OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

alt4852 wrote in post #14037708
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.

You run into the problem as soon as you try to push the shadows.

Normally, you expose for the highlights, so as to avoid blowing them out.

If your camera has sufficient dynamic range, you can then lift the shadows to expose detail. If it does not, lifting the shadows will only expose blotchy noise.

You won't notice any problems looking at photos. But you'll notice them as soon as you try to process said high-dynamic-range photos.

Do my eyes deceive me? Look at the 5DIII vs D4 noise levels at 12800ISO
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM

nicksan wrote in post #14037747
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.

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?

There isn't just 'DR limited' and 'not DR limited'. It's a question of degrees - how much information can you lift from the shadows when exposing for the highlights. Two extra stops is a lot.

High ISO? Couldn't care less, personally... it's something that's nice to have in a secondary body, should the need occasionally arise.

nicksan wrote in post #14037747
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.

and..

100% viewfinder, more robust weathersealing, and that fancy new silent mode that doesn't require a mirror lockup.

honestly, it addresses 90% of the gripes i've had with my 5D2's since day one, and if it weren't for the $3500 pricetag, i'd probably be in for two pre-orders myself. i just hope the AF behaves like it should, and i'll be a happy camper. the off-center AF point spot metering would have been nice though!

dho81 wrote in post #14037728
More image tests and raw files.
just saw this posted on another forum:

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

Interesting. These look outstanding, and I don't see any (perhaps maybe a very very small amount of) banding at ISO 100.

Michael Cheddar wrote in post #14037757
Do my eyes deceive me? Look at the 5DIII vs D4 noise levels at 12800ISO
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM

Also, look at the sharpness of the small text when comparing the 5DIII to the D4.

Michael Cheddar wrote in post #14037757
Do my eyes deceive me? Look at the 5DIII vs D4 noise levels at 12800ISO
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM

Weird. Looking at the pieces of fabric and the bundles of thread in the background the Canon looks muddy but looking at the bottles and crayons the Canon almost seems sharper despite having so much less noise. Some kind of focus/DOF issue?

I'd almost say that there's something wrong with the red channel in the Canon image. Look at the red diamond on the label of Samuel Smith's on the right.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14037769
There isn't just 'DR limited' and 'not DR limited'. It's a question of degrees - how much information can you lift from the shadows when exposing for the highlights. Two extra stops is a lot.

High ISO? Couldn't care less, personally... it's something that's nice to have in a secondary body, should the need occasionally arise.

There's a D3x with your name on it. Buy it. Please...for all of us.

For the rest of us, and that's including "old school wedding photographers" which I guess includes 40 year old photographers like myself, we'll stick with the vile crap that is the 5D3.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14037677
... We get it...

That's awesome.

krb wrote in post #14037823
Weird. Looking at the pieces of fabric and the bundles of thread in the background the Canon looks muddy but looking at the bottles and crayons the Canon almost seems sharper despite having so much less noise. Some kind of focus/DOF issue?

I'd almost say that there's something wrong with the red channel in the Canon image. Look at the red diamond on the label of Samuel Smith's on the right.

I wouldn't read too much into those as they are from jpegs. The RAWs look much better (via ACR).

Chroma NR in LR absolutely kills the detail on that red fabric though...

I second Nick! Shadow Please by the D3x or D800 for the sake of everyones sanity

nicksan wrote in post #14037833
There's a D3x with your name on it. Buy it. Please...for all of us.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it! I don't like it any more than you men"

25,6k looks as good if not better then 800 on my 30D, so that's what... 6 stops?
Yes please!

krb wrote in post #14037823
Weird. Looking at the pieces of fabric and the bundles of thread in the background the Canon looks muddy but looking at the bottles and crayons the Canon almost seems sharper despite having so much less noise. Some kind of focus/DOF issue?

I'd almost say that there's something wrong with the red channel in the Canon image. Look at the red diamond on the label of Samuel Smith's on the right.

Ah... at least it's consistent. Canon's red has always been not-so-stellar.

That said, from where I'm sitting (with my cheap monitor), 6400 still-life comparison... the 5D3 has less noise in the shadows than the D4. I'm surprised by that actually.

And now we wait for D800 samples.