The non-ACR version of the shot with the tree and blue+orange flowers is soft compared to the ACR-processed version (which is quite sharp indeed).

My guess is that the softer version is a RAW processed with Canon's DPP software, which has a known issue when converting RAW files to JPEGs - thedigitalpicture does a good job of documenting the issue, but basically the issue is that the image looks sharp in DPP quickview mode, but appears softer in the fancier rendering mode and the actual converted JPEG/TIFF file output.

Canon's working on a fix and it should be as simple as a DPP software update. There's no reason to believe that there's anything wrong with the camera itself or it's files - which is pretty clear to see when you pixel peep the low ISO ACR processed samples.

The OP's comment about the 7D is not consistent with my own experiences. My 7D's been just fine, AF work well and the output is sharp enough given the high pixel density of the sensor.

Mark III at this point have issue (possible human error when releasing firmware) with image being absolutely sharp in preview window but soft when you put it in edit window in DPP. You can read more about it at the-digital-picture dot com.
What really makes me laugh - is that Nikon D800 fans trying compare high-iso (25600) images to the Canon 5D mark III. I've spent years in digital astro photography (where we fight for every photon of light from millions light years away most of the times) and I know difference about signal/noise ratio when it comes to same size sensor with more pixels on it. It is proportionally higher. But they got to love those MEGA pixels :).

Yes DXOmark also says the d800 rank 3rd as a camera for sports from all the cameras currently available...
I just tryed a 5d Mark III from a old friend from Canon with my EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS and I took all the pictures at ISO 12800 at the street at 9pm with very limited light situation. Amazing camera very clean pictures. Sorry I forgot to get the pictures in my card but I can tell you that I am placing my order for a Mark III tonight....

hm ... is something wrong with my obsolete canon 5d? It still gives me outstanding quality pictures - unless I don't see this huge gap between pictures quality of 5d-d800-5dmkIII - should I fix it or smth? :D...

one of a thousands ordinary pictures from 5d:
http://punktywidzenia.pl/prv/marianka.jpg

Don't you all just forget about a PHOTOGRAPHY? Or maybe the Photography doesn't matter these days? Really don't understand these new_gear-lovers-fights-and-whines ...

BitFarmer: I agree and I know the destination of this forum but I have premonition that people looking for gear which will think and do everything for them - and (what is most ridiculous) will praise their favorite camera to the skies for that 1% gain of functionality over the opposite :). Unfortunately I'm sure they will never find a camera that will make them happy - for short time - maybe ... but only that.

I think if I could take perfect pictures only ... it would be so boring.

@ jarq69. There is nothing called a perfect picture, cuz everybody has a different taste and perception. it maybe perfect to you but not necessarily perfect for everyone else. The need of having the best gear, there is in the market, does not necessarily improve your photography and neither it is a value that can be appreciated by everyone, but definitely gives you a self satisfaction, and raise your self esteem..:). Thats y companies keep on producing new stuff and expensive stuff, for these reasons. So if you are already satisfied with the gear you have then stay with it, and for those who yearn for more they can go and buy them, Personally, I dont see there is anything wrong with either decision..:)

Hehe...true! ^_^

Could you elaborate on how it trumps the 1Ds3? It sounds like IQ at higher ISO's and AF (with some bonuses like silent shooting, LCD elc). How's the weather-sealing for instance?

"Has it better quality at low ISO than 5d2 - No."
Do you mean it has worse quality at low ISO, or just similar?

n1zr: like I've told you somewhere else on this forum :-)
Mainly features. And again 1ds3 has better shutter (rated for more clicks), built in grip and no mode selector dial (guess those two features make it better weather resistant than 5D3).
In every other aspect 5D3 has improvements over 1DS3 - AF, HDR, multiple exposures, video, silent shutter (this single feature is awesome), faster fpm, more custom functions, better at higher ISO. I find it more all-around camera than 1DS3.

glonislaw: sorry, I meant hi ISO. I really doubt it has much of improvement (if any) at lower settings.

Unfortunately, in the US we not longer have "local stores" for high end DSLRs unless you live in NYC, LA, Chicago, ATL, or a handful of very big cities. Amazon and B&H online have eaten the rest of the brick and mortar retail world. In most areas, it will be very difficulty to find a new 5D3 to hold in your hand. That is why these reviews and comments are so critical to so many of us. Many thanks to all who take the time to give thoughtful descriptions and reviews.

I agree. I decided to go for D800, but I think D800 is much more challenging camera than 5D3. 5D3 is a better camera for jpeg shooters for sure.

MP Cevat, amen....unless people have $10,000 to blow or have cheap glass.

@Petka - I've not looked at Nikon in any great depth so that good to hear. I would only need a couple of good primes. TBH, I tend to buy & try lenses before deciding...it's the only reliable way to be sure, otherwise, I'd have missed my magnificent, tiny Voigtlander 20mm.

@Damo83 - The MkII is still an awesome camera. Maybe buy one used with a lens, try it, then either sell it on or keep it.

Normally I'll be the itching to upgrade & right now, I have the spare cash to do it. I'm not going to though, because for my style of photography, the only real advantage would be the lock button in the mode dial!!

@Nigel: I am waiting for a converter for Fuji XF and Leica C mount, for Voigtlander 15 mm lens, which is my all time favorite super WA. Small, cheap, sharp, no flare.

(Just got the X Pro1 with 18 and 35 mm lenses)

I'm not sure that calling Apple backward in regards the lack of Flash support is altogether accurate.

They made a conscious decision not to allow flash. As opposed not to implement it (I understand that Adobe wanted to implement Flash and Apple wouldn't let them distribute it).
They were ahead of the game in not supporting Flash. It was Apple's decision that if not drove the decision to kill Flash, certainly hastened Flash's death.

To be honest I don't really agree with the Apple decision (simply because I think the user should make the choice as to what is acceptable compromise on their device, especially with such a widely used technology, Nicortinix's complaint bears this out, IMO) , but I think it is disingenuous to say they were behind the 8 ball on that one.

Gothmoth:

You neglected film scanning.

Also there's a big difference between having a black and white darkroom--which many did because you could easily make one out of a bathroom or basement corner--and having a darkroom capable of doing colour work. (My understanding of the color film development and printing process is limited but I believe one has to pay a great deal more attention to chemical purity and temperature than with black and white.)

Just try telling someone using a Sigma digital camera that jpeg is good enough.

Then of course to add to the confusion: A Nikon D700 will shoot into tiff. (D4, D3, D3s too, as I imagine the D800.)

I used to process my own slide/transparency film & scan it.

I shoot RAW exclusively now & use manual exposure & focus 95 percent of the time.

I shoot RAW.
I didn't have a darkroom.
I couldn't afford a dark room (space, bits and bobs, training).
I can afford RAW.
Things change, get more accessible, more affordable.
Now amateurs can do things they wanted to, but couldn't and get stuff they want, that they couldn't afford before.
I even have autofocus on my camera now.
Didn't dream of that back in the late 80s.
In fact I could only dream of an SLR back then (till the Berlin wall came down and Zenit's became available).

So now professional level processing is available to the heaving masses, along with autofocus, wireless flash, studio strobes, high quality Japanese DSLRs etc.

SUMO. (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).

@Gothmoth
you should use urs first..I was not complaining about having video in DSLR

The real question is, for the extra money, how much of it goes the video, how much real improvement is for stills? don't get too excited, I am not going to join your "video or not" war

@Mtsukoa

well you EDITED your posting and removed your comment about my mercedes analogy. and that was what i was refering to...

You folks do not seem to understand that the video capabilities of modern digital cameras are practically free. The only extra parts are the cheap ADC for sound and some connectors for HDMI. Everything else is just software. So why no offer it, you are not really paying for it any more than you are for the hundreds of customizable tweaks you never adjust in your camera, but do not complain that there are adjustments which you do not know exist and which you can not tweak because you do not understand what they do. Video is just one more little cheap extra.

If Canon had to develop a second camera body just for stills, it would cost them more money to design, manufacture, distribute and market a separate camera for what is increasingly becoming a niche market (just as video was niche in the days of the 5D MkI). Because of this, there's no guarantee that a video-less MkIII would be appreciably cheaper than the current MkIII.

Actually you don't pay extra money, because any camera offering "LifeView" has all what is needed to record video. The rest is basically more a software- than a hardeware problem. So, if you already have everyting needed for video recording, it would be a great waste of options, not to implant video.

First of all I know that the 5D3 is a great improvement on the 5D2. Infact I own the 5D2 and I've already ordered the 5D3. At least I'm glad to LEARN that I'm not paying that much extra for something I do not need. I always thought that a substantial part of my investment went into its video capabilities.

@ Petka who wrote:
"you are not really paying for it any more than you are for the hundreds of customizable tweaks you never adjust in your camera, but do not complain that there are adjustments which you do not know exist and which you can not tweak because you do not understand what they do"
Who are you to say what I know and don't know, and what I adjust and don't adjust? Just because I do only stills it doesn't mean I point and shoot does it? It doesn't make me less of a photographer than you.

At least everyone agrees that the 5D3 is primarily a Photographers Camera; the video option is " a little cheap extra."

@ Gothmoth
as regards to your Mercedes analogy ....

If you consider the 5D3 to be a high end camera, I wouldn't compare it to any normal Mercedes... I would compare it to a Formula 1 Car ... And those only carry ONE seat!.

Moreover I would say that a spare seat in a car means More Room in the car, and that would translate to additional Memory; The video function would more be like a high end car stereo: an important accessory but not THE most important one.

@Gozitan: sorry to have offended you. What I meant is that these cameras are chock full of custom adjustment possibilities with literally hundreds of choices and billions of permutations. I have shot professionally with Canon DSLR from EOS-1D first version, and I have never cared to go through all the possible options and tested how they actually affect the picture. With the later models there are even more options. If you actually go through everything, testing and understanding them all, more power to you. My meaning was that it is just as pointless to complain about the (practically free) video capability as it would be to complain about those myriad (practically free) tweaking options, which I think are even less used than the video.

As all the $200 point-and-shoots also have HD video, my quess is that the video capabilities of these cameras cost about $30 extra... It really is just a pipeline form live view to memory card, implemented in software.

@Henry - while I agree that video in DSLRs is inevitable for all the reasons you state (I even find it desirable)....

isn't the Cinema EOS a split in the line?

Sanity and sound judgement prevails! Very well said Sunny!

Rubenski:

I think that's more than throwing away half the monies.

MSTR Photography:

You've confused editing with color work. Great color is not simply there in the shot particularly if it's a jpeg.

The world has been changed.
Now, we cannot rely too much on the camera, the power of a camera is very limited, which must be combined with the latest technology in computing to create great results.

Henry M. Hertz:

No, it just sounds like you're father doesn't have a particular interest in what computer programs can do, which is unlike my father.

Pretty sure my father would not chose to learn Japanese.

If you want to get very good results you have to shoot in raw format. If you edit and change a jpeg-foto, you lost some information of the file. You lose also quality of pixels.
But if you edit and change the raw-file, it is as you are shooting a second time that picture.
The raw-file "is" the sensor itself.
It is true that some photographers hate the computer. But the raw-format is the "camera obscura" of digital photography.
This is digital photography. Light and pixels.
Who does not understand that, did not understand what it means digital photography.

I have spent a lot of time in the darkroom and in front of PS. And I don't regret that investment, since it has allowed me a better perspective on the things I need to do in the field so that I can spend less time in the darkroom (digital or otherwise).

You can be a working professional and not use photoshop today, just as you could be a working professional and not know how to work an enlarger back in the day. The brutal truth is: you don't need to be good or technically knowledgeable to be a professional. Just good enough and a good salesperson.

You can make good work in jpeg, just like a painter can make good work in pencil. What we don't know or the tools we don't have can and does hinder us all. But it doesn't stop us. (for better or worse!)

The truths about the benefits of one tool or another remain true, but they aren't deterministic.

Personally I feel all this talk of dark rooms and film is irrelevant. Today, with digital photography, You will never get the best out of your camera without doing some post processing. PP work is the second half of creating the photograph. That is just the way it is now.

Sure maybe not if you are just taking snaps of your cat. However if you are seriously trying to make a photograph, letting your camera choose the saturation,contrast, sharpening, wb, ect gives up as much control over the final photograph, perhaps even more, as shooting on auto mode.

Plus with a jepg not only are you throwing away half of the image data your camera can capture but, every change you make, every time you re-save the file, you are degrading it. It was never meant to be an archival image format.

LOL Henry,

If you're going to take the time to convert your files to some other format you might as well just shoot in raw.

The fact that some people may incorrectly do the post processing doesn't mean you don't need post processing to get the most out of your camera.

I really don't understand why some photographers are so adverse to pp. Never before has the photographer had such a huge creative latitude when makeing photograph. It's like they have forgotten that some amount of post work has always been part of serious photography.

I know only one photographer who shoots jpg... and He uses an Olympus system, they have great jpg engine and not too much reserve in RAW file... unlike for example Canon, these jpg images are so badly sharpened and noise-filtered like they are taken with a powershoot camera...

sdyue:

You missed noise and color--and the color thing applies to well exposed pictures shot a lowish ISOs.

Convince you? How about convincing yourself? If you're a pilot it makes your comment even more strange Make the list as I mentioned above and think with your head and if you've to crop so much you use the wrong lenses. You can't get good pictures with a D800 shooting a bird you can only see if cropped tightly, forget it.

Hi josan, photography should be the aim, and having fun while making photographs... So do as it pleases you, consider the camera and the lenses just as tools and every tool has iets pros and cons. When you go to an exhibition, photographic of course, you do not go to D5 or D800's exhibition, but to a photographers, and he/she can have made them with any camera, brand, kind... Most important for choosing a camera: how do you feel about it... Good luck with whatever choice you make.

The Nikon sounds perfect for your needs, and jumping ship (airplane?!) isn't such a big deal when you've got the likes of Ebay around to get rid of the old.

However, if you do a lot of cropping, maybe a new telephoto lens is in fact what you should be investing in..

Well, I think the fact is both Canon and Nikon are smiling because they can steal the money from their fans' pockets so easily.
Both Canon and Nikon are too successful in making free marketing campaigns via their fans.
The shareholders of both companies are thanking their fans here...