Interesting pieces - apparently they're letting the MkII fill the "lower-end" FF category for a while...

http://gizmodo.com/5889763/why-you-s...ark-ii-instead

http://gizmodo.com/5889860/canon-wil...ell-it-cheaper

Originally Posted by divamum Interesting pieces - apparently they're letting the MkII fill the "lower-end" FF category for a while... http://gizmodo.com/5889763/why-you-s...ark-ii-instead http://gizmodo.com/5889860/canon-wil...ell-it-cheaper

Great reads!!

The new 5D Mark lll is calling my name! First I need to sell the new 5DM2 that Santa gave me.

congtrats canon folk..looks like nice camera! price is pretty high but the new AF may be worth it

I have a pre-order in on a 1Dx, but with all the rumors recently on the 5D3 I was considering cancelling it. (Well, just not buying it when it came in...) However, in looking at the specs of the 5D3 I am glad I have the pre-order in place.

The 5D3 does indeed look like a real improvement over the 5D2, but still incremental. The weakest part of the 5D2 (for me anyway) is the AF system. Still, I am able to get really good AF with just the center point, though I do feel constrained with this as compared to my 1D4. But it gets the job done, and does it really well. (I would say that at least 30% of my sports image sales to the media are birthed in my 5D2.)

Higher ISO? Well, that's always nice, but I rarely need anything more than I have in my 5D2.

Faster processing? I have no real need to write the files faster, as this does not limit me in any way right now. Maybe if the AF was a little faster I'd be happier, but I don't really feel limited by this either.

6 FPS? Certainly an improvement, but this is not fast enough to make a real difference in those rare circumstances that I need high FPS.

Of course, there is no good reason for comparing a 1Dx with a 5D3 (or 5D2 for that matter); they are very different cameras intended for very different users. I guess I was just hoping to find a good reason not to spend the scratch on the 1Dx, and I have not found it.

Quick question to you wedding and event shooters: How limited are you by the primitive AF system on the 5D2? I do some concert work, and I guess there are times when a few more AF points would be useful, but it is a rare occurrence when I can't get the shot because of AF limitations.

Originally Posted by jhefti ... Quick question to you wedding and event shooters: How limited are you by the primitive AF system on the 5D2? I do some concert work, and I guess there are times when a few more AF points would be useful, but it is a rare occurrence when I can't get the shot because of AF limitations.

I have found that my Canon 40D is both faster to focus and more accurate to focus, compared to the 5D MKII and in the same conditions. The center AF point is the only reliable point to use, unless in very good light which is generally outdoors.

The Canon 1D MKII bodies beat both the 40D and the 5D MKII, in AF speed and AF accuracy. This is especially noticeable in lower available light. All of these cameras may be negatively influenced by certain lighting (aka gymnasium type lighting).

I use the 1D MKII body for pre-ceremony, ceremony and receiving line, then I switch to the 5D MKII for formals, and finally the 40D for the reception. I rely on an external flash with AF Assist for all camera bodies to increase the AF speed and accuracy. In this regard, the Canon 580EX has the best AF Assist pattern (among flashes that I own), followed by Sigma EF DG Super flashes.

My 5D 2 is on sale

Originally Posted by jhefti Quick question to you wedding and event shooters: How limited are you by the primitive AF system on the 5D2? I do some concert work, and I guess there are times when a few more AF points would be useful, but it is a rare occurrence when I can't get the shot because of AF limitations.

I am in the same boat as you. I haven't been limited except in the rarest of situations. I cannot even remember the last time I was frustrated afterward thinking "I wish my damn focus would work or I could have had that amazing shot!" so I know it doesn't really get in the way, cause I get the shot anyway. If I don't get the shot, %99.9 of the time its NOT because the AF didn't work, its because my brain didn't work and didn't use the right exposure settings or I wasn't thinking clearly on being prepared. I can definitely remember the brain fart moments that cost me the photo, and those had nothing to do with AF. I've actually missed more with my 7D than my MKII with AF, come to think of it.

Originally Posted by Overfocused I am in the same boat as you. I haven't been limited except in the rarest of situations. I cannot even remember the last time I was frustrated afterward thinking "I wish my damn focus would work or I could have had that amazing shot!" so I know it doesn't really get in the way, cause I get the shot anyway. If I don't get the shot, %99.9 of the time its NOT because the AF didn't work, its because my brain didn't work and didn't use the right exposure settings or I wasn't thinking clearly on being prepared. I can definitely remember the brain fart moments that cost me the photo, and those had nothing to do with AF. I've actually missed more with my 7D than my MKII with AF, come to think of it.

Must admit, I use just the centre point 99% of the time, as it allows me to decide exactly which part of the image I want in focus (I tend to use fast lenses wide open a lot of the time). There are some circumstances where clusters of AF points would come in handy though, but I'm much more excited about the high ISO than the AF.

I'm sure you guys all seen this, but just in case you haven't: ISO test series
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03...kiii-isoseries
I'd say - very, very impressive!

Originally Posted by Overfocused I am in the same boat as you. I haven't been limited except in the rarest of situations. I cannot even remember the last time I was frustrated afterward thinking "I wish my damn focus would work or I could have had that amazing shot!" so I know it doesn't really get in the way, cause I get the shot anyway. If I don't get the shot, %99.9 of the time its NOT because the AF didn't work, its because my brain didn't work and didn't use the right exposure settings or I wasn't thinking clearly on being prepared. I can definitely remember the brain fart moments that cost me the photo, and those had nothing to do with AF. I've actually missed more with my 7D than my MKII with AF, come to think of it.

All I can say is, having used both the 5D mk2 and the Nikon D700 extensively, often side by side, ...I can't stand the limitations of the 5D mk2. Not just the number of focus points, heck just considering the center focus point. The Nikon can nail anything in any light, I don't have to worry nearly as much about the exact placement of the focus point because I know it's going to nail it 90% of the time. On the 5D mk2, I have to constantly keep track of what lens I'm using, what aperture I'm shooting at, and EXACTLY how I place the focus point over the subject. When shooting with the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 for example, in light so low that I don't even have a safe exposure without using bounced flash, ...the camera just does NOT lock focus reliably at f/1.8 or f/2 unless I use my flash assist beam. The studio I shoot with all uses 5D mk2's and one guy just laughed at me when he saw me trying to nail focus in a dark reception hall, without a flash on the camera to assist. I dunno, maybe the 5D mk2 isn't THAT bad at focusing, but if that is the case then all I can say is that my D700 must be making me REALLY lazy and sloppy, cuz it just doesn't require nearly half the attention to precision that the 5D mk2 requires. It just goes bang-bang-bang...

But hey, if you can live with the 5D mk2's focus, if you have some awesome technique that I don't know and you can nail focus at f/1.X when a subject is moving around on a dance floor in ISO 6400 light, well, then that's great. Keep using the 5D mk2! I have a lot of respect for anyone that "has zero problems with the 5D mk2 focus" (Or I just doubt their standards for sharpness, LOL.) ...For everybody else, well now you finally have the 5D mk3.

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville All I can say is *paragraph here* =Matt=

I have compulsively high sharpness standards, lol, I'm one of the sharp lens nuts on this forum.

But, yeah, mainly its me always on high alert ready to use the camera in the way it works best for focusing in that scene. If there's a highlight somewhere, backlight, or just anything I know will work, I keep ready for it. If I had the Nikon AF, I'm sure I'd be a lot less attentive to that aspect. But, my name is Overfocused and compulsive thinking is just what you need when you work like that, lol. Its just how my brain works. I didn't say no problems either, but for a shoot as a whole, I definitely don't feel it gets in my way or it got in my way.

Anyway, most of the time for events I shoot with a 70-200F4 and that thing is amazing at acquiring focus in low light. Even in my nightly walks, its surprising what it can still focus on. The 50mm F1.4 is definitely harder though, lol, unless using live view with that insta-focus button. That works pretty nicely in non-action settings.

I wanna try the 70-200F2.8, I bet that'd be interesting to use and focus even better. The DOF sorta ends up looking near the same as the F1.4/F1.8 after compression with distant shots.

All I can say is... meh.

Glad to hear I am not the only one to use center point 99% of the time for focus. The Mk3 looks like being my next camera whenever I have the cash. Looking forward to the low-light performance, the full-frame, and the MP looks about the right compromise nowadays for PC performance and crops. Actually looks perfect.

AF on the 5D2 has never been a problem for me but I tend to grab the 7D where it would matter; for reasons other than AF, like speed, reach etc.

What really gets to me with the 5D3 is:

- auto-ISO with min and max settings, PLUS min shutterspeed setting

- AE bracketing settings other than just 3 shots (up to 7)

- +/- 5 stops exposure compensation

- same controls as 7D

- side by side comparison on LCD

- picture rating compatible with Lightroom

I'm left with the question if it uses the same battery type as 5D2 and 7D.

Originally Posted by DeVerm ... I'm left with the question if it uses the same battery type as 5D2 and 7D.

From the Canon specifications page (at the bottom):

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...Specifications

"Battery
One Battery Pack LP-E6"

Yes, this is also the battery used in the 7D, 5D MKII and 60D bodies.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 From the Canon specifications page (at the bottom): http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...Specifications "Battery One Battery Pack LP-E6" Yes, this is also the battery used in the 7D, 5D MKII and 60D bodies.

And I'm sure a lot of wedding photographers will be very happy with the better AF and other improvements in the 5DII. Landcape photographers who's bread and butter is large prints (and don't mind the performance hit their work flow might take) OTOH may be sorely tempted by the D800.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 The Canon 5D MKIII appears to have adopted a very similar, if not identical, AF module from the Canon 1D X. The 1D X has not been tested much in the field, so it's really too early to give much concrete data about AF speeds or AF accuracy. My guess is that Canon has tested this AF system more than any previous and I suspect that they have proven it capable in their tests. One major difference between the 1D X and the 5D MKIII is that the 1D X uses 3 - image processors*, while the 5D MKIII uses 1 - image processor*. This will certainly affect AF acquisition to some degree, but it is uncertain just how much. *(The 1D X uses a pair of Digic 5+ processors, plus a Digic 4 processor. The 5D MKIII uses a single Digic 5+ processor.)

Apparently Canon has kept at least one major AF trick up its sleeves for 1DX buyers...

From Bob Atkins hands-on preview:

One difference between the EOS 5D MkIII and the EOS 1D-X is that the 5D MkIII does not have the EOS iTR (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition) AF mode of the EOS 1D-X which recognizes the subject based on face and color detection from the AE system, and tracks it using AF points.

Remains to be seen how big of a deal this is, but it's one of the things I'm really curious about on the 1DX... How much practical difference does iTR make in the field for sports shooting?

Shutter lag is same as 7D, so slightly (6 ms) slower than 1DX.

I'm also assuming AF isn't going to be as quick on the 5D3, but we'll see.

Jay

Originally Posted by rolette Originally Posted by ziggy53 The Canon 5D MKIII appears to have adopted a very similar, if not identical, AF module from the Canon 1D X. The 1D X has not been tested much in the field, so it's really too early to give much concrete data about AF speeds or AF accuracy. My guess is that Canon has tested this AF system more than any previous and I suspect that they have proven it capable in their tests. One major difference between the 1D X and the 5D MKIII is that the 1D X uses 3 - image processors*, while the 5D MKIII uses 1 - image processor*. This will certainly affect AF acquisition to some degree, but it is uncertain just how much. *(The 1D X uses a pair of Digic 5+ processors, plus a Digic 4 processor. The 5D MKIII uses a single Digic 5+ processor.) Apparently Canon has kept at least one major AF trick up its sleeves for 1DX buyers... From Bob Atkins hands-on preview: One difference between the EOS 5D MkIII and the EOS 1D-X is that the 5D MkIII does not have the EOS iTR (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition) AF mode of the EOS 1D-X which recognizes the subject based on face and color detection from the AE system, and tracks it using AF points. Remains to be seen how big of a deal this is, but it's one of the things I'm really curious about on the 1DX... How much practical difference does iTR make in the field for sports shooting? Shutter lag is same as 7D, so slightly (6 ms) slower than 1DX. I'm also assuming AF isn't going to be as quick on the 5D3, but we'll see. Jay

The Canon 1D X has a much more sophisticated AE sensor, really an imaging sensor, and the Digic 4 processor is apparently dedicated to the AE processing and the integration of the AE sensor with the AF sensor. The output of the Digic 4 is further integrated by one of the Digic 5+ processors, where the extra features are managed, like iTR. Note that you can disable "Auto AF Point Selection", which I believe also disables iTR.

http://www.cyberscholar.com/canon/ca...ductPage=ksp03

The 5D MKIII has a single Digic 5+ image processor and simpler AE sensor, but it still has 63 zones in dual layers, very similar to the metering module of the Canon 7D.

Originally Posted by divamum Interesting pieces - apparently they're letting the MkII fill the "lower-end" FF category for a while... http://gizmodo.com/5889763/why-you-s...ark-ii-instead http://gizmodo.com/5889860/canon-wil...ell-it-cheaper

Which is great I think. I have a 5D2 and don't see me upgrading to the 5D3 in a while. Maybe when the prices come down a bit to the level of when the 5D2 was new.