Review: Canon EOS 5D Mark III by Jeff Ascough

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/review-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-by-jeff-ascough/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/review-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-by-jeff-ascough/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/review-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-by-jeff-ascough/"></a></div>
<strong>Oh Joy

</strong>There are very few photographers I look up to. There are a lot of great ones, but only a select few inspire me. One of those people is Jeff Ascough, one of Canon’s explorers of light.</p>
<p>To me, he’s the best wedding photographer in the world and has no interest in the 600EX-RT! I love that.</p>
<p>Jeff has obviously had a 5D Mark III in his hands, and has released his review of the camera.</p>
<p><strong>From Jeff</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability. The camera is what every Canon user has been waiting for and then some.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html">Read the review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r </strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>

 

[UncleFester]

Yeah, by the third paragraph I was ready to vomit.

 

[GL]

All his pictures are also Photoshopped into oblivion.

Of course his work is Photoshopped. Look at ANY award-winning images from landscape/wedding/portrait photographers and you'll see years of experienced post-production skills in play. What do you think, fine art just pops out of the camera - and if it doesn't the camera sucks? The job of the camera is to give us all the clean and usable data it can so we can create the photos we imagine. Not make them for us. Sheesh!

 

[UncleFester]

All his pictures are also Photoshopped into oblivion.

Of course his work is Photoshopped. Look at ANY award-winning images from landscape/wedding/portrait photographers and you'll see years of experienced post-production skills in play. What do you think, fine art just pops out of the camera - and if it doesn't the camera sucks? The job of the camera is to give us all the clean and usable data it can so we can create the photos we imagine. Not make them for us. Sheesh!

Actually you CAN get "award-winning" images straight out of the camera. Remember film?

If you know what you're doing you can get spectacular images right out of the camera. Make the camera and light do most of the work 1st for you. Then some touch up and resizing in post

 

[Drizzt321]

All his pictures are also Photoshopped into oblivion.

Of course his work is Photoshopped. Look at ANY award-winning images from landscape/wedding/portrait photographers and you'll see years of experienced post-production skills in play. What do you think, fine art just pops out of the camera - and if it doesn't the camera sucks? The job of the camera is to give us all the clean and usable data it can so we can create the photos we imagine. Not make them for us. Sheesh!

Actually you CAN get "award-winning" images straight out of the camera. Remember film?

If you know what you're doing you can get spectacular images right out of the camera. Make the camera and light do most of the work 1st for you. Then some touch up and resizing in post

Not that I don't mostly agree with you, but playing devils advocate here, what about the whole dodge/burn/air brushing? While nothing like what photoshop can do these days, and probably not as common amongst fine art (even today), I'm sure there was a decent amount done on fine art photos.

 

[justsomedude]

If you know what you're doing you can get spectacular images right out of the camera. Make the camera and light do most of the work 1st for you. Then some touch up and resizing in post

In my opinion, this is an inaccurate statement. Many fine art film photographers used different chemical processing techniques, cross-processing, and a multitude of detail work in the darkroom that allowed them to create far beyond the "in camera" image that was made.

While I realize there are many "anti computer processing" folks out there - I don't see much difference between spending 10 days in the dark room to get an image right, and 10 days in photoshop/Lightroom.

Artists shouldn't ignore new innovations that allow them to expand their creativity. In my opinion, they should embrace them. Regardless of which technique some one chooses as their own - I see no need to slam some one else's methods of artistic expression.

 

[awinphoto]

If you know what you're doing you can get spectacular images right out of the camera. Make the camera and light do most of the work 1st for you. Then some touch up and resizing in post

In my opinion, this is an inaccurate statement. Many fine art film photographers used different chemical processing techniques, cross-processing, and a multitude of detail work in the darkroom that allowed them to create far beyond the "in camera" image that was made.

While I realize there are many "anti computer processing" folks out there - I don't see much difference between spending 10 days in the dark room to get an image right, and 10 days in photoshop/Lightroom.

Artists shouldn't ignore new innovations that allow them to expand their creativity. In my opinion, they should embrace them. Regardless of which technique some one chooses as their own - I see no need to slam some one else's methods of artistic expression.

Well said +100

 

[bycostello]

hoping to see some of the mk3 at his workshop tomorrow...

 

[tt]

Out of Curiousity - does Jeff show any of the pictures from his talks/gallery/workshop in a before and after?
I've seen die befor & after on his Jeff's Actions page but I'm not sure if I recognize any of them from the main gallery/best of pictures. Would e interesting to see what he saw on the day/viewfinder vs the final result.

Correct editing to not show us, but I'd imagine many would like to peak behind the curtain of his processed images.
(that and see how he works to get natural relaxed photos close up and if he'd go 1DX or 5D mkIII (I'm guessing 5DM3 is less conspicuous but he is an avid natural light guy).

Hav you thought of doing a review of the workshop when it's finished? Would be interested to hear about it having seen him speak at Focus on Imaging.

 

[ereka]

Artists shouldn't ignore new innovations that allow them to expand their creativity. In my opinion, they should embrace them. Regardless of which technique some one chooses as their own - I see no need to slam some one else's methods of artistic expression.

Well said!

In the same vein, I sometimes wonder what Bach, Beethoven and other classical composers would have come up with if they had had access to the digital software that is available today. Would they poo poo it as something for people who don't understand how to use tried and tested classical methods or embrace it enthusiastically and produce something amazing?

Edit: I'm fairly sure it's also the case that very often those who poo poo something do so because either they don't understand it or can't master it themselves e.g. how many photographers who don't use flash in any circumstances and praise the merits of ambient light don't actually have much of a clue how to use flash effectively? Of course the opposite may also apply i.e. photographers who exclusively use flash might not understand how to achieve the best results using just ambient light. I don't have any particular axe to grind. Just philosophising.

 

[gbchriste]

In the same vein, I sometimes wonder what Bach, Beethoven and other classical composers would have come up with if they had had access to the digital software that is available today. Would they poo poo it as something for people who don't understand how to use tried and tested classical methods or embrace it enthusiastically and produce something amazing?

Even more to the point, you have to wonder what Bach or Beethoven would think of how their music sounded if they could actually come to life in the present day. The instruments of their day, particularly Bach's, were quite different in construction and thus sounded quite different. The piano of Bach's day had very little semblance in sound to the modern day instrument. There are professional orchestras that specialize in playing the works of these masters on what are called "period instruments". A side by side listen of one of them against a modern day orchestra is quite telling. The melodic and harmonic elements of the piece are intact in both renditions, but the overall sound and effect are quite different.

Probably the most performed piece of music in all of the western classical tradition is Handel's "Messiah". Today it usually performed with a large orchestra and a massive "festival" chorus of 100 or more voices. But Handel wrote it as a chamber piece to be performed by a small instrumental ensemble and a 20 - 30 voice chorus. Would he be distraught to hear it performed today in this fashion?

Musical scholars often have this debate as to what these original composers would think if they could hear their music played on present day instruments.

The performances of the present day uplift and bring joy to millions upon millions of people, regardless of the fact that the original composers did not have the instruments at the disposal to produce then what we experience now.

And no photograph is a perfect representation of the world we see. The ultimate example of that is Ansel Adams. He often equated the negative with a printed musical score and the print the final performance. He created hundreds chemical combinations and development techniques for both the film and print steps of the darkroom process in order to bring forth not what the camera saw, but what we saw in his mind when he took the exposure.

To me, that is no different than creating an internal vision of the scene, getting the best exposure you can of that scene, and than perfecting the outcome of that vision through the post processing phase.

 

[FunPhotons]

Yeah I read that review when it came out, and stopped when I saw

"So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability. "

Excessive fanboyism, unlikely I'd learn anything useful from the review.

 

[ippikiokami]

Yeah I read that review when it came out, and stopped when I saw

"So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability. "

Excessive fanboyism, unlikely I'd learn anything useful from the review.

Lol you mean you stopped at the end of the review? Because that's where the statement was at.

The guy mentions specifically that it's not a technical review a few times in his post.
And for the poster that mentioned he said good things because he gets to keep one? Do you not know how much this guy makes? I really doubt this reputation is worth a few thousand. And as everyone saw from Laforet's review it's not like Canon holds a gun to these guys heads to make totally positive reviews.

 

[FunPhotons]

Yeah I read that review when it came out, and stopped when I saw

"So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability. "

Excessive fanboyism, unlikely I'd learn anything useful from the review.

Lol you mean you stopped at the end of the review? Because that's where the statement was at.

The guy mentions specifically that it's not a technical review a few times in his post.
And for the poster that mentioned he said good things because he gets to keep one? Do you not know how much this guy makes? I really doubt this reputation is worth a few thousand. And as everyone saw from Laforet's review it's not like Canon holds a gun to these guys heads to make totally positive reviews.

Sure, whatever. It's a low calorie review regardless.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

This kind of review tells more about photographing with the camera than the template-pulled reviews like DPR, IR and numerical scores like DxO.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

All his pictures are also Photoshopped into oblivion.

Of course his work is Photoshopped. Look at ANY award-winning images from landscape/wedding/portrait photographers and you'll see years of experienced post-production skills in play. What do you think, fine art just pops out of the camera - and if it doesn't the camera sucks? The job of the camera is to give us all the clean and usable data it can so we can create the photos we imagine. Not make them for us. Sheesh!

Actually you CAN get "award-winning" images straight out of the camera. Remember film?

If you know what you're doing you can get spectacular images right out of the camera. Make the camera and light do most of the work 1st for you. Then some touch up and resizing in post

Lots of work dodgeing , burning, cropping, in the darkroom. Its just easier and faster with digital.

 

[GL]

All his pictures are also Photoshopped into oblivion.

Of course his work is Photoshopped. Look at ANY award-winning images from landscape/wedding/portrait photographers and you'll see years of experienced post-production skills in play. What do you think, fine art just pops out of the camera - and if it doesn't the camera sucks? The job of the camera is to give us all the clean and usable data it can so we can create the photos we imagine. Not make them for us. Sheesh!

Actually you CAN get "award-winning" images straight out of the camera. Remember film?

If you know what you're doing you can get spectacular images right out of the camera. Make the camera and light do most of the work 1st for you. Then some touch up and resizing in post

Lots of work dodgeing , burning, cropping, in the darkroom. Its just easier and faster with digital.

Bullseye! I don't do with Lightroom much more than could be done by a skilled darkroom operator. And yes, of course you can get award-winning shots straight from the camera, but a fine art photographer like Jeff has a signature PP style that's unique, and adds spice to the brilliant images he captures. You can't 'fake' the decisive moment, but you can show it in a much better light!

 

[SPG]

In what seems like a previous lifetime, I worked as a staff photographer and photo editor for a magazine. It was an endless battle with prepress to get the images to look more like what the photographers shot than what the printers thought they should look like.
Fine art may be one thing, where endless tweaking in either the darkroom or photoshop has always been part of the process, but news, sports, and a lot of other photography lives and dies by getting good images right out of the camera. One of the great things about shooting slide film was the speed of the edit...it either was or wasn't good.

 

[AnselA]

I'm not sure where all the anger is coming from. Jeff is a booster for the brand and a well established and successful photographer (that is why Canon picked him). He takes great images and makes them even better with PP. Maybe all the complainers need to do a little research into what many of the very best film photographers did in the darkroom or had other do for them to achieve the magnificent work that is in galleries today.
I think he genuinely likes (loves) his equipment and is will to say so. That is valuable to Canon and to those that admire his approach to photography. No more and no less.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm not sure where all the anger is coming from. Jeff is a booster for the brand and a well established and successful photographer (that is why Canon picked him). He takes great images and makes them even better with PP. Maybe all the complainers need to do a little research into what many of the very best film photographers did in the darkroom or had other do for them to achieve the magnificent work that is in galleries today.
I think he genuinely likes (loves) his equipment and is will to say so. That is valuable to Canon and to those that admire his approach to photography. No more and no less.

There are always snarky comments by those starving for attention, and there are critical comments that are serious as well. You can always tell if its a serious comment, they give at least a reason why they dislike the article rather than dismissing it because of their award winning portfolio that no one has seen.