« Two More 'Forgotten' Photographers | Main | This Saturday »

Friday, 02 March 2012


I know flash is an anathema to a lot of fine art photographers, but kudos to Canon for being the first major camera company to take the 'blindingly obvious for the last forever' step of making a factory flash that uses RF for wireless TTL. If I were a Canon shooter, I'd be far more excited by that than the camera.

Only 61 auto focus points- really!?!? Looks like I'll sit it out till the Mark IV...

An unwelcome surprise: the focusing screen is not interchangeable any more. Both its predecessors (5D and 5D Mark II) were quite loved by manual-focus aficionados owning old lenses fitted with adaptors or the very nice ZE Zeiss.

Let's hope the focus confirmation beep/light of the MarkIII is more -far more- accurate than that in its older brothers.

Can't remember what I paid for my mark I, but they sure aren't giving them away...

No thanks. OM-D for me. The age of synergistic photography and bodybuilding is over :-)

I'm glad Canon got sensible and opted out of the megapixel contest. My wife, a Nikon user who is planning to upgrade with a D800, wonders if she really needs all 36MP for her professional work. I wouldn't have that problem. The real problem for me is coming up with the $5800 total for the body and the new 24-70mm f/2.8! (Picture me grimacing.)

add to cart. remove from cart. add to cart. remove from cart. add to cart. remove from cart. etc.

I knew the Mark III was somewhere on the horizon, but feel a bit odd today as I bought a Mark II on Monday.

There's always some new camera on it's way. C'est la vive, n'est-ce pas?

Something of a snore to me. One laudable thing is the focus on incremental development rather than earth shattering new new silliness.

Reminds self to pick up a lottery ticket tomorrow...


Hmmmm. Over priced and over weight. But...good choice on the megapixels (listening Nikon?). Low light samples look very good. Replacing my D700? Naaaah. You won't be buying one will you? Need to save for that Subaru speedster. At 6'4" interested to see if you fit in it. Ooops, off topic I suppose.



A bit OT here, as a pro I would never look at the semi pro cameras, Buy the best tools and you get the best results, and if someone is paying you then you need to use the best.
My problem is I hate the general direction DSLR's are going and I am talking about Video and very big in size.
Normally I would buy the new D4 but refuse to to pay 6 grand for a Multi media camera, I shoot stills only, period, and I am not going to turn into a cinematographer overnight. If I wanted a video camera I would buy one.
I will buy the new Fuji X PRO 1 and start anew with something that is camera size and has a camera feel. When I lift my Nikon F2 Titanium with the standard pentaprism I feel I have a camera in my hand, lifting the D3X is sterile.

I am mostly interested in landscape work and still shoot with an original 5D. The original 5D still gives me detailed, smooth, clean images all the way to 800 ISO an on a pinch I can shoot indoors action sports at 1250ISO and they are just fine. No need for 6fps, 65-point AF, and video. Did not upgrade to the 5DII and have no plans to upgrade to a MkIII either. To make it worthwhile I need to nearly quadruple the sensor size I have. When Canon has a 30+Mpixel 5D range, high quality sensor, I will buy it.
I will pay attention to the Nikon 800e field tests, but I am not interested to switch my glass arsenal.

Not long ago I would of been all over this. Now, I'm happily anticipating the first full scale tests of the new Olympus. If it's all it's cracked up to be; bingo!

Besides, I've sold off all my Canon lenses anyhow.

It looks like Canon addressed many of the complaints that people had about the Mark II. I commend them for being brave and making the camera that people were asking for, rather than worrying about cannibalizing sales from the new 1D X. I am sure this new 5D is not perfect, but at first glance, it looks like a real effort to please Canon fans!

I won't be buying one because the original 5D still does everything that I need it to do. It IS still a great camera!

$3500? That's really an astonishing amount of money for a hobbyist (I understand the maths that means pros make it pay for itself in weeks). I can educate my son for a whole term at his private school for that, and I know which is the better long term value.

Clearly, I need to generate lots more cash so that I can join the ranks of hobbyists with full frame cameras without any guilty feelings.

Have to agree with Thiago (03:20); while a full sensor would be good, a very high quality APS-C in a small body is more likely to be the camera for travel, or the one to grab if you're heading down the coast sailing, with an Elmar 90mm easily stuffed in the pocket and a WA attached.

We're still back in the early days of film SLR's; huge clunkers bearing little relation to the sensor area, but built on the pitch that "bigger must be more impressive". The Pentaxes and OM1 blew that away.

Having said that, I'd not refuse a 5D III for special outings :)).

Low noise at high ISO is good. High DR is better. I'll reserve judgement until I see the samples that test out DR.

I got my 5DmkII on Xmas eve when it first came out. Looking at the price of the MkIII I believe I won't be upgrading any time soon.

I bought a 5DmkII in January and am glad I did. This costs $1500 more for the kit with the 24-105 lens than I paid for mine from B&H (through TOP link, of course). I don't see that it offers anything worth paying any more than I paid for my MkII. Canon jacked up the price of the 24-70 f2.8L by $1000 with the newly introduced version. They're starting to act like Leica!

On the one hand, this really does look like the camera that so many people have been clamoring for since the 5D2 came out 3 years ago, particularly the revised AF system.

Nonetheless, I can't help but feel that the 5D3 (and the D800) are in some sense the apex of DSLR design. The future is mirrorless, and it is compact and these do-it-all type behemoths are going to be relegated to a smaller and smaller niche as we move forward. Also, $3.5K sounds to me like so much wishful thinking.

M Bernstein

gah indeed. 24 hours later and I've canceled my pre-order. I'm sure it'll be a fantastic camera, but I can't justify laying out $3,500 to commit to a big honking DSLR for the next five years.

I'll stick with my 7D and X100, and trim back my lenses. I never use the heavy zooms anyways. in two years micro 4/3 IQ will be as good as a 5d2 and we'll kiss these clunky monsters goodbye once and for all.

I'm one of the untalented amateurs who handed over the credit card and bought a 5D 49 dog years ago, and I have not once wished I had that money back. It has made fine use of my Contax lenses, especially after switching the focus screen. My feeling about the camera was summed by a friend (who, coincidentally, is an advertiser on TOP). I gave him the 5D with the Contax 50/1.4 to play with and he said, "it feels just like a real camera." Yup.

Of course, that said, I can't wait for my Olympus OM-D to arrive.

Rob Galbraith's writeup on the 5D3 was compared to Thom Hogan's on the D800. I would venture to say that the two are not even close. Rob's article is largely a laundry list of features with no "color commentary" nor much of an attempt to put them in context. Not so for Thom Hogan's writing. May the religious wars begin...

it's weird how new products change the way you look at other products. now that the 5dmkiii is official, i'm suddenly interested in the 1dsmkiii, even though it's bigger.

anyhow, i'll wait to see if canon comes out with more image stabilized primes.

I have a MkII I'm generally happy with except for the occasional AF miss, which is mostly a problem for event shoots. Sooo, I'll wait a bit to see if the price comes down somewhat but probably get the MkIII a few weeks before a big event. That's enough time to test the thing and get comfortable with it.

I routinely shoot ISO 40.000 plus with my Canon 5D Mark II. Using state of the art RAW converter software, the images come out clean and crisp at 21mp. I simply don't need to update to anything less than a new paradigm.

For a long time I've been waiting for the mark III to come out, hoping that it might start a wave of mark II's flooding onto the used market. Thinking again, I worry that this announcement might just drive UP the price of a used mark II.


Much as I was looking forward to the 5D Mark III, the really exciting announcement was the new flash system, and not because of RF TTL, but because of RF full manual. Once the 430 EX equivalent is introduced, I'm buying into the system.

Just for the record, the 1996 Honda Civic that I continue to drive has 268,450 miles on it.

Someday maybe, but for now it's the 5D "Classic" for me. First time I felt that big mirror go "blap!", I stopped missing my Hassleblad so much...

The less-than-OMG!-ness of the comments here is more interesting than the camera itself. Have we reached the point of sufficiency? There is much to admire in this new camera, but is there enough to instill desire?

5DM III is everything 5D MII should have been in the first place, maybe, minus the latest sensor tech.

The 5DIII looks to be a very sound, intelligent incremental update to what may have already been very close to the perfect general-admission dslr. I'd love to give it a whirl but neither need nor want it at this time. I am abundantly equipped with my more-than-adequate 5DII, my still-fine 5D, my 60D, my 1DsIII, etc., etc.. (I am very lazy when it comes to selling equipment, although space dictates more energy soon.)

I applaud Canon for their intelligent restraint and their apparent close-listening to 5D owners.

I'm guessing that Canon figures they'll sell a lot of these to video people. Since those folks are used to paying 20k for a useful camera, they won't notice the extra grand.

I will, and I'll also notice the extra size and weight from headphone jacks, and so forth.

Most new Canons cause me at least a twitch of acquisition lust. This one doesn't.

Is this camera (and the D800) not simply a product of typical market research results taken from a pre-selected sample of users who simply want more of everything they already thought of because they don't really know what else they are supposed to want?

Similar research gives rise to many feature bloated derivative consumer goods. They sell well to people who buy products by the length of the spec sheet, but the orgy of over-engineering can end up causing indigestion in in many of the intended buyers. The Merc Maybach is a classic example in the car world.

I think many buyers passed this mark some time ago with SLR cameras, hence the growing affection for MFT. It's like downsizing from an S class to an Accord and breathing a sigh of relief.

I too want a good fit for my needs, not something that exceeds them in every dimension. I cannot help thinking that maybe that's what creates real satisfaction in an object. The feeling it was designed just for someone like you.

Maybe I need an adjustment period before I start to like the D800 (I have Nikon lenses so no motive to change brands) but maybe my specific needs are better met by a more specialised camera like a Fuji X-pro 1.

I plan to try both before ordering either.

I think this is a completely underwhelming announcement. I mean, when the D800 was announced at 30-whatever MP, didn't we gasp. Now this 5Diii seems at best a minor update of my 5Dii. The D800 is $3K, and this is $3.5K. Canon went up, Nikon came down. Whether we need all those Nikonpixels or not, they certainly got our attention. Other than the stop or two more of high ISO, and a little faster drive, there isn't much happening here. So I'll keep my 5Diis, and my money, for now.

I don't see enough here to justify the price or much excitement over the product. While I'm somewhat loathe to admit that the D800's resolution is a selling point for me, I can't deny that more of a good thing is better. The D800 seems like much more than a refined D700, while the 5D3 seems like an incremental revision of the 5D2 with a crazy price. For me, Nikon has delivered the more compelling product this time. The only people I've seen who seem really excited about this product are the Canon faithful.

Of course, I also dabble with mirrorless. Over the next four years until the 5D4 is released, I'd imagine it's quite likely that MFT and APS-C mirrorless cameras will match and exceed the resolution that the 5D3 offers, and possibly at much lower price points. Some (Fuji?) will probably even approach its high ISO capability.

Its great to see competition. On paper the 5D3 fixes everything I have wanted, better focus system to compete with the Nikon world, higher ISO in real world usage. Yes it would be nice to have a pop-up flash or have the radio controller built in. Pixels are always nice but it already has more than the flagship model from either Canon or Nikon. Competition is great and while I love Nikon I believe the 5D3 will be the better all around camera. My pre-order is in. The extra $500 over Nikon is real but in the 3 year + life cycle of these cameras that's about 45 cents per day higher than a D800. I'll just have to order the smaller cup of coffee.

Like many others, I'm happy that Canon has concentrated on Camera improvements as opposed to pixel count. I have the 5D and the 5D MkII. Although the MkII images show a bit more detail, if you interpolate the 5D up to the same size there is very little difference in my opinion. In actual fact at native sizes the 5D images are maybe more naturally pleasing. However - splitting hairs. Without sounding ridiculous, for me the biggest difference is the sensor cleaning in the MKII - the 5D is a bit of a dust magnet - or at least mine is.

I won't be upgrading in the near future - for my photography it's not necessary to have the autofocus improvement e.g. I've stuck with the Canon FF format because of lens choice, so I'd rather spend in that direction.

Really enjoying my new 5D Mk III. Definitely a welcome improvement in high ISO performance and the focusing is amazingly good. It nails focus each and every time. I ran a high ISO comparison between the MK II and Mk III. Here it is if anyone is interested...


Picked up my Mark III last week. This was a really significant decision for me, in that this is my FIRST digital camera purchase, timed to be used on a once in a lifetime trip to Ireland in May. So while I'm spared all of the upgrade decisions, it was a tough decision nonetheless.
When the camera was announced, I was put off by the big price increase over the Mark II. Then I thought that it really has everything I'd want in a camera, digital aside. You don't need the latest, greatest autofocus until you miss some shots that you really wanted. Viewfinder and/or live view camera leveling will be great for handheld use with my tilt/shift lens. The silent shutter option really works, albeit with a very slight release delay. The high ISO capability of the camera is staggering. With film I was always very conservative in speed rating (rating 400 speed negative film at 200, for instance). To be able to shoot an f1.4 lens at 6400 is truly liberating.
Because of all the "intelligence" built into the camera, I'm finding it hard to have it do exactly what I want it to sometimes, perhaps an argument for a Leica M9 approach to life
The lack of exposure latitude inherent in digital capture is very frustrating, but obviously people have made this work. All in all, I'm confident that I've purchased a camera that I can use as a hobbyist for the next 10 years.

The comments to this entry are closed.