5D3, 1D5 and 1Ds4 Timeline [CR1]

[DetlevCM]

Which isn't an issue with a reputable airline.

Have you  ever flown  a three letter airline started with 'S" that is based in northern Europe?? It spell out clearly as one peice of carry on with weight limit of 8 Kg. This airline is just as reputable as Lufthansa. Did you  check the web site of Lufthansa lately??? It also have the same limit without additional allowance for lap top or camera. You got through without problem may be due to: 1. you are lucky, 2. you did not fly recently. But we should not bet on our luck all the time.

SAS - yes, I have flown with them, not often though. -> On that note though, SAS is trying to lower their price and directly compete with the low fare segment.

With Lufthansa it's not a "one off" - they don't weigh your hand luggage, although optical size might be a part of it -> standard laptop bag. Obviously, if you brought along "Hand luggage" as large as checked luggage then they might want to have a look.
I also tend to fly East to West, so not on the tourist routes, which might be another reason I have zero problems with weight.

On that note, on your checked luggage Lufthansa has a 10% tolerance which you shouldn't exploit, but should calm your nerves with respect to packing and weight.

[NotABunny]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion.  I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive.  You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO.  I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon.  I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has.  Donning my fireproof suit now!  LOL

Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.

You could always use the still life scene from Imaging Resource, normalized for the same resolution. Pay particular attention to the black velvet cloth and black cup in the lower right, the shadows behind the bottles and the detail and color in the threads along the upper right. On my 23", 1680x1050 monitor, a horizontal image viewed at 40% is roughly the same size as a 12"x16" print.

Imaging Resource takes photos in different (amount of) light; look in EXIF at the exposures. This makes noise comparison irrelevant.

There is a link at http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light.

[DetlevCM]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion.  I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive.  You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO.  I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon.  I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has.  Donning my fireproof suit now!  LOL

Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.

You could always use the still life scene from Imaging Resource, normalized for the same resolution. Pay particular attention to the black velvet cloth and black cup in the lower right, the shadows behind the bottles and the detail and color in the threads along the upper right. On my 23", 1680x1050 monitor, a horizontal image viewed at 40% is roughly the same size as a 12"x16" print.

Imaging Resource takes photos in different (amount of) light; look in EXIF at the exposures. This makes noise comparison irrelevant.

I also see another issue:
They claim the images are unchanged, but  judging from the file size, this cannot be -> the ISO 25600 sampel is way too small.
I suspect they might have used in Camera JPEG with noise reduction.

Anyway, scaled down, the D700 and 5D MK II are pretty much equal -> I didn't scale up the D700 though.

[neuroanatomist]

Just want to point out that now some European airline limits the carry on weight to be 8 Kg (17.5 lbs).  The camera gear alone will be that much weight.

There are limits, and then there are limits.  For internal flights within China, you are limited to one 20 kg piece of checked luggage, and "one carry-on bag that cannot exceed 5kg (11 lbs) in weight and dimensions of 55cm (21 inches) in length, 40cm (15 inches) in width and 20cm (7 inches) in height."  I flew on 3 such flights last month - in all cases, the checked bag was weighed at check-in.  My 'carry-on' bag was a Storm im2500 hard case with all my camera gear and laptop, weighing in at somewhere over 15 kg, 3 times the 'limit' and no one said a thing.

[Bob Howland]

Imaging Resource takes photos in different (amount of) light; look in EXIF at the exposures. This makes noise comparison irrelevant.

There is a link at http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/SLMULTI.HTM

Look under "A Note About Exposure"

[NotABunny]

Imaging Resource takes photos in different (amount of) light; look in EXIF at the exposures. This makes noise comparison irrelevant.

There is a link at http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/SLMULTI.HTM

Look under "A Note About Exposure"

Some readers have suggested that we should hold the lighting absolutely constant, use the same shutter speed and aperture for all cameras at a given ISO setting, and let the images fall where they may. In our experience, though, this would result in greater variation in the appearance of the images, making it harder to judge cameras against each other. Minor inaccuracies in lens aperture, shutter speed, and even the ISO setting can combine to produce quite visible exposure differences.

Well, the link I provided above shows that the photos taken by that guy have the same exposure in EXIF, yet the images have the same brightness! So, their statement is misleading. Moreover, the last time I did a comparison the difference was 1 stop! (not +-1/3)

So, the exposure was the same, but the amount of light was not. I have no idea why this matters, but my experience confirms this fact, plus the fact that the link I gave above shows the both 1D4 and D3s have the same noise level per unit area of sensor (whereas the comparison of the photos from IR shows the opposite).

The only difference is that the IR site introduces an unknown factor in the comparison: the different amount of light. (Plus, I don't remember reading on their website the images come from RAWs, without noise reduction.)

Our convention is to shoot these images with each camera's picture style (known by different names among different manufacturers; basically the presets for contrast/saturation/color mapping) set to the default, since that's what the vast majority of users will do. Default contrast, saturation and color mapping can vary a fair bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the images from some cameras may thus look brighter or duller than those from others. Of course, this is the whole point of showing test photos: The aim isn't to make different cameras' output look like each other, but rather to show what the captured photos do look like, with well-controlled shooting conditions.

Ah, well, so from this I understand that they shoot JPEG with the cameras' default settings because they just want to show the output of cameras, not to allow absolute comparisons.

[mrnwp]

I think it's pretty clear canon will not release at 5iii and 1dv this year.  I can see canon announcing a 1dsiv this year, but it will not be released till summer(maybe later) of 2012.  Personally I am getting pretty tried of the long and delayed windows between announcement and release. Don't think your going to get anything big from canon with these cameras, just more MP's and a redesigned AF that does the same thing the current AF does(marketing gimmick).

[motorhead]

I could live with a 1Ds mk4 like that, provided we do see 40mp. In fact given the possible alternatives, that would suit me pretty well.

Unlike almost everyone else on the planet (or so it seems) I have no interest in video whatsoever. Film making is a totally different field of expertise and it leaves me cold. I will go to my grave believing that video should be left to video cameras and film makers.

No, my requirements from a new 1Ds are simple, superb DR, lowest noise in a dSLR to date and suberb low ISO performance, down to ISO25 please Canon. I have no interest in ISO's beyond 1600.

However, if Canon were planning to simply do that, we would have had it at least 6 months ago. I believe the chatter that claims Canon withdrew the mk4 simply because they decided that to stick with the minimal upgrades as before. There are too many competitors in the "studio" camera market now, Canon would effectively be saying "OK fellas, we've had a good run at the top, now it's your turn". No, Canon must respond to the Pentaxes and the Hasselblads if they wish to retain a foothold in the sector. 

[DetlevCM]

Our convention is to shoot these images with each camera's picture style (known by different names among different manufacturers; basically the presets for contrast/saturation/color mapping) set to the default, since that's what the vast majority of users will do. Default contrast, saturation and color mapping can vary a fair bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the images from some cameras may thus look brighter or duller than those from others. Of course, this is the whole point of showing test photos: The aim isn't to make different cameras' output look like each other, but rather to show what the captured photos do look like, with well-controlled shooting conditions.

Ah, well, so from this I understand that they shoot JPEG with the cameras' default settings because they just want to show the output of cameras, not to allow absolute comparisons.

This statement makes the "comparison" utterly useless and pointless other than for fully automatic point and shoot cameras.
People who buy an SLR (except maybe quite a few of the Rebel crowd) will general NOT just use default settings and play around with them.
Additionally, "standard" or "default" varies a lot between manufacturers.

A test needs to use equal conditions or as close as equal conditions PLUS as close as equal settings for each image to be worth using.

[DetlevCM]

I could live with a 1Ds mk4 like that, provided we do see 40mp. In fact given the possible alternatives, that would suit me pretty well.

Unlike almost everyone else on the planet (or so it seems) I have no interest in video whatsoever. Film making is a totally different field of expertise and it leaves me cold. I will go to my grave believing that video should be left to video cameras and film makers.

No, my requirements from a new 1Ds are simple, superb DR, lowest noise in a dSLR to date and suberb low ISO performance, down to ISO25 please Canon. I have no interest in ISO's beyond 1600.

However, if Canon were planning to simply do that, we would have had it at least 6 months ago. I believe the chatter that claims Canon withdrew the mk4 simply because they decided that to stick with the minimal upgrades as before. There are too many competitors in the "studio" camera market now, Canon would effectively be saying "OK fellas, we've had a good run at the top, now it's your turn". No, Canon must respond to the Pentaxes and the Hasselblads if they wish to retain a foothold in the sector.

"No interest in ISO beyond 1600"... interesting attitude... also, ISO 25, does anybody even offer that?
ISO 50 is already not a true ISO any more and just ISO 100 reduced by 1 stop in camera.
And ISO 1600 - what do you shoot? Landscapes in sunshine and in studios?
Any indoor usage benefits from High ISO, the cleaner the better -> Now there are ranges where you wonder "do we need it", e.g. 102.000 something, but try shooting the interior of a church and you will be hard pressed at ISO 3200 without IS.

[Bob Howland]

Our convention is to shoot these images with each camera's picture style (known by different names among different manufacturers; basically the presets for contrast/saturation/color mapping) set to the default, since that's what the vast majority of users will do. Default contrast, saturation and color mapping can vary a fair bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the images from some cameras may thus look brighter or duller than those from others. Of course, this is the whole point of showing test photos: The aim isn't to make different cameras' output look like each other, but rather to show what the captured photos do look like, with well-controlled shooting conditions.

Ah, well, so from this I understand that they shoot JPEG with the cameras' default settings because they just want to show the output of cameras, not to allow absolute comparisons.

This statement makes the "comparison" utterly useless and pointless other than for fully automatic point and shoot cameras.
People who buy an SLR (except maybe quite a few of the Rebel crowd) will general NOT just use default settings and play around with them.
Additionally, "standard" or "default" varies a lot between manufacturers.

A test needs to use equal conditions or as close as equal conditions PLUS as close as equal settings for each image to be worth using.

You can get the raw images off their "thumbnail index page(s)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2THMB.HTM

and

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3STHMB.HTM

[DetlevCM]

Our convention is to shoot these images with each camera's picture style (known by different names among different manufacturers; basically the presets for contrast/saturation/color mapping) set to the default, since that's what the vast majority of users will do. Default contrast, saturation and color mapping can vary a fair bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the images from some cameras may thus look brighter or duller than those from others. Of course, this is the whole point of showing test photos: The aim isn't to make different cameras' output look like each other, but rather to show what the captured photos do look like, with well-controlled shooting conditions.

Ah, well, so from this I understand that they shoot JPEG with the cameras' default settings because they just want to show the output of cameras, not to allow absolute comparisons.

This statement makes the "comparison" utterly useless and pointless other than for fully automatic point and shoot cameras.
People who buy an SLR (except maybe quite a few of the Rebel crowd) will general NOT just use default settings and play around with them.
Additionally, "standard" or "default" varies a lot between manufacturers.

A test needs to use equal conditions or as close as equal conditions PLUS as close as equal settings for each image to be worth using.

You can get the raw images off their "thumbnail index page(s)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2THMB.HTM

and

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3STHMB.HTM

-> I think I clicked on that link, what they claim to be "original images" is definitely not an original image. -> on the ISO 25600 sample, the image was subject to noise reduction and is too small for an image originally out of the camera. They are also JPEG and not RAW.

[Bob Howland]

You can get the raw images off their "thumbnail index page(s)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2THMB.HTM

and

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3STHMB.HTM

-> I think I clicked on that link, what they claim to be "original images" is definitely not an original image. -> on the ISO 25600 sample, the image was subject to noise reduction and is too small for an image originally out of the camera. They are also JPEG and not RAW.

I don't know what files you're downloading, but the files that I'm downloading from those pages are definitely raw, according to both Photoshop CS5 ACR and Bibble Pro 5.2.2. You can't just click on the image and download the file. You have to go looking for files with .nef and cr2 extensions. Also, Canon raw images include a smaller embedded jpeg. Are you sure that you're not looking at those?

[DetlevCM]

You can get the raw images off their "thumbnail index page(s)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2THMB.HTM

and

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3STHMB.HTM

-> I think I clicked on that link, what they claim to be "original images" is definitely not an original image. -> on the ISO 25600 sample, the image was subject to noise reduction and is too small for an image originally out of the camera. They are also JPEG and not RAW.

I don't know what files you're downloading, but the files that I'm downloading from those pages are definitely raw, according to both Photoshop CS5 ACR and Bibble Pro 5.2.2. You can't just click on the image and download the file. You have to go looking for files with .nef and cr2 extensions. Also, Canon raw images include a smaller embedded jpeg. Are you sure that you're not looking at those?

I can only see the RAW files for some of the house shots, not for all of them.
-> The lab images seem to be JPEG only, at least I don't see a RAW option.