The latest on the 5D Mk3

sapearl wrote in post #11297625
Your absolutely right Ninja..... but then I'd be hard pressed to ignore all those other MP's knowing they were "available."

Yeah, imagine the amount of hard drives you'd need to buy. lol

snappy7 wrote in post #11296787
Yep, I wanted coverage

Seriously - you'll get the coverage.

A lot of folks work during the day and don't get around to posting until after doing the dinner dishers or when they get home. You just need to have more patience. This board gets a TON of traffic and it's rare that folks don't post an opinion on a new thread .

Lazuka wrote in post #11297629
A lot of people jump into camera's like the nikon d3x (read the reviews on bh about it) and end up sending it back because more resolution exploits bad shooting techinques. There is a reason they're studio cameras. Blads are even worse for that.

That would be because they're enlarging it more--which would have shown up bad shooting techniques anyway. It's greater enlargement that shows more motion blur, not greater resolution. The blur is what the blur is--a specific measurable size admitted by the shutter speed. Greater resolution does not make it larger.

And since when does bad shooting technique identify a "problem" with a camera? If that's the case, we should all stick to cell phone cameras. If it's bad shooting technique--then improve! I'd simply turn my back on someone who said he returned a camera because it exploited his bad shooting technique.

sapearl wrote in post #11297625
Your absolutely right Ninja..... but then I'd be hard pressed to ignore all those other MP's knowing they were "available."

LOL yeah, when I had my 5DII I use to use sRAW1 all the time, but sometimes you just had a niggling in the back of your mind... "wouldn't this shot look more rad if I used those extra pixels...."

RDKirk wrote in post #11297646
That would be because they're enlarging it more--which would have shown up bad shooting techniques anyway. It's greater enlargement that shows more motion blur, not greater resolution. The blur is what the blur is--a specific measurable size admitted by the shutter speed. Greater resolution does not make it larger.

And since when does bad shooting technique identify a "problem" with a camera? If that's the case, we should all stick to cell phone cameras. If it's bad shooting technique--then improve! I'd simply turn my back on someone who said he returned a camera because it exploited his bad shooting technique.

Never said it makes it a bad camera, just means you should go about things differently.

I just work every day editing these things, and I can tell when somebody didn't use a tripod.

RDKirk wrote in post #11297646
That would be because they're enlarging it more--which would have shown up bad shooting techniques anyway. It's greater enlargement that shows more motion blur, not greater resolution. The blur is what the blur is--a specific measurable size admitted by the shutter speed. Greater resolution does not make it larger.

Resolution makes it more noticeable though. They're not enlarging it per say, they're just noticing it more... because it's larger...

more pixels per pimple

FrancisFortin wrote in post #11297607
Also, on a broader note, I don't think most people's gear lust will ever die down hehe. Only way to stop wanting new things is to stop reading up on gear

I don't have gear lust. I wouldn't mind a prime or two, other than that i'm happy with my equipment. It's the photographer that needs upgrading.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #11297605
But sRAW1 would be 21MP.

sRaw isn't a true RAW format, just FYI, it's more like TIFF but retains most of the RAW advantages - applying white bal later, quality, etc. Try converting an sRaw file to DNG, you'll see the size grows heaps.

tim wrote in post #11297676
sRaw isn't a true RAW format, just FYI, it's more like TIFF but retains most of the RAW advantages - applying white bal later, quality, etc. Try converting an sRaw file to DNG, you'll see the size grows heaps.

I never use to convert them to DNG... but I'll take your word on it.

tim wrote in post #11297676
I don't have gear lust. I wouldn't mind a prime or two, other than that i'm happy with my equipment. It's the photographer that needs upgrading.

sRaw isn't a true RAW format, just FYI, it's more like TIFF but retains most of the RAW advantages - applying white bal later, quality, etc. Try converting an sRaw file to DNG, you'll see the size grows heaps.

Amen to that.

Lazuka wrote in post #11297685
Amen to that.

Are you calling Tim a bad photographer or just yourself?!

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #11297699
Are you calling Tim a bad photographer or just yourself?!

You.


lol jk

Lazuka wrote in post #11297710
You.


lol jk

Me or my avatar?

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #11297699
Are you calling Tim a bad photographer or just yourself?!

Haha

tim wrote in post #11296962
So... you want a D3s then? Even the 2 year old D700 beats the 5DII for most things.

Give the D3s an EF mount, then yes... yes please!
Heck given the choice and if the mount was the same, I'd choose the D700 over the 5D II in a heartbeat.

Yeah, I had to sell my lenses, but fortunately the Nikon lenses perform very well in terms of sharpness, focus accuracy, and flare resistance. They're expensive though.