This web site is making me question why I lurk here

[nesarajah]

i lust after the 5Dm3 .
I read religiously all the posts about problems and issues.
I love it. The second I see less of the issues when update time rolls by , I might plonk down the cash to get one.
Its a rumor site. Its going to get bitchy.
Thats my take.

ps. There are photo forums out there that are horrible. This is mild or almost pleasant.

 

[photophreek]

As soon as I read..."the 5d3 AF system sucks", I move on to another website (sorry Craig and your advertisers). I don't seem to get any useful information from that comment which invariably the post started with "dude or bro". So, please tell me why the 5d3 AF system sucks because I haven't bought the camera yet and I'd like to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

[Alker]

Very nice topic.
And I agree with all..

Thanks.

 

[Gennadiy]

After regularly visiting this website for a few months, this post has actually made me register and contribute to the conversation. I am not a professional photographer... its more of a hobby for me. I had a crop body for a few years, but last Christmas I have upgraded to 5DMark II and I love the beautiful "creamy" photos its giving me (and frankly thats all I care about).
I have to agree that too many people whine about the 5DIII, and thats just my impression. May be there is something I don't understand just yet, but weren't most of the complains about the 5DII addressed with the new release? (i.e. High ISO, better autofocus, higher fps).
I can't help but compare canon users to Leica users... Look at the camera bodies they are using. On paper Leica camera bodies are years behind Canon (or Nikon). I'm saying "on paper" because I have never used an M camera system. But I think it comes down to loving what you are doing, and getting the most of your camera. After all, cameras can't take photos for you. They are you assistants.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Amen.

And I'm pretty sure those complaining about the lack of megapickles don't ever actually make large prints.

I've got an iPF8100 sitting ten feet away from me. I just got the 5DIII on Monday so it'll be a while before I've shot anything worthy of making a real print, plus a bit longer to do the post-processing and what-not.

But, as soon as I do, I'll be loading up the 42" roll of Tyvek banner (the widest I've got on hand; coating is the same as Canon's Heavyweight Matte) and making a 42" x 63" print. And I fully expect it to be stunning.

Sure, it'll "only" be 91 ppi. But that's about the same resolution as your monitor, so it'll basically be the same as pixel peeping but with the full image.

I have no doubt that the D800 is an amazing, fantastic camera, and that we'll soon be seeing some incredible photos made from it. Had I bought into the Nikon system originally, I'd be drooling over it just as much as I'm currently drooling over my sniny new 5DIII.

But, you know what all those extra megapickles the D800 would get me with my over-five-foot print?

All of 117 ppi instead of 91 ppi.

Now, don't get me worng. That's nothing I'd turn down if you offered it to me. But nobody's going to tell the difference unless you put the two side-by-side and stick your nose a few inches away -- and, if you're doing that, you've so missed the point that it's not even funny.

Dynamic range, too. Just for kicks this morning, I did a quick-and-dirty in-camera handheld HDR shot of the sunrise. You know what? The resulting dynamic range blows the D800's single exposures out of the water. Of course, with either camera, you'd do HDR in such situations -- and that's my point. The set of situations where the native DR of the D800 is sufficient, the 5DIII is insufficient, and you wouldn't be doing HDR (especially with modern rapid-fire automated bracketing) is practically nil.

Both cameras are fantastic. If you're bitching about the shortcomings of either in relation to the other, you've probably missed the point.

Personally, I think Canon's going down a better path than Nikon with this latest round. Raw image quality with the 5DII's sensor is already more than ample for the 135 format -- if you actually need more (and damned few people do), you should be shooting a larger format. But now compare the non-sensor specs of the 5DIII with the 1-series film cameras, and you'll realize that, as a camera, it's simply unbelievable. Nikon is quite admirably squeezing every last drop out of low-ISO image quality, but the D800 falls short of the 5DIII on the non-sensor side of things, like autofocus and framerate. Plus, the only 400 f/2.8 you can mount to the D800 weighs half again as much as the one I'm using with the 5DIII.

So, if you're a photographer, you're damned lucky -- pick the camera to match your glass and bask in the warm glow of the incredible images you'll create. If you're a photographer, and you're shooting Canon, and you're thinking of switching to the D800 because of its sensor, you should forget 135 and go straight to medium format.

But the rest of all y'all who're complaining...you're not photographers, you're measurebators. And that's not intended as a compliment.

Cheers,

b&

 

[bluegreenturtle]

This sort of issue crops up in any gear-centric profession or hobby.

Basically, ever since it was possible to gain entry to an activity simply with money, by buying a piece (or pieces) of equipment, you have many people who feel that somehow getting better equipment will improve their performance. Sometimes this is true, and in the case of cameras, it's partly because of all the astonishing things they can do these days, allowing somebody with no clue what they are doing to put out an acceptable image.

But the fact is that for the most part, it really doesn't matter what the piece of equipment is, it matters who is holding it. That's not ego, it's just the truth. I'm also a musician, and I experience this every day - the music instrument market is not driven be professionals - far from it. Most pros don't even materially participate in that market - they either have the instruments they are happy with and retain them most of their lives, or they are given them through endorsements. All the instrument manufacturers stay in business because of the people such as the complaint is here; people that desperately hope that trading a few thousand dollars will net them a better end result and performance. They're not willing to put in the THOUSANDS of hours that it takes to truly master a craft or art.

The problem with photography is that cameras, lenses, etc cost money. This gives the buyer some false sense that by paying, they are getting something and are owed something - a response we're all conditioned to. Consider writing, as a professional. The cost of entry is exactly zero - one can begin writing a novel, or newspaper columns, or articles, or whatever, for the cost of a pencil and piece of paper, which are freely given out in our society, and then by adding their time and talent. You don't see any of these discussions in pro-writing forums - because at the end of the day, there's nothing to blame but yourself if the end result is not what you want. The same is true of photography/videography, but it's hidden behind this mask of the cost of the gear.

 

[Macadameane]

Having been around for a year and a half on this forum (usually reading daily), I can say that it is fairly civil until the last few months. There are many people coming to the site that normally wouldn't with the release of the 5D in search of answers or sometimes to bash.

Things will settle down soon enough. The 1DX being as highly priced as it is, won't have as many whiners gravitating to the forums. Then the next 7D will be released....

 

[triggermike]

The highest selling image I own (which includes up to today) is a wildlife shot I took with a 6.3MP Canon 10D. I have a print of my own at 20x30, optimized with Geniune Fractals, in my family room which has outstanding clarity, color and sharpness. There are xillions of other 1dmkiin, 1dmkiii, 5d, 5dmkii etc. owners which have been, and continue to, make a living selling stock, print, journalism, wedding, sports ..... photos.

Having a 5d mkiii is icing on the cake . . .

 

[agierke]

This sort of issue crops up in any gear-centric profession or hobby.

Basically, ever since it was possible to gain entry to an activity simply with money, by buying a piece (or pieces) of equipment, you have many people who feel that somehow getting better equipment will improve their performance. Sometimes this is true, and in the case of cameras, it's partly because of all the astonishing things they can do these days, allowing somebody with no clue what they are doing to put out an acceptable image.

But the fact is that for the most part, it really doesn't matter what the piece of equipment is, it matters who is holding it. That's not ego, it's just the truth. I'm also a musician, and I experience this every day - the music instrument market is not driven be professionals - far from it. Most pros don't even materially participate in that market - they either have the instruments they are happy with and retain them most of their lives, or they are given them through endorsements. All the instrument manufacturers stay in business because of the people such as the complaint is here; people that desperately hope that trading a few thousand dollars will net them a better end result and performance. They're not willing to put in the THOUSANDS of hours that it takes to truly master a craft or art.

The problem with photography is that cameras, lenses, etc cost money. This gives the buyer some false sense that by paying, they are getting something and are owed something - a response we're all conditioned to. Consider writing, as a professional. The cost of entry is exactly zero - one can begin writing a novel, or newspaper columns, or articles, or whatever, for the cost of a pencil and piece of paper, which are freely given out in our society, and then by adding their time and talent. You don't see any of these discussions in pro-writing forums - because at the end of the day, there's nothing to blame but yourself if the end result is not what you want. The same is true of photography/videography, but it's hidden behind this mask of the cost of the gear.

great post....so true.

i have always felt that the mark of a true photographer was their grasp of light and how skillful they were at creatively interpreting how we see things vs how a chosen tool records things. it is for this reason i havent lost my love for other formats such as film, polaroid, and non silver (though i regret i dont get to play with these as much anymore).

last summer i went on my honeymoon and though i brought my 5d it mostly lost out to shooting on my Polaroid 320 Land Camera. i brought 10 packs of color film and 5 packs of B&W and i surprised myself when i ran out after the first week. my lovely wife graciously tolerated me as i spent half a day searching the SF area for a camera shop that was carrying some pack film (cant tell you how giddy i was when i found some). the point is, i was having a blast shooting on this outdated tech and getting some really fun and interesting results which ignited my passion! always a good feeling.

i hope when the dust settles there will be more talk about the cool things people are doing with their canon gear and maybe we can encourage more people to post actual pictures!

 

[thure1982]

so true, so many gear nerds. It's also crazy how people are getting 5d2/3's as a first dslr. I just got a 5d3 after many years shooting on a crop, and going full frame is amazing. I love my 5d

+1

+2

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If people posted one or two of their images to demonstrate their positive or negative points, then there would be more believability. Some do, but most do not.

 

[V8Beast]

What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.

You mean to tell me that people getting hard-ons over their poorly lit, terribly composed, and otherwise uninspiring snap shots - just because they can see amazing detail in their girlfriends' hairy arm pit when pixel-peeping at 100% - doesn't impress you ;D?

 

[YellowJersey]

What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.

You mean to tell me that people getting hard-ons over their poorly lit, terribly composed, and otherwise uninspiring snap shots - just because they can see amazing detail in their girlfriends' hairy arm pit when pixel-peeping at 100% - doesn't impress you ;D?

This man speaks the truth.

 

[joos]

If people posted one or two of their images to demonstrate their positive or negative points, then there would be more believability. Some do, but most do not.

Hey now let's not be reasonable... its easier not to post photos so people won't criticize your work..... Who wants to hear about how they can improve.... Everyone is an expert...

All kidding aside, when I get around to posting photos, I welcome criticism. For me, that is the only way I get better.
I think sometimes some people forget that a camera is only half of taking a good photo, and us as users are the other half...
For me being in the military, my rifle is not going to automatically qualify me as an expert. I have to learn my weapon system, work on my technique, and continue to practice fundamentals so I ensure I put rounds on target. As far as I'm concerned, photography is no different.

 

[lonelywhitelights]

+1

really great post, the whiny gear heads need to take a chill pill once in a while so they can quit making a bad name for us regular gear heads

 

[thepancakeman]

Although I agree that this forum seems to have had some recent deterioration, this thread only exemplifies the situation.

Whining about whiners--really? Pause and think about that for a second. And belittling others photographic skills (or lack there-of) is neither productive or friendly.

 

[AnselA]

I frankly did know what kind of reception my posting would bring but I am happy it has been read and appreciated by many. Craig and others - thanks

For some reason, a few folks here think I was criticizing 90% of all photos posted on this site. I was not. Rather I wish I could shoot as well as many here who have routinely posted amazing images of their work. If it was not clear from my post, I was focused solely on the photos initially posted in reference to the 5D Mark III's performance. I might have been somewhat hyperbolic but they were not a pretty lot and did not help me understand what this machine could do nor what the real problems might be.

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

I find early adopters without the proper risk taking temperament are the root cause of most the problems here.

I must admit this one is very true of me. I am not keen on being an early adopter. Knowing how anticipated the 5d3 was by so many I preordered to make sure I got one before the summer when I am going on a great trip that I really want to be upgraded in time for. I didnt want to be looking at the shots from that trip later this year, the duds and even the better shots wishing that I'd gotten my 5d3 in time.

I have learned early adoption is not for me. Too stressful with too many added variables. Youve just spent a lot of money on this new piece of kit that you want use for years to come and find that your first few shots are not sharp. Is it you, is the new kit lens, is the camera? You dont want to just slam out shot after shot to get used to the camera because you need to take under 200 shots to return it.

Some of the hysteria, that I admit to having partaken in when I should have known better, is seeded in the issue with people who dont usually use DPP having to use it because their usual software for organising images (Lightroom or Aperture) cant read the files. This combined with the fact the jpgs are a bit weird looking to a lot of people because of the amount of NR turns peoples attention to the camera.

Once the issue with DPP was highlighted and people were able to use ACR 6.7 to get atbthe RAW files the issue is resolved but the damage is done...

The seeds of doubt were sown with a lot of people... Its hard to shake that first impression even though it turns out the camera was not at fault.

What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.

Are you one of the people who downloaded the rather dull and uninteresting RAW files I posted yesterday of a house? If so, I apologise.

I wasnt going anywhere interesting to actually take good shots but I knew people were asking about RAW shots of outdoor scenes so I hastily posted a few of my own "crappy composition, worthless lighting" test shots so anybody interested in looking at 5d3 RAW files could. Again I should have know better. I deleted the post a few hours later.

I find a lot of the problems with scenic images most people post on the web to say "look at this stunning shot with camera x" are pointless, they are just showing the photographers composition skills and a pretty scene he took his new camera to. When you reduce the full image to 800 pix wide you arent showing the capability of the camera at all. A shot with many cell phone held steadily at the same scene would look great reduced that small.

I wonder what the reception would have been if it was priced $1,000 cheaper?

I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.

For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.

 

[Daniel Flather]

As soon as I read..."the 5d3 AF system sucks", I move on to another website (sorry Craig and your advertisers). I don't seem to get any useful information from that comment which invariably the post started with "dude or bro". So, please tell me why the 5d3 AF system sucks because I haven't bought the camera yet and I'd like to make an informed purchasing decision.

I actually laughed out loud when I read you post, thanks!

+100000000000

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.

For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.

You might want to step back and take another look.

The 5DII already had superlative image quality and low light capabilities. The 5DIII improves on them, but (of course!) it doesn't turn it into a medium format camera.

But compare the non-sensor specs with any other camera but the 1DX and the 5DIII either comes out on top or is running neck-and-neck.

You do realize, don't you, that the celebrated 1N and 3 (film) cameras ``only'' did 6 FPS, and only with a battery booster / grip? And they had 24 (or 36) image buffers, after which you had to swap out the film canister in order to clear the buffer? And that the 1DsIII only does 5 FPS? And none of them had the 5DIII's autofocus system. Or high ISO performance, or megapickle count, or or or or....

I mean, really. What more could a photographer want? A flying unicorn pony to carry your 12-1200 f/1.0L IV IS?

Cheers,

b&