Has anyone loaded the picture up into photoshop and tried adjusting the various levels to see if there's any easily observed evidence of cut-n-paste?
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.
Looks very similar to me in terms of the lighting although I spose Canon could have some standardised setup.
Personally, I think the 5D mkIII specs suit the needs of landscape photographers. Or, at the very least, it suits my needs as a landscape/nature photographer.
My reasoning is thus: I'm often shooting in the morning or evening (golden hour) in low light at an f-stop between f/8 and f/11 and quite often I'll be using various filters from polarizers to graduated ND filters. This means that in order to get decent shutter speed I generally have to crank the ISO up, but I want as clean an image as possible. So the 5D mkIII's improvement on the mkII's ISO will be a great help.
Some have ISO50, but it's not really ISO50, it's just the digital equivalent of attenuation.
You're probably only the second person around here that's asked about low ISO, but I personally can't think of a single reason to need it (not saying reasons don't exist). So if you'd be so kind, why?
This is just a theory. And let me first off say that I am a landscape photographer. I shoot some news and weddings, but primarily landscape. And I'll say that I was disappointed that the 5Diii wasn't higher MP.
I wonder if the reason that almost all the new and updated features in the new 5D are geared for wedding, sports, nature, news shooters because these are the types of shooters that DSLRs are geared toward naturally. Would it be true that most studio and landscape shooters that make the serious dough use medium format digital and full frame film. Where those who are on more limited budgets settle for DSLRs as a budget option. Afterall many features that are on DSLRs, even the idea of a single-lens reflex system aren't necessary for a landscape photographer, and some such as an SLR system even limit quality. Aren't optics more difficult when needing to put a mirror in the way of the lens and sensor vs. a rangefinder system.
I'm not saying that professional landscapers and studio shooters don't use DSLRs and some make a good chunk of change. But in general DSLRs are designed for the exact audience that the new 5D seems to be geared for.
So I think that canon looks at the bottom line and realizes that no matter how many people want more megapixels there is simply a bigger market that wants low ISO, FPS, etc.
My hope is that Canon comes out with a camera that does fit that niche market. I'd pre-order it in a second.
Like I said, I'm just proposing a theory. Anyone have thoughts?
I think most of us are pretty solidly confident that Canon has resolved their read noise issues, and are probably getting much closer to that 13.9 stops of maximum DR that Sony Exmor sensors are getting...so the difference is probably less than a stop, (personally I hope and believe it will be in the realm of 0.25 or less stops), of DR difference between any one of the 1D X, 5D III, D800, D4 and D7000.
I had hoped that but earlier today someone on DPR measured 6.02 ADU for the 5D3 at ISO 100 while my 5D2 measures 6.09 ADU.
Who did that measurement? If your talking someone on the forums, thats not what I'm referring to. If it was an official step wedge test based on JPEG output (which are usually what official DPR DR tests are based on), those tests are generally worthless (JPEG compression obliterates DR.) The DXO tests are very accurate, and measure the sensor hardware at a lower level than a JPEG step wedge test does. From a headroom standpoint, i.e. the ability to recover highlights or shadows, DXO's tests are more accurate (as demonstrated by the many videos on the net showing unbelievable shadow recovery with the D7000, where you can see before your eyes the recovery of 4-6 stops of what appears to be solid black in under exposed photos.)
I'm still getting this if I try access the site via the Canadian spelling www.canonrumours.com
did someone say you can hav ethe 5Dmk2 modified to have a lockable mode dial?
Quote(1) Consider that Canon said this camera will be the best DSLR for video. I'm pretty sure that is a significant statement for them to make and the camera's sensor plays a large part in that.I think this is more a discussion about still photography than video. there are better video cameras with interchangeable lenses out there for the big video crowd, even from canon. 1080 is nothing resolution wise. The still photographer's definition of image quality is lightyears beyond the compressed video output of the 5DIII.
(2) As the sensor resolution goes up, the requirements for shutter speed increase so as to counteract the problems associated with image blur on the sensor. At 21-22MP, it is on the cusp of becoming difficult to manage. I'm kind of looking forward to the Nikon fan bois posting 100% crops from their D800 with a 50mm lens and requiring 1/200 to get a non-blurry picture when hand held and the screams associated with that.
You're correct that technique will matter more with higher MP sensors. I don't think it is a bad thing. It just means you have to be mindful of it. Telephoto lenses require more technique and skill than wide angle lenses as any camera motion is amplified. Yet people don't stop using telephotos because of that. worrying about pixel level microblur at 100% crops of 36.3 MP is pointless. The image itself won't look worse when printed as if it was 22MP at the same final size. So there is no advantage to less resolution whereas you defintively can get more detail whenever you don't mess up.
One more obvious thing just hit me that N-fans never mentions.
Same size sensor but more pixels. Every pixel is smaller.
That in term means that every pixel get less light.
Less light means more noise.
How can people not see this.