Отзывы о Фотоаппарат Canon EOS 5D Body
645 отзывов пользователей o Canon EOS 5D Body
Пользовались
Canon EOS 5D Body?
Поделитесь своим опытом и помогите другим сделать правильный выбор
Скроменый эксперт
22.06.2014
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
With the greatest of respect to everyone I have seen people complaining about no autofocus in video mode: the Canon 5D Mark III is a professional standard DSLR often used for shooting music videos.
My point is, professional videographers use manual focus. If you are not using this camera to a professional standard and never intend to (making blog videos like one guys review said) then I strongly suggest saving your money and going for a cheaper option as you don't need a camera of this quality… Image quality will not be noticed on such a small platform like a blog, nor will your video be criticised for not being brilliantly sharp.
Not sure about the advertising myself but if no where said autofocus wasn't an option in video mode then it is not very good from Canon not to make that clear, but yes; if you rely on autofocus, you really don't need a camera of this quality (with the exception of some people, obviously I don't know what people use it for)
Personally I am a videographer and Photographer, I bought the 5D Mark III because I am producing photographs and videos professionally, therefore I rely on image quality and the fantastic advantages that come with this camera, such as the 100% viewfinder which is sooo sharp and clear, the extremely high ISO capabilities and more.
The ISO capabilities are incredible, I have photographed live bands with no flash, going up to 128,000 ISO with NO real image quality loss - this is almost unachievable using an entry/amateur DSLR as you will see serious image quality loss with anything over 1600, which also means you will struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action if the subject is moving around. People refer to lenses as 'fast' lenses as they let a lot of light in, therefore a faster shutter speed, well this camera should be called a fast camera.
The viewfinder is so impressive, in these instances where I have shot bands etc in low light, the viewfinder allows me to see so clearly, its like looking into a HD screen.
If you want this camera for professional reasons BUY IT!
If you want this camera for personal use 100% buy it if you can spare the money. - if not, then you can still produce great photos and video on any other DSLR, after all it is…
40% Photographer
30% Light
20% Lens
10% Camera body
My point is, professional videographers use manual focus. If you are not using this camera to a professional standard and never intend to (making blog videos like one guys review said) then I strongly suggest saving your money and going for a cheaper option as you don't need a camera of this quality… Image quality will not be noticed on such a small platform like a blog, nor will your video be criticised for not being brilliantly sharp.
Not sure about the advertising myself but if no where said autofocus wasn't an option in video mode then it is not very good from Canon not to make that clear, but yes; if you rely on autofocus, you really don't need a camera of this quality (with the exception of some people, obviously I don't know what people use it for)
Personally I am a videographer and Photographer, I bought the 5D Mark III because I am producing photographs and videos professionally, therefore I rely on image quality and the fantastic advantages that come with this camera, such as the 100% viewfinder which is sooo sharp and clear, the extremely high ISO capabilities and more.
The ISO capabilities are incredible, I have photographed live bands with no flash, going up to 128,000 ISO with NO real image quality loss - this is almost unachievable using an entry/amateur DSLR as you will see serious image quality loss with anything over 1600, which also means you will struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action if the subject is moving around. People refer to lenses as 'fast' lenses as they let a lot of light in, therefore a faster shutter speed, well this camera should be called a fast camera.
The viewfinder is so impressive, in these instances where I have shot bands etc in low light, the viewfinder allows me to see so clearly, its like looking into a HD screen.
If you want this camera for professional reasons BUY IT!
If you want this camera for personal use 100% buy it if you can spare the money. - if not, then you can still produce great photos and video on any other DSLR, after all it is…
40% Photographer
30% Light
20% Lens
10% Camera body
Скроменый эксперт
20.10.2015
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
This camera is amazing. I upgraded to the 5d mark iii from a Canon 7D mainly because of lighting issues. I do a lot of wedding videography and about 99% of the time there will be poorly lit areas, such as the church and reception dance halls. With the 5d mark iii I am able to kick up my iso to 6400 and still get clean video! I love it. I always say, “if you’re going to produce something, why not produce the best that you can”… With the 7D I had a lot of struggles with lighting and trying to keep my iso low to avoid grain. Also, the wide frame is perfect for wedding videos. Yeah, I have to get a bit closer on certain shots, but overall I am in love with this camera. It’s a solid well built machine.
Скроменый эксперт
25.05.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
There's been a plethora of reviews already, addressing specs and then comparing attributes, but I thought I've give a little perspective to those who shoot similar to me.
On paper, let's be honest, the 5Dmk3 doesn't seem all that more impressive than the Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP Full Frame CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only), and then compared to the Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) - it looks like a perfect storm against the 5Dmk3.
I typically used a pair of Canon 7D's (and sometimes a Canon XHA1 as an additional back-up against corrupt files on the 7D bodies before the 1.2.5 firmware update) to shoot video. Fine video, with a crop sensor (helped in recording speeches or wedding nuptials from the back of church, etc), didn't downconvert HDMI out to monitor to 480p like the 5Dmk2 when you pressed record. Of course there were the typical Canon SLR problems, the moire - aliasing, and the approximate 12-minute recording time limit. And of course, a 7D is only decent in low light.
I recently needed to purchase some additional bodies, or camcorders, which would have:
-longer record time than 12 minutes
-be much better about moire - aliasing
-be tapeless (I know, shame on me for being so late in making sure that even my backup is tapeless)
-be better than decent in lowlight
-beneficial if it could use EF lenses
-would be nice if they could take good pictures (this last one was strictly because I take business pictures as a filler for cash from time to time and fill in as a second photo shooter in weddings when I'm not taking video)
I used a 5Dmk2 on shoots from time to time, but had not owned one. I thought about going the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 16.05 MP Live MOS Interchangeable Lens Camera with 3-inch Free-Angle Touch Screen LCD and 14-42mm Hybrid Lens (Black) along with a 5Dmk2, since it seemed the differences between the mk2 and mk3 were not so great, but there was enough of a price difference to make me wonder what the big deal was.
But I was also really impressed with Black Magic Design's Cinema Camera from this year's NAB show, which could be purchased with an EF mount. However, it wouldn't be released until the end of July, and I needed to purchase before June.
I settled on the 5Dmk3 over the 5Dmk2+Panasonic GH2 option and the Nikon d800 option.
And I'm very glad that I did.
Pros:
+30 minute record time (well, 29:29 - for tariff purposes, if you don't already know why the strange record limit)
+Fixed moire - aliasing issue (Well, made it much better. It can still show up in certain angles with certain patterns, but I see it maybe once a wedding shoot)
+clean ISO up to 3200, very usable at 6400, okay at ranges higher than that
+Full-frame is just so nice, compared to crop, micro 4/3, or Black Magic Design's almost micro 4/3 chip
+Much better pictures than the 7D
+Headphone jack for monitoring
+CF and SD/SDHC card use
+Didn't have to sell my EF glass and re-invest in Nikon glass to go with a d800 or additional issues using EF lenses on the GH2 body
Cons:
-Not as sharp as a d800, but usable, clean sharpness can be added in post, and far more superior in lowlight than the d800. (I recommend a d800 if you are always in a studio setting, but if you do more event or run-and-gun style shooting, the ISO range is a must)
-Dynamic range doesn't seem to be as good as d800, but once again, shoot with a neutral profile, or Technicolor Cinestyle profile, and fix in post
-Initial price
-30 minute record time (I put it in the cons as well because some events may need continuous shooting of 30 minutes or more)
-On board sound recording (I put this here because it's still not phenomenal. It's decent. And that works fine sometimes. But not all the time. Same with any SLR body, though.)
To be honest, the 5Dmk3 fixes so many headaches that I was having using the 7D as my main video choice, headaches that would not have been resolved with just the 5Dmk2. The d800, which takes beautiful pictures, is a fantastic camera except in one very crucial area, lowlight. Even though it starts out with a brighter image at its low ISO levels than the 5Dmk3, the noise is atrocious as you increase ISO, even with noise-reduction software. A beautiful love affair can be had with the d800, I will say definitely say. And to all the GH2 fanboys, there are so many good things about the GH2, but it really felt like a trade-off compared to the 7D. It's like those bodies, the 7D and GH2, complimented each other greatly in that where one was weak, the other fixed, but in turn was weak where the other was strong. (If that makes sense.)
I purely wanted to upgrade to fix issues. The 5Dmk3 has proven to not be deficient to where I would need the 7D, or another camera body, to fill some
On paper, let's be honest, the 5Dmk3 doesn't seem all that more impressive than the Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP Full Frame CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only), and then compared to the Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) - it looks like a perfect storm against the 5Dmk3.
I typically used a pair of Canon 7D's (and sometimes a Canon XHA1 as an additional back-up against corrupt files on the 7D bodies before the 1.2.5 firmware update) to shoot video. Fine video, with a crop sensor (helped in recording speeches or wedding nuptials from the back of church, etc), didn't downconvert HDMI out to monitor to 480p like the 5Dmk2 when you pressed record. Of course there were the typical Canon SLR problems, the moire - aliasing, and the approximate 12-minute recording time limit. And of course, a 7D is only decent in low light.
I recently needed to purchase some additional bodies, or camcorders, which would have:
-longer record time than 12 minutes
-be much better about moire - aliasing
-be tapeless (I know, shame on me for being so late in making sure that even my backup is tapeless)
-be better than decent in lowlight
-beneficial if it could use EF lenses
-would be nice if they could take good pictures (this last one was strictly because I take business pictures as a filler for cash from time to time and fill in as a second photo shooter in weddings when I'm not taking video)
I used a 5Dmk2 on shoots from time to time, but had not owned one. I thought about going the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 16.05 MP Live MOS Interchangeable Lens Camera with 3-inch Free-Angle Touch Screen LCD and 14-42mm Hybrid Lens (Black) along with a 5Dmk2, since it seemed the differences between the mk2 and mk3 were not so great, but there was enough of a price difference to make me wonder what the big deal was.
But I was also really impressed with Black Magic Design's Cinema Camera from this year's NAB show, which could be purchased with an EF mount. However, it wouldn't be released until the end of July, and I needed to purchase before June.
I settled on the 5Dmk3 over the 5Dmk2+Panasonic GH2 option and the Nikon d800 option.
And I'm very glad that I did.
Pros:
+30 minute record time (well, 29:29 - for tariff purposes, if you don't already know why the strange record limit)
+Fixed moire - aliasing issue (Well, made it much better. It can still show up in certain angles with certain patterns, but I see it maybe once a wedding shoot)
+clean ISO up to 3200, very usable at 6400, okay at ranges higher than that
+Full-frame is just so nice, compared to crop, micro 4/3, or Black Magic Design's almost micro 4/3 chip
+Much better pictures than the 7D
+Headphone jack for monitoring
+CF and SD/SDHC card use
+Didn't have to sell my EF glass and re-invest in Nikon glass to go with a d800 or additional issues using EF lenses on the GH2 body
Cons:
-Not as sharp as a d800, but usable, clean sharpness can be added in post, and far more superior in lowlight than the d800. (I recommend a d800 if you are always in a studio setting, but if you do more event or run-and-gun style shooting, the ISO range is a must)
-Dynamic range doesn't seem to be as good as d800, but once again, shoot with a neutral profile, or Technicolor Cinestyle profile, and fix in post
-Initial price
-30 minute record time (I put it in the cons as well because some events may need continuous shooting of 30 minutes or more)
-On board sound recording (I put this here because it's still not phenomenal. It's decent. And that works fine sometimes. But not all the time. Same with any SLR body, though.)
To be honest, the 5Dmk3 fixes so many headaches that I was having using the 7D as my main video choice, headaches that would not have been resolved with just the 5Dmk2. The d800, which takes beautiful pictures, is a fantastic camera except in one very crucial area, lowlight. Even though it starts out with a brighter image at its low ISO levels than the 5Dmk3, the noise is atrocious as you increase ISO, even with noise-reduction software. A beautiful love affair can be had with the d800, I will say definitely say. And to all the GH2 fanboys, there are so many good things about the GH2, but it really felt like a trade-off compared to the 7D. It's like those bodies, the 7D and GH2, complimented each other greatly in that where one was weak, the other fixed, but in turn was weak where the other was strong. (If that makes sense.)
I purely wanted to upgrade to fix issues. The 5Dmk3 has proven to not be deficient to where I would need the 7D, or another camera body, to fill some
Скроменый эксперт
31.05.2015
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
My first digital SLR was an Olympus E-300. That helped me reach the point where I knew i was serious about this stuff. Later I really stepped it up, with a Canon 1D Mark III and some L lenses.
Me and my girlfriend were downtown taking pictures. Me with my 1D and her with my Fuji X100S (also lovely by the way!). We got home and I start comparing and right away, I realized my 1D just wasn't cutting it anymore.
After much research I got this camera. I'm thrilled with it in SO many ways and it's my first full frame camera. One of the major reasons I got this was to use the third party (WARNING: voids your warranty!!!!) firmware Magic Lantern. And oh boy am I glad I did.
There are already tons of reviews and accolades for this camera. I'll just say that I agree, simply.
I'm sitting here trying really hard to come up with some cons. The truth is, that I can't think of any. Seriously. And that's why this gets five stars, which is something I rarely do.
This camera really no longer is a king at this time, however, because there are other kings out there that means the price of this will come way, way down. Grab one!!
Me and my girlfriend were downtown taking pictures. Me with my 1D and her with my Fuji X100S (also lovely by the way!). We got home and I start comparing and right away, I realized my 1D just wasn't cutting it anymore.
After much research I got this camera. I'm thrilled with it in SO many ways and it's my first full frame camera. One of the major reasons I got this was to use the third party (WARNING: voids your warranty!!!!) firmware Magic Lantern. And oh boy am I glad I did.
There are already tons of reviews and accolades for this camera. I'll just say that I agree, simply.
I'm sitting here trying really hard to come up with some cons. The truth is, that I can't think of any. Seriously. And that's why this gets five stars, which is something I rarely do.
This camera really no longer is a king at this time, however, because there are other kings out there that means the price of this will come way, way down. Grab one!!
Скроменый эксперт
27.11.2015
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
ill usually work with the Canon 5D MKiii body, it’s the higher resolution out of my cameras (but not as fast shooting, something I don’t always need).
To be honest, there isn’t much I can say about this body, its been around a while and im sure you all know the technical specs. The only thing I can say again is it works and does the job its there for. So stays in my bag.
On the bottom of the body I have a Manfrotto RC2 tripod mount and a Blackrapid quick strap connector that folds down when mounted to the tripod.
To be honest, there isn’t much I can say about this body, its been around a while and im sure you all know the technical specs. The only thing I can say again is it works and does the job its there for. So stays in my bag.
On the bottom of the body I have a Manfrotto RC2 tripod mount and a Blackrapid quick strap connector that folds down when mounted to the tripod.
Скроменый эксперт
15.05.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
I've spent a couple of weeks with the 5D Mark III. Previously, I spent several years with the x0D line of Canons, most recently the 50D, so this new model represents a substantial upgrade in terms of raw capabilities. Other reviewers have extensively discussed the many aspects of the 5DIII's overall handling, so I'll refrain from being repetitive.
Upon taking the camera from the box, I excitedly placed a lens on the camera, turned it to my window and looked through the viewfinder. I was utterly dismayed. The view was dim and unfocused. I turned the focus ring of the lens to no avail. Something must be askew within the camera, I thought. I removed the lens, placed it on my 50D to be sure that it wasn't the lens. It wasn't. This wasn't good. To make a long story short, it turns out that the battery is necessary even with the camera turned off just to look through the viewfinder. With a charged battery in place, the image brightens and can easily be brought into focus. I've yet to see any discussion of this online and there is only a brief statement buried within the hundreds of pages of owner's manual; perhaps this is unchanged from the 5DII, but it sure represents a big difference from my old 50D. So - Step 1 - charge your battery and install it, then begin your exploration of the camera.
My second issue came with my installation of Canon's software from their DVD onto my Mac Pro, on which I was running OS 10.6.8. I couldn't install the software. The installer would bounce once, then stop running, and that was the end of that. I had no problem installing the software on my laptop running Lion, or on an iMac running Lion, so I figured the software simply wouldn't work under 10.6.8. I bit the bullet and upgraded my Mac Pro to 10.7, only to find that the Canon software still wouldn't install, even after booting in Safe Mode. After several back-and-forth discussions with Canon Support, they suggested that I try logging in to my Mac Pro as a different user. I created a new Administrator that would have access to my applications folder, and behold, the software installed properly. I then needed to download several software upgrades from Canon, move those to the new user account, and install those, as they too would not work with my own account. I've never had a problem with Canon software installers and still have not found an explanation as to what's wrong or how to fix it. Canon stuck with me, though, until I got the workaround working. Some people asked me why I was bothering with Canon's software, given Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop, and so forth. There are some aspects of Canon's software, however, that make certain activities easier. I like it for quick use of stitching photos together as well as for upgrading firmware in the camera. Your mileage may vary.
Now I had camera operational and software installed. I installed two cards: the Lexar Professional 400x 128 GB SDXC UHS-I Card and the Lexar Professional 128 GB 400x UDMA7 CompactFlash Card. Both quickly formatted and have worked flawlessly since. I appear to have a impressive amount of storage room for raw photos and at least a sufficient amount of space for video, which I admit I have yet to explore. I've noticed a few things over the past weeks:
1) The lack of a built-in flash is an improvement. I often found that my 50D would suddenly pop up its flash attachment when I least expected it. Yes, of course there are workarounds to that, and I used them at times when I really didn't want the flash to be used. But outside in the middle of the day, I wouldn't expect the flash unit to open up and hadn't bothered with the workaround. In any case, I greatly prefer the 5DIII's approach of simply adjusting the ISO to fit the need if I'm running in automatic mode (and sometimes I do). I'm more than happy to grab my flash unit if I want to take flash pictures. Maybe it's because I trained with a Contax II and was limited to occasional use of a heavy flash attachment and Press 40 flashbulbs that I find myself being perfectly comfortable without a flash, but I truly feel that this leaves the choice of flash/no-flash to me every time without my having to give it a second thought.
2) Never once in years of use did my mode dial turn by itself. I see no need for a locking mode dial and find it a very minor annoyance, particularly when my hands are full while trying to take photos in active situations.
3) I'm not particularly comfortable with the interface of the enlarge button. With the x0D, you push the button repetitively to get to the level of enlargement desired on the screen. With the 5DIII, you push it once, then use the dial to adjust the level of enlargement. Pushing the button a second time simply returns you to the full image. The number of steps hasn't changed, but the need to move from button to dial has been added. I'm not clear as to why that added step is now necessary.
4) This pa
Upon taking the camera from the box, I excitedly placed a lens on the camera, turned it to my window and looked through the viewfinder. I was utterly dismayed. The view was dim and unfocused. I turned the focus ring of the lens to no avail. Something must be askew within the camera, I thought. I removed the lens, placed it on my 50D to be sure that it wasn't the lens. It wasn't. This wasn't good. To make a long story short, it turns out that the battery is necessary even with the camera turned off just to look through the viewfinder. With a charged battery in place, the image brightens and can easily be brought into focus. I've yet to see any discussion of this online and there is only a brief statement buried within the hundreds of pages of owner's manual; perhaps this is unchanged from the 5DII, but it sure represents a big difference from my old 50D. So - Step 1 - charge your battery and install it, then begin your exploration of the camera.
My second issue came with my installation of Canon's software from their DVD onto my Mac Pro, on which I was running OS 10.6.8. I couldn't install the software. The installer would bounce once, then stop running, and that was the end of that. I had no problem installing the software on my laptop running Lion, or on an iMac running Lion, so I figured the software simply wouldn't work under 10.6.8. I bit the bullet and upgraded my Mac Pro to 10.7, only to find that the Canon software still wouldn't install, even after booting in Safe Mode. After several back-and-forth discussions with Canon Support, they suggested that I try logging in to my Mac Pro as a different user. I created a new Administrator that would have access to my applications folder, and behold, the software installed properly. I then needed to download several software upgrades from Canon, move those to the new user account, and install those, as they too would not work with my own account. I've never had a problem with Canon software installers and still have not found an explanation as to what's wrong or how to fix it. Canon stuck with me, though, until I got the workaround working. Some people asked me why I was bothering with Canon's software, given Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop, and so forth. There are some aspects of Canon's software, however, that make certain activities easier. I like it for quick use of stitching photos together as well as for upgrading firmware in the camera. Your mileage may vary.
Now I had camera operational and software installed. I installed two cards: the Lexar Professional 400x 128 GB SDXC UHS-I Card and the Lexar Professional 128 GB 400x UDMA7 CompactFlash Card. Both quickly formatted and have worked flawlessly since. I appear to have a impressive amount of storage room for raw photos and at least a sufficient amount of space for video, which I admit I have yet to explore. I've noticed a few things over the past weeks:
1) The lack of a built-in flash is an improvement. I often found that my 50D would suddenly pop up its flash attachment when I least expected it. Yes, of course there are workarounds to that, and I used them at times when I really didn't want the flash to be used. But outside in the middle of the day, I wouldn't expect the flash unit to open up and hadn't bothered with the workaround. In any case, I greatly prefer the 5DIII's approach of simply adjusting the ISO to fit the need if I'm running in automatic mode (and sometimes I do). I'm more than happy to grab my flash unit if I want to take flash pictures. Maybe it's because I trained with a Contax II and was limited to occasional use of a heavy flash attachment and Press 40 flashbulbs that I find myself being perfectly comfortable without a flash, but I truly feel that this leaves the choice of flash/no-flash to me every time without my having to give it a second thought.
2) Never once in years of use did my mode dial turn by itself. I see no need for a locking mode dial and find it a very minor annoyance, particularly when my hands are full while trying to take photos in active situations.
3) I'm not particularly comfortable with the interface of the enlarge button. With the x0D, you push the button repetitively to get to the level of enlargement desired on the screen. With the 5DIII, you push it once, then use the dial to adjust the level of enlargement. Pushing the button a second time simply returns you to the full image. The number of steps hasn't changed, but the need to move from button to dial has been added. I'm not clear as to why that added step is now necessary.
4) This pa
Скроменый эксперт
04.05.2014
8/10
Оценка пользователя
Хорошо
I'm coming from 15 years on the Nikon system and I have to say that the meters on the canon's are much easier to fool with mixed brightness compositions than my nikon ever was. The first unit I got was metering 1-2 stops under exposed based on my histogram readings. I've since returned that unit and got another. It still shoots dark but it's a bit better. I've seen lots of people complain about this online with the compromise being a +1/3-2/3 stops over exposure compensation on all the time. There's just no excuse for that in a camera of this caliber.
To be fair, Nikon does have a tendency to over-expose but I find it easier to recover some bright areas and keep the detail than I find it to boost the shadows and exaggerate the noise in those shadows. Since I sold all my Nikon gear, that's just the compromise I'm gonna have to live with.
The rear LCD scratches easily so I recommend you buy a screen protector made of high quality glass and install it on day 1. That's another thing that just comes free with a Nikon body.
The camera shoots like a champ all the way up to ISO 3200. It can do well at ISO 6400 but you better get the exposure spot on or you'll get lot of noisy shadows if you under expose your RAW files and make adjustments in your preferred RAW converter. My old nikon D300s started to scream "uncle!" if I get anywhere near ISO 3200. I know the D800 is a low light champ but 36mp is overkill for my needs. I'd rather save the hard drive space.
Another issue I've seen is in the red channel. This is also something I've seen mentioned a lot on forums. Shooting the new red tulips that are popping up all over NYC produces mixed results. The red is way over saturated at the default settings and the details are washed away because of it.
Over all this is a great camera but it's not perfect by any means, no camera is. I couldn't give it a full 5 star rating because of some of the issues I laid out here. Don't let that hold you back though. This camera has allowed me to get shots that I never though I could before. The shallow depth of field with the new 24-70 f2.8 is simply breathtaking. It has taking my photography up a couple notches for sure.
It's not what I would call an affordable camera, but the combination of image quality, autofocus performance and video quality make this camera well worth the money.
This former Nikon guy recommends it highly.
To be fair, Nikon does have a tendency to over-expose but I find it easier to recover some bright areas and keep the detail than I find it to boost the shadows and exaggerate the noise in those shadows. Since I sold all my Nikon gear, that's just the compromise I'm gonna have to live with.
The rear LCD scratches easily so I recommend you buy a screen protector made of high quality glass and install it on day 1. That's another thing that just comes free with a Nikon body.
The camera shoots like a champ all the way up to ISO 3200. It can do well at ISO 6400 but you better get the exposure spot on or you'll get lot of noisy shadows if you under expose your RAW files and make adjustments in your preferred RAW converter. My old nikon D300s started to scream "uncle!" if I get anywhere near ISO 3200. I know the D800 is a low light champ but 36mp is overkill for my needs. I'd rather save the hard drive space.
Another issue I've seen is in the red channel. This is also something I've seen mentioned a lot on forums. Shooting the new red tulips that are popping up all over NYC produces mixed results. The red is way over saturated at the default settings and the details are washed away because of it.
Over all this is a great camera but it's not perfect by any means, no camera is. I couldn't give it a full 5 star rating because of some of the issues I laid out here. Don't let that hold you back though. This camera has allowed me to get shots that I never though I could before. The shallow depth of field with the new 24-70 f2.8 is simply breathtaking. It has taking my photography up a couple notches for sure.
It's not what I would call an affordable camera, but the combination of image quality, autofocus performance and video quality make this camera well worth the money.
This former Nikon guy recommends it highly.
Скроменый эксперт
04.08.2014
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
WOW! WOW! WOW! What a dream camera the Mark III is... it's worth every penny! I upgraded from Canon 7D (which I loved until I got the 5D) and boy oh boy what a difference in image quality and speed "WITHOUT" fussing with settings. Every image comes out sharp crisp, no noise, vibrant, clear even under low lighting (post card images every time). Auto white balance is right on and much better. No Noise and if any it's minimal in higher ISO Speeds, no artifacts. I don't need a tripod as much anymore. Handheld in higher speedS gives the same GREAT shots as if on tripod, especially for action shots (which I love) I love catching movement shots.... set shutter speed fast and every shot is stopped right in it's tracks while keeping good lighting... I can blast away without thinking about rather the images will come out or not, it just does every time...oh how fun it is now! I can really push this camera in low lighting without flash too.
I only like the highest quality L lens and have been collecting them for a while (L fixed lens). I was a little concerned about getting the zoom "kit" lens with the Mark III because I am soo picky about sharpness and quality... to my surprise the "kit" lens is superior and right up tHere with my fixed lens. I hadN't purchased a L zoom lens before because I thought I would never get the same quality as my fixed. The kit lens has even met my high standards.
If you're tying to decided rather to upgrade to the Mark III from what ever you are using... you will not be disappointed and you will see a BIG difference in image quality and shooting methods... it's ALL improved to notice a big difference (just about every shot is easier to get perfect now). I am going to sell my 7D and a few lens to help pay off the 5D. LOVE <3
NOW if I can just find the time to go through the thousands and thousands of GREAT shots I get. UGH! It sure is fun looking through them all but because I get soooo many winners now it makes it very difficult to decide which are going to be for framing, selling, sharing, etc..... just about ALL of them are great. Imagine that!
I only like the highest quality L lens and have been collecting them for a while (L fixed lens). I was a little concerned about getting the zoom "kit" lens with the Mark III because I am soo picky about sharpness and quality... to my surprise the "kit" lens is superior and right up tHere with my fixed lens. I hadN't purchased a L zoom lens before because I thought I would never get the same quality as my fixed. The kit lens has even met my high standards.
If you're tying to decided rather to upgrade to the Mark III from what ever you are using... you will not be disappointed and you will see a BIG difference in image quality and shooting methods... it's ALL improved to notice a big difference (just about every shot is easier to get perfect now). I am going to sell my 7D and a few lens to help pay off the 5D. LOVE <3
NOW if I can just find the time to go through the thousands and thousands of GREAT shots I get. UGH! It sure is fun looking through them all but because I get soooo many winners now it makes it very difficult to decide which are going to be for framing, selling, sharing, etc..... just about ALL of them are great. Imagine that!
Скроменый эксперт
01.12.2015
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
A truly well designed beautiful camera. I've used all versions of the 5D over the years and its just an incredible camera. The MKIII is no exception, low light capabilities alone make this a stand out. Paired with the right lenses the images are breathtaking. Size would be the only draw back - but that is standard with any camera of this caliber and I now use a Fuji XT1 when the size of the Canon is an issue.
Скроменый эксперт
28.10.2015
2/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
I don't hate this camera I love it! I have one already and wanted a backup, so I took the chances of ordering one on amazon despite the comments. However, as many other individuals have reported the camera is NOT new! I went to use this and it had over 6k on the shutter count. I am extremely disappointed with the process. If the camera would have been brand new I would NOT have any issues. Overall, it is an amazing camera! I will be looking for another one elsewhere. I returned it and didn't have any issues getting a refund.
Скроменый эксперт
28.08.2015
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
I've had many cameras. I currently also have a 60D and a 70D. The difference from those to the full size sensor this camera has is UNBELIEVABLE. The quality, detail, speed, accuracy etc. of this camera sets it in a totally different level compared to the other ones. The focusing speed and accuracy for example is leaps and bounds ahead of the 60D and 70D. Also, the professional (red line) lens is soooo much better than the other IS lenses.
If you are a professional photographer you probably already know the difference. If you are serious about photography, you want a camera like this one. Not because of the pixel count but because of the quality of the pictures you can take with it. Well worth the price difference.
If you are a professional photographer you probably already know the difference. If you are serious about photography, you want a camera like this one. Not because of the pixel count but because of the quality of the pictures you can take with it. Well worth the price difference.
Скроменый эксперт
07.04.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
After having this camera a little over a week and shooting 3 sessions with it, I thought it was time to throw in my 2cents.
Stepping up to the 5D MK II was a big jump from my 50D, so I can't give a review as comprehensive as if I was stepping up from the MK II, but I can give a good review for those wondering if you should step up from your current consumer-level or semi-pro DSLR.
The body:
In hand this feels like a camera. It has a professional feel to it, which I know is a cosmetic feature, but I personally love the feeling. The buttons are laid out rather nicely and easy to access while shooting. My one complaint is the zoom button. I don't know where Canon was going with this but it's awkward. It will take some getting used to, but honestly if a zoom button is your deal breaker, you shouldn't be looking at this camera any way. The LCD screen is large, which is very nice, the color on screen is amazingly vibrant and true to what shows up on the computer.
The Focal Points
I never knew what I was missing with only 9 focal points, but after playing around with the 61 different points on the 5D, I am impressed. During sessions I tend to shoot AF, out of convenience, in shooting AF though you rely on the camera to know where you want to focus and often times I found (at least with my 50D) that this led to soft images or soft faces. With the 5D I am able to completely manipulate AF with the push of a button. I set the focal point to the face and get my exact shot. This also comes in handy with macro shots. I find that getting a crisp macro is very hard on AF, as the focus is often soft or off. With spot focusing I can achieve the shot I want much faster without having to struggle with the camera not being able to lock on. The AF on this camera is a huge improvement and produces sharp, quality images.
ISO
The ISO was something I was most excited to try out. I am amazed with the results at 1600, after minor RAW adjustments to the noise, there is virtually no grain and the image is perfectly useable. I did test the 25600 and while I would never use this ISO in a shoot situation, I was impressed with the quality. Yes there was noise, but you're at an ISO of 25600, what do you expect? This camera produces quality images at larger ISOs. As a portrait photographer, this can be an advantage. I don't like to set my shutter bellow 1/125 and in some situations having the ability to bump my ISO up to 800 with no hint of grain/noise after post processing really makes a difference.
Image Quality
I am highly impressed with the image quality of this camera. Images come out very true to life and are crisp. My first impression: Blown away with the quality. The detail, even when zooming in is crisp and to the point. The color, as I have said, is true to life. The reds are not as manipulated as in some of Canons other cameras. The camera is able to capture light perfectly as well, creating amazing hair-lights without external flash. In my opinion the image quality is top notch (right where it should be for such a high power DSLR)
The duel axis electronic level is also a pretty neat feature. The level is great for landscapes and beach shooting. Yes you can produce a quick fix post image, but it is nice option to have.
HDR feature
I didn't really have an opinion about the addition of in camera HDR. It is really not a feature I thought I would ever have a need for. I have never been a huge fan of HDR, but the in camera HDR feature is actually quite fun to play with.
Lastly, I just want to mention that the auto feature is amazing. 9/10 I get a perfect picture with auto, makes my job amazingly easy. I get to show up, put the camera on auto and snap away. {:) Okay, kidding there, wanted to liven up the post.}
I have to say that I am amazed at this camera. Yes I did step up from a 50D, but my expectations were blow away with the quality of images this camera can capture. The colors and detail are true to life, which is a big deal to me. For the first time I feel like I can reach my full potential with this camera, yes I got amazing pictures with my 50D and `L' lenses, but I was never quite getting exactly what I saw, with the 5D MK III I am. If you're upgrading from a semi-pro body you will be happy, ecstatic even. Overall in my opinion Canon produced a high quality product, but wants a tad too much money for it.
My advice for this camera is to get it if you are ready for the upgrade. By ready for the upgrade I mean have an arsenal of L lenses. Yes, USM will work with this camera, but to get the most out of it, L is the way to go. This is a camera for professionals, that being said If you have a semi-pro body and a variety of L lenses, and looking to step up a bit, then maybe this is the camera for you. If you don't have any L lenses, then invest in those first.
Stepping up from a 50D t
Stepping up to the 5D MK II was a big jump from my 50D, so I can't give a review as comprehensive as if I was stepping up from the MK II, but I can give a good review for those wondering if you should step up from your current consumer-level or semi-pro DSLR.
The body:
In hand this feels like a camera. It has a professional feel to it, which I know is a cosmetic feature, but I personally love the feeling. The buttons are laid out rather nicely and easy to access while shooting. My one complaint is the zoom button. I don't know where Canon was going with this but it's awkward. It will take some getting used to, but honestly if a zoom button is your deal breaker, you shouldn't be looking at this camera any way. The LCD screen is large, which is very nice, the color on screen is amazingly vibrant and true to what shows up on the computer.
The Focal Points
I never knew what I was missing with only 9 focal points, but after playing around with the 61 different points on the 5D, I am impressed. During sessions I tend to shoot AF, out of convenience, in shooting AF though you rely on the camera to know where you want to focus and often times I found (at least with my 50D) that this led to soft images or soft faces. With the 5D I am able to completely manipulate AF with the push of a button. I set the focal point to the face and get my exact shot. This also comes in handy with macro shots. I find that getting a crisp macro is very hard on AF, as the focus is often soft or off. With spot focusing I can achieve the shot I want much faster without having to struggle with the camera not being able to lock on. The AF on this camera is a huge improvement and produces sharp, quality images.
ISO
The ISO was something I was most excited to try out. I am amazed with the results at 1600, after minor RAW adjustments to the noise, there is virtually no grain and the image is perfectly useable. I did test the 25600 and while I would never use this ISO in a shoot situation, I was impressed with the quality. Yes there was noise, but you're at an ISO of 25600, what do you expect? This camera produces quality images at larger ISOs. As a portrait photographer, this can be an advantage. I don't like to set my shutter bellow 1/125 and in some situations having the ability to bump my ISO up to 800 with no hint of grain/noise after post processing really makes a difference.
Image Quality
I am highly impressed with the image quality of this camera. Images come out very true to life and are crisp. My first impression: Blown away with the quality. The detail, even when zooming in is crisp and to the point. The color, as I have said, is true to life. The reds are not as manipulated as in some of Canons other cameras. The camera is able to capture light perfectly as well, creating amazing hair-lights without external flash. In my opinion the image quality is top notch (right where it should be for such a high power DSLR)
The duel axis electronic level is also a pretty neat feature. The level is great for landscapes and beach shooting. Yes you can produce a quick fix post image, but it is nice option to have.
HDR feature
I didn't really have an opinion about the addition of in camera HDR. It is really not a feature I thought I would ever have a need for. I have never been a huge fan of HDR, but the in camera HDR feature is actually quite fun to play with.
Lastly, I just want to mention that the auto feature is amazing. 9/10 I get a perfect picture with auto, makes my job amazingly easy. I get to show up, put the camera on auto and snap away. {:) Okay, kidding there, wanted to liven up the post.}
I have to say that I am amazed at this camera. Yes I did step up from a 50D, but my expectations were blow away with the quality of images this camera can capture. The colors and detail are true to life, which is a big deal to me. For the first time I feel like I can reach my full potential with this camera, yes I got amazing pictures with my 50D and `L' lenses, but I was never quite getting exactly what I saw, with the 5D MK III I am. If you're upgrading from a semi-pro body you will be happy, ecstatic even. Overall in my opinion Canon produced a high quality product, but wants a tad too much money for it.
My advice for this camera is to get it if you are ready for the upgrade. By ready for the upgrade I mean have an arsenal of L lenses. Yes, USM will work with this camera, but to get the most out of it, L is the way to go. This is a camera for professionals, that being said If you have a semi-pro body and a variety of L lenses, and looking to step up a bit, then maybe this is the camera for you. If you don't have any L lenses, then invest in those first.
Stepping up from a 50D t
Скроменый эксперт
06.04.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
Canon 5D MK III
Sorry this is NOT an in-depth review. I spent more time working on it than I planned but I wanted to be sure of my first impressions. So it is what it is. Hopefully some of you will find enough information here to make your own decisions. Also note that all the images you see here are JPEGS with minimal processing, virtually straight out of the camera, through 15 seconds of tweaks in Aperture 3.2 and then converted for use in this post. I had no way to convert the RAW files based on the computer and software I had with me in Alaska so I'll update later on the RAW files.
I can't think of many cameras that have been more eagerly awaited than the new full-frame Canon EOS 5D Mark III. The Canon 5D MK II was one of the most popular DSLRs ever sold. But let's face it, it's a little long in the tooth.
This may come as a surprise to many of you but I was never a big fan of the 5D MK II. I gave plenty of them away on Twitter because THAT is the camera YOU folks wanted, but as for me, well my best reaction to the 5D MK II was "Meh."
I think the 5D MK II was soft, slow and bulky. The AF was slow and in general, I think there are many better cameras. That said, I was in the minority and the MK II became a fan favorite - so who am I to argue with the fans? Now that the 5D MK III has shipped, the game has changed. Today I have in my hand a new, revamped camera - the 5D MK II's successor - the Mk III. All I can say is wow!
Here are my initial thoughts - I am going to primarily concentrate on new features here and give a summary of my limited experience with the III. (By the way this review is based on me actually using, shooting and owning a MK III not based on the Canon press release.)
Let's start with the new processor. The new, 30% faster DIGIC 5+ offers many improvements to the Canon line including better chromatic aberration correction, a multiple exposure mode and in-camera RAW conversion. There is also now in-camera HDR and 2, 3, 5 and even 7 frame auto exposure bracketing. It also allows for up to six FPS shooting which is a dramatic improvement from the MK II. In my experience all these claims proved to be true. The camera is noticeably faster.
The new magnesium alloy body shell is more waterproof than the old version. It feels beefier in the hand and just a tad heavier than the II. I didn't personally test the waterproofness - but I did use the camera from a boat for a week and found no problems.
I primarily tested the camera with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens both with and without a new Canon EF 1.4X III Telephoto Extender. The results were fantastic either way, but the camera was (as expected) slower to focus with the 1.4 mounted. The images are crisp and the color rendition accurate. (Thanks to Borrowlenses.com for shipping me the 1.4 TC. I forgot mine and they overnighted me one to Alaska so I could test it for this post.)
The viewfinder now offers 100% coverage and is very bright - I mean REALLY bright. I like this feature because it just makes it easier to find the photograph. There are also electronic levels on display in the viewfinder and LCD. The LCD is 3.2' and less reflective than the old screen. There's a noticeable improvement in my opinion.
There is a CF AND an SD slot onboard along with all sorts of improvements to the audio including a dedicated headphone jack, mic jack, and input level control (using a touch sensitive dial). Moire and aliasing problems are mostly gone.
HDSLR movie shooters will love this camera since shooting video was factored into the design of the III where it was more of an afterthought on the II. There is a well-placed, video start stop button and there is less rolling shutter effect. Canon has also added SMPTE timecode recording, maximum 29:59 minute files, a better CODEC and better HDMI out options.
I only shot a few minutes of video on the camera and that just to test the manufacturer claims as best I could. I do see a decrease in rolling shutter - not a dramatic decrease mind you - but noticeable. The overall video quality seems about the same to me.
The autofocus has been beefed up significantly in the MK III and frankly it's about time. The 61 point AF on the new MK III is identical to the 1DX except that it does not include face detection. (Boo!) It's fast, reliable and much easier to customize than the MK II's AF. I cannot stress enough how much I like this new AF. If I had to decide on upgrading to this camera and money wasn't a factor, I'd do it on the basis of the new autofocus alone. I photographed eagles, flying erratically and straight at me and the new AF stuck with them every time. I had about a 92% keeper rate on the toughest shots - compared with about 85% on the 1D MK IV and 60% on the 5D MK II. This autofocus rocks. Period.
There are other small improvements. You can now set a
Sorry this is NOT an in-depth review. I spent more time working on it than I planned but I wanted to be sure of my first impressions. So it is what it is. Hopefully some of you will find enough information here to make your own decisions. Also note that all the images you see here are JPEGS with minimal processing, virtually straight out of the camera, through 15 seconds of tweaks in Aperture 3.2 and then converted for use in this post. I had no way to convert the RAW files based on the computer and software I had with me in Alaska so I'll update later on the RAW files.
I can't think of many cameras that have been more eagerly awaited than the new full-frame Canon EOS 5D Mark III. The Canon 5D MK II was one of the most popular DSLRs ever sold. But let's face it, it's a little long in the tooth.
This may come as a surprise to many of you but I was never a big fan of the 5D MK II. I gave plenty of them away on Twitter because THAT is the camera YOU folks wanted, but as for me, well my best reaction to the 5D MK II was "Meh."
I think the 5D MK II was soft, slow and bulky. The AF was slow and in general, I think there are many better cameras. That said, I was in the minority and the MK II became a fan favorite - so who am I to argue with the fans? Now that the 5D MK III has shipped, the game has changed. Today I have in my hand a new, revamped camera - the 5D MK II's successor - the Mk III. All I can say is wow!
Here are my initial thoughts - I am going to primarily concentrate on new features here and give a summary of my limited experience with the III. (By the way this review is based on me actually using, shooting and owning a MK III not based on the Canon press release.)
Let's start with the new processor. The new, 30% faster DIGIC 5+ offers many improvements to the Canon line including better chromatic aberration correction, a multiple exposure mode and in-camera RAW conversion. There is also now in-camera HDR and 2, 3, 5 and even 7 frame auto exposure bracketing. It also allows for up to six FPS shooting which is a dramatic improvement from the MK II. In my experience all these claims proved to be true. The camera is noticeably faster.
The new magnesium alloy body shell is more waterproof than the old version. It feels beefier in the hand and just a tad heavier than the II. I didn't personally test the waterproofness - but I did use the camera from a boat for a week and found no problems.
I primarily tested the camera with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens both with and without a new Canon EF 1.4X III Telephoto Extender. The results were fantastic either way, but the camera was (as expected) slower to focus with the 1.4 mounted. The images are crisp and the color rendition accurate. (Thanks to Borrowlenses.com for shipping me the 1.4 TC. I forgot mine and they overnighted me one to Alaska so I could test it for this post.)
The viewfinder now offers 100% coverage and is very bright - I mean REALLY bright. I like this feature because it just makes it easier to find the photograph. There are also electronic levels on display in the viewfinder and LCD. The LCD is 3.2' and less reflective than the old screen. There's a noticeable improvement in my opinion.
There is a CF AND an SD slot onboard along with all sorts of improvements to the audio including a dedicated headphone jack, mic jack, and input level control (using a touch sensitive dial). Moire and aliasing problems are mostly gone.
HDSLR movie shooters will love this camera since shooting video was factored into the design of the III where it was more of an afterthought on the II. There is a well-placed, video start stop button and there is less rolling shutter effect. Canon has also added SMPTE timecode recording, maximum 29:59 minute files, a better CODEC and better HDMI out options.
I only shot a few minutes of video on the camera and that just to test the manufacturer claims as best I could. I do see a decrease in rolling shutter - not a dramatic decrease mind you - but noticeable. The overall video quality seems about the same to me.
The autofocus has been beefed up significantly in the MK III and frankly it's about time. The 61 point AF on the new MK III is identical to the 1DX except that it does not include face detection. (Boo!) It's fast, reliable and much easier to customize than the MK II's AF. I cannot stress enough how much I like this new AF. If I had to decide on upgrading to this camera and money wasn't a factor, I'd do it on the basis of the new autofocus alone. I photographed eagles, flying erratically and straight at me and the new AF stuck with them every time. I had about a 92% keeper rate on the toughest shots - compared with about 85% on the 1D MK IV and 60% on the 5D MK II. This autofocus rocks. Period.
There are other small improvements. You can now set a
Скроменый эксперт
10.10.2014
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
This camera is amazing.
I upgraded from a Canon Digital Rebel XSi, and before that I had a Canon PowerShot G3, each of which I had for about five years. The cameras didn't wear out, I just outgrew them. So I knew two things: 1, Canon makes a good camera which will last for many (many) years. 2, I should invest a little more in my next camera since I was upgrading regularly.
With that, I wanted top of the line. For my needs, the 5D Mk.3 was the top of the line. The 1D is supposedly higher up, but you have to look at the specifications to see what features you really need and will take advantage of, and what features you won't. Do your research, make an informed decision. Reviews of the 5D Mk.3 are everywhere, and in-depth feature-by-feature comparisons and recommendations are what we, as consumers, are accustomed to today. That said, I feel all that could be said about this camera has been said by other more qualified people. Go read those reviews, then buy the camera.
But as an investment, and a tool for professional use, I wanted to chime in on a couple points:
First, I purchased my camera about two years ago, in which time, the price has increased almost $400. That's gotta' be saying something for a piece of technology withstanding the test of time. And I'm confident this camera will withstand for many years to come before it's replaced by the 5D Mk.4 - at which point the Mk.3 will still be an amazing camera.
Second, if you're a professional of any kind, using this camera for your business, don't forget about the tax write-off. When I filed my receipts, I elected to take the full deduction up front (instead of yearly depreciation), and I have to say - the thing nearly paid for itself. There's no down side to this camera. Seriously.
I upgraded from a Canon Digital Rebel XSi, and before that I had a Canon PowerShot G3, each of which I had for about five years. The cameras didn't wear out, I just outgrew them. So I knew two things: 1, Canon makes a good camera which will last for many (many) years. 2, I should invest a little more in my next camera since I was upgrading regularly.
With that, I wanted top of the line. For my needs, the 5D Mk.3 was the top of the line. The 1D is supposedly higher up, but you have to look at the specifications to see what features you really need and will take advantage of, and what features you won't. Do your research, make an informed decision. Reviews of the 5D Mk.3 are everywhere, and in-depth feature-by-feature comparisons and recommendations are what we, as consumers, are accustomed to today. That said, I feel all that could be said about this camera has been said by other more qualified people. Go read those reviews, then buy the camera.
But as an investment, and a tool for professional use, I wanted to chime in on a couple points:
First, I purchased my camera about two years ago, in which time, the price has increased almost $400. That's gotta' be saying something for a piece of technology withstanding the test of time. And I'm confident this camera will withstand for many years to come before it's replaced by the 5D Mk.4 - at which point the Mk.3 will still be an amazing camera.
Second, if you're a professional of any kind, using this camera for your business, don't forget about the tax write-off. When I filed my receipts, I elected to take the full deduction up front (instead of yearly depreciation), and I have to say - the thing nearly paid for itself. There's no down side to this camera. Seriously.
Скроменый эксперт
04.04.2012
2/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
I'm a Sony shooter with only a few lenses. I use to shoot Canon during the film days. I tested both the Canon 5D mkIII and the Nikon D800 and here are my results. I tested a 5DmkIII with a 24-70 f2.8 lens and a Nikon D800 (not D800e) with a 24-70 f2.8 lens.
High ISO:
About the same, except D800 has a lot more detail to work with. In Lightroom, I can save a higher percentage of ISO 6400 shots because the D800 has more detail. Canon seems cleaner initially in Lightroom but when the picture fits into a 24" 1920x1080 monitor or a 64" Samsung plasma TV, the Nikon looks a tad cleaner, noise less noticeable. I think the Canon looks cleaner in Lightroom because it is just a smaller picture. But displaying ISO 6400 shots on a monitor or TV, Nikon looks nicer in general. Both cameras at ISO 12,800 look awful and not recoverable in Lightroom. It might look acceptable as a really small pic but why the heck would you buy an expensive camera to display really small crappy looking pictures?
Frames per second:
Easy winner. Canon can shoot 6 FPS, Nikon 4 FPS. However, in practice I think 4 FPS is pretty good. None of these cameras are really Olympic style sports cameras.
Resolution:
Easy winner. Nikon's RAW files are more detailed, almost 3D like. I can't really explain it other than the pictures look more real. I can crop a photo to 1/3 it's size (12 megapixels) and it still looks stunning. I wonder how much better the D800e version is. I'll have to wait until my friend receives his to find out.
JPEG:
Easy winner. Out of the camera, the Canon JPEGs are phenomenal. The processing done is quite remarkable.
RAW:
Easy winner. If you shoot RAW, Nikon is it. Also there is an issue with the Canon with the color red. I think the color is overblown at times because all the details are loss and not recoverable in Lightroom. Not always but it has happened at least twice. The same photo on the Nikon kept all the details.
Autofocus:
About the same. Canon and Nikon have awesomely quick autofocus and I couldn't determine a difference. The only caveat is that Nikon focuses better in lowlight (without the autofocus assist lamp) and also the Nikon focuses when there is almost no light (with the autofocus assist lamp). Why the heck doesn't Canon include an autofocus assist lamp is beyond me. Also, Nikon's face detection is extremely useful because it focuses right on the eyeballs.
Flash:
Easy winner. Canon doesn't have built in flash. Nikon flash worked surprisingly well.
Dynamic Range:
Easy winner. Nikon knocked it out of the park. I got a lot less blown highlights with shots with white clothing and more realistic blue skys. Also, there is a lot more headroom on both the highlights and shadows on the Nikon when editing in Lightroom. How did Nikon have better shadows and highlights! They have to share some of that technology!
Video:
Suprisingly about the same. I would have thought that Canon's lead in video would maintain. Surprisingly, the Nikon's video was just as awesome as the Canon. Nikon's video has a bit more detail and is definitely a little sharper than the Canon. I didn't test Nikon's uncompressed HDMI out, although it seems to be a useful feature (this is like RAW HDMI output for video). Canon should adopt uncompressed HDMI out also.
Price:
Easy winner. Why anyone (who doesn't already have Nikon or Canon lenses) would buy this Canon for $500 more than the Nikon would need to think twice. I can see why the Nikon is selling so much better than the Canon, at least on Amazon.
Comfort:
Both about the same weight. Both feel nice in the hand. Canon possibly slightly more comfortable if you have bigger hands. Nikon maybe more comfortable with smaller hands. Both are fine though.
USB transfer:
Nikon wins with USB 3.0. Skipping the card reader altogether by just plugging in the camera to the computer is convenient. Also the transfer speed is much much faster than Canon's older USB 2.0. This saves a lot of time.
LCD Screen:
Canon has slightly better screen in direct sunlight (LCD facing up towards the sun). Nikon is better when the LCD is not directly facing the sun. Nikon's screen is crisper and more 3D like.
Weatherproofing:
My last day of shooting was in a light mist/drizzle. I was shooting both cameras again for about 20 minutes when the Canon 5D mkIII developed some fogging inside the viewfinder screen. I could not wipe it away as it seemed to be inside the camera. I could no longer take pictures normally without live view. Nikon didn't have this problem and I continued to shoot the rest of the day with the Nikon in the same wet conditions without issue. I had planned to shoot at least 2 weeks with both cameras so this was definitely a bummer.
Lenses:
Both Canon and Nikon's 24-70 2.8 lenses are great.
High ISO:
About the same, except D800 has a lot more detail to work with. In Lightroom, I can save a higher percentage of ISO 6400 shots because the D800 has more detail. Canon seems cleaner initially in Lightroom but when the picture fits into a 24" 1920x1080 monitor or a 64" Samsung plasma TV, the Nikon looks a tad cleaner, noise less noticeable. I think the Canon looks cleaner in Lightroom because it is just a smaller picture. But displaying ISO 6400 shots on a monitor or TV, Nikon looks nicer in general. Both cameras at ISO 12,800 look awful and not recoverable in Lightroom. It might look acceptable as a really small pic but why the heck would you buy an expensive camera to display really small crappy looking pictures?
Frames per second:
Easy winner. Canon can shoot 6 FPS, Nikon 4 FPS. However, in practice I think 4 FPS is pretty good. None of these cameras are really Olympic style sports cameras.
Resolution:
Easy winner. Nikon's RAW files are more detailed, almost 3D like. I can't really explain it other than the pictures look more real. I can crop a photo to 1/3 it's size (12 megapixels) and it still looks stunning. I wonder how much better the D800e version is. I'll have to wait until my friend receives his to find out.
JPEG:
Easy winner. Out of the camera, the Canon JPEGs are phenomenal. The processing done is quite remarkable.
RAW:
Easy winner. If you shoot RAW, Nikon is it. Also there is an issue with the Canon with the color red. I think the color is overblown at times because all the details are loss and not recoverable in Lightroom. Not always but it has happened at least twice. The same photo on the Nikon kept all the details.
Autofocus:
About the same. Canon and Nikon have awesomely quick autofocus and I couldn't determine a difference. The only caveat is that Nikon focuses better in lowlight (without the autofocus assist lamp) and also the Nikon focuses when there is almost no light (with the autofocus assist lamp). Why the heck doesn't Canon include an autofocus assist lamp is beyond me. Also, Nikon's face detection is extremely useful because it focuses right on the eyeballs.
Flash:
Easy winner. Canon doesn't have built in flash. Nikon flash worked surprisingly well.
Dynamic Range:
Easy winner. Nikon knocked it out of the park. I got a lot less blown highlights with shots with white clothing and more realistic blue skys. Also, there is a lot more headroom on both the highlights and shadows on the Nikon when editing in Lightroom. How did Nikon have better shadows and highlights! They have to share some of that technology!
Video:
Suprisingly about the same. I would have thought that Canon's lead in video would maintain. Surprisingly, the Nikon's video was just as awesome as the Canon. Nikon's video has a bit more detail and is definitely a little sharper than the Canon. I didn't test Nikon's uncompressed HDMI out, although it seems to be a useful feature (this is like RAW HDMI output for video). Canon should adopt uncompressed HDMI out also.
Price:
Easy winner. Why anyone (who doesn't already have Nikon or Canon lenses) would buy this Canon for $500 more than the Nikon would need to think twice. I can see why the Nikon is selling so much better than the Canon, at least on Amazon.
Comfort:
Both about the same weight. Both feel nice in the hand. Canon possibly slightly more comfortable if you have bigger hands. Nikon maybe more comfortable with smaller hands. Both are fine though.
USB transfer:
Nikon wins with USB 3.0. Skipping the card reader altogether by just plugging in the camera to the computer is convenient. Also the transfer speed is much much faster than Canon's older USB 2.0. This saves a lot of time.
LCD Screen:
Canon has slightly better screen in direct sunlight (LCD facing up towards the sun). Nikon is better when the LCD is not directly facing the sun. Nikon's screen is crisper and more 3D like.
Weatherproofing:
My last day of shooting was in a light mist/drizzle. I was shooting both cameras again for about 20 minutes when the Canon 5D mkIII developed some fogging inside the viewfinder screen. I could not wipe it away as it seemed to be inside the camera. I could no longer take pictures normally without live view. Nikon didn't have this problem and I continued to shoot the rest of the day with the Nikon in the same wet conditions without issue. I had planned to shoot at least 2 weeks with both cameras so this was definitely a bummer.
Lenses:
Both Canon and Nikon's 24-70 2.8 lenses are great.
Скроменый эксперт
02.04.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
I didn't rush to make a review of this camera, as I wanted to really put it through it's paces first. I won't try to list every feature or go over every bullet point (the above description does a fine job), but instead try to go over a few things which make a big difference to me as a 5D Mark II owner. For some background, I bought an original 5D in 2007, a 5DII in 2008 and have been working with these bodies ever since then. I also have experience with all of the Canon 1-series up through the 1DIII and 1DsIII. I currently log about 60,000 photos per year with the 5D Mark IIs as a professional wedding and portrait photographer. I shoot almost exclusively with fast L prime lenses in my work.
So after a week of solid shooting with the camera, here are the areas which are of note relative to previous 5D bodies:
**AUTOFOCUS**
AF is the elephant in the room here so I'll address it first. Good news, we now have a focusing system worth of it's price point. The AF system here is identical to that in the 1Dx and is THE most sophisticated AF system EVER put in any Canon body. It is superior to that in the 1DV and all bodies before it.
I have tested the AF point in servo and one shot mode with my fastest lenses. Speed, accuracy, and consistency have been exceptional and better than anything I have used before. AF gets the job done with zero drama. NO focus jitter, NO frontfocus, NO backfocus, nothing but near-instant, dead accurate focusing with all of my lenses. Even with my Sigma 85/1.4 (which gives my 5DII bodies absolute fits) is 100% accurate with no jitter on the 5DIII. Center AF point and all peripheral AF points are all usable with fast primes. With the 5DII you just use the center AF point and hope for the best (with often mixed results). You could forget using the outer AF points with fast lenses on previous 5D bodies. That has all changed now.
Just to see how far I could push it, I took my most difficult to focus lens (24/1.4 II), put it on the 5DIII, and tried to focus on my black lab in my dimly lit apartment. At a distance of about 2 feet I would able to lock focus on the dog's eye with the far left AF point at F1.4, 1/40, ISO4000. Think about that. I was able to focus on a black eye on a black dog in a dimly lit apartment at F1.4. The 5DII would have hunted all day long trying to do this, even with it's center AF point.
I could sit here and write a book on how happy this performance makes me. For what I do, if this were the only upgrade from the 5D Mark II, it alone would be worth of the $3500 price tag. That said, there is more...
**BUILD QUALITY**
It's hard to put my finger on exactly what changed, but the 5DIII just feels more substantial. It feels like a chopped down 1-series instead of a buffed up 10 series. The contour of the body has changed to fit your hand better. The rubber is also a new compound which is much grippier than before. The 5DIII feels much better to hold and use than the previous 5D bodies.
**SCREEN**
I wasn't expecting a big improvement here, but the screen is drop dead gorgeous. The height is about the same, but it's wider than that in the 5DII and fits the aspect of horizontal images perfectly now. The screen itself has better coatings which allow you to see it easier outside. The contrast, viewing angle, color, and saturation have all improved noticeably. It has a very similar look to a high end smartphone screen. This is a substantial upgrade from the 5DII's screen.
**IMAGE QUALITY**
Image quality is better than the 5DII, but not substantially so. Let me explain.
The 5DIII now natively amplifies the sensor data to ISO 25,600 whereas the 5DII only natively went to ISO 6400. This means that for anything higher than ISO 6400, the 5DIII is better. In RAW you are looking at an improvement of about 1/2 to 3/4 of a stop at high ISO. At lower ISOs, the noise level is about the same.
JPEG quality has improved much more though. The JPEG engine in this camera is staggeringly good and a solid 2 stops better at controlling noise at high ISO than the 5DII. It strikes the best balance of detail and noise control of any camera on the market right now. Note though that default NR in JPEG mode is fairly strong and that you will generally attain a better "look" from your files with the "low" NR setting.
As an aside, the nasty cross-hatch banding present in the deep shadows of 5DII files is now gone with the Mark III. There is still mild vertical banding, but it's similar to the original 5D and only visible when pushed heavily (3 or more stops).
**METERING**
I don't have any hard data on this, but I'm fully convinced the metering of the 5DIII is better than that of the 5DII. I find myself correcting with exposure compensation MUCH less now with the new body than with the mark II. Shooting with the two
So after a week of solid shooting with the camera, here are the areas which are of note relative to previous 5D bodies:
**AUTOFOCUS**
AF is the elephant in the room here so I'll address it first. Good news, we now have a focusing system worth of it's price point. The AF system here is identical to that in the 1Dx and is THE most sophisticated AF system EVER put in any Canon body. It is superior to that in the 1DV and all bodies before it.
I have tested the AF point in servo and one shot mode with my fastest lenses. Speed, accuracy, and consistency have been exceptional and better than anything I have used before. AF gets the job done with zero drama. NO focus jitter, NO frontfocus, NO backfocus, nothing but near-instant, dead accurate focusing with all of my lenses. Even with my Sigma 85/1.4 (which gives my 5DII bodies absolute fits) is 100% accurate with no jitter on the 5DIII. Center AF point and all peripheral AF points are all usable with fast primes. With the 5DII you just use the center AF point and hope for the best (with often mixed results). You could forget using the outer AF points with fast lenses on previous 5D bodies. That has all changed now.
Just to see how far I could push it, I took my most difficult to focus lens (24/1.4 II), put it on the 5DIII, and tried to focus on my black lab in my dimly lit apartment. At a distance of about 2 feet I would able to lock focus on the dog's eye with the far left AF point at F1.4, 1/40, ISO4000. Think about that. I was able to focus on a black eye on a black dog in a dimly lit apartment at F1.4. The 5DII would have hunted all day long trying to do this, even with it's center AF point.
I could sit here and write a book on how happy this performance makes me. For what I do, if this were the only upgrade from the 5D Mark II, it alone would be worth of the $3500 price tag. That said, there is more...
**BUILD QUALITY**
It's hard to put my finger on exactly what changed, but the 5DIII just feels more substantial. It feels like a chopped down 1-series instead of a buffed up 10 series. The contour of the body has changed to fit your hand better. The rubber is also a new compound which is much grippier than before. The 5DIII feels much better to hold and use than the previous 5D bodies.
**SCREEN**
I wasn't expecting a big improvement here, but the screen is drop dead gorgeous. The height is about the same, but it's wider than that in the 5DII and fits the aspect of horizontal images perfectly now. The screen itself has better coatings which allow you to see it easier outside. The contrast, viewing angle, color, and saturation have all improved noticeably. It has a very similar look to a high end smartphone screen. This is a substantial upgrade from the 5DII's screen.
**IMAGE QUALITY**
Image quality is better than the 5DII, but not substantially so. Let me explain.
The 5DIII now natively amplifies the sensor data to ISO 25,600 whereas the 5DII only natively went to ISO 6400. This means that for anything higher than ISO 6400, the 5DIII is better. In RAW you are looking at an improvement of about 1/2 to 3/4 of a stop at high ISO. At lower ISOs, the noise level is about the same.
JPEG quality has improved much more though. The JPEG engine in this camera is staggeringly good and a solid 2 stops better at controlling noise at high ISO than the 5DII. It strikes the best balance of detail and noise control of any camera on the market right now. Note though that default NR in JPEG mode is fairly strong and that you will generally attain a better "look" from your files with the "low" NR setting.
As an aside, the nasty cross-hatch banding present in the deep shadows of 5DII files is now gone with the Mark III. There is still mild vertical banding, but it's similar to the original 5D and only visible when pushed heavily (3 or more stops).
**METERING**
I don't have any hard data on this, but I'm fully convinced the metering of the 5DIII is better than that of the 5DII. I find myself correcting with exposure compensation MUCH less now with the new body than with the mark II. Shooting with the two
Скроменый эксперт
01.04.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
This is a user not a professional review. Otherwise, I'd suggest go to dpreview.com or your preferred reference. I think they are capable of showing evidence of issues such as vignetting or chromatic abberration in a product that could get the attention of the manufacturer's engineering department. They helped or convinced me with the purchase. My intention is to give feedback on the couple of points they've raised and highlight what I've experienced as a user so far.
I agree that this camera performs excellent at 12,800 ISO or even higher. At f/4, this allowed me to shoot handheld and flipped the mirror in a fraction of second. The almost black sky showed the clouds in the captured image which was not visible to my eye (my vision is 20/20). At some situations, you can have a 4L lens function at 2.8L. I was going for the new 24-70mm 2.8L but I had to wait 2 months for the 5D body only so I went for the kit. I guess it's a good accident.
I am pleased with the new 61-point AF. Fast and gets my focus right most of the time so far. What I mean by fast is less than half a second or probably faster than that. I could catch a bird flying within my frame without exciting some nerves. I won't mention how the new AF system works. The pros could discuss this all day. What's important is that when you use AF you can capture a nice pic fast without going for MF or manually controlling the exposure. I was able to produce a silky background blur consistently (1 foot away from subject) with AF using the kit lens. Nevertheless, if you bought this camera you would find the MF as sweet or sweeter than the AF.
35mm camera these days can do still and motion pictures but not excellent at both worlds in my opinion. 5D3's video is handsomely good but if you spent $3500, I think you wouldn't mind going a little further and buy a possibly lighter, smaller and more than capable video cam and get the 1080p/60fps. Pros I've met use their SLRs mainly for shooting still pictures. However, its video performance can be used in some production in my opinion as it's way too good for the end user.
The manual states that this 5D does not comply with the Ultra High Speed memory cards but SDHC/SDXC can be used. I guess Canon is referring to writing at 95MB/s. I used the SDHC (600x) it worked just fine but I'm noticing some delay (around 1/4 second) when flipping images in the LCD. It might be normal. I will try the CF (600x too) and see the diffence. If you're considering to get the latest and greatest like 1000x you might want to wait a little while. Canon might release a newer firmware and make it fully compliant with UHS. Fast cards need fast writer too. Having both CF and SD is winner for me. Saving money on cards (unless CF and SD cost and perform the same) but achieving the same thing. Record to both or use one then switch. Don't have to worry losing the images or clips and backing up to the laptop regularly unless somebody steals the camera or I dropped it above the mariana trench.
22M pixels is more than enough I believe unless you print posters or billboards. It's too big for me already. Large prints consume 10MB in the card. I don't see much difference shooting lower (12) than 22M pixels. Noise seems to show faster and noticeable at higher pixels and ISO.
Physically, it's ergonomic and the buttons are placed almost perfectly. Kenrockwell articulated this well and I agree with him that 5D3 is the best well rounded SLR that Canon ever made. However, I disagree when he compared the D4 and 5D. It's like comparing BMW's SUV with Audi's sedan. Anyway, when I first lifted 5D3 the thumb, index, and middle finger put a groove in the grip. I'm 5 foot 8. Fits my right hand perfectly. The battery compartment has an internal lock - ensures pins remain in contact and it gets more secure as you put your hand around the grip. The camera is not heavy I would say but with the lens and the first all day shooting I felt the weight.
Not sure why Canon did not go for USB 3. 128GB CF/SD will be a norm soon. Imagine taking hours transferring files to your computer via USB 2 where it could take in minutes. This is my biggest disappoinment. The touch pad is like the egyptian table compared to iPhone and it's a bit redundant with the track ball (above the Q button). I saw some cosmetic imperfection around the mode dial. It looks like a dent. If you notice this, please let me know. The top LCD looks to have a protective film but not the 3.2 LCD. I can't find anyone selling screen protector so I ordered the ones for the iPhone. I will cut and fit when it arrives.
In summary, excellent ISO, AF, ergonomic. Best form factor out there for full 35mm SLR for me - I shoot outside and under the roof. No flash which is a plus for me - makes camera smaller and you won't need it most of the time if you have good lens but if you do, you wouldn't want the built-in fl
I agree that this camera performs excellent at 12,800 ISO or even higher. At f/4, this allowed me to shoot handheld and flipped the mirror in a fraction of second. The almost black sky showed the clouds in the captured image which was not visible to my eye (my vision is 20/20). At some situations, you can have a 4L lens function at 2.8L. I was going for the new 24-70mm 2.8L but I had to wait 2 months for the 5D body only so I went for the kit. I guess it's a good accident.
I am pleased with the new 61-point AF. Fast and gets my focus right most of the time so far. What I mean by fast is less than half a second or probably faster than that. I could catch a bird flying within my frame without exciting some nerves. I won't mention how the new AF system works. The pros could discuss this all day. What's important is that when you use AF you can capture a nice pic fast without going for MF or manually controlling the exposure. I was able to produce a silky background blur consistently (1 foot away from subject) with AF using the kit lens. Nevertheless, if you bought this camera you would find the MF as sweet or sweeter than the AF.
35mm camera these days can do still and motion pictures but not excellent at both worlds in my opinion. 5D3's video is handsomely good but if you spent $3500, I think you wouldn't mind going a little further and buy a possibly lighter, smaller and more than capable video cam and get the 1080p/60fps. Pros I've met use their SLRs mainly for shooting still pictures. However, its video performance can be used in some production in my opinion as it's way too good for the end user.
The manual states that this 5D does not comply with the Ultra High Speed memory cards but SDHC/SDXC can be used. I guess Canon is referring to writing at 95MB/s. I used the SDHC (600x) it worked just fine but I'm noticing some delay (around 1/4 second) when flipping images in the LCD. It might be normal. I will try the CF (600x too) and see the diffence. If you're considering to get the latest and greatest like 1000x you might want to wait a little while. Canon might release a newer firmware and make it fully compliant with UHS. Fast cards need fast writer too. Having both CF and SD is winner for me. Saving money on cards (unless CF and SD cost and perform the same) but achieving the same thing. Record to both or use one then switch. Don't have to worry losing the images or clips and backing up to the laptop regularly unless somebody steals the camera or I dropped it above the mariana trench.
22M pixels is more than enough I believe unless you print posters or billboards. It's too big for me already. Large prints consume 10MB in the card. I don't see much difference shooting lower (12) than 22M pixels. Noise seems to show faster and noticeable at higher pixels and ISO.
Physically, it's ergonomic and the buttons are placed almost perfectly. Kenrockwell articulated this well and I agree with him that 5D3 is the best well rounded SLR that Canon ever made. However, I disagree when he compared the D4 and 5D. It's like comparing BMW's SUV with Audi's sedan. Anyway, when I first lifted 5D3 the thumb, index, and middle finger put a groove in the grip. I'm 5 foot 8. Fits my right hand perfectly. The battery compartment has an internal lock - ensures pins remain in contact and it gets more secure as you put your hand around the grip. The camera is not heavy I would say but with the lens and the first all day shooting I felt the weight.
Not sure why Canon did not go for USB 3. 128GB CF/SD will be a norm soon. Imagine taking hours transferring files to your computer via USB 2 where it could take in minutes. This is my biggest disappoinment. The touch pad is like the egyptian table compared to iPhone and it's a bit redundant with the track ball (above the Q button). I saw some cosmetic imperfection around the mode dial. It looks like a dent. If you notice this, please let me know. The top LCD looks to have a protective film but not the 3.2 LCD. I can't find anyone selling screen protector so I ordered the ones for the iPhone. I will cut and fit when it arrives.
In summary, excellent ISO, AF, ergonomic. Best form factor out there for full 35mm SLR for me - I shoot outside and under the roof. No flash which is a plus for me - makes camera smaller and you won't need it most of the time if you have good lens but if you do, you wouldn't want the built-in fl
Скроменый эксперт
31.03.2012
8/10
Оценка пользователя
Хорошо
I was able to pre-order and the Canon 5D Mark III arrived on March 29th. I had mixed feelings when the press release first came out with the specs on the new Mark III. Several features that were high on my wish list didn't make it into the camera, but when I started seeing some of the image samples, particularly in low light, I knew I wanted it anyway.
I'm currently an owner of the 5D Mk II and the 60D and my expectations were that the Mk III would inherit many of the superior handling features of the newer 60D. I am an enthusiast and not a professional photographer but I do make my living shooting product photography for online sales. For pleasure I shoot nature, architecture, and the occasional portraits. I'm also an avid fan of DSLR video and the fact that these cameras can literally capture Hollywood quality footage with few modifications is a big deal to me and a lot of people in the independent cinematography community.
The much anticipated release of the 5D Mark III was a bit of a letdown to me initially. One of the things I LOVE about the 60D is the articulating screen. The articulating screen is so handy to have and a joy to use in situations where the camera needs to be at an odd angle, such as low to the ground, high above your head or in tight quarters. The other indispensable use for the articulating screen is shooting self-portraits and videos of yourself. As a one-man act, you can't shoot a video and also be in it at the same time if you can't see the screen! So I really couldn't believe it when Canon came out with the specs on the Mark III -- and NO articulating screen!? It's a feature that has been in the lower-grade 60D and T3i for over a year and a half already, and here we're paying three times the price of the 60D we don't get it? COME ON, Canon!
Canon's reason for not including an articulating screen to preserve weatherproofing. To remedy this I'm getting the Swivi 5.6" HDMI LCD Screen which is a giant 5" articulating LCD screen that even has FOCUS PEAKING (really cool). I guess I'm making lemonade out of the lemons in this situation. Another feature that didn't make it into this camera that has all the cinematographers grumbling is there is no clean HDMI output which would allow the uncompressed video footage to be captured on an external recorder. This feature would have made this a true high-end movie making machine to rival the $30,000 RED ONE and knock the socks off the Panasonic GH2 and even the AF100. For myself, not a deal breaker... but the Nikon D800 has this. [UPDATE: The latest Canon Firmware Update 1.2.3 has enabled clean HDMI output, but it's a disappointment. The uncompressed footage is still hampered by an internal processing system that delivers soft footage.]
Probably the most vexing thing that did not make it onto my wish list is the elimination of the rolling shutter problem. It has been reduced a little, but it has by no means been eliminated, so the jello effect remains an issue and impossible to completely remove in post. And so far, there has been NO program that has been able to eliminate it entirely without creating additional artifacts (believe me, I've wasted untold hours trying them all). Rolling shutter has only been reduced by 20% or so and I won't be fully satisfied shooting video until we get the global shutter and eliminate this unprofessional looking artifact altogether.
Continuous autofocus during video? It's not even an option. The Panasonic GH1/GH2 have it, and do it well. And now the Nikon D800 can auto focus continuously during video recording too, and includes face detection to keep subjects in focus. The only option for autofocus with this camera whole shooting video is still the old way: press the AF-ON button, and you'll set a clunky, noisy, re-focus point. So don't think about replacing your camcorder yet. Shooting video with this camera remains a manual focus affair best handled with a rig and follow-focus setup... classically handled as a two-man operation.
Those are my three primary disappointments. Now the fun part: all the great things (and more) that DID make it into my wish list:
1. Live View focusing with half depress of shutter button. The Mk II had a really awkward way of focusing while in Live View mode. You had to depress the separate AF button on the BACK of the camera, then hold absolutely still while you moved your finger back to the shutter button, and then take the shot. The Mk III acts just like the 60D in that you half press the shutter to focus, just as it SHOULD, which is to say exactly like shooting with a viewfinder. And you no longer have to go into the menu and set Live View to Stills-Only in order to get Exposure Simulation: The Mark III has a handy dedicated movie/stills mode switch.
2. Better low-light performance. Nikon has been beating out Canon in high ISO performance since the D3, then the D3s, the D3x, and the D7
I'm currently an owner of the 5D Mk II and the 60D and my expectations were that the Mk III would inherit many of the superior handling features of the newer 60D. I am an enthusiast and not a professional photographer but I do make my living shooting product photography for online sales. For pleasure I shoot nature, architecture, and the occasional portraits. I'm also an avid fan of DSLR video and the fact that these cameras can literally capture Hollywood quality footage with few modifications is a big deal to me and a lot of people in the independent cinematography community.
The much anticipated release of the 5D Mark III was a bit of a letdown to me initially. One of the things I LOVE about the 60D is the articulating screen. The articulating screen is so handy to have and a joy to use in situations where the camera needs to be at an odd angle, such as low to the ground, high above your head or in tight quarters. The other indispensable use for the articulating screen is shooting self-portraits and videos of yourself. As a one-man act, you can't shoot a video and also be in it at the same time if you can't see the screen! So I really couldn't believe it when Canon came out with the specs on the Mark III -- and NO articulating screen!? It's a feature that has been in the lower-grade 60D and T3i for over a year and a half already, and here we're paying three times the price of the 60D we don't get it? COME ON, Canon!
Canon's reason for not including an articulating screen to preserve weatherproofing. To remedy this I'm getting the Swivi 5.6" HDMI LCD Screen which is a giant 5" articulating LCD screen that even has FOCUS PEAKING (really cool). I guess I'm making lemonade out of the lemons in this situation. Another feature that didn't make it into this camera that has all the cinematographers grumbling is there is no clean HDMI output which would allow the uncompressed video footage to be captured on an external recorder. This feature would have made this a true high-end movie making machine to rival the $30,000 RED ONE and knock the socks off the Panasonic GH2 and even the AF100. For myself, not a deal breaker... but the Nikon D800 has this. [UPDATE: The latest Canon Firmware Update 1.2.3 has enabled clean HDMI output, but it's a disappointment. The uncompressed footage is still hampered by an internal processing system that delivers soft footage.]
Probably the most vexing thing that did not make it onto my wish list is the elimination of the rolling shutter problem. It has been reduced a little, but it has by no means been eliminated, so the jello effect remains an issue and impossible to completely remove in post. And so far, there has been NO program that has been able to eliminate it entirely without creating additional artifacts (believe me, I've wasted untold hours trying them all). Rolling shutter has only been reduced by 20% or so and I won't be fully satisfied shooting video until we get the global shutter and eliminate this unprofessional looking artifact altogether.
Continuous autofocus during video? It's not even an option. The Panasonic GH1/GH2 have it, and do it well. And now the Nikon D800 can auto focus continuously during video recording too, and includes face detection to keep subjects in focus. The only option for autofocus with this camera whole shooting video is still the old way: press the AF-ON button, and you'll set a clunky, noisy, re-focus point. So don't think about replacing your camcorder yet. Shooting video with this camera remains a manual focus affair best handled with a rig and follow-focus setup... classically handled as a two-man operation.
Those are my three primary disappointments. Now the fun part: all the great things (and more) that DID make it into my wish list:
1. Live View focusing with half depress of shutter button. The Mk II had a really awkward way of focusing while in Live View mode. You had to depress the separate AF button on the BACK of the camera, then hold absolutely still while you moved your finger back to the shutter button, and then take the shot. The Mk III acts just like the 60D in that you half press the shutter to focus, just as it SHOULD, which is to say exactly like shooting with a viewfinder. And you no longer have to go into the menu and set Live View to Stills-Only in order to get Exposure Simulation: The Mark III has a handy dedicated movie/stills mode switch.
2. Better low-light performance. Nikon has been beating out Canon in high ISO performance since the D3, then the D3s, the D3x, and the D7
Скроменый эксперт
04.11.2015
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
It's a workhorse camera. Everything it does, it does incredibly well. The focusing system isn't just better because of more/better focus points, it's better because the number of times I've missed focus has dropped dramatically. I thought I might miss the GPS & WiFi features on my 6D, but I don't. I realized that neither of those features paved any roads towards a more profitable photography business, but a better, more reliable focusing system has.
Скроменый эксперт
26.03.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
After only having owned this camera for a couple days, I am incredibly impressed with the Canon 5D Mark III. I am upgrading to this camera from a 30D, and while I have used a Mark II once in the past, my primary experience was with that (30D) camera. Therefore, I will focus primarily on a couple features that this camera offers, and not attempt to compare it to the Mark II or other full-frame cameras. Additionally, since I am primarily a stills photographer, I am not really qualified to discuss the issues of most concern to videographers, so I will leave it to another reviewer to cover those features of this camera. Finally, years ago I made the decision to buy Canon over other vendors. My subsequent investment in glass means that I realistically cannot switch systems at this point. I am not a Canon zealot and recognize that Nikon (and Sony, Fugi, etc.) all have great cameras. I chose this Canon because it was the upgrade path for me to continue to use my lenses, not simply because it was Canon.
Taking the camera out of the box, it feels very good in my hands. It is very well balanced, has excellent "grip" and is molded nicely to fit my thumb on rear panel. I do not have very big hands and the size of this camera is just about at the limit of what feels comfortable to me. The buttons are laid out in a manner similar with most of the other Canon prosumer models, with some new buttons and some rearrangement as well. Canon put some thought into the button placement, and, while it will take a bit to get used to new layout, I think that the changes made work very well. For example, the set of buttons along the left side of the rear display are nicely arranged to be image review functions (erase, play, zoom, and the new "rate" and "creative photo" buttons), while the right side of the display is dedicated to "before you click" functions. Newly added to the 5D series is the Q button that is finding its way on other Canon DSLRs, giving you a the ability to select and adjust camera settings all from the rear panel. At first I was didn't think that I would use this, since I am accustomed to using the other buttons for adjustment, but I have come to like that feature now.
This being my first full-frame sensor body, that alone would be reason to upgrade. However, I chose the Mark III instead of the Mark II for a few key reasons-- the pro-level focusing system, the improvements in ISO performance, and the improved weather sealing. As mentioned, I only had limited experience with the Mark II, but one of the things I didn't like was the small number of focus points (given the cost of the body), and the fact that they were really squished into the middle ~40% of the viewfinder. I was psyched when I learned that the focusing system from the 1DX was being added to this camera. It seemed like it could be cumbersome to use (the 61 available on the 5d Mark III is a big step up from the 9 on my previous camera), but it is really simple to select the focusing method (using the multi-function button) as well as select the focus point(s) (using both the main dial and the quick control dial). The result of these added focus points is a system that is very quick to lock focus, and very accurate. The high number of single and dual cross-point sensors really benefits the photographer.
The ISO performance is no less impressive. The Mark II already was a great performer at high ISO, and the Mark III is even better. Stunning, nearly noiseless results all the way to ISO 6400. And still incredible results all the way to ISO 25600. Given that you can set the top end of the auto-ISO value set by the camera, you can *almost* leave the camera on auto-ISO with 6400 at the top end. I say almost because you can see some minor noise creeping in at 6400 when viewing shots taken in low light and viewed at 100%. Given better lighting conditions, you truly get EXTREMELY usable images directly from the camera all the way to 25600, and with a bit of post processing, those very high ISO photos look great as well.
A few other things that I really like about this camera... The view finder is huge (perhaps only because I was shooting with crop-sensors in the past) and bright. The camera is very configurable, from changing the behavior of the buttons to the amount of focus data to display in the view finder, setting servo tracking parameters, it really can be individualized to suit your needs and manner of shooting. Also, I love the rear monitor as well-- very bright and crisp. And, while I know that video shooters will not be happy that the monitor does not flip out, given that this was done to improve the weather sealing of the camera, that was okay with me as well.
There is so much more for me to discover with this camera that I have not had a chance to as yet. I am interested in seeing how good the HDR feature works, as well as the multiple exposure feature. And, I am interes
Taking the camera out of the box, it feels very good in my hands. It is very well balanced, has excellent "grip" and is molded nicely to fit my thumb on rear panel. I do not have very big hands and the size of this camera is just about at the limit of what feels comfortable to me. The buttons are laid out in a manner similar with most of the other Canon prosumer models, with some new buttons and some rearrangement as well. Canon put some thought into the button placement, and, while it will take a bit to get used to new layout, I think that the changes made work very well. For example, the set of buttons along the left side of the rear display are nicely arranged to be image review functions (erase, play, zoom, and the new "rate" and "creative photo" buttons), while the right side of the display is dedicated to "before you click" functions. Newly added to the 5D series is the Q button that is finding its way on other Canon DSLRs, giving you a the ability to select and adjust camera settings all from the rear panel. At first I was didn't think that I would use this, since I am accustomed to using the other buttons for adjustment, but I have come to like that feature now.
This being my first full-frame sensor body, that alone would be reason to upgrade. However, I chose the Mark III instead of the Mark II for a few key reasons-- the pro-level focusing system, the improvements in ISO performance, and the improved weather sealing. As mentioned, I only had limited experience with the Mark II, but one of the things I didn't like was the small number of focus points (given the cost of the body), and the fact that they were really squished into the middle ~40% of the viewfinder. I was psyched when I learned that the focusing system from the 1DX was being added to this camera. It seemed like it could be cumbersome to use (the 61 available on the 5d Mark III is a big step up from the 9 on my previous camera), but it is really simple to select the focusing method (using the multi-function button) as well as select the focus point(s) (using both the main dial and the quick control dial). The result of these added focus points is a system that is very quick to lock focus, and very accurate. The high number of single and dual cross-point sensors really benefits the photographer.
The ISO performance is no less impressive. The Mark II already was a great performer at high ISO, and the Mark III is even better. Stunning, nearly noiseless results all the way to ISO 6400. And still incredible results all the way to ISO 25600. Given that you can set the top end of the auto-ISO value set by the camera, you can *almost* leave the camera on auto-ISO with 6400 at the top end. I say almost because you can see some minor noise creeping in at 6400 when viewing shots taken in low light and viewed at 100%. Given better lighting conditions, you truly get EXTREMELY usable images directly from the camera all the way to 25600, and with a bit of post processing, those very high ISO photos look great as well.
A few other things that I really like about this camera... The view finder is huge (perhaps only because I was shooting with crop-sensors in the past) and bright. The camera is very configurable, from changing the behavior of the buttons to the amount of focus data to display in the view finder, setting servo tracking parameters, it really can be individualized to suit your needs and manner of shooting. Also, I love the rear monitor as well-- very bright and crisp. And, while I know that video shooters will not be happy that the monitor does not flip out, given that this was done to improve the weather sealing of the camera, that was okay with me as well.
There is so much more for me to discover with this camera that I have not had a chance to as yet. I am interested in seeing how good the HDR feature works, as well as the multiple exposure feature. And, I am interes
Скроменый эксперт
22.09.2015
2/10
Оценка пользователя
Ужасно
I'm a long time user of Canon products. Have had both 5D's, Canon 200mm f/2 L, 100 macro L, 35 L etc. I recently purchased the Canon 5ds-R, then because of the rebate offers, purchased the Canon Pixma 100 printer and papers. Sent it all in for the rebate, but it was denied because in the tiny print, it states that "must be purchased on same date" I bought all these within a week of each other, not seeing that tiny print. Never again will I use anything Canon makes. I'm going with the new Sony products and encouraging all my friends, family and associates to do the same.
Скроменый эксперт
19.03.2014
8/10
Оценка пользователя
Хорошо
I started out in the DSLR world about five years ago with a 550D and upgraded to a 60D before finally deciding to bite the bullet and get the 5D mk3. The benefits are much stated in many detailed reviews online. The biggest difference to me of course being the change to a full frame sensor. The other highlights if summed up very briefly are low light performance and auto focus system. There is a substantial upgrade in terms of build quality over the 60D also.
To most enthusiast users the 5D mk3 will be overkill. Many of the features like twin card slots and weather sealing will probably not get a lot of use. It is nice to have them and if you can afford one then why not get one of the best?
Cost is where the water gets a little muddy. For the cost you could get a 6D and have in the region of a thousand pounds left to put towards lenses or other equipment. To be honest most of the time, for most people, this would be the better option.
The focus system is what really drew me to the 5D mk3 in the end. It really depends what type of photography you usually do though as to how much this will influence you. The new range of auto focus programs are really good and the system can be customised for the type of shooting you are doing. Just doing headhsots though? Then this won't matter to you much, neither will weather sealing. Doing wildlife and action? Then these are essential.
Downsides?
- Well the cost, obviously. It is very expensive and there is just no getting away from that issue.
- No continuous auto focus in video mode. Some competitors have this feature and for most amateur videographers this would be very handy.
- No articulating screen. Not a big issue, but can be handy at times.
*SUMMARY*
This is without doubt a top piece of kit, at top money. If you can afford one, or just want one of the best cameras about just now I am sure you would be very happy with this camera. I love mine and do not regret buying it at all. In Canon terms it is the best camera you can buy without a serious jump up in price. If you already have a lot of kit and lenses, then this would be ideal.
If you are starting out, I would consider the 6D and some quality glass. Think about what you will use it for most and if you really need the features you are paying for. Bear in mind the lens has as big or even more of an impact on the quality of your pictures as the body.
To most enthusiast users the 5D mk3 will be overkill. Many of the features like twin card slots and weather sealing will probably not get a lot of use. It is nice to have them and if you can afford one then why not get one of the best?
Cost is where the water gets a little muddy. For the cost you could get a 6D and have in the region of a thousand pounds left to put towards lenses or other equipment. To be honest most of the time, for most people, this would be the better option.
The focus system is what really drew me to the 5D mk3 in the end. It really depends what type of photography you usually do though as to how much this will influence you. The new range of auto focus programs are really good and the system can be customised for the type of shooting you are doing. Just doing headhsots though? Then this won't matter to you much, neither will weather sealing. Doing wildlife and action? Then these are essential.
Downsides?
- Well the cost, obviously. It is very expensive and there is just no getting away from that issue.
- No continuous auto focus in video mode. Some competitors have this feature and for most amateur videographers this would be very handy.
- No articulating screen. Not a big issue, but can be handy at times.
*SUMMARY*
This is without doubt a top piece of kit, at top money. If you can afford one, or just want one of the best cameras about just now I am sure you would be very happy with this camera. I love mine and do not regret buying it at all. In Canon terms it is the best camera you can buy without a serious jump up in price. If you already have a lot of kit and lenses, then this would be ideal.
If you are starting out, I would consider the 6D and some quality glass. Think about what you will use it for most and if you really need the features you are paying for. Bear in mind the lens has as big or even more of an impact on the quality of your pictures as the body.
Скроменый эксперт
02.04.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
This camera is exactly what I was hoping Canon would release, if not better. Canon stepped away from the ridiculous megapixel wars and delivered a very capable body that is well rounded for almost any use.
While most of us wanted only a 7D equivalent AF system, Canon delivered the flagship system found in the 1Dx. The AF has not missed focus for me yet that was not my own user error. Servo tracking with even the farthest outer points are extremely accurate and nail focus each and every time. You are given many options to customize the AF system perform best to the subject you are shooting, which is great. These options include AF point switching speed, delay with interruptions, how erratic the subject will be, etc... It really is excellent.
Image quality is what you would expect, Amazing. I have used the 5D Mark II for about a year prior and have edited tens of thousands of images from that camera. The 5D3 images are more impressive. At low ISO's you are able to better push shadow areas and really have the ability to increase the dynamic range more then the 5D Mark II. With the 5D2 you would get shadow banding with only minor pushes in exposure along with blotching and other artifacts. The 5D3 is heavily improved in this area. Images remain noise free at low ISO, just like they always have.
The high ISO performance of this camera is simply incredible. With the 7D I tried to limit my high ISO shooting to about 6400... The 5D II my limit was the same, although it did render cleaner images and much better detail then the 7D. However, at 12,800 and above the 5D2 would go downhill very quickly. I am extremely comfortable shooing up to ISO 25,600 with the 5D3. Images are still very detailed with very nice looking, fine grain. Images don't become flat looking and still have a really nice look to them. I will even shoot 51,200 without a problem, although there is a big increase of noise beyond the native ISO values. Noise is never an issue with me, as long as it is nice looking noise and detail is there. I have been surprised on how well this camera does at such high ISO. It really is impressive.
The JPEG's that this camera produces are beautiful if you don't shoot RAW. But make sure to turn off all noise reduction. Remember, even "OFF" applies some noise reduction. This camera will make a smeary mess of your JPEG images if you leave them on. Trust me, turn them off and the images will look great. I have no problem with amazing detail and clarity with the JPEG's with them turned off.
The build of the camera is really good. Solid in the hand with additional extra grip applied on the battery door. Ergonomically it just feels really good in the hand, 7D like but even better. I used a grip with my 5D2 just so it felt better in the hand and planned to do the same with the 5D3, but after using it the past few weeks I don't think I will need to. It really is a comfortable camera body to hold and shoot with.
The movie features in this camera body are really well integrated, much like the 7D was. I really dig the touch-pad for volume control and other settings while recording, it really is a great tool to have. Quality of the video looks really good.
This camera now has the multi-point microadjust feature to fine tune your lenses to your 5D Mark III. You now have the capability to calibrate each zoom lens on the wide and telephoto end of each lens. Very nice feature.
Of course, the camera is loaded up with many other new and improved features... Improved metering system, 100% viewfinder (beautiful, by the way), improved weathersealing and locking mode dial which I really like.
Of course, no camera is perfect... But Canon has got REAL close with this one. A minor gripe which may or may not be fixed with a future firmware update include the lack of exposure compensation using AUTO ISO in Manual Mode. I have been wanting this feature for a long time now... It would be so useful in complex lighting when you require a set shutter speed and aperture, but care less about the ISO. You can do this now, but the camera will always meter to "0". Naturally, Canon bodies seem to underexpose by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop almost always so it would be nice to have the ability to dial in the +1/3 or +2/3 stop and have it bump up the ISO value to compensate.
Overall, I think Canon really delivered an amazing replacement to the 5D Mark II... People may be a bit bitter due to the steeper price of $3499, but I think it is worth the price. You can't really think of it as a 5D2 replacement, but almost a different model. I believe Canon is developing the 5D line to be a bit more high-end, just under the flagship 1Dx. In the future I see Canon releasing a low priced full-frame option. But at this time, the 5D Mark II is still in production and can be found new for around $2,000 or used for around $1600.
While most of us wanted only a 7D equivalent AF system, Canon delivered the flagship system found in the 1Dx. The AF has not missed focus for me yet that was not my own user error. Servo tracking with even the farthest outer points are extremely accurate and nail focus each and every time. You are given many options to customize the AF system perform best to the subject you are shooting, which is great. These options include AF point switching speed, delay with interruptions, how erratic the subject will be, etc... It really is excellent.
Image quality is what you would expect, Amazing. I have used the 5D Mark II for about a year prior and have edited tens of thousands of images from that camera. The 5D3 images are more impressive. At low ISO's you are able to better push shadow areas and really have the ability to increase the dynamic range more then the 5D Mark II. With the 5D2 you would get shadow banding with only minor pushes in exposure along with blotching and other artifacts. The 5D3 is heavily improved in this area. Images remain noise free at low ISO, just like they always have.
The high ISO performance of this camera is simply incredible. With the 7D I tried to limit my high ISO shooting to about 6400... The 5D II my limit was the same, although it did render cleaner images and much better detail then the 7D. However, at 12,800 and above the 5D2 would go downhill very quickly. I am extremely comfortable shooing up to ISO 25,600 with the 5D3. Images are still very detailed with very nice looking, fine grain. Images don't become flat looking and still have a really nice look to them. I will even shoot 51,200 without a problem, although there is a big increase of noise beyond the native ISO values. Noise is never an issue with me, as long as it is nice looking noise and detail is there. I have been surprised on how well this camera does at such high ISO. It really is impressive.
The JPEG's that this camera produces are beautiful if you don't shoot RAW. But make sure to turn off all noise reduction. Remember, even "OFF" applies some noise reduction. This camera will make a smeary mess of your JPEG images if you leave them on. Trust me, turn them off and the images will look great. I have no problem with amazing detail and clarity with the JPEG's with them turned off.
The build of the camera is really good. Solid in the hand with additional extra grip applied on the battery door. Ergonomically it just feels really good in the hand, 7D like but even better. I used a grip with my 5D2 just so it felt better in the hand and planned to do the same with the 5D3, but after using it the past few weeks I don't think I will need to. It really is a comfortable camera body to hold and shoot with.
The movie features in this camera body are really well integrated, much like the 7D was. I really dig the touch-pad for volume control and other settings while recording, it really is a great tool to have. Quality of the video looks really good.
This camera now has the multi-point microadjust feature to fine tune your lenses to your 5D Mark III. You now have the capability to calibrate each zoom lens on the wide and telephoto end of each lens. Very nice feature.
Of course, the camera is loaded up with many other new and improved features... Improved metering system, 100% viewfinder (beautiful, by the way), improved weathersealing and locking mode dial which I really like.
Of course, no camera is perfect... But Canon has got REAL close with this one. A minor gripe which may or may not be fixed with a future firmware update include the lack of exposure compensation using AUTO ISO in Manual Mode. I have been wanting this feature for a long time now... It would be so useful in complex lighting when you require a set shutter speed and aperture, but care less about the ISO. You can do this now, but the camera will always meter to "0". Naturally, Canon bodies seem to underexpose by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop almost always so it would be nice to have the ability to dial in the +1/3 or +2/3 stop and have it bump up the ISO value to compensate.
Overall, I think Canon really delivered an amazing replacement to the 5D Mark II... People may be a bit bitter due to the steeper price of $3499, but I think it is worth the price. You can't really think of it as a 5D2 replacement, but almost a different model. I believe Canon is developing the 5D line to be a bit more high-end, just under the flagship 1Dx. In the future I see Canon releasing a low priced full-frame option. But at this time, the 5D Mark II is still in production and can be found new for around $2,000 or used for around $1600.
Скроменый эксперт
21.05.2012
10/10
Оценка пользователя
Великолепно
First I like to state that I am not a professional photographer and my company manufactures professional aerial video octocopters. I will be reviewing mostly the video part. See the aerial footage of Palatine Hill and Colosseum I filmed by search "Turbo Ace X88" in Youtube. We use exclusively Canon for aerial video and my review would tell you how we have reached such a decision after months and months of research and comparisons. Go to TurboAce.com and checkout what a Mark III can do in the air and why cinematographers are using it.
The Mark III has the most stable under vibration and the it has the least moire issue among all the DSLR cameras we have tested. The cameras tested were Nikon D800, D3100, D5100, D90, D7000, Canon Mark ii, T3i, T4i. Our company spends thousands of dollars testing camera equipment that are suited for aerial, so the above cameras actually went up the air during these experiments. The Mark III has the tiny bit of moire issue as a 60,000 Sony film camera and I am very impressed. If you are familiar with moire, paid attention to any of the multi-million dollar productions and it is there, a pain for the directors and producer. I recommend only this DSLR for video especially aerial. At the time of the final test, the final contenders were the D800 and the Mark II/III, so which one is better?
1. More mega pixel, more noise. Nikon just shot itself on the foot getting into the mega pixel race which Canon used to play. The D800 has noticeable noise level than the Mark iii when compared at 12k or higher ISO. I shot photos of green leaves on an indoor plant when I did the side by side comparison.
2. For stills, auto white balance under fluorescent lighting shows a greenish tone on the D800 which looks very unatural. Even after I played with it by adjusting the kelvin, I could not make it better than the Mark iii image taken under the same condition with Auto white balance.
3. Moire on video for the Mark iii is better than the Mark ii and the D800. Compare the videos side by side, you will notice the big difference.
4. For stills, D800 shows more detail outdoor, or indoor with tons of light. I would buy the D800 if I need the mega pixel badly but it has no use for me other than chewing up my memory and slowing down the frame rate. The D800 has to wait for 2 minutes for the buffer to clear after shooting about 15 continuous frames. The Mark iii kept on going but at a much slower rate. At least the Mark iii was still usable while the Nikon was not responding at all.
5. For stills, focus on the Mark iii is faster than D800. The D800 does hesitate a bit whereas the Mark iii was push and click, yes it's scary fast.
6. Canon video has more accurate white balance and this carries on to the Mark iii. If you do video, Mark iii is a no brainer. The video was also a lot sharper than my Canon M52 which incorporates the 1/3 inch sensor the big camcorder uses. Again a no brainer if you are a cinematographer.
7. Update: The following point is no longer true as the D800 supplies has improved, thumbs up for Nikon finally able to increase the supply to deliver the true MSRP. Price of D800 is not $2995. The lowest price in stock is on Ebay is $3650. Price is coming down fast at about $20 per day and I have been tracking this on Ebay. Good luck finding a D800 in stock because it does not exist unless you buy it on Craigslist or Ebay. Don't waste your time, wait for another month it should be better. Order cancellation on the D800 is going to surprise Nikon, they are taking too long to deliver and people are starting to find out that Canon is better this time. Most people are using the camera for sports, family, wedding and not landscape and the Mark iii is better for those applications.
We switched to Canon because of our need but your need may be different. If you are a landscape photographer or wants to blow up your photo extremely large with more mega pixels and you have plenty of lights, stick with Nikon. If you are a cinematographer, sports, wedding or simply indoor family photographer go with the Mark iii. Canon is not always going to be better than Nikon and Nikon isn't always going to be better than Canon. But I can honestly tell you, for now this year Canon has stepped up and broken the ISO barrier and its video has blown Nikon out of the water. It has caught up with Nikon's low noise technology after 2 complete product cycles. What took Canon so long, I have no idea.
I highly recommend the Mark III if you are going with the video or still, except if you are a landscape photographer or work under studio light. See all my Turbo Ace X88 octocopter aerial footage taken in Europe in Youtube.
WowHobbies
The Mark III has the most stable under vibration and the it has the least moire issue among all the DSLR cameras we have tested. The cameras tested were Nikon D800, D3100, D5100, D90, D7000, Canon Mark ii, T3i, T4i. Our company spends thousands of dollars testing camera equipment that are suited for aerial, so the above cameras actually went up the air during these experiments. The Mark III has the tiny bit of moire issue as a 60,000 Sony film camera and I am very impressed. If you are familiar with moire, paid attention to any of the multi-million dollar productions and it is there, a pain for the directors and producer. I recommend only this DSLR for video especially aerial. At the time of the final test, the final contenders were the D800 and the Mark II/III, so which one is better?
1. More mega pixel, more noise. Nikon just shot itself on the foot getting into the mega pixel race which Canon used to play. The D800 has noticeable noise level than the Mark iii when compared at 12k or higher ISO. I shot photos of green leaves on an indoor plant when I did the side by side comparison.
2. For stills, auto white balance under fluorescent lighting shows a greenish tone on the D800 which looks very unatural. Even after I played with it by adjusting the kelvin, I could not make it better than the Mark iii image taken under the same condition with Auto white balance.
3. Moire on video for the Mark iii is better than the Mark ii and the D800. Compare the videos side by side, you will notice the big difference.
4. For stills, D800 shows more detail outdoor, or indoor with tons of light. I would buy the D800 if I need the mega pixel badly but it has no use for me other than chewing up my memory and slowing down the frame rate. The D800 has to wait for 2 minutes for the buffer to clear after shooting about 15 continuous frames. The Mark iii kept on going but at a much slower rate. At least the Mark iii was still usable while the Nikon was not responding at all.
5. For stills, focus on the Mark iii is faster than D800. The D800 does hesitate a bit whereas the Mark iii was push and click, yes it's scary fast.
6. Canon video has more accurate white balance and this carries on to the Mark iii. If you do video, Mark iii is a no brainer. The video was also a lot sharper than my Canon M52 which incorporates the 1/3 inch sensor the big camcorder uses. Again a no brainer if you are a cinematographer.
7. Update: The following point is no longer true as the D800 supplies has improved, thumbs up for Nikon finally able to increase the supply to deliver the true MSRP. Price of D800 is not $2995. The lowest price in stock is on Ebay is $3650. Price is coming down fast at about $20 per day and I have been tracking this on Ebay. Good luck finding a D800 in stock because it does not exist unless you buy it on Craigslist or Ebay. Don't waste your time, wait for another month it should be better. Order cancellation on the D800 is going to surprise Nikon, they are taking too long to deliver and people are starting to find out that Canon is better this time. Most people are using the camera for sports, family, wedding and not landscape and the Mark iii is better for those applications.
We switched to Canon because of our need but your need may be different. If you are a landscape photographer or wants to blow up your photo extremely large with more mega pixels and you have plenty of lights, stick with Nikon. If you are a cinematographer, sports, wedding or simply indoor family photographer go with the Mark iii. Canon is not always going to be better than Nikon and Nikon isn't always going to be better than Canon. But I can honestly tell you, for now this year Canon has stepped up and broken the ISO barrier and its video has blown Nikon out of the water. It has caught up with Nikon's low noise technology after 2 complete product cycles. What took Canon so long, I have no idea.
I highly recommend the Mark III if you are going with the video or still, except if you are a landscape photographer or work under studio light. See all my Turbo Ace X88 octocopter aerial footage taken in Europe in Youtube.
WowHobbies
Показаны отзывы 73-96 из 645.
