March 05, 2015, 01:56:39 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Curmudgeon

Pages: [1] 2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 20, 2013, 11:38:51 PM »
Welcome, Canosony. I see you've met Canon Rumors' ever-vigilant troll patrol. They pretty quickly turned me off to what looked like a promising website. You have committed the cardinal sin. You have pointed out that Canon cameras are not without shortcomings. We'll have none of that here, sir. For starters, you'll be dragged into the village square and and stoned with names like "troll."

It doesn't matter that your remarks about the performance of current Canon sensors are based in solid fact--both scientific testing and the empirical experience of thousands of Canon users. The keepers of the flame know a troll when they see one, and you, sir, are a troll. A saboteur, an agent provocateur embedded by the fiends at Nikon and Sony to breed sedition among the loyal minions of Canon. You crossed your fingers behind your back when you took the loyalty oath. Shame on you.

Expect to be met with absurd claims such as the one that Canon's technology never limited anyone's photographic options. If you disagree, the Pavlovian response of the troll patrol is to claim that the equipment doesn't matter. Criticism of Canon is simply prima facie evidence that you, sir, are a bad photographer.

Like me. I'm a bad photographer every time I take my 5D2 outdoors on a bright day. It's blown highlight city unless I mount and fiddle with ND filters, keep the horizon out of the composition, exposure compensate well to the left, or bracket and hope that nothing moves. But wanting more dynamic range, like, dare I say, Nikon's D800? That just proves I'm an incompetent whiner.

If you haven't figured it out already, Canosony, know this: there are a fair number of people on this forum who seem to think that any criticism of their chosen camera maker is tantamount to questioning their sexual endowment. You know how touchy people can be about that.

It ought to be possible to state a simple fact--such as the comparatively limited dynamic range of Canons sensors--without people immediately becoming defensive and resorting to name-calling. And it's a pity one can't. A number of knowledgeable people do bring up interesting and important issues in this forum.  But all too many CR threads (like this one) quickly degenerate into the same tired, vitriolic defense of Canon as the only true photographic religion.

I can only speak for myself, Canosony, but there are people on this forum who would make me proud to wear the scarlet T of trolldom. As proof, let me throw this additional oil on the fire. I've come to rely almost exclusively on my cell phone when I want simple candids to share with family without the bother of a lot of post-processing. And it's not because I'm oblivious to IQ in those shots. On the contrary, I use my cell phone because under artificial light its simple camera nails white balance time after time. Can we expect as much from the world's largest manufacturer of photographic equipment? Not in my experience. Under the same conditions, and no matter what white balance setting I use, my 5D2 and S95 turn people colors never seen in nature.

Of course, 90% of all photographers don't need or care about accurate white balance anyway. It's picky and churlish of me to point out this niggling shortcoming. So smite away,  guardians of the gate.

Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)
« on: March 04, 2013, 11:39:04 PM »
Not sure about the writer on this thread who asserts that you can replace a front lens element for the cost of a good filter. My mail is delivered to a different planet. Ditto for the gentleman who claims that a lens hood is all the protection a lens needs. (I agree it's the first and best line of defense for the knocks, bumps and other physical slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but my world is sure a lot dirtier than his.) Try as I will I can't keep grease smudges, grit, condensation spots, etc., off the front of my lenses. And who hasn't had a lens cap--especially a Canon lens cap--fall off inside the camera bag, a presumed safe haven for lenses?

And that to me is the value of a good filter. Glass has an affinity for dirt. You gave up smoking and surprise, surprise, the inside of your windshield still gets that ugly film on it just from being exposed to the atmosphere. While I'm always amazed at the number of people who tote expensive DSLR bodies with horribly smudged lenses, most folks who are serious about photography want to shoot through clean glass. If you do, some part of the optical system has to get cleaned. And as they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing. If you can live with the dirt all over the business end of your camera, it won't damage your lens (unless it's caustic or arrives at sandblasting speed). It's the process of removing it that is at least mildly invasive and abrasive. Aside from the grit that's currently on the lens, there's all that residual stuff from previous cleanings. (It didn't just evaporate from your microfiber cloth, you know; in fact that clingy cloth probably picked up some additional material from the inside of your camera bag.) No matter how careful you are, it all gets dragged across the surface of whatever glass you're cleaning, and it all nano-etches. No one is claiming that a UV filter sharpens a lens, but neither would anyone claim that years of cleaning the front element improves a lens's optical performance.

I've had a couple of my lenses for seven years, and in that time I've cleaned the filters more than a hundred times. I plan to keep most of my lenses for the rest of my life, and I can foresee a possible need to replace filters at some point. What I won't ever have to do is worry about degraded performance from the lens elements themselves. The filter in front protects the lens not only from particular kinds of dirt, but almost eliminates general atmospheric contamination. I know that the surfaces beneath the filter are in pristine condition, because except for using a puff brush to remove the occasional mote of dust that sneaks in during a filter change, those elements, after an initial personal inspection, have never been touched, much less cleaned.

And for all you gonzo types who think filters are a collaborative scam of camera salesmen, here's a question to answer honestly: who would you really rather buy a five-year-old lens from: someone (like me) who obsesses a bit about protecting the exposed elements of his lenses, or someone like you?

Finally, it's not as if mounting a filter is an inconvenience, and for me the cost of a top-of-the-line filter is trivial, not because I have an unlimited budget, but because I have a very tight one. When I do take the plunge for a lens, it's for the "expensive as L" variety, and it's a lifetime investment. And if I've spent $1700 for a lens, why wouldn't I spend another $80 to maintain and optimize it's performance?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:17:58 AM »
The folks who are arguing that the APS-C DSLR will always be around because there will always be uses for different size sensors are missing the point, I think. Of course there will always be optimal applications for different sizes of sensors. What doesn't follow logically is that the DSLR is an optimal format for incorporating smaller size sensors. In terms of image quality, Sony's mirrorless NEX 7 already competes favorably with any APS-C DSLR on the market. The same could be said for several new Panasonic and Olympus models--cameras which, on average, cost less and are much more comfortable to tote (if not to handle)--than an APS-C DSLR. Allowing for a few more generations of EVF development, and the last significant advantage of the APS-C DSLR will be nullified. Indeed, as another correspondent has pointed out, the small optical viewfinder in an APS-C DSLR is not that difficult a benchmark to beat.

The DSLR is an inherently heavy, bulky format. Two characteristics justify its existence given the current state of technology: (1) that big, bright, fast optical viewfinder and (2) its compatibility with the big, heavy, expensive but light-grabbing lenses that pro-level photography often requires. It's those lenses capable of generating a large, bright image that justify the bulk and expense of the modern DSLR. As infared asks, why throw that kind of optical firepower at a half-size sensor? And that's why I'm still betting that in ten years full frame will be close to a universal standard for DSLRs and a replacement for all but the most specialized MF systems. Smaller sensors will find a more natural home in other types of camera bodies. I think it's already happening. And I think Canon thinks so too. Look at where all the company's lens development resources are being directed. It ain't in EF-S, folks.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?
« on: July 13, 2012, 01:16:36 AM »
 Market trends are comprised of thousands--or millions--of individual purchasing decisions, and "infared" may have gotten to the nub of the matter by responding to the topic of this thread at the personal level. As camera phones, point-and-shoots, compact formats (M4/3 etc.) and mirrorless get better, the weight and expense of DSLRs--not to mention the weight and expense of their lenses--will probably shape  the dslr as the tool for those for whom photography is a passion or a career not an adjunct to their social life. And although wildlife photographers who depend on crop effects get testy when you say so, for the great majority of serious photographers the superior quality of FF is compelling. My own digital purchasing decisions parallel those of infared. I started with ASP-C (the 20D), but my lens-buying decisions were predicated from the beginning on the belief that FF would become the MF of the digital age. I bet on Canon with the 5D series, while Nikon seems to have gotten there first with the 800e, but I think 24x36mm--even if it's mirrorless in some cases--is the future of serious photography from all major manufacturers. Technology will allow for that miniaturization and the price-per-unit advantages of a standardized size will eventually limit larger formats to highly expensive niche applications. That's my theory anyhow, and like infared, I'm betting my photography dollars on it. 

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Entry-level video production
« on: April 15, 2012, 03:41:03 AM »
To all the folks who kindly took time to reply, thank you. It  strikes me there's a wealth of practical information here. And maybe I misworded my initial entry. I earned my living for forty years as a free lance writer, and I would never discourage anyone from a life based on pursuing your true interests . Beats the hell out of punching a time card. But you do need to know what you're getting into. What I was hoping to get--and did get--was practical ideas about gear choices on a limited budget and some words of advice about the need to be informed, ingenious and hardworking.

As a stills guy, I can't comment about the info on audio, although the ingenuity and specificity (including weblinks) is appreciated. Arsonist's suggestion to use smart phones as lavs is intriguing. As for the video end, I do think Policar's suggestion to start with two basic primes, a medium wide-angle (35 mm) and a short telephoto  (85mm), is spot on. (If I were shooting a T3i or other 1.6 crop, I'd consider a 100 mm for a long lens.)
What I think I'm hearing is that you could possibly break in--with luck--for $1500-1800, but for $2500-3000 you could hope to soon be competitive--if you made informed equipment buying choices and you had your other bases covered. In addition to the advice offered by other forum members, what I would say to Dave and his partners is this: if you plan to earn your living with a camera, you need one teammate (probably two) who is passionate about  solving the technical and esthetic challenges of taking great pictures--whether still or video. If it's a matter of "who wants to be camera man this week?" you have a problem.

Thanks again to all who took the time to offer advice and suggestions.


EOS Bodies - For Video / Entry-level video production
« on: April 14, 2012, 01:16:36 AM »
To the videographers on the forum:

My young nephew (like every other artistically inclined person under 35) has joined some fellow conspirators with the intention to perpetrate video production. They've gone so far as to hire an attorney and incorporate. They think they'll buy a T3i, a $400 zoom, a few accesories--spend maybe $1600 to $1800--and wow the world on the basis of their creativity. They have some horsepower as far as writing, on-screen talent, even marketing goes, but I don't think one of them knows an f-stop from a drive mode from a liquid head.

I'm the family photographer, and my nephew has approached me about how to best invest their limited budget. My sense is that the kindest thing I could do for these kids is to put a pin to their bubble, but I'm basically a stills photographer and I can't critique their game plan with the kind of authority and specificity that might get their attention before they make some costly mistakes. I shoot a 5D2 and I do know that it doesn't take $25000 worth of equipment to make an adequate corporate video. I also know that digital has made it relatively easy for anyone to take a decent picture and raised the technical standards for taking one that stands out. Since video is the big thing among the younger generation, I'm sure the same reality applies to a higher power.

I presume that serious video production requires at least a half-serious camera, a solid tripod, a decent liquid-damped head, a lamp (and a stand) or two for modeling the talent, maybe a basic shoulder mount , and surely off-camera audio recording capability--as well as a few other things that might not occur to a novice. But maybe not. I'd appreciate if a couple of forum members who do video full-time or part-time (say as an adjunct to a wedding business) would take 20 minutes to address a letter to my nephew--his name is Dave--about what a realistic entry-level video lash-up includes and what it costs. I'll refer him to this thread.

Thanks in advance,


EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII Fastest SD Card
« on: March 19, 2012, 02:54:59 AM »
I prefer Sandisk and Lexar cards.

If the pricing is anywhere near equivalent, I'd go with Sandisk. Some years ago I also had a problem with a Lexar card in my 20D. It would record but it couldn't transfer the data to my computer using Photoshop's download. Although the card was "guaranteed for life," I couldn't get a response or a replacement from Lexar. It was probably just some firmware-software compatibility issue, and I'm sure my experience was idiosyncratic and doesn't reflect that of millions of Lexar users, but I've since stuck with Sandisk and have never experienced a single problem with their cards.

Site Information / Re: Karma is gone?
« on: March 18, 2012, 04:40:37 AM »
No karma on forum as for the current moment. Is it just temporary or not?

No karma! I'm not going to post my usual 12 paragraph dissertation. Lemme say only this much: good riddance; the best photography forum on the internet just got a bit better. Let's have a discussion based on the logic of your position. Pick a subject.

P.S. I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm a relative newb, but the last time I loggged in under the old system I was +15-6.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 or 1DX for Ultimate Image Quality...
« on: March 14, 2012, 09:56:12 PM »
Does anyone really think Canon, after releasing the 1Dx which was touted as the merging of the 1D and 1Ds lines, but with performance and quality surpassing both, will turn around and hand the IQ crown to a camera body less than half it's cost?


Yes, the 5D3 will have "unsurpassed image quality".......AT IT'S PRICE POINT.  But I'll bet the 1Dx wears the IQ crown in a head to head comparison.

I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion from the relative pricing of the two models. In the past five years Canon--and Nikon--have been all over the charts with regard to the relative price/performance ratios of their "flagship" and "prosumer" models. I think that's because both manufacturers and long-time (i.e. professional or serious amateur) customers have been making the psychological transition from film to digital in shifts and starts. Until 2002 or so, camera makers were the optical equivalent of, say, Rolex, producing precision mechanical devices in which the performance of the individual unit correlated precisely to the cost of the materials selected and the amount of highly skilled (and expensive) labor required to fabricate it. The pricing of various models naturally reflected those costs of production.

The digital revolution in photography has slowly been turning that paradigm inside out. The camera body which used to be a precsion mechanical object with a life expectancy of a decade or more is now primarily an electronics commodity item. The best of them--however long they may last--no longer offer competitive performance after four or five years. The lowliest Rebel made in 2012 is probably superior to the 1Ds2 in every respect except build quality. (Let's not get hung up on this ancillary supportive statement, please.) Likewise, the bulk of camera manufacturing costs are no longer in materials or assembly, but in R&D. Once you have designed a component and acquired the ability to fabricate it, the cost of including it in an indvidual unit of production is trivial by comparison.

Removing a $10 chip from your high-volume camera to slightly "cripple" its autofocus performance in relation to your high-dollar model may differentiate your model lines internally, but it leaves you vulnerable to the competitor who decides to incorporate that chip (for little cost) in its high-volume model.

Camera companies (and even some of their customers) seem to remember and forget these facts on a regular six-month rotation. Nikon seemed to have gotten the idea when it began quickly migrating its top-of-the-line autofocus system to less expensive models--giving them a competitive advantage for very little increase in per-unit manufacturing cost. Likewise, there is no question that the D700 was all but the performance equal of the D3--and in a lighter, more compact package. And then, just when it looked as if Nikon had fully made the jump into the 21st century, the company brought out the D3x at an inflated $8000 price that had even ardent Nikon fans howling for a boycott.

With the D800 Nikon seems to have stepped back through the looking glass into the realities of digital era pricing. Compared to the D3x, it offers 50% more MP, better high-ISO performance, faster FPS (and an upgraded feature set in almost every other respect) all for $5000 less--before inflation. Technological progress over the past three years doesn't come close to accounting for this difference. It's one more indication of the blind, arbitrary, stab-in-the-dark nature of current pricing practices among the major camera manufacturers.

Canon's recent history is similarly back and forth. We can argue about the barely discernable differences in the IQ of the 5D2 and the 1Ds3. (The consensus among people who own both seems to be that 1Ds3 renders more subtlely at low ISOs while the 5D2 is better from about 1600.) But Canon itself proclaimed the 5D2 to have the superior IQ and seemed quite willing to throw the 1Ds3 under the bus in return for the massive demand for the 5D2, demand created by its 1Ds3+ feature set. Similarly, Canon's high-end 1+ MP rear LCD appeared first on a "consumer" model. More recently, the pricing of the 1DX and the 5D3 seem to be a step backward toward the old pricing model.

I would argue that the very terms "flagship"and "prosumer" no longer accurately describe any of the models introduced in the last six months by either Nikon or Canon. The day of the $6000 to $7500 (USD) camera body is over, although some folks--among both manufacturers and customers--just ain't got the news yet. The "flagship" models are now loss leaders or exclusively halo products, or both. Top dollar cameras now sell to a small market of well-heeled amateurs and the tiny minority of pros who work under the extreme conditions found in war zones, action photography at the most competitive levels, or resolution-hungry fields like fashion or architecture. And with the D800, erven those boundaries are being blurred. I suspect that nowadays the real value of  the "flagship" in the overall corporate marketing strategy is to make similarly-featured but volume-priced models look like a bargain.

Considering all this, I'm not sure there is yet a coherent and internally consistent strategy in the way Canon and Nikon feature-equip and price their models. I wouldn't be at all surprised if--in spite of Canon's claims about unifying the 1D line--the 1DX and 5D3 end up as the latest versions of the 1D4 and the 5D2/1Ds3, each superior for certain purposes. And if the D800 sells well enough to force a high MP response from Canon, it will be truly fascinating to see how Canon attempts to price and position that camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???
« on: March 09, 2012, 12:23:03 AM »
I see many folks in this forum deducing and assuming from pictures that are floating on the web that the DR of the new 5D mk III will be about the same of the mk II
Before giving such a underwhelming pictures think a little..
From DP ratings:
5D - 9.2
1Ds mk III - 11.3 (5D mk II - 11.1)
1D mk IV - 12
5D mk III... ?
As you see there was a constant improvement with each sensor generation(Full frame and 1.3)
the last camera generation (1D mk IV) has 12EV and considering that the new 5D (and 1DX)have the latest technology and that the pixel size of the new cameras is bigger
I expect to see around 12.5-13EV
That would be awesome!

That would be awesome. Hope you're right. Can't help wondering why Canon would be keeping such performance a secret.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???
« on: March 08, 2012, 11:25:04 PM »
And once again, no I am not some Nikon fanboy. I have never owned a Nikon camera of any sort in my entire life.
I've owned many Canons. That doesn't mean I need to lie and make up BS to make myself feel better about Canon.

It's kinda sad that the fanboys here are so extreme that they just smite anyone and go la-la-la-la I can't hear you rather than look at facts. But go ahead, be my guest if you feel happier for doing it. :D

As a matter of principle, I never use that silly applaud/smite button, but if I did you'd get a +1 for figuring out a preliminary way to get a reading on the 5D3's dynamic range. I find that there's a lot of useful information to be gleaned from many people on this forum--too bad it has to be filtered out from a noisy minority who take personal offense to anything other than praise for Canon.

Asking about the specifics of your methodology is legitimate. Crowing about the 5D3's early sales performance is indeed irrelevant.

On another thread about the pricing of the 5D3 I made the point that the sales domination of the 5D2 over competing full frame models depended largely on its prowess as a video camera. I then noted that a number of leading videographers--including Vincent LaForet--were already on record as being unimpressed by the video features of the 5D3, and that the disappointment of this important market segment might translate to lower-than-expected sales--which in turn might lead to a fairly quick drop in price.

I was assailed immediately. Laforet, it was explained, was a nouveau riche photojournalist turned camera snob by his giddy success as a videographer. And then, having acknowleged LaForet's negative response to the camera by attempting to discredit him, my accuser turned on me and charged me with bias for saying that LaForet was unimpressed with the 5D3's specs. How many ways can you have it?

My point wasn't even about the merits of the camera; it was about the expectations of videographers and what that might do to sales. No matter. It could be construed as an indirect attack on darling 5D3 and needed to be struck down immediately.

The clear fact is that at least initially videographers are not embracing the 5d3 the way they did the 5D2--it's all over the Internet. And the equally clear fact is that Canon cameras have a number of class-leading qualities but they have a problem with dynamic range compared to Sony/Nikon. Photographers know it. On the eve of the introduction of the 5D3, when all of the talk should have been about megapixels and frame rate, etc., this forum sprouted a 5-page thread of people worrying that Canon might not have addressed the problems of dynamic range. Likewise,all the testing organizations find that Canon underperforms in this area. How are we going to explain that away? DPR and DXO rig their tests because because Sony/Nikon own a controlling interest in them?

And while nothing is definite yet, there are reasons to wonder if Canon has been able to improve the performance of the 5D3 in this area. The company would have to be deaf and blind not to know that its customers are worried about this issue. And yet we've heard a lot of talk about the improved SNR, two-stop better high-ISO performance in jpeg, as well as the multi-frame HDR feature, but not a single official claim that I can find about an actual increase in dynamic range. DR is important to my kind of photography and I am increasingly concerned that either Canon's engineers can't figure it out or that Sony holds some patents that Canon can't circumvent.

But raise the possibility that Canon has a problem in this area and you're a troll. Any questioning of Canon's perfection is construed as a personal attack. I'm thinking what's needed is a banner--24 pt bold--across the top of every page in this forum: A reminder: the latest scientific evidence confirms that there is absolutely no correlation--repeat, absolutely NO correlation--between your choice of camera equipment and the length of your phallus.

EOS Bodies / Re: Finally LOOKING good !!!!
« on: March 07, 2012, 06:21:01 PM »

They have the same test with the 5D Mark II....see the difference....makes mee feel good.

Included RAW files....

After lookiing at the exif file and the exposure time /f stop, I was disappointed to find that the lighting conditions used would give low noise values not representative of actual use.

The images are really not suitable for evaluation of high ISO low light images, since they were taken under bright lighting of approx ev 10.  This will result in lower noise than you would get in low light.

So far, only DPR gets it.  Their sample images were taken in low light, about ev 3 which is a more realistic test for low light high iso shots.

True, this is a comparison under artificial conditions not likely to be encountered in a real-world shoot. We can't accurately judge the true high ISO performance of either camera based on the the Imaging Resource tests. However, since both cameras enjoy the same advantageous shooting conditions, might it still be possible to draw at least preliminary conclusions about their relative high ISO performance? I.e., neither camera is as good as the tests suggest, but the apparent 2+ stop difference in their performance might carry over into real-world conditions?

Are there optical/physical/electronic phenomena which would make this an invalid inference? If not, then given what we already know about the 5D2's performance, IR's "comparometer" should give us a rough handle on the low-light capabilities of the 5D3. (I think we're all hoping that's the case, because the difference in the images at comparable ISOs is fairly stunning.) Pity that DPR didn't elect to replicate their 5D3 low-light shots with a 5D2.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price
« on: March 05, 2012, 07:11:07 PM »
As an old English teacher, I wouldn't say that I am "hugely disappointed" by the price of the 5D3--that would be assigning physical dimensions to an emotional state. How about "moderately disappointed" and a little surprised that Canon didn't follow Nikon's lead in pricing?

My vote in the poll was to keep my 5D2. Nevertheless, on paper at least the 5D3 seems like a sensible upgrade to the 5D2, and if the real-world performance matches the specs, I'll upgrade--but not until the price drops.

Still, I can't help but shake my head in admiration of those clever folks in Canon's marketing department. Nikon introduces a well-featured camera at an aggressive price, and rather than meet the competition, Canon neatly bookends the D800 by keeping the 5D2 in production at a a significantly lowered price. Here I thought I was the owner of a mid-level full-frame camera with aging-but-still-serviceable technology. Turns out the 5D2 is actually a state-of-the--art 2012 entry level full-frame camera. Who knew?

What's really nice about this strategy is that Nikon has no way of responding. Not only does the D700 lack the now-obligatory video, but Nikon can no longer legally sell the camera in its home market of Japan. (Wouldn't you know, Sony's A900 also lacks video.) And you thought those boys in Canon marketing were overpaid parasites.

I expect Canon to keep selling the 5D2 for as long as its aging technology can divert first-time or modestly bankrolled buyers from Nikon or Sony. When that's no longer possible, I imagine the model will be retired and the 5D3 will be repriced in line with the D800. In the meantime I might buy some glass or the new flash.

The question for me then is how long will it take for the 5D3 price to soften? And for a couple of reasons I'm actually optimistic that I'll have a new camera within 12 to15 months. For all the hype, hoopla and hysteria, the hallelujahs and the gnashing of teeth surrounding the recent introductions of the 5D3 and the D800, we still know almost nothing about the comparative performance of the production cameras either in testing or in everyday use. I expect both to be good, but if it proves difficult to pinpoint $500 worth of value for Canon's premium, I suspect the price difference will erode pretty quickly. Go Nikon.

The other factor which will I believe affect pricing will be how current owners of higher-end Canon DSLRS perceive the usefulness of the 5D3's upgrades in relation to their present cameras. And here I think the clever boys in marketing have made at least one serious mis-step. I'm not a videographer and I don't pretend to know their priorities, but I do know that video was the sine qua non feature which gave the 5D2 its enormous market advantage. And it can't be good news for Canon that several prominent DSLR videographers are already on record as saying that the 5D3 is a much larger step forward for still photography than it is for video. Vincent LaForet, the Godfather of DSLR video, is aghast at the lack of clean HDMI output from the new camera. "Why? Why? Why?" he asks in exasperation on his blog. (Nikon has it.)

Likewise, several videographers and commentators simply assumed that the 5D3 would take the next step to 1080p output at 60 fps, and expressed shock when it didn't. It's a capability now found on several mirrorless cameras, which also feature video autofocus superior to anything Canon has yet demonstrated. More people might feel Canon's $500 premium is justifed if it included a second processor (a Digic 4 or perhaps a 5 with or without the +) to provide the processing horsepower to handle 60 fps.
All in all it seems like a golden lead squandered. "Explorer of Light" and loyal Canon champion Laforet is so disenchanted with the specs of the new camera that he goes out of his way on his blog to tell his patron company and the world that he will not be making a video with the 5D3. And just in case Canon executives are oblivious to the fact that this a howl of protest, LaForet remounts a page-one link to his seminal video, Reverie--shot with the 5D2. Could there be a clearer slap in the face from a videographer?

If the 5D3 can't maintain the 5D2's enormous sales advantage among videographers, I'll have my new camera about as soon as I can afford it.

EOS Bodies / Re: WOW, 5D III shadow recovery!!
« on: March 03, 2012, 04:27:42 PM »
It was making me a little nervous that CW and other Canon spokesmen spent a lot of time talking about  at least two stops of high ISO improvement, but none of them was actually addressing the matter of dynamic range, which for me is of greater interest than simple high-ISO capabilities. Likewise, the new HDR feature, while admittedly very intriguing in its own right, had me wondering if maybe Canon had given up trying to match the DR of Sony's Exmor sensors. We really do need some definitive testing on IQ, but as little bits and pieces emerge about the 5D3's performance, it's looking more encouraging all the time. Maybe I really do need one now rather than later.

Oh, and  jrista, you have a history of introducing slow-starting threads.

Deeply disappointed. I was hoping for pink dots this time.

Pages: [1] 2