AF might be way better, sensor barely at all, video mode only half fixed(?)

[Bosman]

I don't doubt that, but taking photos of a photo in a book is hardly testing the camera and then downsizing. Just like with a high ISO D800 photo downsized to 5d size, it loses much of its noise.
[/quote]
I did it for everyone, because i didn't have time to shoot a wedding or anything relevant, noise is noise no matter what you photograph. I don't see it loosing noise due to downsizing. However since I am unable to cater to you or others who want it all and how they want it done isn't good enough then do your own samples. Most people get the gist of whats goin on in the samples. I will use it and love it and i dont need to apologize to the peepers any more. Haha!

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Only AF is improved ???
No way...

Check this 25600 ISO Image.
Look at the Tanzania flag so much detail left...

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3202320681/download/1829153

Guys, seriously, don't feed the troll!

 

[kwwalla]

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-canon-5d-mark-iii-review-1067683?artc_pg=1

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: AF might be way better, sensor barely at all

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 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.

I don't think so, not at ISO 100 at least, that's been measured.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

To be fair, I do wonder a bit about the EOSHD review of the 5D3 video that I linked above now that I read that he says the D800 also blow the 5D3 away for video with it's superior sharpness.

I read that and I was oh man....

Then I looked at his samples and I was like what?!? Maybe it's just me but his 'amazingly sharp and detailed' D800 footage likes even softer than his 5D3 video footage, plus it has touches of moire and aliasing that the 5D3 lacks. I don't understand how he can look at those videos he put up and say that the D800 shows more detail. It looks noticeably worse than the 5D3 video to me.

Not sure what the story is there, but something doesn't seem to be adding up right.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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 5DIII0

seriously?
The D800 beats it by almost 3 stops, yes THREE, at ISO100.
The 5D2 had a TON of room to improve at ISO100. At high ISO there is no possibility to improve by that dramatic of a degree since it;s not theoretically possible, but at low ISO they had tons of room to improve. Maybe Exmor patents make it tricky, but even the Exmor-less D4 improved ISO 100 by over a stop.

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,

So 5DC to 5D2 wasn't much of a sensor upgrade but 5D2 to 5D3 is a huge sensor upgrade??

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 ?

The AF does seem to be getting mostly raves. Heard some very good things so far.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Only AF is improved ???
No way...

Check this 25600 ISO Image.
Look at the Tanzania flag some much detail left...

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3202320681/download/1829153

Not bad, but I've never had to shoot above ISO 3200 and that was in a dark bowling alley. So I don't understand the ISO performance over better sensor (color, DR). D800 with 14.4 stops of DR!

Aha the DR numbers of the DXO guys......
Believe me there is more then DR numbers....
It's albout the photographer skills and no DR of 14 is making you or me a better photographer.

If it is like that then every photographer will buy the camera with the highest DR range and only confirmed by the DXO marks.....

Well it is not like this

Funny how a few weeks everyone was saying don't believe it when some of said the D800 would have amaizng DR compared to the 5D3, just wait for DxO and then you'll see and now that they say what we predicted, now DxO is back to being meaningless again .

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Only AF is improved ???
No way...

Check this 25600 ISO Image.
Look at the Tanzania flag so much detail left...

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3202320681/download/1829153

Guys, seriously, don't feed the troll!

this troll, if you mean me, has most likely shot Canon longer than you have....

 

[V8Beast]

seriously?
The D800 beats it by almost 3 stops, yes THREE, at ISO100.
The 5D2 had a TON of room to improve at ISO100. At high ISO there is no possibility to improve by that dramatic of a degree since it;s not theoretically possible, but at low ISO they had tons of room to improve. Maybe Exmor patents make it tricky, but even the Exmor-less D4 improved ISO 100 by over a stop.

Dude, I'm not talking about lab tests. I'm talking about the good old fashioned way of judging image quality. Just look at an image and determine its visual impact, technical proficiency, and artistic value. That's how everyone other than pixel-peeping tech geeks judge IQ. Just about every pro that I know that shoots Canon (5DII or 1DsIII) does so because they like the look of the files, not because of how well their cameras perform in a lab.

Yes a three stop advantage is huge. Now that the real world samples are trickling out, I just don't see it translating to better IQ.

So 5DC to 5D2 wasn't much of a sensor upgrade but 5D2 to 5D3 is a huge sensor upgrade??

Never said that, buddy. The 5DC to 5DII wasn't enough of a jump in terms of AF, FPS, and overall IQ for me to justify upgrading based on my style of shooting. I didn't specifically single out the sensor in my post. As far as the overall package is concerned, the 5DC to a 5DIII is a huge jump. I care more about the entire camera package as a whole than sensor technology alone.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Dude, I'm not talking about lab tests. I'm talking about the good old fashioned way of judging image quality. Just look at an image and determine its visual impact, technical proficiency, and artistic value. That's how everyone other than pixel-peeping tech geeks judge IQ. Just about every pro that I know that shoots Canon (5DII or 1DsIII) does so because they like the look of the files, not because of how well their cameras perform in a lab.

Yes a three stop advantage is huge. Now that the real world samples are trickling out, I just don't see it translating to better IQ.

So 5DC to 5D2 wasn't much of a sensor upgrade but 5D2 to 5D3 is a huge sensor upgrade??

Never said that, buddy. The 5DC to 5DII wasn't enough of a jump in terms of AF, FPS, and overall IQ for me to justify upgrading based on my style of shooting. I don't know why you're so fixated on the sensor

the first few paragraphs of my original post were about the apparently great AF so not entirely fixated on sensors ;D

and get a clue about lab vs real world before you spout nonsense at people

and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?

i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?

all i said was that while the AF appears to have been amazingly improved and the fps bumped up nicely (which are not minor things) that the sensor appears to bring nothing at all new for low ISO shooting and that it remains to be seen whether it brings a solid increase at high iso or nothing much there either and that the video mode fixes up moire and aliasing but that some are saying it is still not real 1920x1080.

Canon has done zero to increase dynamic range since 2007, half a decade ago. Nikon has gotten more than a stop better compared to the best canon of 2007 without exmor tech and almost 3 stops better with exmor help from sony.

But the AF does sound most impressively better and yeah 6fps are lot nice than 4fps as is the faster trigger response and lessened mirror black-out time etc. Those are certainly very important things for many, including myself (for a pure landscape shooter there may be nothing much in the 5D3 over the 5D2 though which is a bit disappointing for 3.5 years).

 

[V8Beast]

and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?

In your attempt to be a smart@ss, you just posted the funniest line I've ever read by a pixel-peeping geek. Yes, I do dabble in photography that requires lots of dynamic range from time to time.

Somehow I manage even with $hitty Canon sensors. Now do you care to share some of your images that illustrate how effectively the DR of Sony's Exmor sensor can enhance your photography ?

i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?

Do you really want to use a car analogy with me? Of course Ferrari has a test lab. The big dog F1 teams like Ferrari and McLaren spend $300-plus million a year on R&D. Wind tunnels, automated dynos that simulate upshifts and downshifts of an entire race, etc. You name it, they test it. During a race, the two-way telemetry on an F1 car wirelessly streams gigabytes of data back to the lab every second so engineers can analyze it in real time.

That said, all that lab work doesn't mean $hit without real-world track testing. Furthermore, the only reason why teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lab testing is to they can more effectively develop parts for real-world testing. As it stands, the main reason why F1 teams are spending so much money on testing in the lab is because the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing a few years ago. Teams would much rather spend that money testing their cars on track in real-world racing conditions, but they can't, so they resort to lab testing instead. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the lab just so they can make the most of the precious few days of real-world track testing that they're allowed.

On the other hand, pixel-peeping tech geeks seem more interested in lab tests than actually using their cameras.

 

[Bosman]

and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?

In your attempt to be a smart@ss, you just posted the funniest line I've ever read by a pixel-peeping geek. Yes, I do dabble in photography that requires lots of dynamic range from time to time.

Somehow I manage even with $hitty Canon sensors. Now do you care to share some of your images that illustrate how effectively the DR of Sony's Exmor sensor can enhance your photography

i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?

Do you really want to use a car analogy with me? Of course Ferrari has a test lab. The big dog F1 teams like Ferrari and McLaren spend $300-plus million a year on R&D. Wind tunnels, automated dynos that simulate upshifts and downshifts of an entire race, etc. You name it, they test it. During a race, the two-way telemetry on an F1 car wirelessly streams gigabytes of data back to the lab every second so engineers can analyze it in real time.

That said, all that lab work doesn't mean $hit without real-world track testing. Furthermore, the only reason why teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lab testing is to they can more effectively develop parts for real-world testing. As it stands, the main reason why F1 teams are spending so much money on testing in the lab is because the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing a few years ago. Teams would much rather spend that money testing their cars on track in real-world racing conditions, but they can't, so they resort to lab testing instead. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the lab just so they can make the most of the precious few days of real-world track testing that they're allowed.

On the other hand, pixel-peeping tech geeks seem more interested in lab tests than actually using their cameras.

Dude! Amazing shots!

 

[V8Beast]

This one requires a fair amount of DR as well. When you're shooting with natural light, sometimes the light is harsher than you'd like, and it this case, it means you need a lot of detail on the shadow side of the cars and on the buildings. This is plenty of DR for a shot like this. Try to bring up the shadows any more, and the image will look flat, lifeless, two-dimensional, and boring. I suppose there is a lab test that measures for this sort of thing?

Other times, you have more control over the light to decrease the DR demands on a camera. There are these high-tech gizmos called reflectors. I think they were developed by NASA. I've heard you can use them for fill light to great effect.

I don't care how many stops of DR some pixel-peeping geek says a camera's sensor can capture. For shots like this, I'm using a reflector regardless of if whether I'm shooting with a POS Canon or with Sony's vaunted Exmor sensor.

 

[Bosman]

People need to stop bitching and test them out. Theres all this philosophy and data and bs. If you use nikon buy nikon, if you use Canon then use Canon, both have great cameras you can buy. People really have the 5DM3 now and like myself are really impressed with the camera as a whole. Spec for spec in use it is pure bliss to use. Can't wait to shoot my first wedding with my new camera. The focus locks even in real dark situations too. Thats nice! Oddly enough my testing of all my lenses with it somehow produces dead sharp focus accuracy, its crazy! You all dont believe me because you read some report or saw some video, haha. Ok.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

V8Dude

Your best skill seems to be name calling in laughable manner. ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are kind of a funny guy. ;D

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera. I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

 

[briansquibb]

Bottom line is:

- Do the images produced by the body + glass meet your needs?

I seem to remember the 5DII being slated because it only had 4fps - this has been overlooked in the rush to praise the D800 and criticise the 6fps 5DIII. It doesn't matter what the mps or the dr are if you miss the picture.


Having followed the threads it seems that everyone is fixated on high iso, in which case the argument about DR starts to become irrelevant as the DR is squandered with high ISO.

- does your shooting style with your body + glass meet your DR needs?

- howabout all the other differences? for example silent mode in the theatre?

It is too easy to be blinded by one (great) feature and to ignore features that spoil the experience in the real world.

 

[Alker]

V8Dude

Your best skill seems to be name calling in laughable manner. ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are kind of a funny guy. ;D

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera. I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Could you show us some work photographed by you ?
I have read most of your post and like I said before your really must be the best photographer in the world.
Just wondering if all your numbers knowledge can be found back in your pictures.

 

[V8Beast]

Ah man. I thought we were going to continue our discussion on Ferrari's F1 program, but if you insist on talking cameras....

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera.

You're kidding me. I thought the guys I compete with on a monthly basis to pay my bills and feed my kids were using Etch A Sketches. No wonder they never run out of space on their memory cards. Are there DxO test results for one of those bad boys yet?

I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

I get it now. You're confused and licking the wrong camera's balls. Nikon has a special model for sports shooters called the D4

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times.

Finally, something we agree on! I'll take all the DR I can get. However, I can't easily distinguish the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII without resorting to a lab test. I'm apparently in the minority here, but I simply prefer the overall look (color, contrast, sharpness) of the 5DIII's files. The D800's samples look flat in comparison.

And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

Ooooh, full-time pros. I'd like to say I'm impressed but I'm not. Whenever I talk to pros, those fools are so busy actually using their gear in the real world that most have never even heard about DxO tests. When are they going to learn about the joys of pixel-peeping and DR/ISO lab tests instead of trusting their own eyes and concentrating their efforts on becoming better photographers. I'm sure the first thing their clients do is blow the images their contributors submit up to 100%, and test its DR and noise. I don't see how they could possibly judge a great image from a junk image without doing so.

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

So we've established that different situations call for different equipment or a camera that excels in different areas. Now we're getting somewhere I have a photo shoot with E.T. scheduled in the redwoods of Northern California next month, so maybe I'll rent a D800 for the day.

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Please. You're speaking to someone who ordered up a D800. Granted I will probably cancel it on Monday, but my point is that fixating on lab tests to the point where it takes precedence over judging an image based on overall execution, image quality, and artistic value is nonsense. I pity the fool who thinks his camera is great or thinks it's junk based not on the quality of the images it captures, but someone else's lab findings.

Seriously, that kind of fixation can't be healthy. The last time I was that fixated on something, someone ended up slapping a restraining order against me ;D

 

[briansquibb]

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

 

[V8Beast]

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money ;D