Interesting. From the their Raw DR stats it appears ISO 200 is the native ISO and 100 is pull. Guessing since the DR is lower at 100.
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.
Well, I just - in effect - paid $15 to upgrade Preview. I never use iPhoto, but I paid the $15 to upgrade from iPhoto '09 (8.xx) to iPhoto '11 (9.xx), and then installed Digital Camera Raw Compatibility Update 3.12. When I start iPhoto, it tells me that the photo library needs to be upgraded, and it will take a long time; since I don't use iPhoto, this is of no concern to me, so I press Quit.
And after all that, Preview finally supports 5D Mark III raw files. I have to wonder if Apple will ever get around to adding a Preview upgrade that would make this iPhoto/Aperture upgrade unnecessary. I just got tired of waiting.
After waiting for a non-Beta version of Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw and waiting for a defined solution to the light leak problem, I decided to work around the one minor but annoying issue which I could do something about. Humph!!!
My take. I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money
This actually touches upon my own sentiment about 5DMk3 (strictly business oriented) and it's something that I haven't read on this forum so far. A lot of people here who feel positive about their Mk3 purchase, upgraded from consumer models, and I'm sure it feels like the best thing since sliced bread. But really, even Mk2 would have felt like that going from 40D.
I do earn revenue with wedding photography, and I could easily get the Mk3, but it would be the dumbest business decision I could make (and I'm only talking about myself here - other people may have different needs). As long as Mk2 earns revenue, there is no reason what-so-ever for me to get the Mk3 because, for the sake of keeping it real - it's not a game changer. Only game changers (or breakages) truly warrant an upgrade in my opinion.
Some people see auto focus as a game changer, but to be fair - I have no issues with Mk2 auto focus. As far as IQ goes, difference is minuscule, clients can't see it, I even can't see it unless I pixel peep, I don't shoot over 6400ISO (which I'll happily do with Mk2 and nicely clean up in LR), so unless this camera could magically allow me to raise package prices to pay for itself (which it unfortunately can't), I don't see how it could warrant a $3500 expenditure.
Anyway I just wanted to change the beat a little from the usual "I'm switching to D800" Mk3 bashing.
To those with the Mark iii and 85L.
Is the AF more accurate / faster wide open ?