Canon 5D Mark III Rumors

ilumo wrote in post #11617562
Nikons 24-70 blows canons away

This is true.

Not as good as you think. Distortion and f/4.

Not sure where you get this info from ?. Nikon forum ?. Have you compare other qualities like rendering and bokeh ?.

Canon is better in this case. MFD and sharpness.

As far as lenses only 24-70mm that I like Canon to improve. I have had three copies of 14-24mm and I don't think they're all that.

Having both systems, I still like Canon output better than Nikon.

jdizzle wrote in post #11617653
Idk. I don't care for which one brand is better. They both make great products.

Yep. That's why we have choices. I really don't care which is a little better than the other either. All of them are capable to make great photos.

maverick678 wrote in post #11617715
This is true.

Not as good as you think. Distortion and f/4.

Not sure where you get this info from ?. Nikon forum ?. Have you compare other qualities like rendering and bokeh ?.

Canon is better in this case. MFD and sharpness.

As far as lenses only 24-70mm that I like Canon to improve. I have had three copies of 14-24mm and I don't think they're all that.

Having both systems, I still like Canon output better than Nikon.

i have three guys that sit next to me that have d700's and an assortment of all the nikon primes, zoom trinities, etc. so I get the above info from personal experience. of course im not going to have an objective test on each one, but from seeing their pictures and from personal use vs. mine (the lone canon guy), I see a good difference in the outputs of our files.

martial76 wrote in post #11616895
you know, the more I read this statement the more it bothers me... look at the picture you posted. there is light pouring into the room through what I assume to be a window. I think I can see a tint of blue in the reflection of the coffe pot... either way, it is a rectangular reflection...if its not a window, then its a softbox. also, the boy has three distinct catch lights in his eye. so, you had a window flooding the room with light as well as two lights in the room on (you can see the reflection in the coffe pot as well as the kids eyes). I was talking about actual low light photography... do me a favor, take the same shot at 9 pm with only 1 of the two lights in the house on.

The picture was taking with a 580EX II to supplement. I have many other shots at 3200 ISO without flash that would print (guessing) 8x10 and probably 13x19 without problems.

It's not me though, I've seen a lot of 3200 ISO images from other people with the 7D that don't have all that much noise. Is the 5D II better? Damn right it is, but to say the 7D can't print over 400 ISO is bogus. Unless of course your under exposing it. It wasn't a dig at your photography skills, I just find it very difficult to believe.

maverick678 wrote in post #11617715
This is true.

Not as good as you think. Distortion and f/4.

Not sure where you get this info from ?. Nikon forum ?. Have you compare other qualities like rendering and bokeh ?.

Canon is better in this case. MFD and sharpness.

As far as lenses only 24-70mm that I like Canon to improve. I have had three copies of 14-24mm and I don't think they're all that.

Having both systems, I still like Canon output better than Nikon.

my coworker has the 16-35. It's pretty darn sharp. distortion...? you can fix that in post. and it's not that bad.

14-24? why is it meh? it's pretty damn amazing. like I've said in countless threads. I wish canon made one.

Saxi wrote in post #11618169
The picture was taking with a 580EX II to supplement. I have many other shots at 3200 ISO without flash that would print (guessing) 8x10 and probably 13x19 without problems.

It's not me though, I've seen a lot of 3200 ISO images from other people with the 7D that don't have all that much noise. Is the 5D II better? Damn right it is, but to say the 7D can't print over 400 ISO is bogus. Unless of course your under exposing it. It wasn't a dig at your photography skills, I just find it very difficult to believe.

Come on man... You said that if I can't shoot at 3200 iso and not get noise I don't know how to shoot. Then u post a pic claiming it was a 3200 iso shot! Touting how positive you were that there was no noise! Now u say u used a strobe as well as light flooding in from the window!

I don't think that is a fair test of what I'm saying verses what you are saying! Take a pic, with no strobe out side 15-20 minutes AFTER sunset at high enough iso to where you have approx 1/320 - 1/400th shutter speeds... Show me a noise free image from the 7d under those conditions. Not in an already well lit room supplemented by a strobe on top of it!

And just for the record I didn't say that u couldn't print at iso 400. I said that after iso 400 IQ STARTS TO DEGRADE! I don't know why this would be such a shock... And by 1600 there is always noise in the shadow areas of the photo

martial76 wrote in post #11618289
Come on man... You said that if I can't shoot at 3200 iso and not get noise I don't know how to shoot. Then u post a pic claiming it was a 3200 iso shot! Touting how positive you were that there was no noise! Now u say u used a strobe as well as light flooding in from the window!

I don't think that is a fair test of what I'm saying verses what you are saying! Take a pic, with no strobe out side 15-20 minutes AFTER sunset at high enough iso to where you have approx 1/320 - 1/400th shutter speeds... Show me a noise free image from the 7d under those conditions. Not in an already well lit room supplemented by a strobe on top of it!

I would say 3200 ISO f/2.8 1/30 well lit, cause that's the lighting I have in the room without my 580EX II going.

This was shot 3200 ISO, no 580EX II, no on-board flash, no windows. 100% ambient lighting.

ilumo wrote in post #11618170
my coworker has the 16-35. It's pretty darn sharp. distortion...? you can fix that in post. and it's not that bad.

I'm not into so much of fixing things on PP especially anything related to distortion.

For landscape where you stop down to f/8 is nice but I'm buying an f/2.8 lens which doesn't deliver based on its price.

ilumo wrote in post #11618158
i have three guys that sit next to me that have d700's and an assortment of all the nikon primes, zoom trinities, etc. so I get the above info from personal experience. of course im not going to have an objective test on each one, but from seeing their pictures and from personal use vs. mine (the lone canon guy), I see a good difference in the outputs of our files.

I guess that depends on personal tastes. I'd personally owned some of the newer primes but I decided not to keep them, for me how a lense renders (not only sharpness) what matters the most for me. For example skin tones I like Canon better on that area.

maverick678 wrote in post #11618463
I'm not into so much of fixing things on PP especially anything related to distortion.

For landscape where you stop down to f/8 is nice but I'm buying an f/2.8 lens which doesn't deliver based on its price.

how is it not delivering? if you compare it wide open vs any of canon's UWA primes, it smokes them... ?

Based on 24L II yes, it's better than 14-24mm @ 24mm.

ilumo wrote in post #11618503
how is it not delivering? if you compare it wide open vs any of canon's UWA primes, it smokes them... ?

Saxi wrote in post #11618415
I would say 3200 ISO f/2.8 1/30 well lit, cause that's the lighting I have in the room without my 580EX II going.

This was shot 3200 ISO, no 580EX II, no on-board flash, no windows. 100% ambient lighting.

Full size image:
http://i54.tinypic.com​/8xrcjk.jpg

Well.. I can't pull the exif info from my iPhone. But, If you look in the dark areas of the photos back by top openings you will see noise. It's not horrible, I admit. Maybe I just have a bad camera... I honestly can't believe it's iso 3200. This looks like 400-640 out of my camera.

Anyway man, I'm not trying to fight with you over this... Infact it was reading your posts that got me to respond to this thread to begin with. I agreed with everything you were saying about the gaping hole in canon lineup... About we shouldn't have to drop the cash for a 1ds for a FF with a decent AF system.

From all the research I've done, the 7d sensor is simply too small to be able to handle 18MP at high iso. Another factor is, I ALWAYS shoot raw. I do know that if you shoot jpeg at the small resolution it is much cleaner at high iso. I don't know if you have shot with any of the FF bodies or not... But, the difference between the FF and 1.6 crop at high iso was absolutely astounding!

Anyway, you really do have a cute little guy there!

maverick678 wrote in post #11618478
I guess that depends on personal tastes. I'd personally owned some of the newer primes but I decided not to keep them, for me how a lense renders (not only sharpness) what matters the most for me. For example skin tones I like Canon better on that area.

you like's canon's rudolph red hue for indoor lighting type of rendering?

maverick678 wrote in post #11618525
Based on 24L II yes, it's better than 14-24mm @ 24mm.

well, nikon has a 24mm prime too you know? they wouldnt have that if the 14-24 could beat it...

I enjoy warmer colors compare to greenish blueish kinda pale colors .

ilumo wrote in post #11618550
you like's canon's rudolph red hue for indoor lighting type of rendering?