OFFICIAL: Canon 5D Mark III Announced

thedge wrote in post #14193119
Yes, no 7D owner ever shoots in dark conditions We all wait till daylight since obviously crop sensors are afraid of the dark

Somehow its never bothered me. Maybe make a point of remembering where you set the AF point? Or half click the shutter button and it flashes. Doesnt seem that hard....

in all honesty you can't shoot in situations that dark. Or at least not and get good shots. The 5D2 couldn't because it wasn't clean above 6400 and it's AF couldn't focus in light that low, now even with the center point. The 5D3's AF works in darker situations (even though the user can't see where it's aimed) and it's ISOs are about 2 stops better, at least in terms of lacking banding... So yeah, it really IS only an issue on the 5D3 and not as much so on the 7D. Sorry. And for the record I own a 7D.

anthony11 wrote in post #14222549
Before I bought my 5D2, reviews said the same thing about it.
...

And for a few years they were right.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #14222922
And for a few years they were right.

Not really. The claim is a "near perfect" wedding camera, not "nearly the best available" wedding camera.

The former is an absolute claim, the latter is a relative claim.

The 5D2 and 5D3 can't both be "near perfect" for weddings unless the 5D3 is not a significant improvement over the 5D2 for weddings.


I'd wager the 5D2 isn't "near perfect" thanks to its autofocus system. It's good, yes, but not "near perfect". I'd wager that distinction went to the 1Ds3 for that period of time.

I got to say, the battery life is no where as good as the 7D and I suspect it is as mentioned worse than the 5D II even though it is suppose to be better.

kcbrown wrote in post #14223164
Not really. The claim is a "near perfect" wedding camera, not "nearly the best available" wedding camera.

The former is an absolute claim, the latter is a relative claim.

The 5D2 and 5D3 can't both be "near perfect" for weddings unless the 5D3 is not a significant improvement over the 5D2 for weddings.


I'd wager the 5D2 isn't "near perfect" thanks to its autofocus system. It's good, yes, but not "near perfect". I'd wager that distinction went to the 1Ds3 for that period of time.

Agreed, which is why I skipped the 5DII.

I disagree. The 5D was near perfect for weddings. "Perfect" now has/is a new standard.

But I really don't care. I'll say it was near perfect, others won't and it won't matter one way or the other.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #14223182
I disagree. The 5D was near perfect for weddings. Perfect now has/is a new standard.

"Perfect" is a relative term, a moving target? Alrighty then.


I might be more inclined to agree with you if wedding photography itself were the kind of moving target this implies, but it's not (why should it be? The job remains the same, the goal remains the same, and the methods remain the same, no?).

kcbrown wrote in post #14223164
the 5D3 is not a significant improvement over the 5D2 for weddings.

Are you saying that the 5D3 isn't a significant improvement over the 5D2 for weddings...?

kcbrown wrote in post #14223188
"Perfect" is a relative term, a moving target? Alrighty then.

I think so. What is perfect in 2009 may not be in 2012, as technology allows for people to do today what was impossible then. Thus something like wedding photography, where it was impossible to shoot in extreme high ISO 10 years ago, that now becomes possible and that new ability changes the way Joe Photog captures a wedding. So the practice of photographing weddings becomes a moving target by effect, too.

Technology, ability, art, et al., change and definitions of our descriptors have to change with them. So "perfect" is just as transient as the product "perfect" describes.

timnosenzo wrote in post #14223221
Are you saying that the 5D3 isn't a significant improvement over the 5D2 for weddings...?

No. I'm saying that the 5D3 cannot be a significant improvement over the 5D2 for weddings if the 5D2 is "near perfect" for weddings. One of those two things must be false.

kcbrown wrote in post #14223353
No. I'm saying that the 5D3 cannot be a significant improvement over the 5D2 for weddings if the 5D2 is near perfect" for weddings. One of those two things must be false.

Was.

I was only about 70% convinced myself, but after talking about it I'm now 99% that describing "perfect" as a moving target is... perfect.

Today.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #14223233
I think so. What is perfect in 2009 may not be in 2012, as technology allows for people to do today what was impossible then. Thus something like wedding photography, where it was impossible to shoot in extreme high ISO 10 years ago, that now becomes possible and that new ability changes the way Joe Photog captures a wedding. So the practice of photographing weddings becomes a moving target by effect, too.

I must disagree. "Perfect" means that no improvement is possible. As applied to a tool, "perfect" means that no improvement to the tool is possible to accomplish what needs to be accomplished for the task the tool is used for.

It is weddings themselves (the environments they occur in, the images that one desires to get in those environments, etc.), and not the capabilities of the tool, that determines what "perfection" is as regards wedding photography.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if the nature of weddings were in part determined by the photography that is supposed to occur during them, but it's not. Weddings determine the nature of the photography that occur during them, not vice versa.

This may be true with respect to the development of technologies that create brand new photographic products (some regard video as being such a thing, but it really isn't, because video is just another form of moving picture, and moving pictures have been around for a very long time), but it most certainly is not true of existing photographic products (e.g., still images).


Perfection as regards capturing wedding still images would imply noise-free images in all lighting conditions under which weddings occur, along with sufficient dynamic range to capture everything the human eye can see (and, possibly, even more than that), along with the ability to nail the focus every time under all those conditions and to instantly direct the focus where one wants it. The latest batch of cameras gets us closer to that, but we're still not there yet (nor, I expect, will we ever be, really. Perfection is very rarely possible to achieve in any endeavor).

PSA Adorama still has body only in stock.

kcbrown wrote in post #14223423
I must disagree. "Perfect" means that no improvement is possible. As applied to a tool, "perfect" means that no improvement to the tool is possible to accomplish what needs to be accomplished for the task the tool is used for.

So far so good. And as expectation changes, vis a vis the already mentioned ISO possibilities for example, so does what is expected from the tool. So "perfect" changes, too.

The user defines what "perfect" is. We do. The blogger who said what started this in the first place does.

We'll probably never agree that still images, or what is capable of being captured, has changed dramatically in a very short time. And this change of what is possible informs a user's expectations. Those expectations are what our hypothetical hero would measure what is "perfect" against. He may change his mind the following week as his expectations change.

Couldnt perfection just as easily imply what is closest to the maximum ability possible for the time and available technology? I'd argue so. Context would be all that mattered and in that context the 5D II was near perfect, but is no longer.

While you two debate the definition of perfection, the 5DII never was the near-perfect camera for weddings, regardless of definition. The shoddy outer point AF prevented it from being that camera. So while fitting angels on a pinhead can be an interesting exercise, in this case it's for naught because the reality doesn't come close to the theory regardless of what theory you choose to support