Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III 'production' sample gallery

By dpreview staff on Apr 6, 2012 at 22:28 GMT

We've just posted a gallery of real-world sample images shot using a production-standard Canon EOS 5D Mark III. We've been out shooting with a range of lenses and in a variety of lighting conditions with Canon's latest full-frame DSLR, superseding our preview gallery that was shot with a pre-production camera. The gallery includes some shots processed with Adobe Camera Raw and a shot using the camera's multiple exposure feature.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III production samples gallery

There are 25 images in this samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III production samples gallery - Posted April 6th 2012

Comments

Total comments: 232
12
Eric Glam
By Eric Glam (May 24, 2012)

The ALL-I video sample (the original MOV file) is NOT ALL-I at all.
The bitrate is 12.5Mbps, and file size is 26.9 MB.

DPReview, please add a link to the real ALL-I sample.

0 upvotes
camera digital store
By camera digital store (May 5, 2012)

Canon 5D Mark III is a professional-grade full-frame DSLR that builds on the strengths of previous models in the range to deliver a hugely impressive camera that is <a href='http://camerasdigitalstore.blogspot.com/' title=''>sure</a> to appeal

0 upvotes
Pkaba
By Pkaba (Apr 14, 2012)

Hello,

to see no pictures with ISO 25600 to the HIGH ISO problem.

Yours sincerely,
Pkaba

1 upvote
ShutterSteve
By ShutterSteve (Apr 13, 2012)

Looks awesome above ISO 800, noticably cleaner than my mkII... exciting!

0 upvotes
Chuck Lantz
By Chuck Lantz (Apr 12, 2012)

I gotta give Marksphoto one point; ... I do miss the odor of a fresh 35mm film roll. Maybe someone should market a scratch-and-sniff card the ex-film shooters could carry around for when they're feeling nostalgic?

2 upvotes
MorrytheGrinch
By MorrytheGrinch (Apr 10, 2012)

Oooooh scathing... Good job us kit junkie non photographers have got a proper photographer to tell us how to live our lives!
So we get an Elan and have the same content as the other million photographers, but scanned from a negative?
Na, arsed. I think I'll use a digital camera instead.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Marksphoto
By Marksphoto (Apr 10, 2012)

I can make better pictures with film and if I were a hobbyist I wouldn't even bother with digital photography. Who would want to have the same crap on their hard drives as the other million photographers do?

if you want to stand out upgrade yourself a Canon Elan for pennies on ebay and your photos will look so much better than anything digital can offer and if you have the extra $2000 to burn get yourself a decent film scanner like I did. Even scanned film is preferred to my 5D Mark2 files when shot side by side, I won't even comment how much better the prints look overall.

If you are a wedding photographer and shoot thousands of photos than an upgrade to mark3 maybe worth it to you. The rest are just equipment junkies and not photographers

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MrGreen
By MrGreen (Apr 11, 2012)

You are the dumbest moron on the face of this planet. Enough said.

5 upvotes
Felixius
By Felixius (Apr 11, 2012)

Hi Marksphoto,

Most photography hobbyists are not about the darkroom (sounds like some sort of underground club nowadays), but about the framing, the lighting, the f-stops, bokeh etc... and digital photography offers them a free way of testing out their shots.

While Marksphoto's remarks come off a little a$$-like, if one would like to explore that aspect of photography, and experience what film can actually do versus modern digital, it would be greatly rewarding!

I happen to have the Elan somewhere in my cupboard... should dig it out...

Marksphoto? With Kodakcolor not in production, where and what brand of film would you recommend?

0 upvotes
Dapple 101
By Dapple 101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Marksphoto - perhaps you'd be better off visiting Analogue Photography Review.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Noah Stephens
By Noah Stephens (Apr 12, 2012)

Marksphoto:

Right. I guess that why most professional photographers use film cameras...wait....

0 upvotes
kbozen
By kbozen (Apr 12, 2012)

wrong forum Marksphoto ;-) hint: http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php

0 upvotes
Inge
By Inge (Apr 18, 2012)

Utter ignorance. Many of us shot film for decades before switching to digital. I see absolutely no reason to go back. 35mm film is vastly inferior in all respects to 35mm digital.

0 upvotes
maico
By maico (Apr 10, 2012)

Download the 900 Mb MP4 file and take a look at the stuff after sharpening and grading. It's excellent.

https://vimeo.com/39292404

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tobywhitstable
By tobywhitstable (Apr 10, 2012)

ok, low light performance from Canon's 5D MK III is impressive, moire and aliasing has improved but its still an issue....
Unfortunately Canon has given us another dog box of a camera in terms of video quality.
Its not a true 1080p video, more like 720p resolution, no improvement in video quality over Canon's 4 year old 5D Mark II, mushy resolution and mosquito noise from the codec, no peaking and poor manual focus assist, also the magnified focus assist button is in a dumb place, no articulated screen, no crop mode, no EVF and no electronic ND filter.

It's up to Sony and Panasonic to carry us forward, because once again Canon has FAILED miserably.

3 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 11, 2012)

Here's to Canon continuing to fail so miserably! (...and in doing so, please us stills shooters and give Nikon a run for their money)

0 upvotes
ArchiDeos
By ArchiDeos (Apr 10, 2012)

Gotcha.. Night photography challenge to everyone...Kudos to Canon..Just make sure to know and familiarize your gadget and everything will be alright. keep on shooting guys..make the click of your day...

0 upvotes
JLJL
By JLJL (Apr 10, 2012)

Serious Light Leak Issue with the 5D mark III!

Light leaking trough top LCD causes underexposure

http://www.akphotodenver.com/images/backlight.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF8CW723wEo

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http://nl.fotovideo.nu/nieuws/27104/test-5d-mark-iii-light-leak-bug

0 upvotes
ArchiDeos
By ArchiDeos (Apr 10, 2012)

IMO..Make sure to use your viewfinder cover provided to avoid extra light..peace...

0 upvotes
j2ker
By j2ker (Apr 10, 2012)

Nikon sucks! Canon sucks! Neither entity can take a picture. The photographer matters most! The tool is irrelevant; it's the photographer's eye that matters most. When was the last time a photo blew you away due to its MP rating? Probably never. Composition, Exposure and Focus are what matter; certainly not nameplate. Face it; any DSLR can make a good photo! Its our eyes and brain that take the photo, not the DSLR. My best friend shoots Canon. I shoot Nikon. We're still friends. We both like looking at each other's photos. I think you all get my drift by now. Cheers!

2 upvotes
Barbu
By Barbu (Apr 10, 2012)

Umm... Yeah, the "tool" doesn't matter. And that's exactly the reason YOU are on this site, right? ;)

6 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Apr 11, 2012)

As owner of a 5D Mk II I'm still waiting for the highspeed video version. Who's next ? Panasonic take you're chance (btw still love my FZ-100).

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
callaesthetics
By callaesthetics (Apr 10, 2012)

these are decent samples but don't do any justice to the 5D3. my experience with it has been a great deal of joy. I still can't believe how clean high iso images look.

0 upvotes
knight_photo_06
By knight_photo_06 (Apr 10, 2012)

totally agree, very useful tool in a variety of shooting conditions

1 upvote
Alejandro del Pielago
By Alejandro del Pielago (Apr 10, 2012)

ISO 2500 in the file 5D3_5683-ACRprocessed (the house)???

Some night shots taken by the 5D3 look better with higher ISOS.

Here in DP I examined a night image (5dIII) with ISO 12800 and it looks cleaner... shadows and zones with good light.

Overprocessed?????

0 upvotes
Wubslin
By Wubslin (Apr 9, 2012)

Another winner far Canon! I wonder what Nikon is going to do now. Maybe it would be better to break up the company and give the money back to the shareholders?

2 upvotes
marbo uk
By marbo uk (Apr 9, 2012)

Lol, are you living in a parallel universe :)

4 upvotes
Dapple 101
By Dapple 101 (Apr 9, 2012)

This was a brainless thing to say when you posted it a month ago - that you felt the need to use it again beggars belief (@Wubslin)

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
wkay
By wkay (Apr 9, 2012)

P/S type compostions, could take this with any camera. Looks like someone walked around town randomly waving the camera. Like most DP sample images, it seems noone can figure out how to get any colors besides brown and gray in their images. When do we get a decent A-B comparison with %D2

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 9, 2012)

Are you colourblind?

3 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Apr 9, 2012)

But, also, Seattle is quite a ways north. It's cold in the winter time and they have both deciduous and evergreen trees. So, you're going to see a lot of brown in outdoor photos at this time of the year. And, remember - it's Seattle. A city built on the beautiful northwest territory.

1 upvote
ageha
By ageha (Apr 10, 2012)

The dpreview.com samples are always abysmal.

0 upvotes
Lionel Lam
By Lionel Lam (Apr 10, 2012)

Don't you think that kind of statement is a bit uncalled-for? I'd feel insulted if it was me taking the photos. There are plenty of other websites to compare sample images by the way. Thanks Barney for the pictures. Great work.

4 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Apr 10, 2012)

Give me a break... the samples are very good... and more than adequate to make a your individual assessments as to whether the photographic prowess of the 5D III meets your lofty requiremnts...

PS compositions... bad sample images... will you never cease to be overly critical for absolutely no rhyme or reason... Who would you have take these sample images... Patrick Demarchelier...?!

4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 9, 2012)

Since ownership of Canon or Nikon lenses doesn't seem to be a consideration (why even comment on a camera that you have no intent to buy since you have no lenses for it) I have concluded that the 5D mk III and D800 are both very good cameras but the Nikon is twice as good a value. D800 = 36mp for $3000. That's just $83 per megapixel. 5D mk III = 22mp for $3500. That's $159 per megapixel. Even if you have some of the better Canon lenses, ones that Nikon has no equivalent for, it makes sense to switch brands since you will make up the savings over time in megapixels.

1 upvote
Lenny L
By Lenny L (Apr 9, 2012)

Meh, megapixels is so last decade. I make my buying decision strictly by $ / oz.

12 upvotes
Charlie Jin
By Charlie Jin (Apr 10, 2012)

No, weight doesn't matter much these days.
It should be volume that's important, since
bigger ones look very professional and gives
so much satisfaction.

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 10, 2012)

Childish.

0 upvotes
Chuckmet
By Chuckmet (Apr 11, 2012)

Everybody knows its the length of your lens that counts!!! Size Matters.

2 upvotes
Noah Stephens
By Noah Stephens (Apr 12, 2012)

Just because a camera has more megapixels, does not mean its a better camera. As a matter of fact, the more megapixels you pack onto a sensor of any given size, the more image quality degrades.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Apr 13, 2012)

"D800 = 36mp for $3000. That's just $83 per megapixel. 5D mk III = 22mp for $3500. That's $159 per megapixel."

Yeah but keep in mind that D800 only shoots 4 pics/s, EOS 5DIII shoots 6 pics/s. Given the current retail prices EOS 5DIII users pay only about 80 % of the bugs-per-picture than D800 users have to pay... ;-)

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Marksphoto
By Marksphoto (Apr 9, 2012)

pictures look ugly, skintones are gray and lifeless. Looks as if there was a piece of transparent plastic placed in front of the lens while shooting.

another reason to shoot raw and if you are a raw shooter the upgrade from Mark 2 is irrelevant.

I can't tell the difference in image quality improvement. I can do the same in jpeg mode with 5D Mark2 and just tell everyone I shot it with the new camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
onyx1993
By onyx1993 (Apr 9, 2012)

I have to agree about these photos, they're pretty bad. I upgraded from the mark ii to the mark iii and honestly, I don't see much difference in image quality. I'm sure people will find differences, but I'm getting the same class of prints that I got with my mark ii. I don't generally shoot above 3200 ISO and I rarely shoot that high, so I can't really comment on the improvements in extremely low light. If all I was looking for was a significant bump in IQ, I'd be sorely disappointed.

That being said, the mark iii is so much more versatile. It is a completely different shooting experience. For me, the AF, shooting speed, and build quality really do make a difference in everyday use. I'm a little bitter at the price increase, but I'm really happy with the improvements. If these things aren't worth the price to upgrade to you, then I think the mark 2 is a perfect choice.

PS - I don't shoot video either, so I can't comment on any differences in video quality.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
YrKum
By YrKum (Apr 9, 2012)

P.S. Sorry, I mean: better IQ - than D800, better autofocus & shooting speed - than 5D Mk II.

0 upvotes
YrKum
By YrKum (Apr 9, 2012)

For me, the better high ISO image quality, autofocus and shooting speed are enougf to prefer Mk III over D800. Keep in mind that one can use Nikon's 14-24, 16-35 f4 VR as well as EF 135, 70-200? etc.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Apr 9, 2012)

Funny how these fools regard 1-series AF as an incremental upgrade. No, incremental would have been the 7D AF. A significant upgrade would have been the 45 point AF from the 1D4. The fact that the 5D3 has the 1DX 63 point AF module is nothing short of wonderful. We have not seen such a well-rounded Canon since the film EOS 3. I've had a 30D, 40D, 1DIIN, 5DII, 7D, and now the 5D3. The 5D3 is the best yet by a significant margin in every regard except for 2 less fps. I will have this camera for a long time.

6 upvotes
Whelk
By Whelk (Apr 9, 2012)

Having just got a 5D3 and sold my 1Ds MkI which I had for 7 years I am hoping I'll be happy with the 5D3 for another 7 years!

0 upvotes
tobywhitstable
By tobywhitstable (Apr 9, 2012)

shizen house'n...Absolute crap from canon here.... The biggest over-hyped flop for 2012 is the EOS 5D MK III

6 upvotes
altenae
By altenae (Apr 9, 2012)

Registered just to tell us this ?
You must be a pro I guess.

GROW UP

5 upvotes
Jacques Cornell
By Jacques Cornell (Apr 9, 2012)

$7,000 1Ds MkIII with improved AF, lower high-ISO noise, and +1 fps in a smaller form factor for half price? Yeah, that's "absolute crap" - NOT. Just because YOU don't need it doesn't make it crap. For low-light event shooters like me, the AF and fps alone make this a HOT camera. Yeah, the D800 is nice, but I NEED better than 5fps when shooting onstage performances and presentations. The 5D MkIII alternatives all either lack one of my performance requirements or cost substantially more. D800? Only 4fps and huge FF RAW file size. D700? Only 12MP. 1Ds MkIII, 1D MkIV or D4? Nice, but bulky and too expensive. 5D MkII? Mediocre AF. 7D? Too noisy. The 5d MkIII is EXACTLY the camera I've been waiting for.

7 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Apr 9, 2012)

Same here, Majikthize.

1 upvote
Olgierd
By Olgierd (Apr 9, 2012)

Same here mate. Been waiting for 5D3 long time and it is what I was waiting for.

0 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Apr 10, 2012)

@ Majikthize - the D800 is marketed as being able to maintain 4 fps... but in practise it struggles to meet this speed hitting a top of 3.8 fps at full resolution from my experience with it...

D800 ISO performance is mediocre at best... its nowhere near as good as the 5D III at anything beyond ISO 800... Even from the initial review at cameralabs its abundantly clear that the 5D III enjoys a definitive 2 stop advantage over the D800 at all sensitivities... (including when the D800 sampes were downsized...)

0 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Apr 8, 2012)

Personally, I agree that the Mark III is more expensive than the upgrades it has.

But that doesn't make this camera pointless- how many people buy a camera right when it comes out? Not that many compared to the people that buy it when it goes on sale. On a sale price, the MIII makes sense- sure, the IQ isn't vastly improved, but it doesn't need to be. The AF, video, and other incremental upgrades are good enough. Sure, it isn't a completely different tool, but it's a refined tool, and for some people it's the right tool. There's no reason to write off this camera just because you don't see a use for it.

What are people really looking for? A more significant boost in low light performance, DR and whatever else might be nice, but then you will still have your conservative upgraders who still say their current camera is "good enough." Good enough is subjective, just like the cameras we pick to use. The only thing that will get people excited is something truly innovative, not upgrades.

1 upvote
smileblog
By smileblog (Apr 8, 2012)

Looking some of these pics, it seems DR also increase a bit. BTW Why isn't DxO Mark reported yet.

2 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 9, 2012)

I want to see what DXO Mark has to say too

1 upvote
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Apr 8, 2012)

What no 4k video? Maybe, in the upcoming Sony full frame SLT.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Apr 8, 2012)

If you own a bunch of great Canon lenses where else are you going to go? Not much of a leap from the Mark II.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Jacques Cornell
By Jacques Cornell (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm guessing you don't shoot moving subjects or have never used a camera with wide-area AF. I stuck with my 1DsII and 1DII rather than side-grading to a 5DII precisely because the AF is so much better for off-center and moving subjects. In terms of IQ, the 5DIII might not be a revelation to 5DII owners, but the AF and frame rate make it an order of magnitude better for shooting action in low light.

3 upvotes
jimstar70
By jimstar70 (Apr 8, 2012)

Good. Finally Canon jpgs look like Sony Alpha 700 standard profile with AWB. I like it.

1 upvote
wellyspyder
By wellyspyder (Apr 8, 2012)

If you were expecting a quantum leap in image quality from Canon or Nikon, then you are deluded. There will be no such an easy and frequent thing as the product has matured. Same for flat panel tv, which only gets thinner but image quality is now pretty stable with each generation.

What this camera gives Canon lens owners like myself still using xxD bodies is another choice, i.e. full frame with decent AF for sports without going to 1D bodies which weighs like a brick which I do not need.

Canon already have hook those with 5D bodies, whether you upgrade or not is irrelevant for most part.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

The word quantum does not mean huge; the word means discrete.

Actually, OLED TVs, once they finally are mass released, will be a big improvement over even recent high end flat panel TVs; the contrast ratio and the refresh rates are a big deal.

Camera sensors that avoid heat problems will be a future big improvement in digital photography--Sony has started to do some work in this area. The 3 layer Foveon sensors sure do better colour, and there's a lot of room for work by other manufacturers in that area.

0 upvotes
wellyspyder
By wellyspyder (Apr 8, 2012)

Quantum leap in the above sentence was meant to represent spectacular/amazing, not size. Quantum physics is pretty amazing.

OLED tv today is like 1 series bodies, out reach of the masses at this point in time. It has been around since 2007 and still not affordable! So no big deal as far as the majority of consumer is concern. 5 years is a long time in the electronics lab/curiosity!

If the truth be known, makers of current flat screen tv are bleeding from their accounts selling tv for less than it cost them to manufacture.

Still photography in the near future is going to be insignificant, like film cameras for the majority who are going to spend money on taking photos. The path for most manufacture now is video. Still photo, unfortunately will be a frame from the video! I for one dislike this and eventually be in the minority camp.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

wellyspyder:

But quantum still doesn't mean "spectacular". Spectacular physics would be evidence of say a non-quantized electron charge.

OLEDs, right and in about 2002 a 16 inch LCD TV cost about $1400.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
LYuan
By LYuan (Apr 9, 2012)

@ HowaboutRAW

Thanks, HowaboutRAW, we all appreciate your knowledge of the English language, as there seems to be fewer and fewer of the kind, but we all get the point wellyspyder is trying to make. His use of the term "quantum leap" may not be right if you take the absolute literal definitions of the term, but it has been used in similar contexts and for similar purposes to describe significance in both public media and in general figures of speech. So, even though by definition the term is misused, the greater colloquial meaning and widely accepted use of this figure-of-speech suggests that his use of the phrase is actually correct. It is quite common where literal meanings differ from the socially accepted definitions, but as long as the point is made, then everyone wins.

@ Wellyspyder

I totally agree. There is a curve that will most likely continue to shallow as the generations of camera gear progresses. There will be longer rests between major advancements for sure.

cheers.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
damoclesnz
By damoclesnz (Apr 9, 2012)

Irrespective of what 'quantum' means, the noun 'quantum leap' usually means a sudden and/or dramatic advance (e.g. a significant technological advance).

Wellyspider's use of quantum leap in the sentence above is correct.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 9, 2012)

Y'all are falling down a slippery language slope with this acceptance of a general colloquial meaning that is at odds with a term's definition.

It's a more extreme case, but this type of abuse of language is one of the major ways that GWBush presented the illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq to the public in the USA as apt and appropriate. So no, even though I full well know what was meant, the term is incorrect. And for those in Canada or the UK reading this; fake language is a the way that many public figures in the US deny the obvious solution to the medical insurance crisis in the USA.

There have been huge improvements in digital cameras in the last 5 years, there is no reason to think that this trend is somehow ending because Canon didn't provide the most exciting update to a already well respected dslr.

Just look at what Sony is starting to do with heat avoidance and Fuji's randomized RGB senors hold promise. Those are amazing OLED EVFs Sony is producing.

0 upvotes
LYuan
By LYuan (Apr 9, 2012)

The entire world runs on colloquial interpretation. You can preach all you want about "the dangers of assumption", but in the end it gets the job done. The term is correct. You can argue all you want, but it is the current temporally accepted proper use of the term; regardless of what GWBush, Abe Lincon, or whatever President whatever country wants to say. Nobody is arguing the proper definition of the word "quantum", nobody is saying how it should be used. It is how it is used right now, and most importantly, it is how it is understood by everyone. Including you. You arguing the semantics of this in a camera forum really won't change the situation, and neither will parables about illegal invasions and fake language. If people are going to do something illegal, they're going to find a way to do it. Don't put it on a language.

0 upvotes
Pixnat2
By Pixnat2 (Apr 8, 2012)

I like the jpegs colors, very nice. They are well balanced, and really reminds me as those of the Olympus E-3. Canon have done a great job with the JPEG engine on this 5D iteration. Kudos!

1 upvote
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Apr 8, 2012)

The portrait of the bearded gentleman has the focus on the eyebrows instead of the actual eye. Is that how you advertise the autofocus system in the new 5D ?

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Apr 8, 2012)

The focus is not on the eyebrow it is on eyelashes on the gentleman's left eye which is a good place for the AF to lock onto. There is a big difference between eyebrow and eyelashes. It is also shot wide open at f1.4 at an angle to the eye so very shallow depth of field even on the focal length of lens used when you are this close. Plus it is quite possible the gentleman was also turning his head at the same time the photo was taken. The camera has done well to lock onto the eyelashes considering all these factors.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Apr 8, 2012)

Whether the focus is locked onto the eye, eyelash, or eyebrow isn't the point... but rather whether or not the AF can lock onto whatever it was pointed it at. I couldn't care less what some advert or demo shows just as long as the bottom line reports that the AF is quick, competent and precise... which seems to be the case.

3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Apr 8, 2012)

Tella that was not the point I was making. The point was it would have been pointed at the eye, locked onto the lashes... job done. The original poster could not have checked the full res file although you could see it was not focused on the eyebrow on some of the smaller files anyway.

0 upvotes
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Apr 8, 2012)

Stu 5, My reply was to the OP :)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Phil Flash
By Phil Flash (Apr 7, 2012)

I think with the original 5D and Nikon D700, the DSLR had finally matured at the full-frame level. The cameras lacked nothing in image quality, had good dynamic range, and enough resolution for enlargements up to 16x20 or so.

Everything else that is coming afterward is only gravy -- gravy with video.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 7, 2012)

Well the autofocus isn't particularly good on either the 5D M1 or the D700.

Instead of the D700 don't you mean the D3?

1 upvote
bills_pix
By bills_pix (Apr 8, 2012)

The focus on my D700 was blowing away the 7D and 1DMk4 my friends were using at Bosque recently.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

bills_pix:

Fine the D700's AF beats a bunch of Canons, that's certainly possible, from what I've read and experienced with Canons.

But not one of those cameras you mentioned is the Nikon D3 and the D3's AF most certainly shames that on the D700.

My point was the D3 the preceded the D700 and still easily bests it for autofocus (and of course bests the Canon 5D Mark I) so calling the D700 the first "mature" FF dslr is mistaken as is calling the 5D Mark 1. (Though to be fair to Canon the first 5D was released a good bit before the D3--like 2 years.)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Apr 8, 2012)

bills_pix:

"The focus on my D700 was blowing away the 7D and 1DMk4 my friends were using at Bosque recently."

get a life fanboy

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 8, 2012)

The D3 blowing away the AF on the D700? I've used both and the D3x...ain't no difference there. Although, I never use the D700 without the grip and a proper EN-El4, so maybe it slacks a bit with the stock battery. The D300 is a bit slower to track and focus than the D3. Not the D700 though.

No fanboism in the statement that the CAM3500 blows away the 7D AF. That's provable truth right there. Less points and processing power in the 7D's AF. It's truly a soccer mom's worst friend. And true enough, the 5D AF was marginal, and not up to the sensor they threw in the mkii.

But seriously, what'cha all smokin? Where's some evidence of this previously unheard claim that the D700 is extremely inferior in AF to the D3? I've used both and the D700 is a beast in low light and for sports. Even with screw drive lenses, it rips. Just like the D3.

And for those not in the know: the D700 actually predates the D3. Marketing flipped the release dates and tweaked the features.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Apr 8, 2012)

the 7D can tack / pin sharp photos including soccer...

more AF point doent mean better focus..there is more to it.

0 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Apr 8, 2012)

The AF system incorporated in the Canon 1D Mark IV is absolutely incredible... and from personal experience superior to the AF system in the D700... And its on par, if not slightly more responsive to even the D3S AF... especially in low light situations...

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

micahmedia:

To be honest, I've only every used the D3s and the D700; the AF on the D3s is much much better than that on the D700.
So I guess I was smokin' the D3s.

Odd that Nikon did that release reversal.

0 upvotes
Phil Flash
By Phil Flash (Apr 9, 2012)

As for AF, the D700 is more than fine for me. I tend to MF anyway.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 11, 2012)

@Stollen1234: if you get a chance to borrow or rent a D700, D300, D3, D3s, D3x, or D4 with a Nikon 70-200, you'll find that the CAM3500 is a revelation after using a 7D.

I'm not talking down the 7D for nothin--a couple pro friends complained about it so I tried it myself. It truly does not track a body in the frame as well. And certainly not in low light. It's about on par with the D7000. The 7D and D7000 are just in another league.

@lensberg: I honestly have not tried the 1Dmkiv. I've used the 1Dmkiii, and I was not fond of it's tracking. Then again, that's one known for AF issues, so maybe I got a bum one. The mkii was pretty ok, but again I wouldn't say it compared well to the CAM3500.

@HowaboutRAW: er qualify "better"? Faster tracking front to back? Faster tracking around the frame? More accurate? Worked in lower light?

I find the only thing I can't track with my D700 is stuff that falls outside the AF pattern, and that's not usually stuff shot from the hip anyway.

0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Apr 13, 2012)

@ bills_pix (5 days ago): "The focus on my D700 was blowing away the 7D and 1DMk4 my friends were using at Bosque recently."

Can't believe that. Did the 7D have about the same lens type screwed on? Was its AF drive correctly micro-adjusted? To my knowledge the D700 has the same AF system as D300. I shoot a lot of wildlife action (e.g. birds in flight, much more a challenge than sports because of soft contrasts). I do that together with a Nikonian using a D300. Same lens types: 70-200/2.8 both mark II, 300's etc. All of them AF micro-adjusted in both cameras.

After many tenthousands of shots I can really say, if it comes down to low contrast, my 7D overall outperforms slightly the D300 which has in particular trouble with brownish colored objects. And the 7D needs more AF precision with its 18 MP crop sensor!

I think, too, that the D700 with its big pixels/low resolution still delivers acceptable results with a not-so-precise AF. That's it!

0 upvotes
pbstewart1960
By pbstewart1960 (Apr 7, 2012)

Spent last Saturday with my new 5D3 shooting indoors with no flash. Took over 200 pix. The high ISO performance of my 5D was very good. My 5D2 was even better. The 5D3 looks a full two stops better than the 5D2 to me. The shutter and autofocus are noticeably faster. Wonderful camera.

(I downloaded the Adobe Camera Raw 6.7 RC. Yes, the raw images are wonderful, too.)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 7, 2012)

Okay, I'll bite: Do you really mostly shoot jpeg with your 5D Mark I?

If so what a waste of a camera, unless you must have small files out in the field.

0 upvotes
pbstewart1960
By pbstewart1960 (Apr 7, 2012)

No, I shoot almost exclusively raw. However, when I get a new camera, I shoot raw+jpeg for a while so I can campare the two. Plus, the officially released version of Adobe Camera Raw doesn't support the 5D3.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

Yes but RC1 of ACR 6.7 does open raws from the Canon, without trouble.

Doesn't Canon still supply some silly raw extraction software with the purchase and couldn't one just use that until ACR catches up?

It's just that jpegs can be so misleading and hard to adjust for say colour.

0 upvotes
ANdy Ja
By ANdy Ja (Apr 8, 2012)

That "silly Raw extraction software" is actually pretty darn good. Digital Photo Professional and though it doesn't have the features of Lightroom as a basic Raw converter it is hard to beat.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

ANdy Ja:

Good to know Canon still supplies some raw extraction software; true I don't remember Canon's Zoombrowser being terrible with my G2 or G6. It's just that ACR is so much better.

I also genuinely wanted to know if Canon had started charging the way Nikon has always charged for Capture NX (which aint real good compared to ACR.) Then I was also trying to get pbstewart1960 to comment on 5D III raws he/she shot, so I was proposing that Canon software solution.

Hey at least Canon isn't supplying Silkypix with their dslrs, shame on you Fuji and Samsung.

1 upvote
mzynfo
By mzynfo (Apr 8, 2012)

Is the shutter on mk3 still so loud?

0 upvotes
pbstewart1960
By pbstewart1960 (Apr 11, 2012)

The shutter sound is different. I'd say it's perhaps a little quieter, but not dramatically so. However, there is a silent mode which, while not actually silent, is supposed to be nearly so, according to some reviews. I haven't played with this feature yet, as it also slows the shutter down slightly, and I have yet to be in a siuation requiring quiet.

As for the high ISO raw files, they are impressive and look a lot cleaner than Mk II raw files at the same ISO.

0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Apr 13, 2012)

@ ANdy Ja (4 days ago): "That "silly Raw extraction software" is actually pretty darn good."

I agree. We have both Canon's Digital Photo Professional and Nikon's NEFF stuff software on our computers (besides Adobe LR). DPP is much nicer to use than Nikon's NEFF converter. But: the current version of DPP delivered with EOS 5DIII seems to have a bug so early adopters of this camera need to wait for an update - bad because Adobe LR 4 needs a plugin for 5D III and other third party converters not yet support it.

For DPP bug see:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/the-5d-mark-iii-canon-dpp-software-issue/

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Apr 7, 2012)

Have fun Jack with your great camera! I'm enjoying my D4 too ;-)

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Apr 7, 2012)

La la la, I am out enjoying my 5D3 while people here are whining on the internet. Love it. So long, suckers.

7 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 7, 2012)

Instead of calling me a sucker - which I'm not because I'm already five years old and I stopped sucking two years ago (I drink big boys milk nowadays) - share us you're experiences please. That's why I joined this bunch of old ladies in the first place...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Apr 7, 2012)

I have, they're in the forum. I'm done there, there is no reasoning with most of those people.

2 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 7, 2012)

ha, ha, I couldn't agree more, that's why I've got a dog and left my wife...well..uhm, she left me...anyway doesn't matter. Keep on shooting and have great fun, I've read the 5D III is a great camera, I can't wait untill I get mine.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Coguar
By Coguar (Apr 7, 2012)

For me a Fuji X-PRO 1 offer more, and is better solution for personal use....

another solution is a Olympus OM-D EM5 ...

what you think comparing this and images from fuji ?

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 8, 2012)

I think I haven't done it yet. Too busy shooting. These look nice though. Good that Canon have put proper AF in finally. Makes good on the perceived promises of the mkii.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 8, 2012)

@Coguar
how'd you comment on the AF of the X-PRO 1?

0 upvotes
aaaja
By aaaja (Apr 7, 2012)

I really see nothing outstanding in any way with these photos. They look like they could have been taken with almost any camera. give me a break - the 5d3 MUST be betther, then what is presented here.

aprils fool was 7 days ago.

5 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Apr 7, 2012)

The bitter truth is that most cameras today over $500 make images that are superb. Any incremental improvements become smaller and smaller.

The fans will no doubt see a must-have camera and the detractors will see the fall of civilization.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Apr 7, 2012)

> The bitter truth is that most cameras today over $500 make images that are superb.

You nailed it, Photomonkey. For me, any meaningful improvements have to be in 1) focusing speed/accuracy, 2) user interface, 3) size, weight.

Of course, we always need more iso sensitivity for people who shoot sports in the dark.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
grangy27
By grangy27 (Apr 8, 2012)

When looking at most of these pictures I kept thinking, "my 40D could do that." The M53 shines in low light though.

1 upvote
John Koch
By John Koch (Apr 8, 2012)

In fairness to the new cameras, the atmospheric conditions were not ideal on the day of the shoot-out. In fairness to cheaper cameras, they would have performed nearly as well. So you can spend $3,500 or $500. Take your pick. I'll bet, though, that the ones that spend more will not change their minds, until there is a $5,000 camera that (surely) "must" be better.

0 upvotes
dobbs-rb
By dobbs-rb (Apr 7, 2012)

Thanks for the visual images of this big bucks camera. My first camera was a Canon AE1. I compare all other cameras to that one.

I like the high ISO shots, they are great. The outdoors, 100 ISO shot was worse than most point and shoot cameras.

This Canon is the best of the lot (or mighty close to being best) convinces me to buy the Fuji Film SX-1 - when they fix the orb issue and the drooping lens. Really when Fuji fixes the drooping lens, I will be good to go - the orbs issue is so esoteric,

Thanks again for some very good reporting. So this is as good as it gets?

Regards, Ray of Alabama

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Apr 7, 2012)

Fool. I have a 5D3 and an S100. The 5D3 demolishes the S100 at any setting.

0 upvotes
dobbs-rb
By dobbs-rb (Apr 7, 2012)

Thanks for the reply. I am not sure what cameras of which you speak. I am not sure how you came to the "fool" conclusion. My understanding of fool is "Suffer fools gladly is a well-known phrase used by Saint Paul in his second letter to the people of Corinth. The full verse (2 Corinthians 11:19) reads, "ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."[1] This is thought to have been sarcastic and that he was warning the Corinthians against his rivals in the church"

Maybe you are saying you are wise. So be it.

Cheers Ray of Alabama

0 upvotes
fransvh
By fransvh (Apr 7, 2012)

reviewing the samples of the 5MK3 and D800 I start believing that sensor technology is almost reaching the maximum levels. Maybe only the noise at 256000plus is in for development.

Now I only have to choose between a D800 and a 5MK3 and all the hardware these both camera brands are offering.

Crap, I see some noise on these samples... zoomed in 300% on my 27" iMac on 25cm viewing distance. What to do now?

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 7, 2012)

How are so many in these comments drawing general conclusions about image qualities like colour, sharpness and noise without access to raw files from this Canon 5D Mark III?

Look DPReview posted a couple of real world raws from the Nikon D800, but even then it's hard to draw serious conclusions based upon only four or five raw files.

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 8, 2012)

people just see what they wanna see..

0 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (Apr 7, 2012)

Here's the link. What is hard to believe is the D800 having so much noise even at ISO800. ISO 1600 onwards looks worse. Seems here like 5DII has almost 2 stop noise advantage.

I would storngly think Cameralabs should retest the whole thing. Something is amiss.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 7, 2012)

The D800 is having trouble at ISO 800? Not in the raws I've seen and extracted. Though I would like to see more generally.

You have raws from the Canon 5D III? No, I don't mean jpegs that started out as raws.

1 upvote
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 7, 2012)

Suprise, you cant have pixel-clean ISO 800 at 36 mpix? Well, sure you cant. Most tests that shows good high ISO on D800 are AFTER resizing to match 5DMK3 or even lower models. For example calculations on DxO are made after resize to 8 mpix, which obviously show something different than if you look at pixel level.

On other hand, its quite clean at base ISO and you can push/pull as you wish and wont see banding. Which unfortunately still isnt case of 5DMK3, even tho they did improved it over 5DMK2.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 9, 2012)

From these 5DIII pictures here there is a lot of noise at ISO 2500 (1864598.jpg). I would call that disappointing for the latest and the greatest.

0 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (Apr 7, 2012)

The pictures actually look good. While the IQ may be incremental compated to 5DII, it is nevertheless. Also even if it is 1 stop difference, it makes a difference in critical situations (e.g - A museum where you cannot use flash - The Louvre is a good example). To me honestly noise looks better than D800 (I am not a Canon fanboy pls). The folks at cameralabs have posted a side by side comparison. However, i liked the Nikon video better. My advise - just go out an shoot some good pics than getting drowned in the minor technical nitty gritties. Today's camera's are pretty close. In good day light, my travel companion LX5, TZ5 or ZS7 shoot pictures way sharper than DSLR's unless you always used pro glasses. What I lose is DOF on small sensors, but pics are tack sharp.

3 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Apr 7, 2012)

The processed RAWs have so much noise for ISO 100. The jpegs are so incredibly soft. Canon really needs to work on sensor design. I normally leave positive comments, but I am disappointed with what I see.

4 upvotes
CaptchaFool
By CaptchaFool (Apr 7, 2012)

Images are not very impressive. Not impressivly sharp even in ISO 100 pictures. The high ISO samles are not vastly better than images that i get out of my Mark II. My feeling is, that the Mark III is about one stop better in raw compared to the Mark II (maximum). The rest of the by Canon claimed 2 stops is achieved by jpg development tricks.
In terms of image quality this seems not to be a big step forward.
So my hope is now, that the better autofocus leads to more usable images in situations, where getting the focus right is hard.

11 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 7, 2012)

1 stop difference can make or break your picture.

6 upvotes
Central Fla
By Central Fla (Apr 7, 2012)

I am a fan of all cameras, especially Canon. Based on these samples I would not buy this camera. Look at the man taking a picture of the purple reflective wall. What is supposed to be in focus ??

They look terrible. I am still waiting for a snappy crisp clean image. If this camera is for the pro folks, and needs a pro behind it to make great images, then please stop posting jpegs, they look incredibly crappy !!

Look at this photographers Mk II image of the owl.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41021413

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
chasfox
By chasfox (Apr 7, 2012)

As a non Canon FF user, rather 4/3 and M4/3, I am really impressed by the natural, non digital look of these images with great tonality and depth. This is what Olympus used to offer with the E1 and E3 before they had to resort to heavy handed processing to control noise and enhance DR on the poor 12mp chip. Also Canon APSC images have always to me looked over processed.

I think many 5Dmk11 users are just spoilt by the image quality they have been getting and are missing the point that the upgrades in the Mk111 are more about addressing all the weaknesses in the Mk11 and IQ never being one of them.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 7, 2012)

I like the look of the jpegs, but you folks picked the wrong portrait for the "cover"/ DOF is too shallow for my taste. Why didn't you use G34C0101 ? That one is beautifully done. The lady that was ACR processed was nice as well, but consider replacing that guy with G34C0101 .

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Apr 7, 2012)

agree with most comments complaining about the sample images, not because they are terrible, they really aren't, its just that image quality from the latest DSLR's is way beyond the point where we could learn something from looking at jpeg snapshots of trees, grass, clouds etc, raw files of those snaps would be more useful, or even better, dpreview should add a pro evaluation section for cameras like the 5d3, d800 etc, and feature samples representing a typical pro environment

6 upvotes
skrulm8
By skrulm8 (Apr 7, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Apr 7, 2012)

Yes. Can't wait to get out and shoot some video for broadcast with it.

0 upvotes
John Koch
By John Koch (Apr 8, 2012)

Bloom had to sharpen the 5D3 video in post-processing before the landscape results were acceptable. The wide-angle outdoor results are blurrier than with an FS100 or some APS devices. He was impressed with the 5D3 high ISO closeup results, though.

0 upvotes
colh
By colh (Apr 7, 2012)

As to all this bashing on the mk3 get real.As to the photos posted they further proof of the cameras abilities in that they are excellent.Having just purchased a 7d then seen all the slagging off makes you wonder is there a camera for these people,that also includes the mk3.I will be purchasing a mk3.What some people are forgetting with the price part from it is all new is that when he mk2 came out it to was price prohibative as well to a lot of people.Also the skills you need to use such gear is beyond a lot of people.I enjoy seeing the even tones colour rendition that are even better than my 7d and it is full frame.Just a side note I view these with a high def screen that make even easier to see any foibles.Great photos DP Review

1 upvote
Frank Neunemann
By Frank Neunemann (Apr 7, 2012)

"Nice" pictures, BUT to most people who buy a camera in this class they are mostly useless. High ISO is important (there are a few shots) but NOT taken as JPGs.

With a camera like this, RAW is all important to see what the camera is capable of. Please quit boring us to death whith useless ISO 100 JPG holiday snapshots. Every camera looks good in ISO 100!

There are some more serious photographers out there who want to see the important stuff. Please, more "unironed" RAW samples in high(er) ISO. Thanks.

3 upvotes
stelioskritikakis
By stelioskritikakis (Apr 8, 2012)

I couldn't agree more than that.

Somebody must be a retard or very lazy to use the useless jpeg feature in such a camera...

What happens if you get some underexposed shots and you have to fill them with light in RAW? does the noise goes crazy even in low ISOs?

it does doesn't it?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 232
12