5D mark iii

squareballoon

so who's getting it?
Will this mean that my 5D classic will be worthless as a trade in unless I trade it in for a 5D markii sharpish? The prices have really been slashed on the mark 2 presumably to make way for the mark3


http://www.canonrumors.com/category/photography/canon-5d-mark-iii/

hbr

squareballoon wrote: »

Will this mean that my 5D classic will be worthless as a trade in unless I trade it in for a 5D markii sharpish?

You could reverse that argument and ask: will my new 5D II be worthless when the 5D III
comes out?

Your 5D is probably worth less than half what you paid for it. It is still a
fine camera, so I don't see any reason you should get rid of it. The only way
you will get a good trade-in price for it is if you pay over the going rate for a
new mk II.

Anyway, it looks like the new one will only have a miserable 24MP. You
might as well hold out until 2014 for the 5D IV

gloobag

I'll get it when it hits. I'm sure there'll be loads of nice new features, but I'll be happy as long as the AF system has been sorted out.

The mkII, while it can create fantastic images can also be extremely frustrating to use sometimes.

dirtyghettokid

how so? ^^^

i watched rumours for ages before i bought my mkII. i'm glad i bought it when i did. it's a good camera. i'll stick with it for a long time!

PCPhoto

will throw my hat in the ring and get one when available.

was planning on selling most of my gear anyway and buying a whole new set of gear.

Promac

Doesn't look like there are any huge changes to the mark ii. That and the price tag = me sticking with the ii for now.

Unless the Digic V processor does some really amazing stuff - and I mean making breakfast and sexual favours.

The Snipe

PCPhoto wrote: »

will throw my hat in the ring and get one when available.

was planning on selling most of my gear anyway and buying a whole new set of gear.

Keep me in mind

oshead

By the time Canon actually announce it to the time that average Joe has a chance to buy one is probably well over a year in the difference. I wouldn't hold my breath. The only thing I can think of that could do with improvement is the focus system and I wouldn't count on that being resolved.

Paulw

Well, since I'm in the market for a new body, a 5D MkIII might be a nice option, depending on when it hits the stores. Most probably, it'll be just before Christmas for the consumer market.

ThOnda

I am already saving for MkIII, but will keep and praise my MkI forever. That love-toy just cannot be neither replaced nor forgotten.

EyeBlinks

ThOnda wrote: »

I am already saving for MkIII, but will keep and praise my MkI forever. That love-toy just cannot be neither replaced nor forgotten.

Leaving out Video, which I never use, I would only buy a MK111 for one reason only.

A Proper Autofocus System - the present one is awful.

Only one reason I upgraded from the Mk1 was high iso vast improvement.

I think when they tweak the obvious faults there is little else to entice me to upgrade tbh.

Promac

There's nothing wrong with the AF on the 5Dii. People have been complaining about it because it didn't get upgraded from the 5D but Nikon released a comparable body with better AF. "Not the best" is not the same as "not good".

Fair play to Canon though, they'll get sales for the mark iii because some people think AF is important. If it was really that important you'd buy a 1D. Or a Nikon ( /spit )

squareballoon

I used the mark ii once on a shoot while my camera was being repaired. The focus was brutal. about 1 in every 6 shots where there wasn't much contrast it just wouldn't focus at all! That never happens with my mark i. Did I just get a bad mark ii?

EyeBlinks

Promac wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the AF on the 5Dii. People have been complaining about it because it didn't get upgraded from the 5D but Nikon released a comparable body with better AF. "Not the best" is not the same as "not good".

Fair play to Canon though, they'll get sales for the mark iii because some people think AF is important. If it was really that important you'd buy a 1D. Or a Nikon ( /spit )

The autofocus is totally crap (yes I have one) !.

You learn workarounds etc, but not what you'd expect from a camera of that price.

For most people I would think (except maybe people who are solely studio based) it's very important.

pullandbang

EyeBlinks wrote: »

For most people I would think (except maybe people who are solely studio based) it's very important.

Even in the studio (and I was at it last night) the AF is crap on the 5D mkII. Shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 I kept having to move the focus point to the edge of the eye to get it to focus. It hunted up and down like a fiddlers elbow trying to focus. It was even worse using the 100mm f2.8 L macro which is a divil to hunt at the best of times.

jpb1974

Personally I've never had any autofocus issues with my 5D II... none.

Not sure if I'll be buying a 5D III... don't see the point... the 5D II is a perfectly good camera and does the job I need it to do.

EyeBlinks

pullandbang wrote: »

Even in the studio (and I was at it last night) the AF is crap on the 5D mkII. Shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 I kept having to move the focus point to the edge of the eye to get it to focus. It hunted up and down like a fiddlers elbow trying to focus. It was even worse using the 100mm f2.8 L macro which is a divil to hunt at the best of times.

What I meant was you have more time to get around it in the studio.

Promac

Maybe I have low expectations but in my experience when I put the AF point over what I want to focus on it almost always focuses perfectly. The exception being really low light conditions but that's fairly normal.

Is the problem simply that you have to choose where to focus yourself? I mean, if you're shooting a model, are you expecting the camera to know this and automatically focus on the eyes instead of the nose or whatever?

squareballoon

oh lord I can't even image how frustrating it would be to focus on a mark ii with the macro L!

EyeBlinks

Promac wrote: »

Maybe I have low expectations but in my experience when I put the AF point over what I want to focus on it almost always focuses perfectly. The exception being really low light conditions but that's fairly normal.

Is the problem simply that you have to choose where to focus yourself? I mean, if you're shooting a model, are you expecting the camera to know this and automatically focus on the eyes instead of the nose or whatever?

Firstly there are not enough autofocus points, assuming they all worked!

Have you tried focusing with any autofocus point except the central one? Nightmare !

Promac

I normally only use the central one to be honest but I've just been testing out the others and they all work fine here. I know that only the centre point is cross-type AF so it's a lot better but the other ones are working fine. Are you selecting the AF point manually or letting the camera do it?

In total honesty, I can't think of many reasons to use the outer AF points anyway. Unless you're doing some extreme depth-of-field stuff and the usual focus/recompose would cause a shift in the plane of focus but that's pretty rare and easy to see and correct.

I would have thought it was far easier to just use the centre point and choose where you want to focus yourself in the vast majority of situations.

gloobag

Was shooting in the midday sun on Saturday, back lighting my subject at wide apertures (f1.2, f1.4 etc...). My mkII hadn't a clue what was going on focus wise. If it was a person, it would've just shrugged its shoulders with a blank look on its face. Was disappointed afterwards to see that it had missed focus a lot of the shots.

Also, I always manually select my focus point, because my preference is usually for a very shallow depth of field.

Promac

gloobag wrote: »

Was shooting in the midday sun on Saturday, back lighting my subject at wide apertures (f1.2, f1.4 etc...). My mkII hadn't a clue what was going on focus wise. If it was a person, it would've just shrugged its shoulders with a blank look on its face.

If you were able to see light the way the camera sees light then you'd probably shrug your shoulders too. Your eye has a huge dynamic range so you're able to make out someone's face when they have a bright light shining from behind them but the camera can't get anywhere close to that - all it sees is a black blob with lots of light around it. As far as the camera is concerned there is no detail to focus on because it can't see any. No amount of AF points or better algorithms are going to fix that.

I get the feeling people think the AF system should be some kind of AI genius with owl-like night-vision and probably x-ray vision too - not to mention a good eye for composition. As a photographer you shouldn't need to rely on flaky software to focus your camera for you. I know it's not as easy as with a fully manual camera (I miss my focus assist ring) but still - it's not that hard either.

EyeBlinks

Promac wrote: »

In total honesty, I can't think of many reasons to use the outer AF points anyway. Unless you're doing some extreme depth-of-field stuff and the usual focus/recompose would cause a shift in the plane of focus but that's pretty rare and easy to see and correct.

I would have thought it was far easier to just use the centre point and choose where you want to focus yourself in the vast majority of situations.

Reason for using the other focus points is simply when your subject is not in the centre of your frame. Sure there are workarounds but thats not the point and those don't always work either.

The other focus points are terrible.

Borderfox

Promac wrote: »

I get the feeling people think the AF system should be some kind of AI genius with owl-like night-vision and probably x-ray vision too - not to mention a good eye for composition. As a photographer you shouldn't need to rely on flaky software to focus your camera for you. I know it's not as easy as with a fully manual camera (I miss my focus assist ring) but still - it's not that hard either.

Thats why they hamstrung the 5dmk2, they want you to buy a 1d

They might put something better in this time but it wont be what everybody wants

kelly1

For those of you who've experienced focusing issues with the 5D2, has this happened when using the centre point only? I have my sights set on a 5D so it would be good to know if issue only affects the outer focus points. Thanks.

Borderfox

on the 5dmk1 for me only the centre point is accurate, they might as well not have the outer points.

kelly1

Borderfox wrote: »

on the 5dmk1 for me only the centre point is accurate, they might as well not have the outer points.

Thanks, I have a 500D and I only ever use the centre. I just find it a bit cumbersome having to switch focus points so I don't bother.

Promac

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Reason for using the other focus points is simply when your subject is not in the centre of your frame. Sure there are workarounds but thats not the point and those don't always work either.

The other focus points are terrible.

You find it easier to change the point in the viewfinder where the camera focuses than just, very slightly, moving your aim to focus on your subject and then composing the shot? Even though you know you're choosing to use less sensitive AF points - and then saying the AF is crap because it's not as good as the one in the middle.

The centre point on the 5D's is cross-type (it can detect contrast both horizontally and vertically) and has 6 assist points that you can't see ( 3 above and 3 below). The other 8 aren't cross type and can only detect contrast in 1 direction - the 3 points on either side of the centre point are only sensitive to horizontal lines and the points above and below the centre are only sensitive to vertical lines. If you keep that in mind when using them then you shouldn't be surprised when you have problems.

Still don't know why you'd bother with anything but the centre but we're probably drawing this out a bit now