OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

alt4852 wrote in post #14036676
i glanced over your site and you have some very nice work in your portfolio. since dynamic range is such a sticking point for you, aside from cost, is there any reason you haven't moved to medium format yet?

Durability.

I've managed to kill off 3 5D2s. I'd hate to think what my insurance company would say if I killed off that many (or more, since they're flimsier) iQ180s... Hasselblad and Mamiya MF DSLR bodies are tougher, but don't have the necessary lens selection. I need my lenses wide.

In any case, stitching panoramas has done a decent job of replication medium format IQ, without the downsides of medium format - a shifted panorama taken using a 5D2 and tilt-shift lens produces a 29MP file (at a standard 1:3 aspect ratio) which is similar to a 1:3 ratio crop taken from a Phase One iQ160 or p65+ (27MP) or a Leaf Aptus-II 10 (29MP). I'd say the files produced from the shifted images rival the p45+ in quality at the moment; with an increase in resolution and dynamic range, no doubt they could do better.

With regards to dynamic range, I've been waiting for Canon to catch up to the rest of the pack. Everyone else produces sensors that rival MF digital for DR, and I was hoping the 5D3 would fit the bill. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear so.

narlus wrote in post #14036744
mostly musicians/concerts:

www.tinnitus-photography.com

That certainly explains your preferences... almost diametrically opposite to mine.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14036761
That certainly explains your preferences... almost diametrically opposite to mine.

This should clear up why there are people that are incredibly excited about the 5d3 while others seem apparently livid at the "lack of advancement." I for one am very excited about the 5d3 as it suits my needs to a T. Can there be further improvements upon what's currently spec'ed--sure... but that will always be the case.

woos wrote in post #14036295
Seen an iso 100 raw, looks like the 5d2, pattern noise is still ther.

I downloaded one of the ISO6400 shots earlier in this thread and did a +100 to the fill light and there was no banding. Right now all these samples are coming from pre-production models so we have no idea exactly what we are seeing.

palmor wrote in post #14037005
I downloaded one of the ISO6400 shots earlier in this thread and did a +100 to the fill light and there was no banding. Right now all these samples are coming from pre-production models so we have no idea exactly what we are seeing.

You never see banding at higher ISOs - the pattern noise is drowned out by the increased random noise.

TEST PHOTOS
http://www.letsgodigit​al.org …5/canon-5d-mark-iii-test/

Shadowblade wrote in post #14037013
You never see banding at higher ISOs - the pattern noise is drowned out by the increased random noise.

Ahh..

As a quick test I tried this on my 7d and 1d III files at ISO100 and I have a ton of banding on my 7d but none on the 1d III. Since I've shot thousands of photos and never noticed it I guess I just don't push the levels that much

Shadowblade wrote in post #14036499
Fine

Still 1.5 stops in one generation. It's definitely possible. The 5D3 needs a similarly large, if not larger, improvement in DR over the 5D2.

I actually meant to say I make it a point not to pay attention to anything at dxomark. Not interested. Same goes for MTF charts. Could not give a crap about them.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14036499
I have no idea what 100% represents, since I don't use Lightroom.

Someone mentioned filling light at 100%, presumably in Lightroom or ACR and that this produces banding at lower ISOs. That's what I meant. This has been talked to death before with the 5D2 so no need to elaborate. I don't ever fill light at 100%. I guess for people who do, this may be an issue. Oh well.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14036499
Anyway, even if wedding photographers don't need it, landscape photographers need every bit of DR they can extract. After all, unless your image contains either no sky or no ground, landscapes are high dynamic range scenes almost by definition.

Yea, sure. I get you. I guess from reading your posts you aren't really all that fond of the 5D3. You've made that crystal clear. So when are you getting the D3x?

DarthVader wrote in post #14035911
Banding ?

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1032&messag​e=40825115

I looked at this file in LR (via DNG Converter 6.7 RC), and the vertical banding is very bad, worse than typical output from the 5D2 for sure. Shows up at +1 Exp, and is visible even without pushing the file at all.

That said the banding does not appear to be present at all in the high ISO RAWs that have been posted. The banding that shows up in the ISO100 example is coarse enough and prevalent enough, that I would think it would not be completely masked by the high ISO noise.

More questions than answers at this point I guess.

form wrote in post #14036704
It applies to any shot where there is any dark exposure, and especially when the area involved is out of focus...which is part of my shooting style?

Never had any issues with banding with my 5D2s. Have I seen it on my cameras? sure. Has it been a problem for wedding photography in general? Absolutely not. Would I prefer the banding not be there at all? Obviously. Can I do anything about it? Not really. Do I waste time thinking about something I can't do anything about? Definitely not.

YMMV.

nicksan wrote in post #14037628
I actually meant to say I make it a point not to pay attention to anything at dxomark. Not interested. Same goes for MTF charts. Could not give a crap about them.

So why are you even getting involved in discussions of technical capabilities? Clearly you're not interested in them.

We get it. You don't care about specs. What you shoot isn't limited by them.

Guess what - almost every other photographer would like a camera with as much DR as possible. You're an old-school wedding photographer who shoots a very limited range of subjects that don't particularly tax DR.

nicksan wrote in post #14037657
Never had any issues with banding with my 5D2s. Have I seen it on my cameras? sure. Has it been a problem for wedding photography in general? Absolutely not. Would I prefer the banding not be there at all? Obviously. Can I do anything about it? Not really. Do I waste time thinking about something I can't do anything about? Definitely not.

YMMV.

And you don't care that every other CMOS sensor manufacturer has found a way to eliminate pattern noise? I don't even see pattern noise on the cheap camera in my phone.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14036756
With regards to dynamic range, I've been waiting for Canon to catch up to the rest of the pack. Everyone else produces sensors that rival MF digital for DR, and I was hoping the 5D3 would fit the bill. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear so.

i can understand irritation with banding, but in terms of dynamic range being behind the curve, i feel like we're in an emperor's new clothes sort of situation.

i'm willing to bet if you took a random sampling for thousands of photos taken with cameras/sensors from canon, nikon, or sony, you nor any of your clients would be able to discern which cameras took which photos based on dynamic range variations. there are plenty of things that could use updating, but i don't feel as though this is something that anyone seriously considers a dealbreaker unless they're nitpicking test charts.

More image tests and raw files.
just saw this posted on another forum:

http://www.imaging-resource.com …ii/canon-5d-mkiiiTHMB.HTM

Shadowblade wrote in post #14037677
So why are you even getting involved in discussions of technical capabilities? Clearly you're not interested in them.

You are right. I am not interested in the techno babble because frankly there's nothing anyone can do about whatever limitations there are with the cameras out there.

What I am interested in easily finding links to sample images, specs, perhaps some mostly biased reviews so I can make my own decisions. Obviously that kind of information is hard to come by in this "OFFICIAL" 5D3 thread.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14037677
We get it. You don't care about specs. What you shoot isn't limited by them.

Guess what - almost every other photographer would like a camera with as much DR as possible. You're an old-school wedding photographer who shoots a very limited range of subjects that don't particularly tax DR.

Actually, I do care about the specs. I don't care about measurebating websites like Dxo. Big difference. I care that the 61pt AF might allow me to once again select the AF point closest to my subject at wider apertures like f1.2-f2.0, or that I can track a moving target in very dim light without doubting the AF system, that I can use ISO6400-12800 in without worrying about too much noise, or that I once again have memory card redundacy, or that I gain a few fps to give me a better chance at capturing just the right moment. So yeah...very limited range of subjects.

DR is something I don't think about because it's not like I have a choice. It is what it is. No matter which camera I buy, I'll always be DR limited with today's technology.

But then again what to I know?