I'm really hoping this is the case, this if true and all seems OK, will be my next upgrade, I'm skipping the 5D3!! fingers crossed!
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.
I had two copies and a customer at my shop tried two copies of the 24 L II that had "random focus". There was a batch that had focus problems.
The issue was as follows; camera tripodmounted, focused with One Shot, and it changed distance dramtically (a couple of feet) from one image to another. Completely at random. Out of 10 images I could have two, one or none sharp, I'm talking WAY off...
My third copy , once adjusted, have been just as stable as my other lenses.
Canon is the master of intensely annoying "market differentiation" - meaning crippling of camera features for pure marketing speculations, which most of the time turn out to be dead wrong and are costing them market share.
Why do people make statements like this? What makes you think it is costing them market share, and more importantly, do you have any data to back that up? The availbale data show that Canon's market share for dSLRs has been increasing for the past several years. So by the relevant objective measure, Canon is doing things right, not 'dead wrong'.
market share data I know, shows the opposite. Nikon and SOny have taken a lot of DSLR-market away from Canon over the past 6-7 years.
Why is Canon dead wrong? They could have built on their early DSLR-dominance. You may remember, that once upon a time their CMOS sensors were way better, especially at hi-ISO than anything else on the market! They totally squandered that and are WORSE today than competitors.
Had they focused on selling the very best cameras in every market segment - best sensor and all the best photographic features, no holds barred ... they would completely OWN the entire DSLR market by now and Nikon would be in bankrupcy by now!
Sepcifically, Canon F_____ up when they
* brought the measly 50D instead of the 7D ... that would have killed Nikon's immense success with the D300
* brought the 5D2 with 1Ds III AF-system - that would have killed Nikons D700 immediately
* brought the 1D IV instead of the ill-fated 1D III ... that would have stopped the D3/s in its tracks
* sold the 1Ds III for a reasonable 4k ... that would have killed the D3x
* stuck their video crap into video cams ... Cxxx cameras from 1k to 20 k ... all available with EF-mount. Those Video types did not buy the 5D2 and 7D BECAUSE of their love for vpoorly video-suited DSLRs. They bought them solely for one reason: because no similarly decent videcam [e.g. a C100 or whatever] @ 1k and 2.5 k USD was available on the market!
BUT ... what did Canon do? Eyery step of the way only the BARE MINIMUM, always TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. Always obsessed with "cannibalization" ... and ALWAYS full-bore marketing-differentiation, criplling "lowly" camera bodies and denying them readily available useful photographic features - irrespective of whether this would have helped them to capture market share from competitors. Always nickling and diming clients. Making them upgarde to a same-sensor camera just to get a decent AF-system. Or charging them extra for hard to get lens shades instead of throwing those 1$ production cost items into the box like all reasonable competitors do!
All of this is why Nikon is back stronger than ever and why Canon has been losing market share all along.
All of this is why I more and more had it with Canon and will likely switch to Nikon once I move to FF.
Because we all felt the 1dx sample shown from the original post were really soft! So we jumped to the spftness issue from the 5dmkiii issue that was discussed before which were mostly driven by the dpp software.
...and apparently, soft RAW conversions is also an issue with LR.
I'm so glad the Lr problems have reach the surface and is spread all over now, only way to get the message across. Get it widely known!
In terms of "softness" I had a Mark II for almost three years and now I have two Mark IIIs. The Mark III is very sharp. It is sharper than the Mark II and the IQ in terms of color and ISO are superior. I can't imagine the the 1Dx having a "softness" issue if the Mark IIIs images are extremely sharp.
Yeah? Could you post a couple of raw's, say of a barcode and small text, I can compare to mine with? because mine is def softer than my 5d2. Serioulsy different.
This is so odd because we hear so much about some kind of softness in the mkiii image, which by the way i did experienced personally with my unit of the 5d mkiii i tried, and now we see lots of 1dx picture on the web with some kind of softness too. Wondering if they changed something to their AA filter design that could cause this or maybe it is something else.