Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: It's official!

« on: March 02, 2012, 12:46:29 AM »

And B&H has it for $3500

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html

I wonder if that's Canon's price or a holding price. The Canon website still does not give a price for either the 1DX or the 5D3. Instead, you are advised to "Contact us."

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Best part about 5D III?

« on: February 29, 2012, 06:24:00 PM »

Isn't this question best asked on March 2^nd, when (possibly) we'll know what the features are--or maybe even later when we have some testing and reviews to tell us how well those features work?

18

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 29, 2012, 02:49:15 PM »

It's too bad the swamping of the servers sort of dried up this thread, although maybe the subject has now been covered in reasonable depth. I've been looking back over the posts, and I have to say this is one of the most informative and civilized Internet discussions I've ever encountered.

We all know about the excesses and personality aberrations that online forums seem to encourage, but this forum in general and this thread in particular strike me as an example of the positive possibilities of the Internet. I posted several questions myself over the course of the thread and within 24 hours had incisive answers from knowledgeable respondents. You can't get that off Wikipedia unless you already know a lot about the subject you're querying. Have there been disagreements between posters? Of course. Knowledgeable people frequently disagree on specific points. But for the most part the discussion has been carried out without giving or taking the kind of personal offense that has led me to shy away from participating in these discussions.

As a film era fogey trying to expand my grasp of what has become an ever more technical medium, this is exactly what I hoped to get when I registered for this forum. Not only have I increased my understanding of the subject in an academic sense, but I've acquired some practical, useful knowedge about what I can reasonably expect from the 5D3. When (if) it arrives I'll have a better idea of whether it's time for a new body or in the short term my precious photographic dollars would be better spent on, say, a full lash-up of Lee GNDs.  (I've noticed that a lot of people get a little sheepish about the geekiness of participating in these discussions, and I know, I know, it's the photographer not the equipment, but, ... it seems to me that the medium has indeed become so technical--and expensive--that making informed purchases plays at least a modest part in improving the quality of one's photographic output.)

In any event, I'd like to offer a little word of appreciation to jrista, dtaylor, LetTheRightLensIn, Mt Spokane, mkln, Kernuak, Tijn, Flake, Flake, torger, Marsu42 and all the others who made this a stimulating and useful discussion. And Hello to Aglet, another noobie who got sucked off the forum sidelines and into the fray by the issue of dynamic range in Canon equipment.

And while I'm at it, amen to jrista's previous post:

"You need every scrap of DR you can get your hands on. Far more often than not, you have to compromise on image quality by using graduated neutral density filters, which almost always create some kind of undesirable outcome to one degree or another (i.e. black mountain peaks, visible separation between sky and land where land or trees protrude through the flat horizon, etc.) When its obviously possible to NOT lose some two stops of DR to read noise because its been done by the competition, its entirely valid to ask for the same improvement and expect something be done by Canon to provide the same benefit to its customers...especially for the prices they seem to be asking for new gear (which is greater than inflation would indicate, if $3500 for a 5D III body is actually true.)"

There are three significant problems with NDs.

1) As jrista points out, it's hard not to leave obvious traces of them in the photograph--especially if, like me, mountain scenery is a favorite subject.

2) A good set is considerable added weight, especially if you're an aging backpacker who's already made the concession to artistic integrity of schlepping a full frame DSLR and several lens.

3) Shooting landscapes is not like covering the sidelines of the NBA or NFL, but it's amazing how often the best shots involve serendipity and "shooting from the hip." One day 40 years ago I waited until the rain stopped to take out the trash--and walked into what remains the most spectacular sunset I've ever seen. Cloud textures in infinite variety and god rays up the ying yang. I dropped the can, ran inside and grabbed my tripod and old Mamiya SLR and fired off the half roll of film in the camera. I'd never heard of a neutral density filter, but I got the shot. The scene was gone in two minutes. If I'd been fumbling around mounting, testing and aligning NDs on my 5D2 I'd have gotten a well-exposed shot of the afterglow.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 26, 2012, 01:15:09 AM »

Hopefully Canon can finally match it and it's not something that is only possible with something needing a Sony patent (they use column ADC on their sensors that have the amazing low ISO DR) and/or that Canon can do what is needed with their current fab.

When I consider the relatively slow progress Canon has made in DR, I also sometimes wonder if Sony has some recent patents that Canon is having difficulty circumventing.  Canon is now competing with some heavy hitters in the electronics industry. LTRLI, can you expand a little on what column ADC is?

There were also some older technologies that had some success in expanding DR. As I recall, a few years back Fuji was building DSLRs that featured ganged pairs of high and low sensitivity pixels. Again (if memory serves) Fuji was in the unfortunate position of having to retrofit their technology into Nikon D200 bodies, but apparently the cameras actually did have more latitude than the CCD sensors of the time and enjoyed some popularity among wedding photographers. Anybody have any experience with those cameras or know why that technology faded from the scene?

20

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 25, 2012, 08:18:37 PM »

Thanks for the info, jrista. I have to say I was hoping your thread would crystallize feelings and unleash a torrent of pent-up frustration among the Canon faithful.

Guess not. This thread is in its second day; it's gotten billing on the masthead, and there are a total of six responses. Meanwhile, the thread speculating about other features of the 5D3 is probably going on 40 pages.

And you know, I'd forgotten about all the fuss Canon made about  the 14-bit rendering of the 5D2 and what a big difference that was going to make. It didn't--and the preliminary talk from Canon about the improved jpeg performance of the IDX makes me worried that they may be planning to finesse the issue again in the coming models.

 

21

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 25, 2012, 04:51:22 AM »

jrista,
 I posted a very similar comment on the thread about reaction to the firmed-up specs of the 5D3.  (I too begged for two more stops of DR--fat chance.) To me the lack of dynamic range in the 5d2 is its most glaring deficiency-- and the 5D2 is probably one of Canon's better performers in this regard. And yet there seems to be very limited concern about dynamic range among the users of this forum.  I think I am the 393rd reader of your post, and the first to make a response.

For me DR is a constant problem--much more so than autofocus or high ISO performance. Any time there is a horizon in my composition it's a pretty good bet that something is either going to be blown out or blocked up. As you say, there are many occasions where neutral density filters, AEB/HDR, even a tripod, are not practical because of subject movement, location, etc. What's really disturbing is to compare my current efforts to some of my 40-year-old prints from 35 mm film. I don't expect two stops in the new 5D, but if there isn't at least one real stop, I'll spend my photographic budget on lenses. The 24L TS-E is looking mighty tasty.

I was going to open a thread on this subject myself, but I'm new to this forum and before flogging what I assumed was a thoroughly dead horse, I did a forum search. Until you started this thread I found incidental snippets, but not one thread devoted specifically to DR issues.

You've raised the question in relation the next 5D; if it isn't hijacking the thread I'd like to broaden the discussion to the whole issue of DR in digital photography. Is this a historico-political problem? Are we in this pickle because we haven't made our needs clear to the manufacturers? There are ten demands for better high ISO performance, more resolution, or faster autofocus for every complaint about limited dynamic range. We've seen major advances in all those other areas. If Canon thought we were really bothered by the limited DR of their products would we see that two-stop DR improvement in the 5d4?

Maybe it's a specialized problem, primarily of concern to landscape photographers? I can see where DR might not be as big an issue for studio photographers, where the photographer and not nature is in charge of the light as well as the composition. Do wildlife shooters miss the dynamic range of film?

Or is this a technical problem? Digital photography has made amazing strides over film in areas like resolution, maybe even color rendition. Modern high ISO performance makes 20th century efforts to "push" film look like something out of the bronze age. On the other hand, perhaps DR is particularly daunting challenge for CMOS technology. Would you have to give up something else to realize a significant gain in DR? Then too, is there a technical reason why Canon lags behind other manufacturers in this area?

All of this leads back to your question of whether the next few generations of digital cameras hold any significant promise for improvement in DR. Do we just have to get in Canon's face, or are we condemned to wait for an as-yet undreamt-of technology? It would be interesting to hear on these issues from people knowledgeable about the historic and technical aspects of photography.


 

22

EOS Bodies / Re: what advantage does canon see in delaying their response to d800???

« on: February 25, 2012, 12:47:47 AM »

With all the natural disasters in southeast Asia, it's not clear to me that Canon is delaying its response to the D800. That said, I have always believed--based on my own experience--that Canon pulled back and reworked the 5d2 at the last moment. During the spring of 2008 I was haunting camera shops everywhere in search of information, and by April almost every dealer I talked to was convinced that the 5d2 was in the mail. And then suddenly there was dead air for months. The camera wasn't announced until September and didn't show up in my (American) market until mid-November.

I have no hard proof that this was not Canon's planned schedule all along.  However, several events happened during that time frame which might plausibly have caused the company to reconsider the feature set of the 5d2, and that in turn might establish a precedent for the current situation.

1. Nikon introduced video into DSLRs with the D90. After the release of the 5d2, Canon officals claimed, however, that the addition of basic video was done at the request of officials from Reuters news agency. My best guess is that a combination of these two factors led to the late inclusion of video, and that this was primarily responsible for the delay in the camera's release.

2. Nikon introduced the D700. It was a strong offering, and it meant for the first time that Canon no longer had to itself a full-frame prosumer market which was even more profitable than anyone outside the company suspected. I've always wondered if that didn't spark the inclusion of an updated version of the 21 MP IDs3 sensor in the 5d2. Another of my pet theories is that it has taken the major Japanese camera makers a decade to begin to grasp the difference between the optical-mechanical business of building film cameras and the essentially electronic business of producing digital cameras. I suspect that Canon executives were convinced that build quality alone would be enough to maintain IDs3 sales volume. Even so, they must have suspected the image quality of the 5d2 would cause some erosion of flagship sales; I believe they thought that the losses to internal competion would be acceptable if upgrading the 5d2 would crush the upstart Nikon full-framer before it gained traction on Canon's turf.

It's a Japanese company with a flair for secrecy, and no one outside the corporate culture really knows what informs its decisions. But the introduction of the 5d2 always suggested to me that Canon was a company which was willing and capable of responding fairly quickly to competition and market forces. And I think it's at least possible that this has happened again with the 5d3.

23

EOS Bodies / Re: Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?

« on: February 23, 2012, 02:23:13 AM »

When I pre-ordered, my 5d2, I told the salesman I hoped it would come in at 15-16 MP, which struck me as offering the best pixel density for 2008 technology. Given the relative strengths of the D700 and the 5d2, that seems like a reasonably astute shot in the dark for someone who isn't particularly tech-savvy. So. That's my credential for saying that something in the 20 MP range (18-22) strikes me as the sweet spot for current technology.  Landscape photography is my first--but not my only--photographic passion, and I don't envy Nikon shooters their 36 megapixels. If the D700 demonstrated anything, it was that 12 very good MPs made a more adaptable camera than 21 good MPs, and the lower resolution was not a significant issue in many real-world shooting situations. (Even today, art directors who demand 30+ MP are indulging the fantasy that they work for a high end art publisher. There are no newspapers and almost no magazines that print to standards near that.)

MY personal photographic road map in retirement is to shoot enough local school events to provide the money and equipment to travel to the world's most exotic locations and become fabulously rich and famous for my calendar art. For that I'll need a camera that can handle the ISOs demanded in the dim, grim flourescent light of the middle school gyms and cafeterias where you find eighth grade basketball, fifth grade talent shows and Daddy-daughter dances. Outdoors, it won't have to have the frame rate of the cameras on the side lines at the Super Bowl or the Olympics, but it will need to be reasonably fast, with a high rate of AI servo hits for fast-moving sports like lacrosse, football and soccer. When I take it to the Tetons during the summer, it will have to have all the accurate color rendition,  resolution and dynamic range you can squeeze out of ~20 MP. Oh yeah, and a 100% OVF with which to see it all.

In all seriousness, the speculative specs for the 5d3  suit my generalist purposes to a T.

That said, I haven't made up my mind yet about upgrading. I share one sentiment with several other contributors to this thread: what's currently competing for the dollars in my photographic budget is Canon's own upgraded lenses. I'll also have reservations if Canon prices the 5d3 $500 above the D800, and does so not because of demonstrably superior technology but in the belief that videographers locked in by the 5d2 will provide a profitable sales volume in spite of the price differential.

My decision about upgrading--like that of Neuroanatomist--will depend upon an evaluation of the full spec list--and probably a handful of reviews. (My options, however, will not include the 1DX, and I don't plan to pre-order as I did with the 5d2.)

There is one feature, however,  that could make me take the plunge blindly. The search engine for this site shows surprisingly little on the subject, and I hope to open a thread on the matter in the next few days. Suppose Canon changed absolutely nothing else about the 5d2--including the much-maligned autofocus. If the 5d3 featured an honest (RAW) two-stop increase in dynamic range, I'd rob a bank yesterday to come up with the MSRP.

11

24

Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?

« on: February 20, 2012, 09:06:44 PM »

I'm a noobie who has been "lurking" on this forum for some time. I hang around because a majority of the members strike me as both reasonable and knowledgeable people, and I frequently discover issues and photographic possibilities I wouldn't  have known about otherwise. I haven't joined previously, however, precisely  because of the whole karma and virulent "fanboy" behavior that sometimes marrs the discussion.

The recent introduction of Nikon's D800 seems to have whipped a certain subset of CR members into a particularly high dither. Anyone who even suggests that they might be considering this camera is tarred and feathered Internet style. "Stop whining. Leave! Who cares what you think, traitor?"  Most people on this forum probably have a significant financial commitment to a particular camera maker's line of products,  but how can anyone be so personally threatened by someone else's musings about a choice of consumer product?

Fanboys may say they don't care, but  I'll bet Canon does. The features of the recently announced IDX strongly imply that Canon at least sometimes listen to its customers, and it's my guess the company is concerned when a competitor's camera provokes significant talk about defection among those customers serious enough to participate in forums like this one.

I'm one of the people with a financial commitment to Canon far beyond my capacity to change horses, but all the major players are making good equipment these days and I'm not too worried about Canon's ability to answer Nikon (and Sony) with a competitive product. That, however, doesn't alter the fact that the D800 is a very attractive offering from Nikon. Fake Chuck Westfall nothwithstanding, we don't really know much yet about the important criterion of image quality, but in terms of build (weathersealing, shutter life, etc.) and feature set (autofocus, storage, format flexibility, resolution, etc.) it is a startling advance and--for the moment at least--the new standard at the "high prosumer" price point. That's a fact, and saying so--or even ruminating on the possibility of buying a D800--ought not to get one pilloried on this forum.

Previous posters have raised several additional objections to the whole karma thing. First, as it applies to an Internet forum, "karma" is an extremely nebulous concept. What exactly is being applauded or censured? Grasp of facts? The opinions derived fromj those facts? One's attitude toward the subject? The cut of one's jib? Secondly, the karma button turns what should be discussion or a debate into an election--which is something fundamentally different.  A discussion or debate strives to inform, resolve and include. The purpose of an election is to include certain parties and exclude others.

Unfortunately, I decided to formally join this discussion too late to vote in the poll. And I see the karma crowd has won the election. It's not surprsing, voting is their thing. However, Craig, if you read you're own polls, you might notice this: the great majority of people who have taken the time to post a comment favor either significantly modifying the karma feature or doing away with it altogether. My now non-binding vote would be to can it completely. Voting is a lazy man's way of framing an argument; it does nothing to advance the discussion, and as I and several other people can personally testify, it does discourage participation.