tommy leong: Interestingly he hardly pick up on the 7D result sticking out like a sore thumb amongst the rebel group whereit shouldn't belong......
he went on and one about 5Dmk2 and mk3and new lens.....
I never found the 7D to be amazingly precise for AF. Has lots of points, lots of cross that will lock and speed but it wasn't a precision beast in my experience (although I did find it better than xxD).Also keep in mind there is more to real world AF than these tests and the 7D will do somewhat better than a rebel or xxD in many scenarios and the 5D3 will outdo the 5D2 even using older lenses in some real world scenarios.
vFunct: HDR style is really the worst, ugliest most over-processed photography style imaginable. There is absolutely NO art critic that would find this look acceptable.
And really, art critics are the only viewpoints that matter, since they reference the leading edge and do not care for populist appeal of the Wal Mart crowd that so many photographers love.
HDR is the equivalent of a Thomas Kinkade painting, and even looks like it. THAT'S how bad it is.
Photographers: do NOT do HDR. Learn the subtleties of a proper naturally lit non-overprocessed photograph. Study Hedi Slimane or Terry Richardson or Ryan McGinley or Ineez & Vinoodh for some proper fine-art photography. Learn why the art critics love that, and learn why they hate Thomas Kinkade paintings so much,
That's only because most people way overdo it or don't do it properly. It's possible to do it and make it not even apparent.
WilliamJ: I'd like to tell something about the "unpatriotic" critic. First, do photographers from around the world have to be "american patriotic" and produce "patriotic pictures only" as if they worked for the Pravda ?Second, where is gone the freedom of speech ? Do expression have to be "according to" the wishes of "flattering images" supposed to be a universal expectation ?
Wel, to be fair, Trey did seem sort of like he was having some fun with it himself, so no I'm not sure all were displeased, some were probably having fun with it all and some came out good/cool, but there are some that just look kinda taterred and rushed plain out.
Well, but what if you were the athlete who got their shot messed up? Then you might think differently.
Henry M. Hertz: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent
the techradar test:
QuoteTIFF images (after conversion from raw) have a consistently good signal to noise ratio across the sensitivity range comparing closely to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk III and just having the edge over the Nikon D800. It also shows a slight improvement at all sensitivities over the Canon EOS 5D Mk II.
QuoteTIFF files (after conversion from raw) have a high dynamic range with results comparing closely to the Nikon D4 and D800. Compared with the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, there is a marked improvement showing over 2EV greater range at the lower end of the sensitivity scale.
i thought techradar is a DxO certified lab?
techradar has no clue what they are doing
Cy Cheze: Peaking and zebra aids exist on several consumer <$1,000 videocams. Maybe high-end studio rigs don't need them because the users have golden eyes that attain the perfect narrow DOF and bokeh. Only low end aviators need GPS or auto-pilot. Professionals have x-ray vision and can dead reckon throught he fog.
Exactly, how the heck does the 5D3 not have those??
Photato: Chuck Westfall "1DC is about one stop more sensitive than the 5DMIII because of the 18MP sensor rather than the 22MP" There you have it! @ 4:18
Really 18 vs 22MP means 1 stop better? Did they not look at the 36MP D800 sensor that has the same high ISO SNR as the 5D3 at 22MP or the D4 at 16MP? Folks it is the technology NOT the MP (unless RADICALLY different) that makes the difference.
What I want to know is why the heck the 5D3 doesn't get those added in? They admit that camera for sure IS oriented towards the types of shooting that would need it so why does it not have have zebras and peaking (or a nice 1920x1080 super crisp using 2x2 C300 readout at 1.6x crop factor for more reach/etc.)?!?!!!
How many times does marketing have to hold back & mess things? Such sillly little basics? Stop the insane protectionism (like they do by making sure to cripple something as minor as AutoISO, ONCE AGAIN which the ridiculous limitation on the maximum speed you are allowed to set for the minimum shutter speed), especially if you raise the price $800 over the previous model.
Companies that play such extreme internal segmentation games tend to eventually give up the lead and fall on their faces.
They bragged about being infinitely far ahead if FF sensors & could rest on their laurles & now look at how much the D800 sensor wipes the 5D3 sensor for ISO100-400 dynamic range.
treepop: It seems like Canon is getting a bit too segmented. I dunno. it seems like these features should have been included in the $7,000.00 1D X. I mean $7000! seriously!? No. They need $15,000.00 for these features....that's nutso expensive.
Seriosuly just have made the 5D3 sharp or at least with a sharp 1.6x crop 1920x1080 and given the basics of zebra strips and focus peaking (which they just admitted ARE needing in on man cams which just admitted the 5D3 probably would be a lot) and make your killing. This marketing segmentation is going to save them a penny but quickly ruin them.
Francis Carver: Re. color depth: low-end 8-bit only. You may have the higher resolution, but it is combined with the lower color information.
"The company says the camera has been developed in discussions with Hollywood and television broadcasters, to ensure it has the features they need."
Wow, that takes guts. Even after the worldwide ridicule of their grand plan to take over Hollywood by storm with the EOS C300, Canon is still harboring illusions of grandeur to take Tinseltown by storm.
"Canon says it doesn't expect 4K to be a practical concern for many individuals..."
Now, that makes sense. Announce a 4K DSLR -- when you know this is of no practical concern for most people. Brilliant.
More brilliant is leaving out basics such as zebras and focus peaking because it will MOSTLY be used by rig crews and not single shooters. But what about when it IS? it costs nothing to put that in I mean even hackers put zebra strips into 5D2!
And even MORE brilliant is then where the heck are the zebra strips, focus peaking and 1.6x 1920x1080 crop mode video zoom that they jsut admitted are needed for single shooters which they just admitted would be the 5D3 market often?!?
Why is Canon run by marketing robots who have never used a camera in their life and just randomly take things out so they can brag in meetings about internal marketing segmentation.
Stop with the petty cripplings, give us the little extras and maybe you'll rule the world and have the bloggers singing praise instead of whining and griping?
Saving a penny and losing the dollar is Canon marketing doing. says Yoda apparently.
Stanislav S: At first I thought this Nikon would make me sell my 5D mk II, but now that I've read this article I guess I'll wait for MK III. Apparently, I wasn't a consumer target when Nikon designed that camera. Other than increased MP, which is the least important characteristic of a DSLR to me, I can't find any other major improvements over 4 years old 5D mk II. The face and landscape recognition feature - seriously, I thought this camera was designed for professionals. Let's see what Canon has to offer this year.
Much more advanced AF? Higher max frame rate (even if only in crop mode and with grip, still it's netter)? Better low ISO DR? Better VF? Better quality video? Better video monitoring and uncompressed video out? etc. (and I say this as someone who has shot Canon for years)
Dan Ortego: I suppose HDR has its' place but it is not my cup of tea. If you want your photos to look like cartoons, then its great!
You are mixing up bad HDR with HDR. You make garish messes without using HDR too.
micahmedia: John Omvik is obviously biased and has a vested interest. I appreciate that DPreview is up front about that.
HDR can LOOK more realistic, if done correctly, however, it IS a manipulation. There's no way around that as a fact. Even when performed by a limiting automatic mechanism, we are manipulating information in order to present it. Ex. slide film doesn't just exist in nature and does not process itself.
The problem with HDR, conceptually, is that it is combining two or more images, and that has traditionally been considered a technique of manipulation that presents a real moment in a way we could never experience it. Photography can help us examine the world in a way that we don't normally experience it, yet with an honesty to an objective reality. HDR is the antithesis.
If Bill O'Leary had burnt the sky of the image to reveal a plane that was really there, that would be acceptable, since in that moment, a person looking could have experienced that moment with unaided eyes.
Carefully done HDR can actually present scenes much CLOSER to what reality looked like. HDR is anything but an antithesis to objective reality. You need to read up books on the human visual system. That said, poorly done HDR can look weird and garish but so can cranking contrast to 0 or 100 or saturation, etc.
Of course HDR should be allowed to PJ. It's not editing things out or pasting things in or do anything other than basic processing. You can't print linear, un de-bayered RAW files. A carefully done HDR can be a lot closer to how the scene looked the eye/brain than not. Ridiculous. May as well outline any tone curves, and just print a flat, contrastless mesh of R,G and B dots.
Patty Capps: Just beautiful! -Nicely lit and composed, and it has all the class that so many are lacking in this category! Congratulations!
I think the composition is striking. Very, very nice. There is detail everywhere other than the top left part of her dress shoulder to waist so a mass of lost detail seems a little bit over board.
really cool shot
Good stuff, although I personally think you rther underplay how easy or not it is to notice differences. I didn't find it difficult at all to notice difference between various liveview AF or MF attempts and you show those to have been rather more minor than other differences you claim are hard to spot.Maybe you lucked out with the liveview focusing though. I've found that unless you take at least six tries, and sometimes you even need more, the simple difference in focusing can completely alter results of how one lens appears to fair against another. In terms of details shown maybe it's not a lot, but the bite of the microcontrast, how fast thin dark details next to light can be pretty easily spotted.
one thing i wonder is why it happens often enough that it will badly miss focus, way beyond any focus calibration mistake level and yet report prefect focus and sometimes not a single spot on the entire image is in focus and even with an easy subject and condition