Cannons next line of lenses will not be video friendly either, 5Dmk11/111 is for a specific shot/look. Unless you can afford Canon’s Cinema EOS line of lenses that was release some time ago.

@mrbill -- you nailed it; it's all about the glass. If panny were smart, they'd forget about the the af-100 line and max out the gh3 in a effort to get everyone seriously invested in m43rds glass (ideally, if they get it right, theirs). The rest follows from that, including years of loyalty.

Re: PCM sound, for any of you thinking this is the solution for better sound, don't. Good sound comes from having a good pre-amp/mixer. The best dslr is only going to be a backup for an external recorder, and the best high end video camera with xlr ins is not ever going to come close to something recorded with a sound devices or equivalent mixer and recorder. Okay, yeah, if you're only doing youtube, yeah yeah yeah. Anything else, buy a proper mixer before you buy a new camera.

Finally, lets all remember, this is a still camera, and its aimed at people who shoot still pictures. I've just shot a week in the everglades. I go to popular wildlife watching spots. Who is shooting video? Me. And I'm being paid to do it. Who is shooting stills? 5 - 20 people, most of them on 5dmk II's with $3-$10k glass. Once you're that invested in glass, $3k for a new body won't seem like much.

All that said, I don't want a full frame sensor -- I got enough problems keep focus with my subject moving around. The shift on record is not a big issue. The gh2 while it doesn't advertise being weather proof, from my experience in the field, is basically weather proof (I've put it through things I shouldn't). And at $800 a pop, I will do things with that camera I would not do with a $3.5k camera... and as a result, I get better shots. Also, telephoto performance withe a crop sensor, plus etc, is amazing. My 100-300mm cost $500 -- and for video (not stills, but video) it gets me closer than any full sensor lens under $10K.

Don't get this low light obsession. Here me out...I welcome it, but I think too many people see it as the be-all and end-all. Footage that isn't lit well looks two dimensional and dull (in my humble, amateur experience). Of course you can play with it in post to a certain extent, but it's better to work with light and shape that light. I get it...lights are expensive...but so is $3500 on the latest camera. A gh2 can be had for a fraction of the price and you could get a decent lighting kit too. You will get a better result overall.

It's easy to convince yourself that you need the next best thing, but I've come to the realization that my limitations lay within. Doesn't matter how many cameras I buy...every time I film in a poorly lit interior it looks shit. I'm gonna work on the craft and give up the techno rat race. Unless I come into money!

All the best

@ignatius

Educate 'em.

Don't care about shooting under street lamps. Do care about a lower noise floor so that lowlit and moody can happen. Will always use some sort of light control. ALWAYS.

Even if that means a white piece of paper and shooting at the right time of day.

@ignatius @kholi

All of the lighting budget in the world won't make your camera body need less lighting to achieve a particular shot. It's worth discussing what we can and cannot do with a camera body before saying it would simply be better to light the shot well. I presume the low-light capabilities would not prevent us from lighting the shot traditionally should we choose to.

Bad lighting is bad lighting, regardless of whether somebody used existing light or foam core bounced Chimeras. Low-light capabilities appeal to me because they give me the option to light things in many more ways than I would be able to without them.

No - I do not buy 5D III The best thing about the video, the Japanese Model

@ignatius I here your point, but not everything in a shot (shadows..) will have enough light to overcome noise levels. Noise can be seen in ISO160 ideal exposure shots crawling in the shadows. I certainly want cameras to improve in noise levels... Also, (as you mentioned) regardless of noise levels, lighting is needed for crafting a look over flat lighting.

At 91Mbps, a 5DM3 24p Intra video stream will average about 3.8Mbit per frame. That ranges on the low end of the max I-frame size of high-bitrate GH2 patches. At the top of the range, I've seen the GH2 hit peaks of 9Mbit per frame. However, an all-Intra codec that could hit those kind of peaks would require over 200Mbps.

But no matter, it's the timecode that will sell this camera.

Have to chime in- as for me, I am leaving CANON after 13 years. Too little, too late. If You saw the still results from the D3X, one can only assume how huge the leap to the D800 will be. Seeing the above Canon footage now, soft with the same old, same old aliasing we´re used to, plus the fact that part of the hype is created with no downloadable RAW and a politically neutral brand ambassador like LaForet,as a pro, I decided to move on.I´m shure quite some pros agree with me,and will do the same. Canon either have manufacturing problems, or were hit hard on their Fukushima factory.Something must have happened.

Sad.

@leftedit

Let's try to keep the level. Not use some unfounded emotions and not turn all this into fanboys chat :-)

5D MIII is very good camera, and it is full frame.

If You launch, or even tease a new camera in this supertight market, PR wise everything has to be bulletproof, or else you fail big time.This company now has a meagre MP improvement to its predecessor, but they completely fail at this point to separate their product from the competition, ergo they have no USP at this point.Combine that with the sub par, amateurish photos and even worse cheap ass videofootage, You have a recipe for pros to leave for another brand.We constantly need "cropability" of our picture, our Artdirectors and commercial clients require that. 22MP after 4 years simply is not enough.