Comments on: Canon’s Flagship DSLR Shifts Gears, Confuses Masses

By: LH

LH — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:40:00 +0000

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!

By: MordyGilden

MordyGilden — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:47:00 +0000

In reply to Artbargainer.

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.

By: Jonathon Clinkenbeard

Jonathon Clinkenbeard — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:03:00 +0000

In reply to Artbargainer. seconded

By: Artbargainer

Artbargainer — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:02:00 +0000

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.

By: Stace McFadden

Stace McFadden — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:24:00 +0000

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.