Canon USA Announces EOS 5D Mark III

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Plakiotis

The only reason, I can think of, that the video section of the markIII is not radically evolved, is the iminent arrival of the 4k DSLR. Maybe within the 1st half of the year.

This also maybe the reason for the lack of 10bit out or 1080p50/60 on the C300

I'm not sure why you would expect the video section to be radically evolved in the first place, regardless of any 4k DSLR or not.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Jon,
I'm saying the same thing. They must have something more advanced in the pipeline, that's why the relied on the older chip, in order not to undermine, the soon to be released cinema model.

Dylan,
At least they should have implement clean HDMI. Something every user craved for. If there isn't a soon to be released cinema model, both 1Dx and 5DIII would had one. Actually many video oriented users consider a switch to Nikon because of that.

Anyway, maybe the wait is almost over...

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/09/c...eening-at-NAB/

[David Chilson]

I fear Dylan is right. I think those of us who have been trying to shoe horn a DSLR into our old interchangeable lens camera duties will still be wanting. I would like nothing better than to have this DSLR phase in my rear view mirror and for Canon to get their camcorder division designing their next camera not the DSLR folks. You know, those crazy people who think a head phone jack, an XLR plug or two on the body proper and the correct switches and buttons easily accessible. Yeah, those guys.

The majority of my frustration stems from the fact that I have used a Canon camcorder with removable lens for over 20 years. Since the advent of solid state technology and Canon’s decision to only make a proper video camera with the lens affixed, I feel a little short changed.

With baited breathe, my empty credit card at the ready and with rampant rumors flowing about the new C300, I was poised to jump at first chance. Hold on there cowboy, even for an admitted Canon Crack addict it’s 16 grand and it doesn’t even have auto focus. It’s still ergonomically DSLR challenged and the audio appears to have been designed after it was packaged for shipping. Man did I get a pout face on……

The C300 was made up of XF and EOS parts and I’m having a problem trying to figure out if this camera is the removable lens version of the XF line, (H1 so to speak) the “holy grail” of the DSLR contingent or a whole new Cinema line altogether. I’ve been patiently waiting to see under which heading Mr. Hurd puts it in the forum.

Truth be told, I’m getting a little tired of waiting for the EOS line to morph into a proper video camera, especially when I feel Canon is actually close. The XF100 is a single chip camera with proper audio and video controls (few quirks notwithstanding) and lists for just under $3000. If you substitute an EOS mount where the lens should be one would think it would come in around the same price point, if not less.

Even more interesting would be a T3i with the 3X crop wrapped in the XF100 body. Now, we are diggin’ where there are taters! It wouldn’t be too hard one would surmise to put a 5D iii in there with room to spare and charge the price of the XF100 plus the 5D iii and list it for $6299. Put in some proper ND filters and the 3X crop factor and it’s $6999 all day long. The line forms right behind me…..

I need 4K about as much as I need a second Blu-ray burner. Not sure about everybody else but ever since I burned my first Blu-ray in June of 2006 I have been waiting for people to catch up. The XF codec is fine for the BBC and works for me. Maybe what I really need is just a better class of clients.

I don’t need another camera without XLR ports, fixed screen and functions so buried in the menu I need a “time out” to make adjustments or at least remember what unmarked or non descriptive button or dial I have reassigned to do something that used to be second nature.

So it looks like the cottage industry that sprung up a few years ago that sells the parts to make the audio, monitoring and support shortcomings of these cameras workable will still be in business. It should make those folks happy.

Why Canon decided to drive their video segment from the EOS line in this fashion as opposed to incorporating that success into their camcorders has to be based on profit not function.

I think Canon realized that at least from loyal Canon customers it wouldn’t take too many low cost incremental upgrades of essential video features to make us video types jump.

“They had me at head phone jack” pretty much sums up our level of expectations.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by David Chilson

I would like nothing better than to have this DSLR phase in my rear view mirror and for Canon to get their camcorder division designing their next camera not the DSLR folks. You know, those crazy people who think a head phone jack, an XLR plug or two on the body proper and the correct switches and buttons easily accessible. Yeah, those guys.

My take on this, based on my admittedly limited degree of familiarity with the American arm of this manufacturer, is that the video division has always been the red-headed stepchild of the company family, while the still photo division has always been the number-one son. Not long after Oct. 2008 when the 5D Mk. II was introduced, the two divisions were merged together. Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that the pro video department was absorbed by the pro photo department. Allow me to point out that there are more than a few absolutely stellar people in the pro photo department (certainly not all of them, but more than a few). But they were not video-minded people, and to this day they still aren't, despite the video-photo merger. My point is, when those two divisions were brought together, guess who called the shots... the photo people. Who is in charge today of their new Hollywood office? People that used to be on the photo side. Hey, they are great folks, don't get me wrong. But none of them have any background in video, and all of them still have a lot of learning ahead. There are a couple of individuals I can think of from the video side that have much greater experience, are quite a bit more Hollywood-savvy and have a much better idea of what belongs in these camcorders, but the video division was not the star pupil of the family. So go figure. Then again, what the hell do I know, I'm just a guy with a web site. Never believe anything you read on the web.

Originally Posted by David Chilson

The majority of my frustration stems from the fact that I have used a Canon camcorder with removable lens for over 20 years.

Has it really been that long since the L1 first came out? I guess it has.

Originally Posted by David Chilson

Since the advent of solid state technology and Canon’s decision to only make a proper video camera with the lens affixed, I feel a little short changed.

I think what happened with this was, Canon looked at the number of XL and XL H bodies sold, and they looked at the number of other lenses and EF adapters sold, and came to the realization that fewer than 10% of all XL and XLH owners ever changed the lens on those cameras. And from that 10%, the majority of those lens changes were to the wide-angle. With the XF series, they probably figured they were covering most of the bases by offering an optional wide-angle adapter. On the XF305, there's already an 18x zoom range. With the optional Canon WA and then a third-party teleconverter, the rationale is that you don't need interchangeable. That is unless you're like me, one of those rare people who liked to use EF glass on an XL or XL H body. But there aren't enough of us to matter in that market from the only point of view that matters: sales.

Originally Posted by David Chilson

The C300 was made up of XF and EOS parts and I’m having a problem trying to figure out if this camera is the removable lens version of the XF line, (H1 so to speak) the “holy grail” of the DSLR contingent or a whole new Cinema line altogether. I’ve been patiently waiting to see under which heading Mr. Hurd puts it in the forum.

Yeah, me too. I'm waiting to see that as well.

Originally Posted by David Chilson

Why Canon decided to drive their video segment from the EOS line in this fashion as opposed to incorporating that success into their camcorders has to be based on profit not function.

Well, yes... bingo. It has to be based on profit. Without profit, there is no company. I mean they do their market analysis and they read this forum regularly and all that, but at the end of the day they have to make decisions that are driven by the bottom line. In a capitalist economy, that's the only way it can work. And that goes for all camera manufacturers, Japanese or American or whatever.

Originally Posted by David Chilson

“They had me at head phone jack” pretty much sums up our level of expectations.

Okay. I admit, I was purposefully being glib when I said that. The deal is, I have been their customer almost as long as you have, and I've had enough face-to-face at trade shows and whatnot, that I have managed to develop what I would call are realistic expectations about what they chose to do and not do on each product rev. I have learned to peel away the rind of cynicism from those expectations in order to expose the bittersweet realism that lies beneath. Here's what I have found:

a.) they are always last, or at least very late -- but what they do is usually very good.
b.) there's always some obvious or key element missing from any product's feature set.
c.) their products tend to be overpriced by 20% to 25% -- but they are usually very good.

So, yes, it's nice to see that they've finally added a headphone jack after having complained about it loudly to them for more than three years. And no, I'm not at all surprised that there still isn't a clean HDMI output (despite having complained about that too). Hopefully we'll see that on the next Cinema EOS piece, and hopefully sooner rather than later.

Geez, you should post more often David!

[Andy Wilkinson]

Just been looking at the high ISO images on the Imaging Resource Comparometer website.

(Just Google it as I don't want to link it directly on here).

All the Canon 5DMkIII test images through a wide range of ISO settings have recently been added - so you can now compare them side-by-side with the older Canon 5DMkII test images (and key cameras by other manufacturers).

Certainly shows improvement over the 5DMkII at high ISO. Comparison with my trusty 7D was dramatic too - looks like this new sensor and its image processing enables the 5DMkIII to see in the dark - almost! Impressive.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Andy Wilkinson

Just been looking at the high ISO images on the Imaging Resource Comparometer website.

Those are JPG images not RAW. I don't know any professional photographer who shoots JPG in preference to RAW (OK there may exceptionally be special circumstances e.g. rapid fire) so we can't draw any conclusions. This does show what in camera conversion to JPG does which may hold some clues for video but until we get production cameras in the wild it's all speculation.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Yes I know that Nigel. If you follow a recent discussion thread on the dpreview forum you can now see some developing information using RAW images as the start point too - I think (comparing the 5DMkIII with Nikon D800).

[Sean Seah]

Just to update that the 5D3 are in the market since last Friday in Singapore =) Street prices seem lower than US at SGD4200 ish.

[Brian Rhodes]

I have my 5D3 came in today at Tape Works of Texas