5D3 owners Unite! Discuss and post Photos!

aximrocks wrote in post #14136181
well, I'm wishing for more megapixels and one or two stops more dynamic range at low iso. I think the 5D III are targeted at wedding/event photographers. As a landscape shooter I find the 5D3 features a real disappointment.

In principal I agree with you. of course, we have to wait and see measured tests (such a dxo) to see if the dynamic range has improved at all. Not to say there are not some useful features in the 5d3 for landscape shooters: bit of better weather sealing, much batter bracketing, and the 6fps can be useful when bracketing shots. In addition, it looks like the horizontal banding when shadows are pushed are improved.
As far as in camera HDR goes, no self respecting landscape photographer would ever use that feature. if you are a landscape photographer, the d800e is currently the holly grail. and in any case, the advances in 5d3 may be worth about a few hundred dollars over 5d2, if you are a landscape photographer. its just not the most cost effective tool for that.

kevindar wrote in post #14136450
In principal I agree with you. of course, we have to wait and see measured tests (such a dxo) to see if the dynamic range has improved at all. Not to say there are not some useful features in the 5d3 for landscape shooters: bit of better weather sealing, much batter bracketing, and the 6fps can be useful when bracketing shots. In addition, it looks like the horizontal banding when shadows are pushed are improved.
As far as in camera HDR goes, no self respecting landscape photographer would ever use that feature. if you are a landscape photographer, the d800e is currently the holly grail. and in any case, the advances in 5d3 may be worth about a few hundred dollars over 5d2, if you are a landscape photographer. its just not the most cost effective tool for that.

Without derailing the thread, why is megapixel so important to a landscape photographer? I understand the concern about DR, but what makes MP so important to landscape shooters? Sorry, I don't shoot landscapes and I am considering dabbling in it, so it is a serious question.

any shipment notifications from any of the big online retailers yet?

schlagle wrote in post #14136526
any shipment notifications from any of the big online retailers yet?

Adorama & B&H are shipping.
Adorama assured me I would get mine tomorrow as I am in a "one day ship zone", but looking at the tracking number it looks like Monday. I also ended up getting a call this afternoon my local store has it so I think I am just going to get it there.

I've ordered from Adorama before and never got anything one day from them, so I don't know why I believed him but he said he has lots of customers in NH who tell him it is one day.

Anyway, yeah they are shipping.

Ok, messed around all afternoon with the camera and MFA. Things weren't off that bad, with my 50L needing a +7, the others needing ~+2. Then I walked around my photography emporium (lake by my house) for some testing.

What I learned: don't trust the preview screen or DPP. I got the ACR plugin, and things look substantially better!!! I am feeling a lot more optimistic about the camera now, and can't wait until Lightroom has functionality. Here are 2 quick shots, both from my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II:

200mm, f/2.8, 1/200th, ISO 1600:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

wow 1600 looks so usable!!!!!

kevindar wrote in post #14136450
As far as in camera HDR goes, no self respecting landscape photographer would ever use that feature.

Yes they would. It gives you an on-screen idea of what your final shot will look like when you HDR the same Raws later on. Useful to make sure you are getting the shot just right while in the field.

Also I honestly don't see why the occasional in-camera result would not be totally acceptable as a final product. As a matter of fact people that really know what they are doing might love to use it for the final product to save processing time so they can spend more time in the field. If you get the shot right, and your final product is a jpeg you give to the client or otherwise upload/sell/etc, then if you nail the shot on sight why not let the camera do the HDR work for you?

Fricks wrote in post #14136553
wow 1600 looks so usable!!!!!

I mean, even at ISO1600 the 1dmarkIII is very useable too.

TooManyShots wrote in post #14136580
I mean, even at ISO1600 the 1dmarkIII is very useable too.

i used to my 1D II


I'm just in shock

This is one sharp ass camera in the right hands...

Saxi wrote in post #14136491
Without derailing the thread, why is megapixel so important to a landscape photographer? I understand the concern about DR, but what makes MP so important to landscape shooters? Sorry, I don't shoot landscapes and I am considering dabbling in it, so it is a serious question.

Saxi, it primarily matters if you are printing large. its in the reproduction of detail. now to realise that extra detail, one needs to have good dof, excellent technique with a very steady tripod. however under perfect condition, in a detailed scence, at say 30x20, or 36x24 inches print, the 36mp will produce more detailed print than 23 mp.

Fricks wrote in post #14136591
i used to my 1D II


I'm just in shock

Oh, no, iso1600 on a 1dmarkII isn't useable at all without some major NR.

TooManyShots wrote in post #14136609
Oh, no, iso1600 on a 1dmarkII isn't useable at all without some major NR.

yeah

i will be a super happy camper tomorrow

MatthewK wrote in post #14136534
Ok, messed around all afternoon with the camera and MFA. Things weren't off that bad, with my 50L needing a +7, the others needing ~+2. Then I walked around my photography emporium (lake by my house) for some testing.

What I learned: don't trust the preview screen or DPP. I got the ACR plugin, and things look substantially better!!! I am feeling a lot more optimistic about the camera now, and can't wait until Lightroom has functionality. Here are 2 quick shots, both from my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II:

200mm, f/2.8, 1/200th, ISO 1600:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

200mm, f/2.8, 1/200th, ISO 1600:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Very slight sharpening applied on the 2nd shot, none on the first. No noise reduction!!! At ISO 1600, I probably didn't need to! The noise quality is remarkable!

Here is a 100% crop... from Photobucket, so not indicative of just how good this looks.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

HOLY SHARPNESS BATMAN!!

kevindar wrote in post #14136594
Saxi, it primarily matters if you are printing large. its in the reproduction of detail. now to realise that extra detail, one needs to have good dof, excellent technique with a very steady tripod. however under perfect condition, in a detailed scence, at say 30x20, or 36x24 inches print, the 36mp will produce more detailed print than 23 mp.

I have to confess that I have not seen a print from a FF 36mP sensor, but I regularly print over a metre long from my 5D2 and at an ACCEPTABLE VIEWING DISTANCE it's hard to see what would change. There are so many other variables to accept as well, and while the larger pixel count may have an edge in some circumstances, I wonder if the reality is quite as dramatic as it might seem.

Lens quality, ISO ability, vibration...and a whole lot of other stuff can affect quality...I work hard at getting them right and will just have to put up with 22.whatever megapixels!