1DXMKIII - Just OK
- Thread starter GoldWing
- Start date
Stop the press. we have got confirmation.. Harry has spoken... Golden now!
Upvote
0
I photograph therefore I am (In camera obscura ego cogito ergo sum - apologies Descartes)
Upvote
0
Just one dosen? That's not serious!
I'm, of course, exaggerating a little, but for some people, how the camera captures in RAW is irrelevant. They need in-camera JPEGs.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I hope this is ok but I thought I would post a link to some images of the 1DX3 pushed a little, see HERE does it hold up well, I thought so, OP please post some examples of the problems you have, genuine ones only
Almost seems like we might regress to the good old days (previous CR threads) of pushing to the nth degree as if any of us shoot so badly exposed. I'm sure this camera is going to be just fine.
Jack
Upvote
0
Yeah I agree. I was just reading on FM forum a user who also just has his Mk3. He seems to be impressed with the new AF and the new files, other than this I have yet to find much negative info re the new camera. He also mentioned a few features that others have not. Like the OVF and the fact it has a clean sensor from new, that's a new feature for sure haha
See:-
1Dx Mark III - initial user notes.
I got the camera last Thursday, but for the next 2 days the mercury was parked between - 21 C and -32 C keeping me grounded, so I had time to scrib...
www.fredmiranda.com
Upvote
0
This doesn't just sound like "not a good upgrade", it sounds positively faulty.
What have Canon said about it (I assume such a large customer with poor experiences causing a hold on future multiple purchases would be high on their concern level)?
Upvote
0
Technically, the exposure there was fine - for highlights.
But with Mark III, one shouldn't use ISO 400 if they want to pull shadows instead of exposure blending. If it were shot at ISO 100, the shot noise in the shadows would have been one stop lower. Still worse than blending, but better than nothing.
Upvote
0
I don't dispute your comment at all but do we as humans want a scene that has very high contrast to become a bland low contrast one. For me too much lifting can result in an unnatural appearance, which I don't like and so I live with deeper shadows. I'm certainly not qualified to really dispute this though.
Jack
Upvote
0
Actually, I've been shooting mostly on 1Dc's using the 24 fps MJPEG codec in video mode and C-log OR I use the Canon C700 4K Global Shutters or the 5.9K FF C700's in RAW video mode to get 60 fps frame captures and using those video frame grabs as sports/action and industrial/aerospace still shots for PDF files and online distribution. I have also used our 8K/ MF cameras over the past year in both 120 fps DCI 8K video AND 8k by 6k stills mode and those work THE BEST out of all the normal cameras we have, but since we're now in lock-down mode I can't take them out publicly any more.
I just got a 1Dx3 out of inventory (we bought 60 of them and they'll be showing up a few at a time over the next three months) and we did some test shoots which worked out great for the most part! No complaints at all! Again, most people will shoot 20 fps and up their ISO's and shutter speeds because the camera CAN DO ITS JOB VERY VERY WELL ... BUT .... the end result is you tend to get more noise in the dark black shadow areas and/or on darker colours. To put it mildly, the 1Dx3 is actually a FANTASTIC SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CAMERA ... You just need to get off of the high horse of the convenience and space saving aspect of the HEIF image compression format and go FULL RAW !!!!
For the foreseeable, I will STILL be using the 1Dc's, C300 mk2's and the C700 GS/FF's since those are used a lot less than the 1Dx2's and 1Dx3's we have. We are now replacing all the literally HUNDREDS of 5D3's, 5D2's and 1DxMk1's we still have in inventory with new gear LIKE the 1Dx3, so the "real" staff -- (i.e. NOT me!) -- get first dibs on those (they get them for free) and the rest get donated to schools along with a few of the cheaper lenses.
.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The human visual processing system lifts shadows as we view scenes whereas the camera records the actual dynamic range. So, lifting shadows in post processing actually renders the image closer to what we thought we saw at the time.I don't dispute your comment at all but do we as humans want a scene that has very high contrast to become a bland low contrast one. For me too much lifting can result in an unnatural appearance, which I don't like and so I live with deeper shadows. I'm certainly not qualified to really dispute this though.
Jack
Upvote
0
You make it sound as if the pictures demonstrated something negative about the 1DX III. Did I miss something? Looking at the pictures I got the impression that the new camera is an improvement across the board in IQ.
Upvote
0
I'm not a fan of it, but it obviously sells.
Besides, that "bland low contrast" is a limitation of the reproduction media, which can be different in future, allowing more natural presentation of the same high-contrast captures.
There are at least two factors in this unnaturality: unexpectedly flat contrast (not a factor in that particular image, at least for me) and non-uniformity of noise and/or of microcontrast. The latter can be alleviated by getting higher exposure in shadows.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
