The latest report on 1D Mark III AF issues

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3917313


here's a 5D iso 3200, see any improvement


vs

nikon d3

http://chsv.nikonimagi​ng.com …a/slr/d3/img/pi​c_004b.jpg

are you expecting anything out of the ordinary from them ?

betterphotographer?

that shot can't be 5d@3200, just too noisy... my 1dmkiii has better stuff at iso12800

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3917313


here's a 5D iso 3200, see any improvement

vs

nikon d3

http://chsv.nikonimagi​ng.com …a/slr/d3/img/pi​c_004b.jpg

are you expecting anything out of the ordinary from them ?

man!!!! are you kidding me !?!?!? did you underexposed by 2 stops and than brought it back give me a break ..i would get better picture from d70 2 years ago ...if only i could even dial it in that high

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3917313


here's a 5D iso 3200, see any improvement


vs

nikon d3

http://chsv.nikonimagi​ng.com …a/slr/d3/img/pi​c_004b.jpg

are you expecting anything out of the ordinary from them ?

you phail....my 30D produces way cleaner images then your 5D at 3200. and so does my cellphone

raw, 100% cropped and saved:

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

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3917313


here's a 5D iso 3200,...

Either that's underexposed by 2 stops and pulled up in PP or there's something terribly wrong with your 5D. I've never had noise like that from my 5D. Come to think of it, my 10D was better than that at ISO 3200 and it's a generation or two older technology.

If you're going to make a comparison, do so with the same scene, same lighting, same exposure, and such. Then compare.

With all due respect, this photo comparison is bogus. The 5D would look a lot better using studio lighting too. Moreover, this has absolutely nothing to do with the autofocusing problems of the Mk III. Somebody please explain the significance of comparing the noise in a brightly lit subject versus a dark image taken with available light?

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3917313


here's a 5D iso 3200, see any improvement

Wild post-processing there. Crank that noise up.

This whole subthread is off topic btw!

KAC

blam wrote in post #3917622
you phail....my 30D produces way cleaner images then your 5D at 3200. and so does my cellphone

raw, 100% cropped and saved:

hmm how can you realy fail at this ?

Tom W wrote in post #3917632
Either that's underexposed by 2 stops and pulled up in PP or there's something terribly wrong with your 5D. I've never had noise like that from my 5D. Come to think of it, my 10D was better than that at ISO 3200 and it's a generation or two older technology.

If you're going to make a comparison, do so with the same scene, same lighting, same exposure, and such. Then compare.

no it's not... lol that's funny , well it's not mine

hmm i'm going to try doing that with a diferent camera then i'll tell you the results.

so...has canon done anything? if a person was to send their MKIII in is there an actual fix available to cure the AF? I dont want to read 190 pages.

I agree. Please keep the topic to the MK III. If you wanna do some ISO testing on the 5D do it on another thread. And btw, that ISO 3200 is a bad example of what you showed us. I've done ISO 3200 and it didn't come out like that. You might have a grey market 5D my friend. =)

kenyc wrote in post #3917665
Wild post-processing there. Crank that noise up.

This whole subthread is off topic btw!

KAC

what wild post processing are you refering about ?

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3917313
are you expecting anything out of the ordinary from them ? [regarding ISO 100]

Yes.

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3917680
hmm how can you realy fail at this ?

no it's not... lol that's funny , well it's not mine

hmm i'm going to try doing that with a diferent camera then i'll tell you the results.

Please go do it in another thread. This is totally off topic.

KAC

so...has canon done anything? if a person was to send their MKIII in is there an actual fix available to cure the AF? I dont want to read 190 pages.