January 31, 2015, 04:03:19 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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 ... 53 54 [55] 56 57 ... 71
Kudos to Nikon. Since the D800 beats the Phase One IQ180 according to this test, I suppose all the medium format guys will be switching to Nikon :)

Or better yet, maybe it will poke the MF people to find ways to produce some more entry level backs or something.  There are so many wonderful (and affordable) MF cameras floating around the used market, but the backs tend to be disproportionately expensive.. it would be nice if the D800 forced them to reevaluate their lineup and produce backs to take advantage of that rather untapped market....

I completely agree. That's why I love competition, even if it comes in the form of a Nikon body.

OK, what follows is somewhat irrelevant, but I'll make the analogy anyway. In the hot rodding world, there are tech heads, and racers. Tech heads get hung up on an engine's specs. Racers just want to get to the finish line first, specs be damned. 

As far as specs are concerned, the motor in my race car is a dinosaur. It doesn't have dual overhead camshafts, multi-valve cylinder heads, gasoline direct injection, variable valve timing, or a turbocharger. It only turns 7,000 rpm, has just two valves per cylinder, and it still relies on a carburetor. Even so, it still makes 796 horsepower. I'm still waiting for one of these high-tech, DOHC, turbocharged, direct injection, variable valve-timing motors to beat my old dinosaur at the track :) Consider this a long-winded way of saying that specs aren't everything.

V8 did you have a look at those raws I posted?

Yes I did. They looked great, and I can't wait until my 5DIII finally shows up. WTF, B&H, where's mine at :)?

I'll have to do some more shooting to compare the 5D3 and 5D2 better as those arent apples and apples
my gut feel is at ISO 100 there is going to be a negligable difference between the 2
but i was always very happy with the 5D2 low iso performance anyway.

I'm perfectly content with that :) I'm of the opinion that the 5DII was such a phenomenal performer at low ISO, it would have been silly to expect a substantial improvement from the 5DIII. Honestly, I never upgraded from my 5DC to the MKII because while the resolution increase and one stop improvement in ISO was nice, I didn't feel like it was a huge upgrade IQ wise, and Canon didn't address its biggest weakness (AF and FPS). With the 5DIII, I get all the benefits of the Mark II but with pro-grade AF, a fast burst rate, and pro-grade build quality. What's not to like :)?

I feel the package is greater than the sum of its parts everything together is very nicely balanced I have to say i really like the 6fps 4 was a bit light but didnt bother me and 10 i felt was over the top on the 1D unless shooting fast action which i never do.
so far its looking good but i really want to do some more detailed IQ comparisons

I think 6 FPS is a good number. I covered an autocross last weekend with my 1DIIn. Even with cars changing directions abruptly on the track, its 8.5 FPS are a bit excessive for this type of use. I ended up with a bunch of redundant frames that just got deleted. For an 8-year-old body, however, the 1DII's AF is freakishly good even with only 1 cross-type sensor. With results like that, I'm very eager to give the 5DIII's 61-point system a whirl.   

EOS Bodies / Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« on: March 23, 2012, 03:25:28 PM »
I strikes me that the 5DIII is the amalgam of the 5DII and the 1Ds3 and the 1DX just an upgrade to the 1D4. On this basis I feel the price is very reasonable in that they have turned a semi-pro product into a full pro product.

I suspect the spec peepers have wrongly judged the 5DIII in the same way they poo poo'd the 70-300L.

My thoughts exactly. There's nothing that the 1DsIII does better than the 5DIII, but the 5DIII is half the price, yet people are complaining. Strange. And don't even get me started on the 70-300L haters.

I wonder how the 5DIII would be received if it had a 40-45 mp sensor, same consumer grade AF, same slow 4 FPS burst rate, and same consumer grade build quality? I very much prefer the all-around capability of the 5DIII as it's currently spec'd. 

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss about what DxO has to say about either the D800 or the 5D Mk III: my eyes tell me what I need to know, and everything I've seen so far suggests that while each will have its strengths, neither will be significantly better than the other at the image level.

And nothing else matters.

This point is key! Great images aren't judged by the technical specs of the cameras used to capture them. It's just some dude looking at it and saying, "dayum, that's one bad@ss shot." Personally, based on what little we've seen so far, I prefer "the look" of the 5D3's files over the D800 for no other reason than they just look better to me. Depending on a person's bias, maybe that perception changes at the pixel-peeping level, but no one other than tech heads uses pixel peeping as a means of judging the artistic value of an image.

Kudos to Nikon. Since the D800 beats the Phase One IQ180 according to this test, I suppose all the medium format guys will be switching to Nikon :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark 3 Queue @ B&H
« on: March 23, 2012, 12:11:19 PM »
Any idea on the status of body only 5DIII inventory at B&H?

EOS Bodies / Re: Dpreview first impressions of the D800
« on: March 23, 2012, 12:37:19 AM »
I know I'm supposed to wet my pants when I blow them up to 100 percent, but those sample images just aren't doing it for me. Compared to the 5DIII samples, the D800's images looks flatter and far less punchy, for lack of a proper technical term :)

EOS Bodies / Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all
« on: March 23, 2012, 12:21:37 AM »
have you actually used it or just looking at internet waffle?
This camera is awesome period.
I feel like a veil has been lifted going from the 5D2 to this
I was never unhappy with the IQ from the mk2

The funny thing is that while the tech heads and pixel peepers are going poo poo over the spec sheets and 100% crops, I find myself blown away by the overall IQ of the 5DIII's files. For lack of a better phrase, I find the image quality f***ing stunning. The color, contrast, and sharpness have that film-like quality the 5-series bodies are known for, and now the MKIII matches that up with pro-grade AF and build quality, 6 FPS, and dual card slots. I will put every single one of those features to good use on every single shoot. However, I will never hear back from a client complaining about how they weren't impressed by what they saw when they pixel-peeped my images at 100%.

I understand that judging a camera merely by the "wow factor" of its  images is far too subjective for tech heads, but that's fine by me because photography is a subjective medium. I also concede that the D800 seems to top the 5DIII in many technical benchmarks at a lower price, but that's OK too, because its advantages aren't enough to make me a better photographer.

IMHO, the 5DII was a smashing success not because of how well it performed in a lab, but rather due to the stunning quality of its images. The 5DII's files had a certain "look" that was immensely appealing to pros and hobbyists alike, and based on early user feedback, the 5DIII will continue that tradition. If this is what Canon can accomplish with a $h!tty sensor, I'm not complaining :)

EOS Bodies / Re: How "raw" are raw files?
« on: March 21, 2012, 04:32:25 PM »
Both Canon and Nikon ALREADY use processing to increase the dynamic range of RAW files. Nikon's processing is several times more advanced than Canon's though.

Very interesting. So is the Sony/Nikon Exmor sensor that much better than Canon's full-frame sensors, or is some of its advantage in DR attributable to better in-camera processing? Is contrast and color reproduction/saturation also tweaked by in camera before the information is recorded as a raw file?

IMHO, all that really matters is the end product, regardless how large of a role in-camera processing and the sensor itself plays in the equation. I suppose the notion that raw images accurately reflect sensor performance is bogus, but not quite as bogus as a jpeg.

EOS Bodies / Re: How "raw" are raw files?
« on: March 21, 2012, 03:18:03 PM »
I wouldn't worry about this as this is what we get and is the best that Canon engineers have deemed we will have and we can't change that unless there is a firmware update.

I'm not worried about it at all. I trust the egghead engineers at Canon have done their homework and created algorithms that produce the best raw files as possible. If each manufacturer applies some processing to all its raw files, then I find it somewhat silly to so heavily scrutinize raw files as if they're a genuine representation of sensor technology. 

EOS Bodies / How "raw" are raw files?
« on: March 21, 2012, 02:30:10 PM »
With all the comparisons of high ISO raw files that's been going on lately, my pea brain needs some clarification on a few issues. My understanding has always been that raw files represent the information that the camera actually captures in its purest form, with no manipulation whatsoever. However, others have mentioned that Nikon bodies "cook" their files by applying in-camera noise reduction. Obviously, at that point a raw file doesn't represent what the camera captured in it's purest form, and therefore does not accurately represent the performance of the sensor. Does Canon do the same thing with its raw files?

This raises a few more issues. If a camera applies noise reduction to its raw files, what's to say that it can't extend dynamic range with in-camera processing as well? I defer whether or not extending DR of raw files via in-camera software is even possible to the real tech heads on here, but if a camera did do this, how would you even know unless a manufacturer disclosed this info in its literature? 

On one hand, I can see why you'd want a true, unprocessed raw file as a means of measuring sensor performance. On the other hand, if in-camera processing is sophisticated enough to improved overall IQ to the point where that a photographer can't even tell that in-camera processing was applied in the first place, who really cares?

Landscape / Re: Post your best HDR Photographs
« on: March 21, 2012, 01:35:40 PM »
From someone who isn't too crazy about HDR, most of these are very nicely done! Great work, fellas!

EOS Bodies / Re: Why the Japan hate Canon
« on: March 21, 2012, 01:27:11 PM »
yeah.... the 4,200 AUD translates to 4,529 USD. makes me completely unsympathetic to the Americans who are complaining about the price.

Bahumbug. Have you seen how fat we Americans are? We need to save as much money on camera gear as possible so we can spend it on fried chicken and pork chops :D

EOS Bodies / Re: Humidity
« on: March 21, 2012, 01:24:22 PM »
Whenever you bring your camera outside (in extremely humid places- not limited to FL), put it in a dry bag/sack.  Let the body acclimate to the temperature and pull it out of the bag.  This will minimize condensation on the lens and inside/outside of the body. 

Great advice. I've had to learn this the hard way.

IMHO, the 85% humidity rating is conservative. I've shot many, many  times in 90% or more humidity in the vicious Houston heat without any problems with my 20D and 5DC, both of which have no weather sealing.

Pages: 1 ... 53 54 [55] 56 57 ... 71