Dale Photographic in Leeds UK have posted that they will have the 5d Mark III kit in from Friday 16th March

http://www.dalephotographic.co.uk/mall/productpage.cfm/DalePhotographicOnline/_5260B026AA/142365/Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III%20%2B%2024-105mm%20f4L%20-%20DUE%20IN%2016th%20OF%20MARCH

anyone else seen anything like this?

Those 3 camera are great!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=40917546

http://500px.com/photo/5807564

What are these things covering the LCD?
Was wondering if anyone knew. Thanks

Ask yourself:

1)Do you have the cash to do it? IF not, you are finished. Others, read on
2)Do you care if the reviews are not out on the new cameras? If you do, you are finished. Others, read on.
3)Is your equipment about to self destroy so quickly that 1 and 2 don't matter? If it is, read on.
4)Do you follow the herd even when it has been spooked? If yes us let us know where it is going. (just curious!)
5)Will the eventual difference in performance in whatever spec you worry about make a substantive and noticeable difference to your performance as a photographer paid or otherwise? If yes, you need to read 2. You are finished.

http://wtrns.fr/B7n5jBl1ESx78k

You're welcome

Hi folks,

i`d like to know from experienced people which third-party lenses are better than the canon and nikon originals. Maybe there is none, but i`d love to hear your opinion, espiacially on primes.

Hi again,

i know i want to know a lot, but maybe i can help others in the future .

Question 1:
Which Studio-Set would you recommend for a room that is a bit larger than a single-garage and that is usuable for outdoor-shooting. Budget up to 1500$. I would like to have a set with 3 strobes.

Question 2:
Are there third-party lenses from walimex, tamron or sigma that have a better image quality that the original lenses? Maybe even higher than l or g lenses? I would love to achieve some primes too add to the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8.

Thanks in advance!,
Jay

Hey folks,

even if some of you will hate me for starting another Canon VS Nikon Thread, i need your help.

My Situation:
I`m a videographer and mostly shoot videos of weddings and advertisings for companies. I use a Sony PMW-EX3 with the Letus Ultimate Adapter to have nice DOF and and a PMW-EX1r. Due to many fotographic requests, this has been my hobby so far, i want to upgrade to a FF-Camera of the newest geneartion.

So far i used a Canon 500D but it isn`t really a camera for professional needs.

I`m also looking for buying strobes to run a small studio for portrait-fotographie and i`m interested in using the video-mode to be a bit more flexible then i`m now with the letus setup.

I have no lenses for a full-format camera so now it´s time to decide with which company i`ll go for a decade or a lifetime.

From what i`ve seen so far im very impressed by the example pictures of the Nikon D800. In my opinion even the downsampled pictures look way better and sharper than the canon pictures. I`m very impressed by the videos,too. For example the video with the motobike. If i have lot failures inside the text, don`t hurt me, i`m from germany and not a native speaker .

So i want to achieve a camera that gives me optimal results in the studio, nice video perfomance and that is usuable for wedding-photography. High ISO is important for Weddings, but i think the quality of the D800 is still very nice at 6400 and i think that this is enough for the avaiable light in the church.

The problem is, i really like the canon handling and it looks better to me. I know, that the look of the camera shouldn`t matter, but if both cams would have an equal quality i would like to go with canon. The decision is so hard, because it is a lot of money to spend, so i fear to take the wrong decision.

Is it too early to decide until the first real life situation tests hit the internet or did you already decide which way to go? I mean most will already have multiple lenses, so the decision is easier. Please help me. I read so much about both cams, that i simply read too much. Both seem to be very nice and i think neither the canon nor the nikon will be a "bad" camera, bit i simply want the best for my needs.

Thanks in advance!
Jay

Add: What i forgot, i really like these Nikon-Features: Wireless Flash (Without Adapter) and Timelapse

Add2: Which company has the better lenses. I know that l lenses are the best canon lenses but although read that nikon g lenses are better thatn the canon lenses. I already have 2 Zeiss ZF lenses that i use for the Letus and have a nikon mount (50mm and 100mm macro), so the plus for nikon is i can mount them, but that shouldn`t be so dramatic as i can simply achieve an adapter for canon.

The first lenses i would like to achieve are 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm IS 2.8 lenses. I heard a new waterproof 24-70mm with VC is coming up next, would you even think about buying a tamron over nikon or canon lenses because of the VC or do third-party lenses always loose against those.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40912195



Can we stop now. It's pretty much a wash....

from
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/5d3_hdr_capabilities.shtml
JPEG images only
For technical reasons, the EOS 5D Mark III's in-camera HDR Mode requires JPEG processing, and can only be done with bracketed JPEG shots.

...It's not possible for the final HDR image to be a .CR2 RAW file.

why? :-\

note
If the bracketed source images are shot as reduced-resolution JPEGs, the final HDR image that results will likewise be at the same reduced-resolution JPEG setting.

question..is the quality of this hdr..jpg enough for stock agencies (alamy, agefo..getty)?

Before switching to Canon Digital I was a Nikon enthusiast and built up quite a collection of those wonderful manual Ai-S lenses.
I used a Chinese made Nikon/EOS adapter with focus confirm on a Canon 400D.
The results were exceptionally good with fine vibrant colour rendition/no flaring on the following Ai-S lenses I tried: 50/1.8, 135/2.8. 200/4, 180/2.8ED.
A disappointment was the 85/2 (lack of contrast).
The surprisingly good Nikon lens was the lightweight non Ai-S 100/2.8E which gave exceptionally sharp images with fine colour rendition even though it had some fungi in it!
I even tried a friends Nikon 600/5.6 which also gave exceptionally sharp images unfortunately accompanied with a colour cast.
Manual focus on the Ai-S lenses is really nicely damped - much better feel than what you get with digital lenses.
Judging correct aperture/shutter speed comes easy after a few days - use PhotoShop for slight under/over exposures.
Lens jamming? Never had a problem!
And all the lenses reached infinity focus.
If you don't need AF and IS for a particular application then Nikon Ai-S lenses might be the way to go - they seem to last forever!

Thought I would share this experience, because I'm surprised a market hole exists today.

I have a Canon 50D which has been converted to near-IR-only (715nm), and for wide-angle shots I had intended to use my TSE-24 II (equivalent to 38.4mm on FF) and use shifts and stitching to cover wider angle shots. And that works fine... as long as you don't have things like wind-blown foliage, or waves, or a subject that moves.

So, for the last six weeks I have been going through reviews and lens manufacturer product lists and looking for a lens which has the following basic characteristics: 17mm (or shorter); does not "hotspot" or easily flare in near-IR wavelengths; excellent resolution in centre and out to frame borders (I don't put my subject matter in frame corners so I do not care if the corners are a bit soft); and takes front-mounted filters.

The large proportion of modern lenses produce a noticeable "hotspot" (discoloration and lower contrast in an isolated portion, centre frame), and many older designs just don't have the resolution capacity to match today's small-diode sensors. The closest I found was a Tokina 11-16mm, which I purchased. While mounted on a non-IR body, this lens was fine, but when put on a dedicated near-IR body with a shimmed sensor, the combination of the shimming + the Tokina 11-16's hard-stop at infinity, and near-IR wavelengths, meant that when set at infinity, the actual focus point was actually at a point only two feet in front of the lens. [A shame that Tokina and others do not take a leaf out of Canon & Sigma's books and put in lee-way at the infinity mark so their lenses will also focus at infinity in both near-IR and if there is significant thermal variation.]

My remaining option is a Samyang 14mm... which is great, except that with a bulbous front element you can not mount filters, either for protection or creative effect (e.g. graduated or 10x NDs).

Some may ask, "what about the EF-S 10-22mm"? Look for "10-22mm" on the following page for an explanation: http://www.maxmax.com/ircameraconversions.htm . Also, I have a 17-40mm... it is renowned for smearing near the borders and in the corners, and it is no different at near-IR wavelengths, even in the reduced image circle of a crop-sensor. Finally, I also have a Sigma 10-20mm... it is unusuable due to hotspot.

So, out of frustration and amazement, here is my plea to the lens-manufacturing ghods - seriously look at producing a prime lens that:
- has a focal length of 17mm (or shorter; 17mm is about 27mm equiv on a Canon APS-C body).
- does not "hotspot" or easily flare (when sun out of frame) in near-IR wavelengths.
- has excellent resolution in centre from f2.8 to f8.
- has very good border resolution between f5.6 and f8. (so low to moderate field-curvature)
- takes front-mounted filters (probably 77mm or 82mm).
- distortion less than 2.5% barrel, in a simple pattern (not wavy... that drives the architecture lovers nuts).
- vignetting <1.5 stops at f4.
- lateral CA <= 1px (as there seems to be a correlation between CA at shorter wavelengths and sharpness in near-IR).
- EF mount would widen the market base.
- $1000 or less will have a much wider market base than $1500 or more.
- weather sealing would not seem necessary for the majority of users, but may be very attractive for pros working outdooors.

Who'd buy it? Depends on price, but I expect that those who'd take a serious look at it would be:
1) anyone with a near-IR-dedicated body, regardless of brand.
2) anyone looking for a quality ultra-wide prime that can take front-mounted filters.
3) if it's "fast", any professional shooting ultra-wide in available light who would prefer not to have to regularly resell their UWA lens because the front element has accumulated too many "minor cleaning marks" on the front element.

Oh well... here's hoping the lens-manufacturing ghod are hearing the pleas of petitioners at the moment.


regards,

Nigel

There's a huge flaw found in both Canon and Nikon's latest cameras that could affect your pictures. After some testing it seems both cameras suffer from a low SPD rate (Shots Per Day). Apparently it only seems to affect the SPD rate in the first few months then as the camera gets use to being used the SPD increases.

The cause at this moment is the result of people spending too much time pixel peeping and comparing systems.

Get out and take some pictures

I read an article about the new 1DX and the author argued that we'll likely won't see anymore releases of the 1.3 crop format. (http://www.akam.no/artikler/rekordknuseren/102914) That may be true or not, but what caught my eye is his comment that this means that Canon has to redesign some of their lenses that were initially designed for the APS-H format....

Have any of you ever heard of a APS-H optimized lens in the Canon lineup? I surely have not.

Sorry if this has been discussed in another thread here before, but I searched for it, but could not find any reference.

Hello folks!

I am currently looking to "test the waters" in the rangefinder field... My budget is currently ~ $2000, as I don't know if this will be something I enjoy as much as I do digital and Canon 35mm film, and can't rationalize a M9 at the moment.

What would a recommendation for a basic body and lens be? I've seen the Voigtlander Bessa-R4M, allowing for about the remain $1200 to go towards a solid lens.

Any suggestions?
Thanks!

Hi All!
Have heard a lot of talk about micro adjusting lenses and how sometimes your lens and camera aren't calibrated together and need to be sent in to be calibrated or micro adjusted. I was just wondering if Canon tests their lenses with their bodies they ship out in kits to make sure they're a good match or do they just grab one of each, put them in a box and send them off? Just curious!

Is the FEL (Flash Exposure Lock) linked to all the focussing points in the 5D3 and 1DX in manual exposure mode? Thanks

I realize that ISO 50 is not a native setting on the new 5D III camera.
My understanding in general terms is that ISO 50 has less grain and more color saturation compared to ISO 100 to begin with, especially with print film.
My question is due to the ISO 50 setting being NOT NATIVE, will actual photo prints of 11"x14" or larger show more noise/ image degradation versus the NATIVE ISO 100 setting?
I don't have a current digital camera that enables this option to compare for myself.
I would appreciate any thoughts or explanations from anyone willing to share for myself and others reading this forum!

I ran accross a 5DM3 HDR article on Canon's Learning site. It's about what I expected but it would be better if it could save the resulting file in a 16 bit/color file format. At least the input files taken can be RAW and you have the option of saving them but of course that is the same as a 3 shot bracket.

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/5d3_hdr_capabilities.shtml


* Sorry if this link is a double post. I didn't see it anywhere.

Now we finally have a somewhat scientific side-by-side comparison of the raw files from both bodies, courtesy of Imaging Resource.

5DIII samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

D800 samples:
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM

To make this comparo as precise as possible, I thought it made sense to compare the Nikons NEF files with no noise reduction applied to the Canon's CR2 files. Truthfully, I had a very hard time distinguishing the the 5DIII images from the D800 images. The noise, DR, and overall IQ are just so freakin' close. Maybe the 5DIII starts to edge ahead after ISO 3200, but it is the slightest of advantages. I tried to compare them at 51,200 and 102,400 as well, but IR must have forgotten to test the D800 at those ISO speeds ;D

DR wise, there is a noticeable advantage in the Nikon's shadow details, but again, it's only the slightest of advantages. Call me crazy, but I actually think the extra DR makes the Nikon's files look flatter. I also prefer the 5DIII's color reproduction, and the files look a tad sharper granted that might be attributable to the lenses. On a purely subjective level, to me the 5DIII's files just look better, but again, under identical shooting situations the two cameras produce nearly identical images.

After pixel peeping for about an hour, it really put into perspective what terrific tools each of these bodies are for creating fantastic art. It also put into perspective how silly it is to argue about the pros and cons of each body when it requires an hour of pixel peeping to attempt to distinguish any differences in IQ between them.

That's just my worthless opinion. Discuss

According to Ken Rockwell's site (yes, I know)...

When the 5D MkII was first released back in Sept of 08, the price was $3,400.

He also listed the intro price of the D700 as $3000 when it was released in Aug of 08.

It wasn't until June of 2010 that the prices of both bodies dropped to around where they are now ($2400).



So why exactly is everybody screaming bloody murder about the price of the 5D? The Mk III is only $100 more than the 5D Mk II was when it was first introduced.




Link to the article:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/vs-5d-mark-ii.htm

Now, normally I wouldn't ask this on a site that could potentially be biased...however; with all the rigamarole, spec tossing, opinions and blatant fear I am thinking people might be pretty objective with my situation. As I said this would be my first DSLR(I know, either camera is way more camera than i'll even be able to utilize before the next upgrade occurs anyways), I have NO investment thus far on any series of lenses. I was 'set' on Canon because the only two pros i know use Canon...ive had Canon p+s cameras in the past and loved them compared to any others. I already preordered a mark iii, and at the same time discovered the D800. With that being said, i'm wondering what the majority of the experienced pros here would do in my situation. Starting from scratch which direction would you veer? I intend on shooting(in order of majority of):

Landscape(time-lapse videos, the higher DR is of significant value to me, although a lot of TLs I saw done with the mkII were nothing less than phenomenal)
Outdoor/rock climbing shots
Small videos
Everyday walk around camera
The occasional wedding
And hoping to get into stock photography...

I know the D800 is supposed to be amazing for landscapes, but I don't plan on cropping much due to it being a time-lapse on a dolly...so the extra MP is more of a hindrance to me I am thinking at this point. But the DR is very attractive. The canon lens are also a big factor, although I plan on shooting a lot on Zeiss lens, so how much does that factor weigh in?

So, you're starting from scratch, and you're shooting what I will be shooting, which direction do you go?

Thanks!

does anyone have a graph for the price history of the 5D2????
and when do YOU think the first price drop for the 5d3 will be?????

Is here a need to do this since it is manipulated via software? I have done it when just shooting jpegs. Am about to venture off into RAW land but bracketing also seems like a major waste of memory for RAW.

Thanks all,