half of the price goes to pay for the advertisement in dpreview
Does this mean there will be a Magic Lantern for 5D3?
forgets to install an aperture ring
Marty4650: I'd say this is an inexcusable defect for a $3500 camera. And it will be pretty expensive to fix, since a "firmware upgrade" can't do the work of a light seal. I imagine that all the 5DIIIs sold will have to be shipped back for a modification now.
Canon simply must do better quality control testing. It's really a lot cheaper to get it right the first time.
I will be very surprised if 9/10 DSLRs on the market don't have the same "problem". Nobody's had it affect their photos.
The 550D is leaking from the viewfinder pretty massively. That's it, I want my money back! After taking thousands of shots without a problem I suddenly realized the camera's unusable.
mgrum: "In video mode with the 1D C there is still no peaking or magnification of the image with the 1D C, which Smith said is because the camera is built on the 1D X chassis the functions other than 4K and 2K recording have not been changed."
That is fair enough, but why then do Canon feel they can charge over double the price for what is effectively a 1DX with different firmware? This must be the least effort anyone has put into developing a product ever!
The price is determinded by the value to the consumer, not the effort that went into it.
Compared to this, the 5D3 seems like such a small improvement over 5D2. Its videos are too blurry, there's no clean HDMI and the camera still has serious rolling shutter. Its price will be dropping pretty quickly.
Philip Bloom has an excellent review of the 5D3's video mode @ https://vimeo.com/39292404. I wonder if the D4 and the 1DX are better, though. Looking forward to those cameras as well.
Inars: As allways, Nikon have a better skin tone.
The differences are down to the choice of the picture style. But in theory, yes, Nikon's sensor is capable of better color reproduction. Not sure that we can see it in the video, though.
rocknhead: Excellent report. Only prob i have is in my opinion handicapping the canon by using a nikon lens with an adaptor on the canon. That does not seem to me to be an apples to apples comparison. I would have thought to be fair you would get say a good tamron lens and use a lens made for each camera. I understand that by using the exact same lens you are getting a bettercomparison in the cameras BUT it is my opinion that would not over weigh the handicap put on the canon camera by using an adapter and a nikon lens.
They are both great cameras. If i did not have a lot of money in canon lenses (5d mkii) I would prob buy the nikon if i was starting over today.
I dont quite see how nikon can put that much technology for that money.
The adapter doesn't have any glass elements in it. In optical terms it's just like putting a different mount on the same lens.
Alec: Earlier today I found myself on the business end of a Big Black Camera, lol, being shot in a film scene. ... the camera being RED5 (in a 4K/800iso/24p mode - I'd spied a look! :). A couple of useful things about that setup:
1) The camera supports 3 monitors: the cameraman's, the focus puller's, and a large director's one. This wasn't some cheapie video output replication - each of these had different markers and things exposed, appropriate for their role.
2) The focus puller uses a wireless manual focus servo worn around his neck. Basically a detached focus ring, with focus marks to be executed in a given scene penciled in on the focus ring's white band. Everything was measured with a tape measure and I reckon this ring had adequate length of travel and fidelity of calibration.
3) Sound is completely separate. A separate crew member manages a shotgun mic on a boom with a recorder. That's what the clapper board is for.
"Earlier today I found myself on the business end of a Big Black..." - sounds like you had a lot of fun! :D
4k capture is great if you output to 2k, but native 4k viewing is not really useful. How close to the screen do you have to be to resolve the difference? It can't be more than 3 feet for a 24" screen with perfect eyesight. That's almost too close to watch movies. I mean, would we see the difference between a native 12 MP and a resampled 2 MP film projection at the cinema?
I think it will stop at 4k for viewing and 8k for capture and editing. Color depth and framerate will be the frontier after that. As for framerate, it will peak at 60p for viewing because that's where the emotional impact peaks. That will change only when movies go interactive, i.e. turn into video games.
bradleyg5: Yawn, wake me up with they hit F/0.8. f0.95 is not terribly impressive when you only have to produce an image circle 1/4th the size of fullframe. sure the intensity of light is high, but the total amount of light passed through the lens is not worthy of that price tag.
It's ONLY the diameter of the aperture and nothing else at all. It's hard physics. Longer and brighter lenses have less DOF only because their diameter is bigger. Shorter and dimmer lenses have more DOF only because their diameter is smaller. Cropping is completely irrelevant. Take a shallow DOF photograph and crop it in Photoshop. The DOF will not change, no matter how much you crop it.
To estimate how much DOF you will have, take the focal length of your lens and divide it by the relative aperture number. Hence, a 58/2 lens will have an aperture of 29 mm on all the camera formats ever invented. The DOF will be the same regardless of weather you've mounted it on a mobile phone or a full frame camera. Only the magnification of the picture will be different.
@REapper DOF depends on one thing only -- the diameter of the aperture. This is therefore in all respects the same as a 17.5 mm f/0.95 lens on a full frame camera, only the image circle is smaller and you need to crop the image. Cropping, however, doesn't reduce DOF or the amount of light falling on the same area of the sensor. It just changes the apparent focal length.
JMartinP: I think her arguments are brilliant! I'll use this for my next salary negotiation. "Since I only work one day a week, I should make at least five times more per hour than my colleges working full time"
"And then, after I've spent all my money, I'm left with no profit. That's how hard my job is!"
capteneo: This conversation confirms what I've long believed about the DPReview community: that it consists mostly of tech-heads who care little for the craft of photography. Many of the comments below are predicated on the belief that with expensive equipment comes good photos (a convenient fiction for all of these hobbyists with pricey kits!); few take the perspective that photography is, in fact, art. When you hire a photographer for your wedding, you're commissioning an artist to bring his vision to bear on your event. If said artist is conscientious, the process will surely require much time, effort, and gear. But that's not the point. You're paying for the art, not the bodies and lenses and flashes. Wedding photography is not some mercenary business, like plugging holes in leaky pipes. It's an artistic endeavor. If you're happy with the results that $2000 of raw gear can buy, more power to you. For those who take photography more seriously, the eye of an artist is worth paying for.
I doubt that most pro photographers are any good as artists. There's just so many of them...
skrulm8: As a businessman I feel that if the wedding season lasts only a few months, the gentleman is not supposed to make a living from it. It's a part time job and he should be doing something else for the remaining 67% of the year. I'm not saying $500 per wedding is the answer, but $1000 is more than enough if you ask me.
I mean, for $3,000 I can buy two 550Ds, a Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and rent the two flashes out. I'm sure there's relatives of mine with hands that have fingers on them, who would gladly take the pictures for free. For the few potos that need post processing, I'll do it myself.
And, yes, I've done wedding photography myself.
Here's my business, @Biggs23 - http://brelil.blogspot.com/. But I feel you're answering a comment nobody made.
@Loring von Palleske - Well, apparently, it's not worth it. I'd just build a website and lure people in with organic traffic. And I'd get a real job for the other 300+ days clueless people don't want to spend a car's worth on pictures.
And, how about this. Why not spend that $3,000 on renting, say, 7 fully equipped DSLRs, and giving them to whoever's most competent and willing among guests, to take loads and loads of pictures? I bet there would be many more good ones than from a single photographer and his buddy.
Shooshanddo: I definitely can understand her. I would like Beyonce to sing at my wedding but some told me that she is asking for one million $ for 15 min. Than I asked Spielberg to shoot with a digital video camera a 30 minutes movie of my birthday, an he asked 2 millions $. And another time I asked my bank for a 30 years loan, they gave me that immediately. Wow banks are good. they gave me 200000$ and after 10 years I have already paid 150000$. So i went to them and asked to pay the remain 50000$ in cash, and you know what they told me???? that I have to pay 180000$ more. So just guessing that after 30 years I will have a 30years+20years = 50years old house and I have paid the Bank at list 3/4 time more. Than again I become really mad when I saw MTV's program sweet 16 and a * a father paying half a million$ for a night party for a 16years old spoiled child. 99.9% of us professional photographers are struggling to survive economically, 0.01% are doing good and maybe one in a million is famous.
well, then I guess you can't really make a living from photography... and shouldn't even try to
As a businessman I feel that if the wedding season lasts only a few months, the gentleman is not supposed to make a living from it. It's a part time job and he should be doing something else for the remaining 67% of the year. I'm not saying $500 per wedding is the answer, but $1000 is more than enough if you ask me.
Clarrie: It will be interesting to see the specs of the inevitable Sony SLT A99.
that translucent mirror thing is a disaster... it means that whatever sony comes up with, it's going to be 30% worse in low light than its peers... not my kind of tradeoff!