OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14014904
x100
Nex 7
Nex 5

All outperform the 7D in terms of IQ.

Why are you now trolling about 7D's in a 5D3 thread?

vipergts831 wrote in post #14015531

Where is the title fairy when it comes to trolls?

Please, no personal attacks and also please try to keep on topic. Discussion is preferred over arguing and trolling

Raylon wrote in post #14015414
I guess you don't know much about lenses and how they have to be designed. a 24-70 with constant F/2 would probably weigh literally 5 pounds, No one would use it. It already called the brick for a reason because it weighs so much,

Look at a Tamron 28-75 2.8 compared to the 24-70L, there isn't any reason why the 24-70L needed to be so big, especially as the new 24-70 is smaller yet reportedly allot sharper.
With some clever engineering I don't see why they couldn't make an F2 24-70 that's the same size as the current brick is now.
Also the 70-200 is a huge lens, people still use it...

TooManyShots wrote in post #14015527
So, what did I miss so far..

Lets see... Rice Photography has been explaining to all of us how great the d7000 is. How bad the 5d3 is. How soft the 7d is. He has also informed us that the 5d3 is muddy or something like that. I think he posted a picture of a squirrel to really hammer his point across.

Aside from that.. nothing really

theviper wrote in post #14015544
Why are you now trolling about 7D's in a 5D3 thread?

Because the 5Diii samples are reminiscent of the 7D as has already been explained???

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14015580
Because the 5Diii samples are reminiscent of the 7D as has already been explained???

reminiscent of the 7D

Tonyz wrote in post #14012025
I know.

Last night I saws someone who happily declared that he had sold his 35L to fund the 5D3 preorder.

The stupidity is mind blowing.

I'll sell my children before I sell my 35L...

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14015568
Look at a Tamron 28-75 2.8 compared to the 24-70L, there isn't any reason why the 24-70L needed to be so big, especially as the new 24-70 is smaller yet reportedly allot sharper.
With some clever engineering I don't see why they couldn't make an F2 24-70 that's the same size as the current brick is now.
Also the 70-200 is a huge lens, people still use it...

Like I said, you obviously don't understand how lenses work. The front element would have to be much much larger than it currently is. Just look at the difference on the front element going from the 50mm 1.4 to the 50mm 1.2. It's much larger, and that's not even a full stop of light difference. But 2.8 to 2 is a full stop. You can't use 'clever engineering' to magically let a stop more light in from same sized elements.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14015580
Because the 5Diii samples are reminiscent of the 7D as has already been explained???

and has been explained to you more than once that all the canon sample shots have always been bad...

Raylon wrote in post #14015602
Like I said, you obviously don't understand how lenses work. The front element would have to be much much larger than it currently is. Just look at the difference on the front element going from the 50mm 1.4 to the 50mm 1.2. It's much larger, and that's not even a full stop of light difference. But 2.8 to 2 is a full stop. You can't use 'clever engineering' to magically let a stop more light in from same sized elements.

how dare you use logic and physics!!

KCY wrote in post #14015608
how dare you use logic and physics!!

NOT THE L word in here! IT HAS NOT PLACE!

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #14015568
With some clever engineering I don't see why they couldn't make an F2 24-70 that's the same size as the current brick is now.

physics.

edit: wow, this thread moves fast. somebody got to it before me.

Drozz119 wrote in post #14015574
Lets see... Rice Photography has been explaining to all of us how great the d7000 is. How bad the 5d3 is. How soft the 7d is. He has also informed us that the 5d3 is muddy or something like that. I think he posted a picture of a squirrel to really hammer his point across.

Aside from that.. nothing really

Oh, really? You mean a $4k camera is performing as bad or good as a $1500 body? Well, the 5dmarkIII is the sh-t. We will have to see if the AF system and the burst speed can actually photograph sports well.

Raylon wrote in post #14015602
Like I said, you obviously don't understand how lenses work. The front element would have to be much much larger than it currently is. Just look at the difference on the front element going from the 50mm 1.4 to the 50mm 1.2. It's much larger, and that's not even a full stop of light difference. But 2.8 to 2 is a full stop. You can't use 'clever engineering' to magically let a stop more light in from same sized elements.

Well Canon can seemingly shrink the 24-70 down, yet while improving IQ.

Olympus already make a 35-100 F2 zoom for smaller sensors, and I would of thought that an F2 24-70 was in the realm of possibility, no different than before the release of an 85L 1.2.
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com …ts/dslr/lenses/​35-100_20/