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.
Will the Tamron be a good match for the Canon? Will it be comparable in quality?
What are some takes for you guys on the Canon 70-200 and the Tamron 70-200?
You keep repeating this, and it remains unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Canon doesn't improve DR because there's no business need to do so, and it would cut into their profits to do so. They're making very nice money as things are. They will hold onto their high-DR tech until the market requires them to use it. Even Pentax has pro-sumer sensors with higher DR than Canon; you can't expect me to believe that a tech giant like Canon can't keep pace (in the lab) with Pentax. No, Canon DR will improve when it must. Right now they're trying to keep manufacturing costs down to increase profits, just like any for-profit entity would do.
Its fantastic to see Nikon respond 4 years after the introduction of the 5D II and 7 years after the 5D.
Canon 5d III is by far more versatile
Canon is still the better system
It is better at sports
Price is dropping fast and is close to 3000 euro now in the netherlands so price is not an issue anymore
Filesize is great. Bigger is only a pain in the ass.
Canon builds its own sensors where Nikon gets its sensors from the enemy which makes them very dependend.
Go take pictures and stop moaning pls
One guy with Canon connections said months ago that we'd soon enough realize that Canon held back their new sensor tech for the 1DX so they could re-use the old lines once more to raise margin on the 5D3 since they felt that all the body upgrades were enough this time to not force their hand at the 100% new sensor tech.
There's a big shock. Canon went all out with the 5D2's sensor and crippled it with a POS body and AF system last round. Now they went all out on body and AF with the 5D3, and crippled the sensor. You mean to tell me companies intentionally position their products to fit within specific subsets of users and price points? What an outrage!
I'm waiting for DXO to take a crack at it and dp-review. Those are the statistics based reviews. For actual results I prefer http://diglloyd.com/
well worth the subscription give the sheer amount of comparisons using top of the line zeiss glass.
Judging by the 1D X samples, the high ISO performance is outstanding and a true 1 stop improvement over the 5D Mark III. Something that strikes me though is 4 Megapixels can't make that much difference.
Canon opted to put a nice new focus system in the 5D Mark III, but it seems to avoid people not buying the 1D X and pro's opting for a Mark III instead, they limited the ISO performance boost. With a boost there wouldn't be much between them but now the 1D X is more appealing with its ISO quality jump!!
One guy with Canon connections said months ago that we'd soon enough realize that Canon held back their new sensor tech for the 1DX so they could re-use the old lines once more to raise margin on the 5D3 since they felt that all the body upgrades were enough this time to not force their hand at the 100% new sensor tech.
That sounds plausible and would have worked if it wasn't for the competition. Lets hope that Nikon forces Canon's hand now to release a 5d4 sooner than 4 years from now :-o ... imagine what Intel products would be like without AMD.
Did the guy predict what would be the next body to have a real sensor upgrade after the 1dx? The 70d? The high-mp eos?
That's great Brian. Did you buy a 1DX yet?
I dont want to be an early user so I am happy to wait. I have a 1D4 so its not urgent.
My 1DS3 is limited in low light so I thought the 1DX might do duties there as well.
The 1DS3 will stay top dog for iso 50-200 shots (which are about 50% of my photos) until there is a clear improvement coming along. I had 5D2 and did side by side testing and the 5D2 was clearly worse than the 1DS3.
The only thing Nikon beat Canon with the D800 is the megapixels and price (not enough for me and many photographers to switch sides). Everything else, the Mark III does much better.
Actually the D800 not only has a lot more resolution but the quality of those pixels are better, clean shadows, etc. Medium format digital dynamic range too. Qualities I have paid 10's of 1000's of dollars for, now in a $3000 body. In contrast canon is milking its loyal base.
"Everything else much better", such as? I don't know about you, but resolution, DR are pretty much top of my list of priorities. I'm going to resist rehashing this tired old argument in detail, but I can't think of anything the 5d3 does "much better". And just to be clear, I'm not saying the 5d3 is a bad camera, just over priced relative to competing products.
I'm not suggesting it's worth switching sides over ...yet...but that point is within sight. I dont think it serves us to embrace an "ignorance is bliss" mentality, pretending the advantages of the D800 are not highly desirable.
I understood that the noise advantage of the D800 disappeared by ISO 800? and similarly the DR?
I agree. I don't think that anyone thinks the 5DIII is a bad camera. But for the price, it better be mind bogglingly good, and I don't think anyone would say that is the case. I would pay 2500 in a heartbeat for the 5DIII, but at over 3000 it is just not going to happen. The 5DIII is actually just what I expected it would be, except I expected Canon to beat Nikon's price by 500 bucks, instead it's the other way around.People complained about the 5D Mark III sensor?
Yea, it's horrible. It's an incremental improvement over the previous 5d2 sensor. We don't get magical ability to use ISO 5 million that let's us see in the dark with hardly any noise that's easily correctable by LR4. It's hardly usable, don't find it any better than the 5d2 sensor. I mean, I can use images up to ISO 12800 for web size pretty easily. Geesh, it's horrible!
Guys, I don't recall reading any posts where the 5d3 sensor was called "horrible" or even "bad". This includes the madness of dpreview forums. What there's been a lot of is, disappointment in the lack of improvement vs 5d2, such as banding, etc This is an important distinction that seems "lost" on Canon fanboys. "lack of improvement" does not equate to "bad" or "horrible". The intensity of comments from those objectively pointing out this lack of improvement (in contrast to the D800) increased dramatically as they encountered fanboys unwilling to acknowledge these facts. Usually the fanboys would mis-characterize the "critical" comments by using hyperbole such as "So you think the sensor sucks, go away troll!" or give the impression the poster had insane expectations such as "magical ability to use ISO 5 million" or that the poster had written the sensor was "horrible". Ahem.
Another example: Lloyd Chambers said he found himself "bored" in regard to the 5d3 images and Canon fanboys went ballistic saying the "5D3 images are not boring!!". Well, that's not what Lloyd said. It was the lack of improvement that led to him having a lack of enthusiasm. Lack of enthusiasm does not equal "bad" or "horrible".
This, all in contrast to the simple truth that the 5d3 sensor is not a significant improvement over the 5d2 and after waiting 4 (f'ing) years for the update, that's disappointing or as Lloyd put it, "boring".
So, yes, for 3500 dollars the camera is a bit underwhelming(boring)
So.... How 'bout that 1d X?
The 5D3 and 1Dx are meant for professionals earning money from Photography. They aren't targetted at those who want a new toy to play with and only have so much saved.
The 5D3 and 1Dx will last me 4 years, costing about $40 per week over 4 years.
Seems reasonable to me just not to those photographing the inside of a lens cap.
I guess I just don't "get it". "Lens cap", hmm. I'm very predominantly a studio shooter ie, portraiture, fashion, beauty. Been trying out a D800. Just did an editorial Marie Claire shoot that included some "low key" lighting. Being able to shoot at high IQ, low iso and lift those shadows as I wished without needing NR that smears details like peanut butter is extremely valuable. My subject's skin would have turned to blurry mush! Images reminded me a great deal of my shoots with a rented Phase One IQ140 ($30k kit). I can think how vastly more important this ability would be to landscape shooters as well as concert and other low light shooters. Shooting at high iso cannot compete in terms of IQ.
jaduffy, will you put up a link to some of the images you've shot with the D800? I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything; I just want to see some images that were properly lit with this camera. I'm still waiting on my 800e. Thanks!
And back to the topic at hand - I thought the 1ds III was Canon's flagship DSLR???
And please keep in mind, you're looking at 500kb jpegs!The 5D3 and 1Dx are meant for professionals earning money from Photography. They aren't targetted at those who want a new toy to play with and only have so much saved.
The 5D3 and 1Dx will last me 4 years, costing about $40 per week over 4 years.
Seems reasonable to me just not to those photographing the inside of a lens cap.
...and that premium comes at a price.
... expanding on that, I see many pros (like in: shoot for a living and having to balance the books) didn't upgrade to the 5d3, at least for the time being. They have 5d2 cameras and have learned to use them, and unless you shoot sports there aren't killer features on the 5d3 that would give your product the edge since the sensor is so similar. And if you shoot sports and are in the biz, you'd get the 1d4 or 1dx - so where does this leave the 5d3?
The only thing Nikon beat Canon with the D800 is the megapixels and price (not enough for me and many photographers to switch sides). Everything else, the Mark III does much better.
