This web site is making me question why I lurk here

[dstppy]

I'll take a shot at the psychiatrist's chair too! (nice to be on the other side for once ;D)

I honestly blame Facebook/Twitter . . . no really. This last year has been a nasty one for rude and uninformed people. I used to keep my mouth SHUT because almost everyone here really knew a lot more about things, now you've got to scroll a page or two before you get an informed opinion.

I think it happened around the 'giveaway' time . . . that and/or when we got a few really good juicy rumors and then the armchair news aggregators put us on the radar for the masses.

Don't confuse this with my REGULAR 'web 2.0 ruined society' posts

This last year really seems to have brought the worst out in some posters . . . then again, maybe it's just the 'bad driver' effect . . . you just notice the really bad ones so much that it SEEMs like there's more of them.

I really miss the sidebar on the main site that showed the 'recent activity' when there weren't all the same topic/different thread there. We should have 3 mk3 threads: samples, reviews and complaints. BTW, weren't there a large share of these people moving to Nikon because Canon abandoned them?

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

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.

Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying? Improvement from 5d2 to 5d3 rather than a revolutionary leap?
The fervent over defending of the 5d3 on this site is as bad a the 5d3 bashers...

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&

Are you really releasing this pent up tirade about film cameras and unicorns because I said that as a new version of the 5d2's line the 5d3 was improvement not revolutionary? The 5d2 was a game changer the 5d3 improves on its weaknesses... what is so provacative about that?

Of course I must be deluded and dumb because I dared say anything other than the 5d3 is the most amazingest ever possible camera. I didnt even say anything negative about it.
Do you want to use this as an excuse to brag about your wonderful printer again? You must be soooo superior to those of us who only sell our prints at 20x30 inch.
This forum really is getting screwed up...

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

See how easy it is to get pulled into the flow...

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying?

What you were writing, as I recall, is that the 5DIII was more expensive than you expected yet it came with less-than-you-expected improvements.

So, pray tell, what improvements did you expect that would have made it worth the $3500 price tag? A pink flying unicorn pony?

No, really. I'm serious. I'd have thought that top-of-the-line autofocus, better-than-1DsIII FPS, the best high ISO performance in any 135-format camera available on store shelves, the second-highest resolution sensor in the format, a top-of-the-line viewfinder and LCD screen, and one of the best-ever movie cameras in the format would have at least met expectations -- but, clearly, it didn't meet yours.

What were you expecting?

Cheers,

b&

 

[kuwazome]

5D3

I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Theres also the problem that most photographers do not come from a print
background and don't really understand that there is a huge difference between 300ppi
and 400ppi printing. Its not so much about whether or not your clients can see it, or
whether the general viewer can see it. It is about striving for more than "just okay."

Just because they do not consciously see it, does not mean that no points are
added unconsciously to their first impression of your work. Go out and find a print sample
book that has 300ppi vs 400ppi photos and then tell me if you don't see a difference.
400ppi looks like a USM sharpened photo on paper as if it were a screen.
Its really something else.

A 12x18 print at 400ppi is around 34.5mp. That size is pretty common to see in
photos that run an entire spread... including the bleed.

Keep in mind that the typical commercial printers you have at home, or your local
print house printers are not able to create something of this quality. Not all 400ppi prints
are equal, I'm talking about commercial, large scale presses.

Interpolation really isnt a solution as much as its just a temporary fix. If you
cannot tell the difference between a high res photo and an interpolated photo, then
your attention to detail is lacking... I really question the quality of your photos as well.
Sure you can make a ton of money being "just okay," but we're talking about
achieving more than that.

Resolution does not make a photo better, but bad resolution really takes away
from a photo. That argument that people are not going to look at a poster up close
is really, really false. Every time I put a poster up, the first thing anyone does
is look at it up close... as long as they can get to it.

Sometimes photographers also forget that there is typography set on the posters
as well. These are vectors so naturally they are super sharp and high resolution. Put
that together photo and all of a sudden the photo doesnt look quite as good.

Don't get me wrong, almost all of the people complaining about resolution have
no idea what I'm talking about, nor do they have access to print such large and high
resolution prints. I'm just saying, don't write resolution off for the rest of us that
actually want to be perfectionists.

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying?

What you were writing, as I recall, is that the 5DIII was more expensive than you expected yet it came with less-than-you-expected improvements.

So, pray tell,

I didnt say it was more expensive than I expected or that I expected more improvements.
I was looking at the reasons why people may have been disappointed with the 5d3 and its price in response to the OP's question. Its called looking at things from another persons point of view... it is possible to do that without ridiculing their position or talking about unicorns...

So, pray tell,

This is where I stopped reading... I dont see any point in talking to people like you. I dont know why I am even bothering to reply this much to be honest

 

[Kernuak]

I think part of the problems is a combination of the JPEGs that Canon posted and the use of JPEGs without turning off the noise reduction by most of the reviewers. All that succeeded in doing, was producing images devoid of any detail. That would have been fine, but many people then took them as representative of the best the camera could achieve and consequently slagging off the poor image quality. The first thing I did when I fired off a test image at Focus on Imaging, was to switch off the noise reduction to do a very rough comparison on the LCD with my 5D MkII in the same lighting conditions. Sharpness was good, despite the lack of care on my part to avoid camera shake. My main aim was to look at the amount of noise, so ultimate sharpness wasn't something I was aiming for, but it was still alot better than most of the crappy sample images that have been floating around. It was good to see some good examples in the MkIII forum here (even if they weren't all as helpful as they could have been).

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

Re: 5D3

I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Theres also the problem that most photographers do not come from a print
background and don't really understand that there is a huge difference between 300ppi
and 400ppi printing. Its not so much about whether or not your clients can see it, or
whether the general viewer can see it. It is about striving for more than "just okay."

Just because they do not consciously see it, does not mean that no points are
added unconsciously to their first impression of your work. Go out and find a print sample
book that has 300ppi vs 400ppi photos and then tell me if you don't see a difference.
400ppi looks like a USM sharpened photo on paper as if it were a screen.
Its really something else.

A 12x18 print at 400ppi is around 34.5mp. That size is pretty common to see in
photos that run an entire spread... including the bleed.

Keep in mind that the typical commercial printers you have at home, or your local
print house printers are not able to create something of this quality. Not all 400ppi prints
are equal, I'm talking about commercial, large scale presses.

Interpolation really isnt a solution as much as its just a temporary fix. If you
cannot tell the difference between high res photo and an interpolated photo, then
your attention to detail is lacking... I really question the quality of your photos as well.
Sure you can make a ton of money being "just okay," but we're talking about
achieve more than that.

Resolution does not make a photo better, but bad resolution really takes away
from a photo. That argument that people are not going to look at a poster up close
is really, really false. Every time I put a poster up, the first thing anyone does
is look at it up close... as long as they can get to it.

Sometimes photographers also forget that there is typography set on the posters
as well. These are vectors so naturally they are super sharp and high resolution. Put
that together photo and all of a sudden the photo doesnt look quite as good.

Don't get me wrong, almost all of the people complaining about resolution have
no idea what I'm talking about, nor do they have access to print such large and high
resolution prints. I'm just saying, don't write resolution off for the rest of us that
actually want to be perfectionists.

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.

Very much +1

 

[marcust]

Very well said AnselA. I was beginning to think this was an anti Canon forum.
Now, granted I dont have thirty years experience with a camera, but some of waht I read on here and other forums makes me wonder why some people even own a DSLR. I for one want to learn about photography, not piss and moan about the decisions the engineers at Canon make.

 

[KitsVancouver]

Re: 5D3

I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Theres also the problem that most photographers do not come from a print
background and don't really understand that there is a huge difference between 300ppi
and 400ppi printing. Its not so much about whether or not your clients can see it, or
whether the general viewer can see it. It is about striving for more than "just okay."

Just because they do not consciously see it, does not mean that no points are
added unconsciously to their first impression of your work. Go out and find a print sample
book that has 300ppi vs 400ppi photos and then tell me if you don't see a difference.
400ppi looks like a USM sharpened photo on paper as if it were a screen.
Its really something else.

A 12x18 print at 400ppi is around 34.5mp. That size is pretty common to see in
photos that run an entire spread... including the bleed.

Keep in mind that the typical commercial printers you have at home, or your local
print house printers are not able to create something of this quality. Not all 400ppi prints
are equal, I'm talking about commercial, large scale presses.

Interpolation really isnt a solution as much as its just a temporary fix. If you
cannot tell the difference between high res photo and an interpolated photo, then
your attention to detail is lacking... I really question the quality of your photos as well.
Sure you can make a ton of money being "just okay," but we're talking about
achieve more than that.

Resolution does not make a photo better, but bad resolution really takes away
from a photo. That argument that people are not going to look at a poster up close
is really, really false. Every time I put a poster up, the first thing anyone does
is look at it up close... as long as they can get to it.

Sometimes photographers also forget that there is typography set on the posters
as well. These are vectors so naturally they are super sharp and high resolution. Put
that together photo and all of a sudden the photo doesnt look quite as good.

Don't get me wrong, almost all of the people complaining about resolution have
no idea what I'm talking about, nor do they have access to print such large and high
resolution prints. I'm just saying, don't write resolution off for the rest of us that
actually want to be perfectionists.

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.

I am on vacation with limited Internet and felt compelled to register to this forum to agree with this post. The Internet is rife with people without the proper background, knowledge, education or experiences to be posting as someone in the know. I am an admitted gear head with many years of product marketing and Chinese manufacturing experience to see most people provide inaccurate opinions on product marketing and profit drivers.

I admittedly did not understand all of the above post but it was well written enough to prove the point that to many people, MP is important if not necessary.

I personally don't understand the emotional and often aggressive rants to "go out and shoot and stop worrying about the technology". It's ironic because this is a gear site after all.

 

[triggermike]

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.

 

[wickidwombat]

it changed radically in the near lead up to the 5Dmk3 announcement.

I think there were record numbers of new registrations, with many trolls and single posts whining and complaining about megapixels. People signing up to just tell us all how unhappy they were at canon and they were going to change to nikon (really like we care or can do anything about the camera release. People get a grip)

Removing karma has probably removed a deterent for people to unload on others.
I never felt karma limited my posting I knew certain posts would get smited like saying i didnt like the output of photomatix that was a goody! and criticising the image quality of the 7D as a couple of examples

I was sort of hoping after the releases things would calm down and people would just get over the megapixel thing and it would get back to normal around here, lots of helpfull people and I've learned a heap from this site and the very experienced and knowlegable people on here.

Thanks CR

 

[kuwazome]

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.

Yes, this is the industry standard.

Most if not all 400ppi prints on commercial design work are using
photos shot with a MF camera.

But you do realize that smaller studios do not have that sort of budget
to be spending $20-40k on a back alone and upgrading it every few years.

High mp 35mm cameras are definitely feasible as shown by the D800,
I really dont see why there cannot be a shift away from shooting medium format.
Photo equipment is severely overpriced, whose to say that it cannot get cheaper?

The world should move forward, not sit back on
existing business models "that works."

 

[TrumpetPower!]

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.

Exactly.

Complaining that a top-of-the-line 135 format SLR can't produce the same quality output as an 80 megapickle 645 format back (or, for that matter, drum-scanned large format film) is every bit as silly as complaining that your Mercedes SL gets smoked by a Formula 1 racer (or, for that matter, a top-fuel dragster).

I mean, really? All y'all are so desperate to rip on Canon's failure to deliver an invisible pink flying unicorn pony that you have to complain that it merely just barely comes short of medium format picture quality?

Damn.

I guess some people just love to be miserable, I suppose.

Cheers,

b&

 

[BobSanderson]

Re: 5D3

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.

I think I lost your train of thought. The 5D II, a 21.1 Megapixel Full-Frame Sensor, was popular for what reason that Canon forgot? The 5D II is used today in many thousands of studios worldwide just as it is configured. The III is better in many dimensions. Why has Canon failed? Because it has not made the equivalent of 4x5 camera right now? I am lost.

 

[Stu_bert]

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.

Yes, this is the industry standard.

Most if not all 400ppi prints on commercial design work are using
photos shot with a MF camera.

But you do realize that smaller studios do not have that sort of budget
to be spending $20-40k on a back alone and upgrading it every few years.

High mp 35mm cameras are definitely feasible as shown by the D800,
I really dont see why there cannot be a shift away from shooting medium format.
Photo equipment is severely overpriced, whose to say that it cannot get cheaper?

The world should move forward, not sit back on
existing business models "that works."

Canon delivered what most of their users indicated they wanted, and where they thought the market was going. Whether there was some technical reasoning behind that we can't tell.

3 months ago, Nikon had the 24MP 3DX. Then they released a 36MP monster. Canon has not said they will not release such a camera (after all a 7D @ FF is > 45MP), but right now they have released what they thought the market wanted / needed 2-3 years ago.

I understand your frustration, but your phrasing appears to indicate game over, just 'cause Canon did not know Nikon would release a high MP camera... There is a short term game, which a lot of people here seem to be worried over, and thus are considering a switch. There's a longer term game also and by the end of the year, we will hopefully know where Canon thinks it will make the most impact (financially...), and can then see if it still aligns with our needs. If I switch, it won't be because I don't think Canon can deliver, but I do think they are somewhat conservative.

AnselA wrote a good piece which resonated with many members. Having an "outside / less regular" posters' perspective is good to make people step back and think. Maybe we should have a "Vent" category, where people can airs their gripes, irrespective of their abilities and everyone knows what these posts will contain.

For me, I get a lot of benefit from the site, and have learnt a lot of tech from people far more knowledgeable than I. And for me, that's why I frequent the site.... The flotsam is well... just that

 

[kuwazome]

Re: 5D3

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.

I think I lost your train of thought. The 5D II, a 21.1 Megapixel Full-Frame Sensor, was popular for what reason that Canon forgot? The 5D II is used today in many thousands of studios worldwide just as it is configured. The III is better in many dimensions. Why has Canon failed? Because it has not made the equivalent of 4x5 camera right now? I am lost.

I'm not sure where I said failed? You do realized what "logical next step" means right?

Sorry, but I think it is you that needs to read a little bit more carefully.

 

[kuwazome]

I actually do not think its game over or I need to switch.
In fact I don't think there would ever be any reason for me to ever sell and change
to another brand, save for maybe if Canon goes bankrupt -- which will not happen.

I just find it absolutely ridiculous that any sort of comment made that does not fall along
the lines of "oh Canon is so great" gets bashed. I mean... why? If one doesn't criticize oneself,
how will one improve? I simply mentioned a need that I have and that the current Canon
offering will not fulfil, so I will simply keep on waiting until it does get fulfilled, that is all.

The overwhelming hostility and brand affiliation on this site is almost as bad as POTN, and
probably is a predominate Canon-user trait. None of my Nikon friends exhibit this behavior.

The minute anyone criticizes Canon... or perhaps even Apple, someone immediately
jumps to a conclusion and starts being ultra defensive of their views. I thought forums were
for discussions? Clearly not.

By the way, I shoot with two 1D Mark 3s, surprised?

 

[kuwazome]

I'm surprised you suddenly mastered English. Now just answer the question.

Last post here. I gotta get back to doing productive things.
Keep up with that attitude, there might be a career in it.

 

[Stu_bert]

I actually do not think its game over or I need to switch.
In fact I don't think there would ever be any reason for me to ever sell and change
to another brand, save for maybe if Canon goes bankrupt -- which will not happen.

I just find it absolutely ridiculous that any sort of comment made that does not fall along
the lines of "oh Canon is so great" gets bashed. I mean... why? If one doesn't criticize oneself,
how will one improve? I simply mentioned a need that I have and that the current Canon
offering will not fulfil, so I will simply keep on waiting until it does get fulfilled, that is all.

The overwhelming hostility and brand affiliation on this site is almost as bad as POTN, and
probably is a predominate Canon-user trait. None of my Nikon friends exhibit this behavior.

The minute anyone criticizes Canon... or perhaps even Apple, someone immediately
jumps to a conclusion and starts being ultra defensive of their views. I thought forums were
for discussions? Clearly not.

By the way, I shoot with two 1D Mark 3s, surprised?

I shoot with a pair of 1Ds MK IIIs, so no, not surprised at all

And I was not trying to defend Canon or bash you, so sorry if that is how it came across.... I said I understand your frustration, I felt the same when Canon released the MK II hence why I ended up with two 2nd hand MK IIIs.

I am surprised on how many people appear to think that Canon & Nikon will always release similar specs at almost the same time, as though the industry is "geared"...

I find the D800 appealing and interesting, and I will be closely watching to see where the market pans out. Photography is pleasure for me, and it is the longer term view I will take based on what I think both companies may offer, from bodies to lenses. I've also considered a Pentax MF and a 2nd hand Phase One....