accurate conversions.

I know this--I worked shooting/color correcting textiles for a while. It's either raw, or spend ten times as long masking curves layers to make the image look like the real thing. Or just shoot raw and be done with all of it in an instant.

What you don't know, doesn't make you right.

Of course, wedding photogs don't generally care about any of this if they nail exposure. But there is more to photography than wedding photogs (there just happen to be a lot of them!)

as if it would make a difference for his photos... or 90% of us here.

it´s just the gearheads who are into "photography" for the tech but not the images who think about switching.

beside that the D800 is a great studio and landscape camera... the 5D MK3 is the overall better allrounder.
most D800 buyer will never make use of the extra resolution.. with their 10x15cm or 13x18cm prints and a maximum of A4 prints.

what canon has to work on is better DR.
thats the only thing that i whish would be better in the 5D MK3.

Dear Josan:
1.please give me all the reasons why you would want to jump.
2. where do you get the proof that your reasons are valid?
3. how much money will you spend to jump?
4. is it worth spending so much for maybe a few stronger point one camera has over the other?
3. look at your list, then take a look in the mirror and say: "I was dazzeled by only the number of pixels in the D800, I'm a (naive) victim of their smart marketing. But thanks to Rubenski I've come to my senses. Thank you Rubenski!

My pleasure Josan, you're more than welcome!

BTW: The only thing Nikon is better at is marketing, nothing else.

Yes, josan, Nikon is doing a better job. Today, Nikon is doing a better job than Canon. Of course the 5D Mark3 is a good Camera. But this 5D mark-3 is only the same old 5Dmark2, with a new autofocus.
That's all. Pure marketing. Practically, nothing has changed.
No sane man pays 3400 euros for a normal autofocus.

Yes, Today, Nikon is doing a better job: between the Nikon d700 and Nikon D800 there is a real change.
But between the Canon 5D mark2 and the Canon 5D mark3 there is NOT a real change!
This 5D mark3 is for COLLECTORS, is a Souvenir for bored people. Not for photographers who were waiting for a real upgrade.

Wow , first I would say thank you to all of you that have replied on my comment .
Honestly , I am not a pro photographer , I am an Airline Pilot that love photography, I started taking photo since 1978 , I often go to many places, taking photos as hobby , that is why I am relying on good equipments, good weather seal , strong build and most important better details for my Area photography. I often do a lot of cropping on my photos to make it look better, example for bird's feather details, trees etc, I have a very high speed computer so big file size is not really a problem . all these points are in the D800 side , that is why I am tempted to jump ship .
I never thought anyone will take any notice of me jumping ship as I am not a Pro Photographer. I hope Canon will come up with something similar or even better, I have many L lenses and happy with it . but Nikon also have many great lenses .
can someone convince me its better to stay with Canon ?, I would love to !

If josan wants to switch to Nikon, why do people get so upset? Do they own stock in Canon? If there is superior camera available at these prices it would be foolish not to jump on it.

@marike6

Unfortunately many people on this site have a good portion of their self esteem wrapped up in their camera brand being the best. That is why so many take this silly Canon vs Nikon debate way to seriously.

wedding photographer will love it, normal customer will buy it because it´s a great allrounder.....

idi*ts on the internet will complain as usual.. and most of them will not have the money to buy it anyway.

as usual....