Introducing the 5D Mark III

dnavarrojr 2 Mar 2012 23:17
It takes someone getting one to really know what the deal is. However, better low-light is always a good thing, reduced moire, etc. due to line-skipping no longer being used is a very good thing, the ability to use SD cards is nice, time-code and a myriad of other features will make a lot of hollywood people very happy.

Also, the Digic 5+ processor is capable of 1080/60p (and 720/120p) so don't count out the possibility of a firmware upgrade with that feature or what the Magic Lantern people could do with it.

I think *most* 5DII owners will not feel the upgrade is worth it.
dnavarrojr 3 Mar 2012 02:47
Kind of funny reading the various comments all over the net about the 5D3... Most people seem disappointed about the price. Not so much because they want to buy one, but they were hoping a lower price would drive down 5D2 prices and they could pick up one or more cheap. Not gonna happen now.
RekindlePhoto 3 Mar 2012 03:44
The used MKII market should remain strong and higher priced.
Normstock 3 Mar 2012 11:46
I just sold my 7D yesterday as I bought a 5D2 a month ago when the Canadian dealers dropped the price lower than the U.S. The only good thing about the 5D3 is the ergonomics of the body much more like the 7D, which I thought was a better layout than the 5D2.
LUXORPYRAMID 4 Mar 2012 00:31
Does the 5D MkIII offer a bitrate of 50mbs CBR like the XF105?

The Nikon D800 is said to offer only 24mbs like the Lumix GH2 and Sony FS100.
JHDT_Productions 4 Mar 2012 00:35
From EOSHD:

The video bitrate is a very high 91Mbit* in 1080p ALL-I mode. That is well beyond broadcast standard AVC Intra 50. No news yet on whether colour sampling is 4-2-0 or 4-2-2 yet or whether colour depth is 8bit or 10bit.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7289/5d-mark-iii-round-up
LUXORPYRAMID 4 Mar 2012 04:04
Then it is worth $3499.00. No exterior recording devices needed. It is not overpriced.
jason 4 Mar 2012 07:20
That's 3499.00 for the BODY ONLY.
JHDT_Productions 4 Mar 2012 13:11
Yes, body only.
$700 more than the Mark II when I bought it.
I'll wait for some real world video and some hands on reviews before making a final decision. Hope to get a look at it at NAB.
If I do get this, I'll sell my Mark II to offset the price.

I really hope no one thought the new camera would be close to the price of the Mark II.
Canon didn't know what they had when they released that camera. No matter what the features this new camera was going to be more expensive. And people will buy it.
As will the next version in a few years.
Normstock 4 Mar 2012 13:24
I would be paying $4k with tax for the body I already have lenses, so from a Pond5 sales point of view I would need to sell 160 clips to get the cost back. I'm sure the bit rate, lowlight and camera lust is worth it!
Перейти на страницу