The Canon EOS 5D has quite the reputation in the world of digital cameras. The original model brought us the first full-frame DSLR in a standard body, and the updated Mark II brought us video recording and helped fuel the DSLR video revolution back in 2008. It should therefore come as no surprise that fans of the series have been excited to see what the Mark III would bring this year.
Now five years since the Mark II, the 5DmIII is here, bringing with it a 22.3 megapixel sensor and the new Digic 5+ image processor. That second item is a big deal for professional videographers, becasue the Digic 4 based cameras are infamous for moire and aliasing problems that could ruin an otherwise perfectly good shot. They also used to be restricted to 4 GB clips at a time, which meant that your 1080p recording would be limited to about 12 minutes. The Digic5+ promises higher quality, relatively artifact-free video, and offers better codecs as well as the ability to record longer than 4 GB at a time. Not only that, but Canon even included a headphone jack to monitor the audio live during video recording. Pretty snazzy, right?
It sure does seem that Canon is interested in appealing to videographers with this release. In fact, much to the dismay of photographers, it seems that Canon is more interested in video than photography. Despite being primarily a photography camera, almost all of the advertised improvements are video related, and the sensor only offers one more megapixel versus the previous model. While 20-plus megapixels is already more than enough for most any situation, competitors like Nikon are already offering nearly 50 percent more photo resolution.
As if that wasn’t enough disappointment for photographers, Canon also raised the price from $2,599 (at the time the Mark II was released) to $3,499 for the Mark III. In other words, you have waited half a decade to get a camera with seemingly insignificant improvements and a higher price tag.
The worst bit? It seems that the 5DmIII may continue to suffer from the soft video that the previous generation did. There have been numerous rumors and tests showing Canon DSLRs don’t actually record 1080p, but rather something closer to 720p that is then upscaled. This may have been acceptable when DSLR video was a new concept, but with more affordable interchangeable lens video cameras on the market, the new 5D seems to be a bizarre choice for cinematographers as well as photographers.
It would almost appear that Canon can’t decide who their demographic is.
Is this a troll article? Because you’re so far off base here I can only assume Poe’s law is at work.
1. Megapixels don’t really matter so much anymore. Once you have 20+ megapixels, that’s more than enough for literally 99.99% of photographers. Talking about the 5D3’s “only [offering] one more megapixel” than the 5D2 as a disadvantage is not really a valid line of reasoning. True, the Nikon D800 has more megapixels, but trades FPS for these extra megapixels. Anyway, there are a lot of other improvements over the 5D2 that you have conveniently forgotten to mention (improved AF, improved FPS, improved controls, larger screen, in-camera HDR shooting, dual memory slots, and more).
2. 12 minutes of consecutive HD video is plenty for literally 99.99% of video applications.
3. The higher price point is natural considering the state of the photography market (and inflation), and not that much higher than the 5D2’s retail price. This is not a huge issue.
3. The only other point of substance you make, the “soft video” of the 5D3, needs citation. I couldn’t find anything.
I doubt you’ll be able to refute all of my points. Until you do, I’m calling Poe’s law on this horrible word-vomit of an article.
I agree with your conclusion. Still photography should be done with a fine still camera. I shoot with a Nikon D80 (no video). IF I got a Canon I would get the original 5D used.
Can a good camera have video ? Sure. It can come in handy. But serious videographers I think would prefer a really fine video camera.
seconded
Serious videographers have started to prefer DSLR bodies over the last couple of years- see this article (also linked above in the text):
https://techcitement.comhardware/dslr-killed-the-video-star/#.T3DblDHLzE0
The previous generation 5D has made it into television series, both independent and Hollywood films, and is one of the approved cameras for BBC broadcast work.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree that there aren’t any benefits worth having for the photographer. I upgraded from the 5D Mark II to the 5D Mark III mainly for the much more sensitive ISO. It is at least 2 stops better, and that makes a huge difference in low light situations. Additionally, the autofocus is greatly improved. I do agree that there was a big price jump though from the II. I was apparently OK with it though!