review the 5D3 reviews

[dlleno]

sorry if this has already been hashed -- feel free to point to those threads. Whats your vote for the most objective and useful 5D3 review, and which reviews do you find less useful than others?

For example, in reading the dpreview piece, I came away wondering why the in-camera jpg conversion was given so much attention as a negative, or "con". Generally I wouldn't expect users of a $3500 camera body to depend that much on in-camera jpg conversion, but maybe its just me -- it doesn't seem all that critical to me: Interesting and important to know, to be sure, but just not critical.

I used to shoot raw+jpg, using the jpgs as proofs and to help me identify the keepers but then I discovered the CR2 conversion plug-in for Windows Photo Viewer and now I don't depend on my camera to produce jpgs at all.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Even though I mostly use RAW, many users shoot in jpeg mode for various reasons, I believe that most users use jpeg. The fact that the camera produces lower quality jpegs than it should is definitely a con.
The good thing about DPR reviews is that they tell you what works well, and what does not. That allows you to ignore a poorly implemented feature that you have no interest in.
Everyone uses their camera to suit their own taste, so a ideal review would cover all the common functions.
What I do not like is the reviewers who say ignore factual data, and just trust my super abilities to know if a camera is good or bad based on "real world images", which may very well be images they selected to look good, or to look bad, depending on their bias and what they believe.
I do like to see real world images, but I know how easy it is to mess them up either accidentally, or on purpose, so I tend to value that type of review from only a few very good photographers who have proven themselves over the years to give accurate and impartial reviews.
For example, reviews by Canon Makers of Light, or by the Equivalent Nikon photographers tend to bias. They tend to emphasise the good and brush over the bad.
Rob Gailbraith was a Canon who criticised the AF of the 1D MK III and was dropped by Canon from the "Maker of Light" program because he dared point out a serious issue. After that, my opinion of his reviews went way up.
A couple of my other trusted reviewers:
Bryan at "The Digital Picture"
Michael Reichmann at "The Luminous Landscape"
There are a ton of reviewers out there that are good, I just have my favorites.

 

[dlleno]

good point -- had they downplayed the in-camera raw conversion, assuming that RAW shooters won't care, it would not have been a complete review. They did make it clear what folks need to be aware of.

on the topic of the 5D3 itself, it will be interesting to see if Canon addresses the jpg conversion and video IQ

 

[risc32]

i've got no issues with the jpgs from the 5dmk3 at all. i think they are just swell, although i don't use them. maybe i'm just easy to please.

 

[bdunbar79]

To tell you the truth, the jpegs from the 5D Mark II weren't bad either.

 

[mdm041]

I liked the Camerastore review of it vs the D800 in a 3 part series. I also thought the DigitalRevcom Review was funny. Drumat5280 has another great side by side. Alot of people hate him and I don't agree with everything he says but Ken Rockwell does a write up as well.