April 20, 2014, 03:08:49 AM

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 - Viggo

Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 113
1381
EOS Bodies / Re: The 5D III images we were waiting for:
« on: March 27, 2012, 05:41:41 PM »
Thanks for posting! This is the stuff! not some stupid numbers off a number-based site (dxo).

I'm more interested in AF than IQ because I already know the IQ is better or equal to the 5d2 and that's all I need, those bursts and action shots promise very very good for my upcoming 1d X. Very nice images. All of them.

1382
EOS Bodies / Re: CANON 1Dx - New presentation & video -
« on: March 27, 2012, 02:48:35 PM »
One of the major differences is the ability to track, which is one of the important things I care about, that and the shutter durabillity and build and usability. The camera needs to be on edge following my every move, the 5d2 starts to argue with me if I go faster than a snail. That is of MAJOR importance.

1383
So this seems to be an issue that requires both a firmware update for the camera and an update for the DPP software.

Now let me just take a second to ask here; How in the f@@k does this sh@t get passed Canon when releasing a VERY important product?!?!?!?!

And do not tell me there's a glitch in the Matrix! And the same happened with the 1d mk3, how did it take some reviewers online to find out the AF doesn't work?!?!?! What in the hell are beta-testers for?!?! Do the Canon people even use their products? Are the people in charge surrounded by yes-men? I am actually asking...

I'm done making excuses for Canon, either do it right or leave it, seriously!

The mk4 was an awesome camera that worked, but it needed a firmware tuning the Ai Servo right at the beginning, how come this wasn't already in the camera considering the useless AF of the mk3???

And how come the S100, one of their TWO most important compacts (before the G1X) had an "off center lens resulted in soft images" discovered ALSO by reviewers...

Do this make me confident waiting ver anxiously for the 1d X?

It shouldn't be like I have creepy feeling in my stomach and just crossing my whatnot for the awkward silence not to happen and Canon drops the ball, again... After trying the D4 which is bulletproof through and through, I'm not settling for paying a thousand dollars more for the 1d X that almost gives me sharp images... Someone needs to wake them up over there at Canon, cuz this announcing a product 8 months before it can be bought and then screw it up releasing firmware just isn't going to cut it...

I need a coffee and Laphroaig now....

1384
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Defective 5D MK III.....
« on: March 23, 2012, 06:53:23 PM »
For those of you who can't see what the issue is, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

1385
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

HIGHLY interesting!!

And if you guys check the review at Gizmodo test, you can clearly see that those file are edited MUCH better.

1386
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Defective 5D MK III.....
« on: March 23, 2012, 05:35:11 PM »
not sure if its just me but all the above links are not working


yeah, tried another computer of mine, and it didn't work there either, only on my main machine... I'll try again..


EDIT; this is at least to the gallery. Bridge image is the first one and the blotchy one is called "BK6A0201-reconverted"

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-preview-samples

1387
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Defective 5D MK III.....
« on: March 23, 2012, 03:45:32 PM »
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1829129.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1332532352&Signature=EVMPTKLctOkeFwVjOjMXKv0GVtU%3d

I flipped through all the images over at dpreview from the 5d3 and it seems there are some blotchyness there also, but the one I linked to above I ran through a tad of unsharp mask, and this image is hilariously fantastic, so it seems it's a lot to do with processing, OP; def not saying your camera wasn't faulty! but this explains the useless images taken by Canon as promo, and it's very easy to f@@k up IQ severely.

Here's another one I liked, focused at the aperture ring of the left cam I think. This is IQ 5d worthy;

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1829138.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1332532750&Signature=6bgcqDJoycPmM4HqMBr0WN6uVWs%3d

And here's a blotchy one;

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1829135.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1332532807&Signature=CkNpUh7j3%2fCBPOuAaovzm5i8aD8%3d

1388
EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the 1D X?!
« on: March 23, 2012, 10:41:30 AM »
I hear you JR.

Enough already!!

We got 20 stores all over Norway where I work and we got a total of 24 5d3's. So it doesn't look good for 1d x.

1389
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Defective 5D MK III.....
« on: March 22, 2012, 05:39:48 PM »
It reminds me of the samples Canon have released of both the 1d X and the 5d3, I think DPP is doing something wacky. (and speaking of wacky) What the hell didi Adobe do to Lr 4 ? It's soooo slooooow and the NR was WAAAY better in beta. So if canon screwed the in camera firmware and their DPP, and adobe def screwed up on Lr 4, than we're better off keeping our old stuff ::)

1390
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Defective 5D MK III.....
« on: March 22, 2012, 03:25:33 PM »
Light optimizer and all that stuff turned off also?

Processed in Lr? It applies color noise reduction as default, turned that off also?

Because this image is not fine like many of you comment, I can clearly see what you mean by blotchy. It looks more like poor hybrid cam with way to much NR applied.... Very strange if all is turned off..

1391
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Defective 5D MK III.....
« on: March 22, 2012, 02:56:13 PM »
I see a lens that's not absolutely calibrated and I'm seeing what looks like heavy color-noise reduction, def not the sharpness I see from my 5d2. It looks over processed and too much NR.

On a more positive note, the DR looks to have more detail in the highlights.

1392
EOS Bodies / Re: Unofficial Canon Mirrorless Concept
« on: March 22, 2012, 09:24:32 AM »
Makte THAT camera FF bundle with that lens and I have already bought it, looks beautiful, and great size. Awesome!

1393
EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the 1D X?!
« on: March 22, 2012, 05:15:33 AM »
I agree.

And also, the availability is months away for normal people anyway. June is what I've been told. This is, of course, because of the damn Olympics....

1394
EOS Bodies / Re: DXO Optics Hands on Review
« on: March 22, 2012, 04:51:12 AM »
Speaking of the autofocus they say:"Unlike the 1DX, however, it loses the coupling of color measurement to exposure."
I'd like to know, in what situations would this be a problem? Thanks.

5D Mark III simply doesn't have color-aware exposure metering. This feature is only available in 1D X.

And that has everything to do with tracking a subject. But Canon have also stated that the 5d3 is better at tracking than the mk4.

1395
EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the 1D X?!
« on: March 22, 2012, 04:13:13 AM »
I think the DR of the D4 look better than the 5d2, and less chroma noise, but this is purley my opinion, not done anything to test them in the same setting at all. Just wanted to point that out. And over 1600 the D4 is better.

YES, I am buying a 1d X, man, I'm really annoyed by these comments and even threads of people asking me if I can afford to get a 1d X ... If you want I'll post a copy of my bankstatement if you care so damn much if I have the money or not, I'll be VERY sure to post a picture of me, my 1d X, the receipt with my name AND that days newspaper when it arrives, just to shut you up.


Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 113