5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Started Mar 14, 2012 | Discussions
Hondo Lane Junior Member • Posts: 25
5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

I have owned a 5dII for 3 years and have used it extensively to photograph landscapes and flat art (for reproductions). Wonderful camera. I have a wack of printers and have found the 5dII is good - for me - to about 16x24. I need to go bigger and although stitching works well, it is often not feasible or I discover that I screwed up in field.

So as a 5dII owner I held my breath that the new 5dIII would give us landscape photographers (and studio photographers) something useful - like more DR and more pixels. Of no interest to me is high ISO performance, fps, auto focus points, etc. Ya, I know get a MF camera (too many $$).

What did the 5dIII give to the landscape / studio photographers over the 5dII - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NADA. NADA. NADA. If you think about it, why would a landscape photographer considering Canon buying a 5dIII??? There is going to be a flood a good 5dII bodies on the market, very soon, from the fps crowd updating to the 5dIII and from landscape photographers moving to the Nikon d800 (if the camera actually performs at low ISO). Yes, megapixels is not everything, but to say that the imaging sensor is not the heart and engine of a modern digital camera I think is naive. Computers get more powerful, big ink printers get better and more affordable and Canon cameras remain stagnant.

Everyone is making excuses for Canon, but surely after 3 years a few more pixels and an increase in DR could be expected?

So now I sit and wait, like many other Canon landscape photographers, as to whether the D800 is for real. Can it approach the IQ of the Pentax 645d (yes I dare to dream!)? If the D800 actually delivers, then I definitely sell may Canon gear and go Nikon. Hell, it is just gear! And don't get me going on the lenses...

Seems to me that Canon got very complacent and got caught with their pants down. What were they doing the last 3 years??? I'm sure in a year or two they will have an answer and the game will continue, but for now they are on the sidelines.

For a modern landscape photographer a weather sealed body (you listening Canon!!) and 36MP sensor is very exciting. If you say otherwise I'd say your lying (and I have an old Pinto in the driveway that I want to sell you!). And if d800 delivers decent IQ that approaches that of the Pentax 645d, then $3000 is a good deal and Nikon will have a runaway winner.

The 5dII moved me from medium format film and has been a wonderful tool. But I want more! And after 3 years I expected more and so did a lot of others.

My 2 Cents,
Hondo

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Nikon D800 Pentax 645D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Randplaty Contributing Member • Posts: 504
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Canon specifically said that they were targeting general photography which unfortunately could not be everyone and the people they chose to leave out were landscape photographers. Canon knew they couldn't please everyone and they chose landscape photographers as the ones not to please. If they had put more megapixels in it, it would have cost them FPS which would have cost them photojournalists and sports photographers. So they chose the PJ and sports people instead. Sorry.

Maybe next camera they come out with will have more megapixels but you can't blame Canon for making a market based decision.

Hondo Lane wrote:

I have owned a 5dII for 3 years and have used it extensively to photograph landscapes and flat art (for reproductions). Wonderful camera. I have a wack of printers and have found the 5dII is good - for me - to about 16x24. I need to go bigger and although stitching works well, it is often not feasible or I discover that I screwed up in field.

So as a 5dII owner I held my breath that the new 5dIII would give us landscape photographers (and studio photographers) something useful - like more DR and more pixels. Of no interest to me is high ISO performance, fps, auto focus points, etc. Ya, I know get a MF camera (too many $$).

What did the 5dIII give to the landscape / studio photographers over the 5dII - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NADA. NADA. NADA. If you think about it, why would a landscape photographer considering Canon buying a 5dIII??? There is going to be a flood a good 5dII bodies on the market, very soon, from the fps crowd updating to the 5dIII and from landscape photographers moving to the Nikon d800 (if the camera actually performs at low ISO). Yes, megapixels is not everything, but to say that the imaging sensor is not the heart and engine of a modern digital camera I think is naive. Computers get more powerful, big ink printers get better and more affordable and Canon cameras remain stagnant.

Everyone is making excuses for Canon, but surely after 3 years a few more pixels and an increase in DR could be expected?

So now I sit and wait, like many other Canon landscape photographers, as to whether the D800 is for real. Can it approach the IQ of the Pentax 645d (yes I dare to dream!)? If the D800 actually delivers, then I definitely sell may Canon gear and go Nikon. Hell, it is just gear! And don't get me going on the lenses...

Seems to me that Canon got very complacent and got caught with their pants down. What were they doing the last 3 years??? I'm sure in a year or two they will have an answer and the game will continue, but for now they are on the sidelines.

For a modern landscape photographer a weather sealed body (you listening Canon!!) and 36MP sensor is very exciting. If you say otherwise I'd say your lying (and I have an old Pinto in the driveway that I want to sell you!). And if d800 delivers decent IQ that approaches that of the Pentax 645d, then $3000 is a good deal and Nikon will have a runaway winner.

The 5dII moved me from medium format film and has been a wonderful tool. But I want more! And after 3 years I expected more and so did a lot of others.

My 2 Cents,
Hondo

MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

This is what I wonder, how many landscape photographers there are compared to who this camera is really being targeted at. Weddings, Live Events and Non-Pro sports.

I would wager its about 5 to one.. It just seems to me, there are a lot more people who don't need more then 22MP.

NOW as far as DR, YES, we needed more.. That is a more then a little upsetting..

Hondo Lane wrote:

I have owned a 5dII for 3 years and have used it extensively to photograph landscapes and flat art (for reproductions). Wonderful camera. I have a wack of printers and have found the 5dII is good - for me - to about 16x24. I need to go bigger and although stitching works well, it is often not feasible or I discover that I screwed up in field.

So as a 5dII owner I held my breath that the new 5dIII would give us landscape photographers (and studio photographers) something useful - like more DR and more pixels. Of no interest to me is high ISO performance, fps, auto focus points, etc. Ya, I know get a MF camera (too many $$).

What did the 5dIII give to the landscape / studio photographers over the 5dII - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NADA. NADA. NADA. If you think about it, why would a landscape photographer considering Canon buying a 5dIII??? There is going to be a flood a good 5dII bodies on the market, very soon, from the fps crowd updating to the 5dIII and from landscape photographers moving to the Nikon d800 (if the camera actually performs at low ISO). Yes, megapixels is not everything, but to say that the imaging sensor is not the heart and engine of a modern digital camera I think is naive. Computers get more powerful, big ink printers get better and more affordable and Canon cameras remain stagnant.

Everyone is making excuses for Canon, but surely after 3 years a few more pixels and an increase in DR could be expected?

So now I sit and wait, like many other Canon landscape photographers, as to whether the D800 is for real. Can it approach the IQ of the Pentax 645d (yes I dare to dream!)? If the D800 actually delivers, then I definitely sell may Canon gear and go Nikon. Hell, it is just gear! And don't get me going on the lenses...

Seems to me that Canon got very complacent and got caught with their pants down. What were they doing the last 3 years??? I'm sure in a year or two they will have an answer and the game will continue, but for now they are on the sidelines.

For a modern landscape photographer a weather sealed body (you listening Canon!!) and 36MP sensor is very exciting. If you say otherwise I'd say your lying (and I have an old Pinto in the driveway that I want to sell you!). And if d800 delivers decent IQ that approaches that of the Pentax 645d, then $3000 is a good deal and Nikon will have a runaway winner.

The 5dII moved me from medium format film and has been a wonderful tool. But I want more! And after 3 years I expected more and so did a lot of others.

My 2 Cents,
Hondo

MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

I have a question, are there really THAT MANY people out making money from selling large, landscape images?

It just seems to me, everyone I know who does landscapes with no exception, dont make any large sums of money from it. But yet, everyone I know who shoots 12 y/o playing baseball, makes a ton of money..

Randplaty wrote:

Canon specifically said that they were targeting general photography which unfortunately could not be everyone and the people they chose to leave out were landscape photographers. Canon knew they couldn't please everyone and they chose landscape photographers as the ones not to please. If they had put more megapixels in it, it would have cost them FPS which would have cost them photojournalists and sports photographers. So they chose the PJ and sports people instead. Sorry.

Maybe next camera they come out with will have more megapixels but you can't blame Canon for making a market based decision.

Hondo Lane wrote:

I have owned a 5dII for 3 years and have used it extensively to photograph landscapes and flat art (for reproductions). Wonderful camera. I have a wack of printers and have found the 5dII is good - for me - to about 16x24. I need to go bigger and although stitching works well, it is often not feasible or I discover that I screwed up in field.

So as a 5dII owner I held my breath that the new 5dIII would give us landscape photographers (and studio photographers) something useful - like more DR and more pixels. Of no interest to me is high ISO performance, fps, auto focus points, etc. Ya, I know get a MF camera (too many $$).

What did the 5dIII give to the landscape / studio photographers over the 5dII - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NADA. NADA. NADA. If you think about it, why would a landscape photographer considering Canon buying a 5dIII??? There is going to be a flood a good 5dII bodies on the market, very soon, from the fps crowd updating to the 5dIII and from landscape photographers moving to the Nikon d800 (if the camera actually performs at low ISO). Yes, megapixels is not everything, but to say that the imaging sensor is not the heart and engine of a modern digital camera I think is naive. Computers get more powerful, big ink printers get better and more affordable and Canon cameras remain stagnant.

Everyone is making excuses for Canon, but surely after 3 years a few more pixels and an increase in DR could be expected?

So now I sit and wait, like many other Canon landscape photographers, as to whether the D800 is for real. Can it approach the IQ of the Pentax 645d (yes I dare to dream!)? If the D800 actually delivers, then I definitely sell may Canon gear and go Nikon. Hell, it is just gear! And don't get me going on the lenses...

Seems to me that Canon got very complacent and got caught with their pants down. What were they doing the last 3 years??? I'm sure in a year or two they will have an answer and the game will continue, but for now they are on the sidelines.

For a modern landscape photographer a weather sealed body (you listening Canon!!) and 36MP sensor is very exciting. If you say otherwise I'd say your lying (and I have an old Pinto in the driveway that I want to sell you!). And if d800 delivers decent IQ that approaches that of the Pentax 645d, then $3000 is a good deal and Nikon will have a runaway winner.

The 5dII moved me from medium format film and has been a wonderful tool. But I want more! And after 3 years I expected more and so did a lot of others.

My 2 Cents,
Hondo

Randplaty Contributing Member • Posts: 504
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Really unscientific, but I looked at the number of threads in different categories on POTN:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=110

  1. 1 Weddings & Family Events (by far the most threads)

  2. 2 Sports

  3. 3 Macro

  4. 4 Landscape

  5. 5 People (portraits)

  6. 6 Birds

and then a bunch of other categories. Wildlife was way low on the list though.

I'd guess #4 and #6 would want more megapixels.

Astrophotographer 10 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,129
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

It seems to me camers design involves a series of factors that are somewhat conflicting and compromise on factors is required.

Lots of megapixels and low noise.

Lots of megapixels makes it hard for high FPS without huge and fast memory buffers and image processors.
Price

So I suspect Canon has gone for pleasing the maximum potential customers to create maximum profit and perhaps pick up those who aren't happy later with another model either in development or to be released soon if you believe the rumours of a 5DX or a Mark 3.

I doubt those who post on this site represent the bulk of Canon customers for the 5D mark iii upgrade.

For me I was hanging out for the 5d mark iii as a move to full frame from a 40D.

Apart from the initial claimed low light performance I was disappointed and chose D800 as the more revolutionary camera. It simply seems better on paper. Hopefully I chose right. Low light performance seems fine on the D800, no banding, better resolution, DX mode, autofocus for video, in camera time lapse were factors appealling to me. Autofocus, metering and other aspects seem much the same with either camera. If 5D mark iii had 2 stops low light performance in RAW over the D800 (which at early stages it appears it does not) I would have been more tempted

The sample released images from the D800 wowed me the Canon released sample 5D mark iii images were on the whole disappointing ( doesn't Canon marketing know you always make your samples the best you can). I am sure the 5D mark iii is capable of better than those samples but it leaves a doubt that maybe it isn't!

I'd say Sony sensor development is way advanced over Canon.

Someone posted a while ago Canon refused to use other manufacturer's lithography gear which was more advanced ( a point of pride about making all their own gear and its fallen behind its competitors perhaps?).

Greg.

 Astrophotographer 10's gear list:Astrophotographer 10's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 +1 more
Skiwi33 Regular Member • Posts: 380
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

I "get" the argument, but to me it misses the point,

I have an iPad2. It works fine. I don't need more Mpix. But in the back of my mind is the little voice that says "but it COULD be more useful". Which is why I will buy an iPad3..

With all due respect to these arguments, every step change in resolution has bought these arguments forth. They are worth no more now than they were then.

MASTERPPA wrote:

I have a question, are there really THAT MANY people out making money from selling large, landscape images?

It just seems to me, everyone I know who does landscapes with no exception, dont make any large sums of money from it. But yet, everyone I know who shoots 12 y/o playing baseball, makes a ton of money..

Randplaty wrote:

Canon specifically said that they were targeting general photography which unfortunately could not be everyone and the people they chose to leave out were landscape photographers. Canon knew they couldn't please everyone and they chose landscape photographers as the ones not to please. If they had put more megapixels in it, it would have cost them FPS which would have cost them photojournalists and sports photographers. So they chose the PJ and sports people instead. Sorry.

Maybe next camera they come out with will have more megapixels but you can't blame Canon for making a market based decision.

Randplaty Contributing Member • Posts: 504
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Skiwi33 wrote:

I "get" the argument, but to me it misses the point,

I have an iPad2. It works fine. I don't need more Mpix. But in the back of my mind is the little voice that says "but it COULD be more useful". Which is why I will buy an iPad3..

With all due respect to these arguments, every step change in resolution has bought these arguments forth. They are worth no more now than they were then.

So you don't want to talk about landscape photographers? Ok we can change the topic.

Why don't you ever think... oooh this camera COULD be more useful with better AF? Or ooh this camera COULD be more useful with more fps? It's the same argument... it's just which one of those specs are more interesting to you.

surf1 Regular Member • Posts: 166
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Hondo Lane wrote:

For a modern landscape photographer a weather sealed body (you listening Canon!!) and 36MP sensor is very exciting.

The 5dII moved me from medium format film and has been a wonderful tool. But I want more! And after 3 years I expected more and so did a lot of others.

My 2 Cents,
Hondo

There are a lot of discussions about Canon's product placement of the 5D3, and many are expecting a higher MP 5DX or 3D within the next 6-12 months.

I believe that with the introduction of the 5D3 Canon makes it difficult to create product differentiation for a new high MP body. A 5Dx with same price, higher MP, lower frame rate, lower ISO as the 5D3 would target a relatively small market segment, but would be cheaper to develop if it's using the same body. A 3D would have to be placed significantly above the 5D in the expensive and professional range, with features for Studio photographers. But nobody knows, if, when and which camera Canon has in the pipeline.

And from a sensor point of view Canon seems to be far from reaching the base ISO DR of the Exmor designs. About 2 stops difference according to Bill Claff.

Maybe set yourself a time frame of 6 months to see if Canon has another ace in the hole and see how the D800 performs before making a decision?

 surf1's gear list:surf1's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +11 more
BadBeta Regular Member • Posts: 454
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Maybe set yourself a time frame of 6 months to see if Canon has another ace in the hole and see how the D800 performs before making a decision?

Waiting for actual D800(E) and 5D III performances is a good idea. And so far I've said I'd wait until Photokina.

The question though is if that doesn't really mean waiting a year? If they announce it at Photokina, it will hardly be around the next day. And the worry is that Canon has some announcements that seems premature. (200-400 anybody?). So I worry they might make an announcement on Photokina, in order to have people hanging on, but wont deliver on that for yet some time.

If they had something lined up for delivery in a few months it might be a good idea to do that soon before people jump ship. As it stands Canon has made it clear that I'm not a wanted customer, and they have made no efforts to signal otherwise.

 BadBeta's gear list:BadBeta's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital II Ricoh GR Digital III Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +7 more
Skiwi33 Regular Member • Posts: 380
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Randplaty wrote:

Skiwi33 wrote:

I "get" the argument, but to me it misses the point,

I have an iPad2. It works fine. I don't need more Mpix. But in the back of my mind is the little voice that says "but it COULD be more useful". Which is why I will buy an iPad3..

With all due respect to these arguments, every step change in resolution has bought these arguments forth. They are worth no more now than they were then.

So you don't want to talk about landscape photographers? Ok we can change the topic.

Why don't you ever think... oooh this camera COULD be more useful with better AF? Or ooh this camera COULD be more useful with more fps? It's the same argument... it's just which one of those specs are more interesting to you.

Huh? I was talking landscape photography, hence my concentration on Mpix. AF, FPS that you raise, now you're changing the topic....

BadBeta Regular Member • Posts: 454
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Why don't you ever think... oooh this camera COULD be more useful with better AF? Or ooh this camera COULD be more useful with more fps? It's the same argument... it's just which one of those specs are more interesting to you.

Well, the 5D line has so far been about focus on high IQ and resolution at the expense of other specifications. And the 5D line has been a success doing that, even though Canon has had others cameras with both better AF and better FPS. It tells me that there are plenty of people who make the same prioritization again - and most of them actually owns a 5D already. So all this talk about there not be a market for a 5D with higher resolution and lower FPS: look at all the existing 5D customers.

 BadBeta's gear list:BadBeta's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital II Ricoh GR Digital III Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +7 more
Randplaty Contributing Member • Posts: 504
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Skiwi33 wrote:

Randplaty wrote:

Skiwi33 wrote:

I "get" the argument, but to me it misses the point,

I have an iPad2. It works fine. I don't need more Mpix. But in the back of my mind is the little voice that says "but it COULD be more useful". Which is why I will buy an iPad3..

With all due respect to these arguments, every step change in resolution has bought these arguments forth. They are worth no more now than they were then.

So you don't want to talk about landscape photographers? Ok we can change the topic.

Why don't you ever think... oooh this camera COULD be more useful with better AF? Or ooh this camera COULD be more useful with more fps? It's the same argument... it's just which one of those specs are more interesting to you.

Huh? I was talking landscape photography, hence my concentration on Mpix. AF, FPS that you raise, now you're changing the topic....

You said you get the argument but it doesn't make sense. The argument was that there simply aren't enough landscape photographers and they were the ones left out of the 5D3s improvements. The argument was never, that you don't need megapixels.

So you were switching the topic from the # of landscape photographers vs other photographers to the topic of whether we "could" use more megapixels or not.

Vibrio Veteran Member • Posts: 4,004
boohoo

why do you feel the need to write a big life story. if the 5D3 does not offer you what you need as a photographer you obviously have to buy another make that does. The 5D2 can print bigger than 16x24 with no perceved loss of quality though

Hondo Lane wrote:

I have owned a 5dII for 3 years and have used it extensively to photograph landscapes and flat art (for reproductions). Wonderful camera. I have a wack of printers and have found the 5dII is good - for me - to about 16x24. I need to go bigger and although stitching works well, it is often not feasible or I discover that I screwed up in field.

So as a 5dII owner I held my breath that the new 5dIII would give us landscape photographers (and studio photographers) something useful - like more DR and more pixels. Of no interest to me is high ISO performance, fps, auto focus points, etc. Ya, I know get a MF camera (too many $$).

What did the 5dIII give to the landscape / studio photographers over the 5dII - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NADA. NADA. NADA. If you think about it, why would a landscape photographer considering Canon buying a 5dIII??? There is going to be a flood a good 5dII bodies on the market, very soon, from the fps crowd updating to the 5dIII and from landscape photographers moving to the Nikon d800 (if the camera actually performs at low ISO). Yes, megapixels is not everything, but to say that the imaging sensor is not the heart and engine of a modern digital camera I think is naive. Computers get more powerful, big ink printers get better and more affordable and Canon cameras remain stagnant.

Everyone is making excuses for Canon, but surely after 3 years a few more pixels and an increase in DR could be expected?

So now I sit and wait, like many other Canon landscape photographers, as to whether the D800 is for real. Can it approach the IQ of the Pentax 645d (yes I dare to dream!)? If the D800 actually delivers, then I definitely sell may Canon gear and go Nikon. Hell, it is just gear! And don't get me going on the lenses...

Seems to me that Canon got very complacent and got caught with their pants down. What were they doing the last 3 years??? I'm sure in a year or two they will have an answer and the game will continue, but for now they are on the sidelines.

For a modern landscape photographer a weather sealed body (you listening Canon!!) and 36MP sensor is very exciting. If you say otherwise I'd say your lying (and I have an old Pinto in the driveway that I want to sell you!). And if d800 delivers decent IQ that approaches that of the Pentax 645d, then $3000 is a good deal and Nikon will have a runaway winner.

The 5dII moved me from medium format film and has been a wonderful tool. But I want more! And after 3 years I expected more and so did a lot of others.

My 2 Cents,
Hondo

Randplaty Contributing Member • Posts: 504
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

BadBeta wrote:

Why don't you ever think... oooh this camera COULD be more useful with better AF? Or ooh this camera COULD be more useful with more fps? It's the same argument... it's just which one of those specs are more interesting to you.

Well, the 5D line has so far been about focus on high IQ and resolution at the expense of other specifications. And the 5D line has been a success doing that, even though Canon has had others cameras with both better AF and better FPS. It tells me that there are plenty of people who make the same prioritization again - and most of them actually owns a 5D already. So all this talk about there not be a market for a 5D with higher resolution and lower FPS: look at all the existing 5D customers.

That could be an interpretation of the 5D line, but I actually think every new generation had different focuses.

The first 5D was, how can we make the most affordable full frame camera. Yes it had great IQ, but that was just because of the full frame sensor.

The 5D2, was "how can we improve on the 5D?" The improved it by going megapixels yes, but the over IQ didn't really improve much. The biggest improvement was video and that's what made the 5D2 a hit.

This totally changed the game. Now a lot of photojournalists and pure video people picked up the 5D. These people were never interested in resolution (not still resolution at least). The 5D2 appealed to the megapixel crowd as well as to these other crowds.

With the 5D3, Canon basically just listened to all of the complaints about the 5D2 and fixed those. The AF, weathersealing etc. A lot of these complaints were coming from the pros ... PJ, pro video, wedding etc crowd. So Canon fixed the complaints and upped the price point to pay for it.

Now this leaves out some people, but I think Canon knows this and will respond with a 6D or something of the sort. But as you can see, I don't think Canon had this theme of "highest resolution and IQ without other features" theme going throughout the entire line. They target actual market segments of customers, not some concept of "high res and IQ camera."

Skiwi33 Regular Member • Posts: 380
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Randplaty wrote:

Skiwi33 wrote:

Randplaty wrote:

Skiwi33 wrote:

I "get" the argument, but to me it misses the point,

I have an iPad2. It works fine. I don't need more Mpix. But in the back of my mind is the little voice that says "but it COULD be more useful". Which is why I will buy an iPad3..

With all due respect to these arguments, every step change in resolution has bought these arguments forth. They are worth no more now than they were then.

So you don't want to talk about landscape photographers? Ok we can change the topic.

Why don't you ever think... oooh this camera COULD be more useful with better AF? Or ooh this camera COULD be more useful with more fps? It's the same argument... it's just which one of those specs are more interesting to you.

Huh? I was talking landscape photography, hence my concentration on Mpix. AF, FPS that you raise, now you're changing the topic....

You said you get the argument but it doesn't make sense. The argument was that there simply aren't enough landscape photographers and they were the ones left out of the 5D3s improvements. The argument was never, that you don't need megapixels.

So you were switching the topic from the # of landscape photographers vs other photographers to the topic of whether we "could" use more megapixels or not.

Oh, thanks for telling me what I meant, and what arguments are allowed. There was I thinking that the thread was about the relevance for the 5D3 for landscape work.

Got control issues per chance? Like being the locker room monitor???

yabokkie Regular Member • Posts: 483
D800 should be better than Pentax 645D

D800 should have better image quality even with a same performance sensor that
for Pentax 645D, the fastest lenses are f/2.8, and
for D800, the fastest lenses are f/1.4 (excl. some rare ones few people use).
so, on the lens side, D800 got 2 stops advantage.

645D has a sensor about 1.7 times area of D800,
that means 0.76 stops better IQ at the same exposure.
then D800 have a 2 - 0.76 = 1.24 stop advantage over 645D.

specifically D800 + 50/1.8 stopped down to f/2 will still beat 645D + 75/2.8.
adding to that, D800 should have a far better sensor.

BadBeta Regular Member • Posts: 454
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

The thing is though that all current owners of 5D has prioritized that camera, with its high IQ, instead of cameras with higher FPS and better AF. Lots of them would repeat that exact same prioritization, and looking at 5D sales I think is plain wrong wrong to say that it is a niche market.

(And no, I don't think the people who bought it for video are all that many in the scheme of things. I actually don't know anyone who did that. How many on this forum did that?)

Basically Canon has not given existing 5D owners and upgrade along the same privatizations as they bought it for. Instead they have given the 7D crowd a full frame, leaving quite a few of us dangling. I wont be dangling for long.

 BadBeta's gear list:BadBeta's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital II Ricoh GR Digital III Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +7 more
BadBeta Regular Member • Posts: 454
Re: boohoo

why do you feel the need to write a big life story. if the 5D3 does not offer you what you need as a photographer you obviously have to buy another make that does. The 5D2 can print bigger than 16x24 with no perceved loss of quality though

So where do you draw the line? 17x25? 20x30? More importantly higher resolution would give better IQ in all but low light - which some of us would much prefer over high ISO and better AF.

 BadBeta's gear list:BadBeta's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital II Ricoh GR Digital III Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +7 more
MLWestphal Regular Member • Posts: 204
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

I am amazed that so many feel that the fact that Canon "only" went for 22MP is such a disappointment. Lets be honest here, how many print anything beyond 16x20? I actually do. I've printed many 20x30, used to decorate the house, my classroom and mostly as gifts but I've also sold. I've shot the Grand Canyon, Painted desert and others with the 5D II and have had no problems with the prints despite some cropping. The upgrades that were done addressed things that make what was a great camera (mainly for landscape) even better (macro and sports). Would more MP's have been fun? Sure. Are they really needed? I honestly don't think so for most. The speed, better weather performance and cleaner images will mean more...... In a few months I'll buy and hand the 5D II over to my studio art student daughter......
--just my 2 cents.
--

Enjoy playing with photography...landscape, astronomical, wildlife (especially insects and spiders).

 MLWestphal's gear list:MLWestphal's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads