« on: May 04, 2012, 05:07:52 AM »
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.
Fix, good or not. It doesn't look good to most people. I hear you that some equipment have duct tape inside but most people dont know this and after this people will hear that canon "fixed" all their 5D3 with duct tape, it's not going to be good. lots of them aren't going to buy the camera because of it and if canon will come up with a new revision, which they might, it will definitely affect resale value.
Its not duct tape its "Proprietary weather/light sealing material"
Just out of curiosity, do you actually own a Mark III because your analogy is nonsense. Lens microadjustments only need to be performed in rare cases. Usually the camera and lens fit within a tolerance of each other and those microadjustments aren't necessary. The fact that there does seem to be a case for those adjustments to be made suggests that there may be something wrong with the Mark III that it didn't fit within those tolerances. And by the way, I'm not the first person to report the soft focusing issues the the Mark III. Instead of being a Canon cheerleader and attacking people who discover a potential problem, perhaps you should consider the reality that large corporations sometimes do cut corners in the name of profit.
On both my 7D and 5D3 as well as on rented 5D2 in the past three years I had to do AMFA on almost every lens. Some needed only ±2 while others as much as 15. So criticizing the sharpness without performing it is like accepting a speeding ticket from an uncalibrated speed gun. You wouldn't do that, right?
Another thing, in regards to low light shooting, is that the 5D3 is rated to operate at 1-20EV while the 1D4 and 1DX are rated to 0-20EV. That could also have had a negative impact on your findings at the club. Nothing wrong with the camera.
WTF no fix for the 200mm f2 IS?!?!?!
Geez some of you gys pick a pin point of a particular image and alter images to show something that wasn;t there just to get a lok at how the shadows play in some scenes. . .
The mkIII is a total gem! Its AF is astounding . . . ISO is amazing especailly in jpg I think . . video is a no contest scenario . .mkIII rules!
Now if you all want to spend days and nights thihnkning of DR in the smallest coreners of some generic image, then go ahead . . but if you are thinkning of a more than WELL ROUNDED camera, the mkIII is without doubt the best there is. The AF on the D800 is choppy and the burst rate on the mkIII gives you more bang for your buck when paired with that AF and fps. The LCD on the mkIII is the best too, while over at Nikon they are still trying to make up their minds what colour mcast they like on the D800 v D3s etc etc etc. D800 is a great camea for the amount of MP it offers, and it is in another class in terms of res and shadow detail/DR. That is not something that willg et you a better image out in teh field where DR in any given scene is variable anyway. With the mkIII you even have in-camera DR system where it brackets for you and presents you a final image. . . if able to do this in raw format, then yay!
The video posted over at Fstoppers shoing just how good the mkIII is over the D800 is fricken astounding! check it out, and then ask yourselves whether you want to talk about DR, shadow detail, and ISO. . .
Canon 5D Mark II vs. Mark III vs. Nikon D800 - Candlelight: High-ISO
this video kinda shows how the Nikon cameras are heavily biased towards bringing out the shadow detail, and it shows how that may influence DR tests in the lab ( not sure about that, though) . . remember they measured only the sensor.
it's not a matter of "I can't live with that image quality"
it's a matter of "why should I pay $500 more for significantly poorer image quality, it should be $500 LESS!!"
Well, I want to buy a Bentley GT for 30K.
Not at all. If you read the original post price is not the issue here. The issue is Canon is doing thing in vacuum and are more concerned about their product proliferation and different ion rather then competition or coming with a killer package. Their pursuit for maximizing profit through marginal upgrades is getting obvious. Ok, maybe marginal is not the right word here but you get the idea...not saying the mkiii is bad here guys,it just seem Nikon tried harder to come out with a WOW product.
not stressing mate! I have not burned $3500 for the body! the only interesting picture that I see in your posting is the one with the buggy - but again, any camera who shots in RAW - you can post process the images and do HDR to get nice textures and pleasing dynamics in the pic!
Um...what? On a 47.6mp FF sensor (which would be the equivalent pixel density of an 18mp APS-C), if you crop the 18mp APS-C sized center of the frame...you would get the exact same effective focal length...160-640. Are you thinking about the 200-400mm with 1.4x TC? If so, that would be 320-640 effective @ APS-C crop. I'm curious where you got 400-640mm effective...I was saying you'd get 46MP at up to 400mm, but to effectively go beyond 400mm you can crop. Setting the floor at 18MP, you reach the same 18MP at 640mm effective as with 7D.So why do people bother paying thousands for EF 400 L's and above if they could simply buy 1 camera and crop in? Because of quality. I would rather have Canon get the quality right first at 22.3. I have a 41mp medium format if I want bigger, but then medium format also has a different quality to it that the D800 can't fully replicate. If you need to get closer, GET closer. Stop decreasing you IQ by cropping in in post.If I could get closer, I would be able to walk on water and fly. As far as I know, I am not related to Superman, so that is not an option. Sure, I'd love the massive telephotos too. If I had the cash, I'd get them, as well as an entourage to help carry them around. Medium format is about the worst camera for my needs. For less demanding uses, I have the 5D2 at half the price of the 5D3, but neither come close to the 7D in this application. And that is the big point here. I don't care if the kit does better in another application. I'm concerned with what it does for me. Do not try to impose a different set of irrelevant criteria to my needs.
Besides, I'm not decreasing my IQ from my benchmark, which is the 7D. Having a high MP will allow cropping to that when necessary, and when not, a significant resolution increase. Put simply, if Canon had released a 5D3 with a sensor like the D800 in it, I'd have one in my kit bag right now.
This has nothing to do with the latest scores.
My point is that these are numbers published by ONE company only.
So what ? no-one suggested otherwise.
Canon suspends 5D Mark III shipping
"Light leaks" investigation ongoing