I don't like the iPhone camera because it makes me angry when it takes good pictures, nearly as good as my DSLR and 20,000 dollars in lenses. So obviously I hate the damn thing. :/
lcjack: I find the sharpness disconcerting in that my eyes are not perfect, and I tend to focus on one specific thing, automatically diminishing everything else around it when I do so. I think this is natural... it makes it difficult for me to watch movies in high def, because this is not how I normally see realit
That is the fault of a poorly taken photograph. By using techniques you should guide your viewer to the area you want them to focus on. Perhaps make the whole picture b&w and only have color on the object you want to draw attention to, or use a fibonacci ratio, but lowering resolution isn't necessary. Life has an effective resolution well into the giga-pixels - and yet as a photographer we try to focus on something worthy of taking a picture and that is why I don't buy the whole "high resolution is a distractor" if anything that makes people look at the photo longer and that is always a good thing
Francis Carver: People still watch this kind of garbage?
I think it's funny that you call it garbage- I wonder if you really watched the show at all. The show is about how a single bad decision, action or inaction has long lasting and disastrous outcomes down the road... it is about how you can do your very best to make drugs safe yet there is always blood shed. It's about how good people fall from grace - and bad people find redemption. I am sorry you are one of the people who think the show was about violence and glorifying drugs - because it really isn't. The writers pulled in those people who like drugs and showed them how they are funding so much destruction to everything around them - even if they are using "responsibly" and aren't addicted. "all hubris must be punished" - now is that garbage?
iMac, therefore iAm: It's interesting to see a story about 'breaking bad' and image quality since the show itself looks like it was shot on a cheap cell phone.
Are you nuts? The footage is amazing. I just got the Bluray collectors set and it's absolutely stunning visually. They shot it with film, and the resolution is amazing. Digital may be passing films resolution in our near future - but there is something to be said about an analogue medium. When you use film you are making something that is physically there - it's alive - not just a stream of electrons. Think about that for a second. I by the way have never shot any movie on film, it's all been digital for me - and I defend digital all the time - but to say it's not a good medium is absolutely idiotic and shallow minded.
To avoid paying 80 dollars for LR4, you can convert to DNG
I have never worked with DNG files, and having to add another needless step is not something I really want to deal with.
1st - Do DNG files have the same capabilities as RAW files?2nd - Shouldn't Adobe release an update for new cameras to owners of their older software
The way I see it, they make BILLIONS selling their software - GOOD FOR THEM, I have no problem with that. And if they create a fantastic new piece of software I WILL buy it, but having to pay 80 dollars so my new camera works on their software - HORRIBLE
Chime in - should adobe make the 5D3 RAW capability available for LR3, or should we be forced to buy EXTREMELY similar software just so our camera's are supported.
Remember, they made those BILLION$ selling us the programs we already own, don't they have a responsibility to keep it a viable platform - if you turn it around, would it be acceptable to get our money back when we buy a new camera?
Just curious, how many folks here got the 5d3 yet? I just got mine :) Would love to chat about "how to's" not just the age old question of Nikon vs Canon
Adler1970: I want Nikon D800E! It is the BEST FF Camera today.For me Canon is not gut. Nikon is like Apple, Canon is like Windows. NIKON IS BETTER!Canon 5D mark3 is the same 5D mark2, with better autofocus. That is all. Nothing new. 5Dmark3 is nothing new. Only the autofocus is a new tool on 5D mark3. And Canon want 3300 euro for that OLD camera. Only a cheap marketing strategy.
NIKON IS THE FUTURE. NIKON IS A PHILOSOPHY. Canon is a religion. By Canon you have to believe. Canon is dogma.BY NIKON, YOU HAVE TO KNOW, you have to be, you have to do! By Canon you have only to believe. Canon makes business, propagandas, too much marketing. By Nikon it is photography!
I was curios how you came up with your conclusions? Did you personally spend time with the 5d3 before saying "your brand" is better? Its not even YOUR company! I haven't spent time with the nikon, mostly because I am heavily invested in Canon glass - but I can tell you as a 5d2 and 5d3 owner - you have no idea what you are talking about when you discuss these cameras. I have the 5d3 in hand as we speak - I didn't even know the difference before I started playing with it - and to be honest, I probably won't know everything I need to know for at least a week with it.
Im not going to comment on Nikon because I have no experience with it. All I ask is that you do the same.
(unknown member): Canon is the company that has the best engineers but also the worst marketing people. 5DMkIII is superb but it should have been complemented with a "5D X" with 40 Mp+ so that Nikon (or Sony) would have been grounded big time (I think "silenced" is the word). One more: 5D Mk II was affordable. 5D Mk III is not that affordable. And if an hypothetical 5D X will be even more expensive, this will only redirect people (especially the neofites or the ones with small Canon lens investment) towards Nikon. My take (again): bravo to the Canon ENG crowd that made this camera possible, shame to Canon's MKT crowd for their lack of vision. Cheers! P.S.: Canon Marketing people, if you read this you should do a market research - maybe you will find out that I am right (especially after Nikon D800 launch).
go buy the nokia then if MP is the most important feature of a good camera. Im told the lenses available for that camera are fantastic - hollywood is going to drop the arri and red cameras and use nokia now! LOL. I bet half the folks on here won't even buy one of these cameras anyway. Its like reading high school kids talk about lamborghini vs ferrari, fighting to the death about which is better - as if it even matters. While we are arguing about this crap, the real movers and shakers are making MILLIONS. Who cares! Go out and do something worthwhile. You don't like it, don't buy it. You do, go buy it. What do you care about what other people might think anyway. If that is your number one concern -well, you're an idiot.I obviously want to discuss it (so I am no better than any of you) but really, the stupid hatred and chest beating is idiotic. Did you make this phone yourself?Did you invest your lifes savings into its development?who cares guys, buy it or don't buy it, period
METROMODEPHOTO: Okay, i was a little-bit hard with my comments yesterday. sorry to all.i was just simply expecting for the 5d-3 to be a real upgrade from the two and, have a more competitive edge on the d800 since i own the 7D. i was looking to upgrade to a full size sensor SLR but canon did not hit the bulls eye with an upgrade. instead , only made a better 5D-2 and called it a 3 with 1more pixel ad-on.nikon on the other hand accomplished the job thoroughly with the d800 with 36MP .the fact is BOTH camera manufacture are really good, thats why they have been head to head on for years.i was one of those people who switched from nikon to canon during the film to digital transition era.canon just had the digital edge over nikon in that era. but i refuse to go from my 7D to the 5D-3 just to get a generic 5D-2 upgrade. if that was the case i would sacrifice and go back to nikon and get the d800. however i will wait and see to see if canon will surprize me with something better than the 5D-3.
I don't think the 5d m3 as an update, I see it more like a 3D, as many others do. It bridges the gap between the 5d and 1d line. Megapixel count is important, but you make it sound like the "end all, be all" and it isn't. Like you I was hoping for a larger megapixel count, but then again... why? Is quantity better than quality? While I have not had any time with the camera yet, I have read a lot of reviews from folks who have, and asked them a lot of questions, and their answers tell a lot about the camera. Getting two stops better quality in low light sensitivity will make a huge difference in my wedding photography business, more than adding 50% more resolution... more resolution of noise does me no good. Joed700's comments make more sense - but I don't need a formal test to see that at 12000 iso there is a lot less noise. Dual cards is huge, you have immediate backup of images! If you care so much for MP count, why not get a phaseone 65+ and get it over with!
Joed700: It interesting to see Canon loyalists and Nikon fanboys here debating which camera is better that the other. Some are naive enough to defend the overpricing of the Canon 5D MK III for its imaginary/untested super sensor. The true to the matter is each camera has goods and bads, and so are their lenses. I think as consumers, we shouldn't defend certain brand but to demand quality from the manufacturers. We pay so much money now-a-days for lenses that are made of cheap plastics. Why should we pay over thousand dollars for small sensor cameras like the D7000 or 7D..? They should make full frame DSLRs standard and do away with all the DSLRs with crop factors. Why keep these sub standard cameras around when the technology is readily available? I guess we all know the answer; they do it because they can! Remember the days of the film cameras? Everyone used 35mm and that was the standard.
I had a 5d mark II when I needed to have further reach for certain shots. A great way to get more focal length is to have a cropped sensor - so my 400mm with a 2x converter would produce 1280mm effective focal length rather than just 800. THe sensor is just one of many tools. If all the sensors were full frame, you would lose that!