*****The Official Canon 5DMK3 Thread*****

jonneymendoza said:
i would go for a 24L, 50L and 70-200L. best setup. no point getting a 135L if your gunna get a 70-200L especially f2.8 version. that lens is PRIME quality no joke mate.

And yes, 5dmk3 is £600 expensive. £2400 max. i hope it goes down to £2k end of the year.
Click to expand...

I use my 70-200 IS mkI quite a lot, I could probably justify upgrading it to the mkII but whilst the mkII is sharper it's not going to make a great deal of difference to my photography. The 135L seems to be a special lens and I feel that I just need to get one to experience it, buying and selling second hand will probably just cost me the postage which would be cheaper than renting one!
 
D.P. said:
It looks like the ISO of the 5dmkiii is about 2/3rds of a stop lower than the d800.
Click to expand...

There was mention of the light possibly changing by IR, so we don't know yet. Also I think lenses vary a little with how much light is able to pass through the glass even at the same aperture.

I think we'l need to wait for DXO mark, as they test for actual ISO levels don't they?
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
Of course it's a fair and relevant test...
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's relevant real world or fairly representative of how you'd use it. The only reason to downsample is for these tests so that 100% crops (which are, in themselves, of limited real world relevance) are the same size for comparison purposes.

Exactly how many people downsized their 5DII images for the improvements it offered? That's part of nobodies workflow, hence it's a contrived test which, by the way, lends a test advantage to a higher resolution camera for that reason alone.

When people downsize is for output purposes, so if you want to compare downsized images then lets downsize both for an A3 print or a 1000px wide web copy and compare that.

But it's completely pointless in any event as this just further serves to prove that the cameras are on a par in this regard, as this market segment has been for ages. The D700 beat the 5DII but not by enough to matter to anybody who actually took photos rather than looking at 100% crops for 'fun', these two are similar enough that nobody will care either.
 
D.P. said:
It looks like the ISO of the 5dmkiii is about 2/3rds of a stop lower than the d800.
Click to expand...

I had a look at the ISO 3200 examples for both and the D800 is at 1/640 with the 5D3 at 1/406. In PS the 5D3 image is much brighter.
 
bigredshark said:
I don't believe it's relevant real world or fairly representative of how you'd use it. The only reason to downsample is for these tests so that 100% crops (which are, in themselves, of limited real world relevance) are the same size for comparison purposes.

Exactly how many people downsized their 5DII images for the improvements it offered? That's part of nobodies workflow, hence it's a contrived test which, by the way, lends a test advantage to a higher resolution camera for that reason alone.

When people downsize is for output purposes, so if you want to compare downsized images then lets downsize both for an A3 print or a 1000px wide web copy and compare that.
Click to expand...

Exactly we are comparing noise at any given output, comparing pixel level noise of a 1mp image to the pixel level noise of a 100mp image would be idiotic. Why people don't resize to 1000px is because noise likely won't even be visible, let alone easy to compare, and that's all this is... a comparison.

bigredshark said:
But it's completely pointless in any event as this just further serves to prove that the cameras are on a par in this regard, as this market segment has been for ages. The D700 beat the 5DII but not by enough to matter to anybody who actually took photos rather than looking at 100% crops for 'fun', these two are similar enough that nobody will care either.
Click to expand...

Not as pointless as your long winded post about a supposedly pointless post.
 
bigredshark said:
Comparing how much time you can spend picking irrelevant and imaginary holes in products by staring at 100% crops rather than taking photos. OK, have fun.
Click to expand...

And has it not occurred to you, that 99% of people don't want to spend every second of spare time constantly taking pictures, don't you think photography would get very tedious very fast, and thus ruin the hobby?

It's always the same ignorant straw man argument, "why you comparing 100% crops instead of going out shooting..."
Like spending time picking pointless and flawed arguments about post's on internet forums, instead of taking photo's is any better?

Seriously...

Edit:

I'm going to leave it there, as what would be pointless is derailing this thread any more with this back and forth...
 
Last edited:
He's merely saying that time spent pouring over 100% crops could be better spent, and in a photography sense that time would be better spent actually taking photos. No drama.
 
Rojin said:
I use my 70-200 IS mkI quite a lot, I could probably justify upgrading it to the mkII but whilst the mkII is sharper it's not going to make a great deal of difference to my photography. The 135L seems to be a special lens and I feel that I just need to get one to experience it, buying and selling second hand will probably just cost me the postage which would be cheaper than renting one!
Click to expand...

70-200 is an amazing lens for real!
 
Rojin said:
He's merely saying that time spent pouring over 100% crops could be better spent, and in a photography sense that time would be better spent actually taking photos. No drama.
Click to expand...

No matter what your doing, time can pretty much always be better spent in some way, this includes everyone in this forum.
If spending all my waking hours taking photographs kills the enjoyment, then the time wasn't well spent.
 
Rojin said:
I use my 70-200 IS mkI quite a lot, I could probably justify upgrading it to the mkII but whilst the mkII is sharper it's not going to make a great deal of difference to my photography. The 135L seems to be a special lens and I feel that I just need to get one to experience it, buying and selling second hand will probably just cost me the postage which would be cheaper than renting one!
Click to expand...

What type of stuff are you shooting these days? are you still shooting sports?
 
An Exception said:
What type of stuff are you shooting these days? are you still shooting sports?
Click to expand...

The thing is, he may not be shooting sports now but he may do tomorrow. u just never know whats gunna happen tomorrow. This is why i try to buy something where there is a chance i may use one of its other features in the future.
 
jonneymendoza said:
The thing is, he may not be shooting sports now but he may do tomorrow. u just never know whats gunna happen tomorrow. This is why i try to buy something where there is a chance i may use one of its other features in the future.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but for instance, if I was shooting portraits and the like 95% of the time and rarely doing anything that needed reach, I would maybe opt for a Holy Trinity setup of primes, like the 35 50 & 85L, as the setup is perfect for what I would be doing for the vast majority of the time.

If I needed more reach in the future, I would just save up...
 
Yea but aint we talking about camera bodies not lens? You can buy and carry multiple lenses at your arsenal but not many carry multiple bodies which can cost more then some of the L lenses.

What i am saying is that the 5dmk3 is the BEST all round camera from canon that can do Still shots and fast moving objects whilst maintaining FF godness IQ/ISO/DOF.

You may not be shooting fast moving subjects but tomorrow you might do and if u get the 5dmk3, you can already shoot at your peral. Fast moving subjects are not always about sports.

What if your in a party and trying to track and take pictures of children running around?

What about in a wedding with kids running around? Quite a few examples of fast moving subjects that are not in teh sports catagory mate.
 
I still shoot sports when I can, although I haven't had much time for that lately. Hill climbs start next month and I've got a charity rugby match to cover. As JM has said though, shooting kids with a wide open lens when they are playing is more challenging to me and camera than premiership rugby!

As I've been quite lazy towards photography I've only shot family and friends stuff for the last few months. In general I shoot a bit everything although landscapes are something I struggle to get excited about. I need to find more time.
 
Last edited:
Not that I want an argument over personal preferences but is there any need when you have control of shutter/aperture? Should be the same case when you control the ISO as well, no EC.

Rojin said:
No EC in manual mode when using auto ISO either.
Click to expand...
 
^^^
Auto ISO is a very useful feature when used in either manual or Aperture priority.

For instance, I can select Auto ISO and set my minimum shutter speed I want to camera to use. Then I can use Av mode and my camera will always use the lowest ISO possible, but the shutter speed won't go less than what I set as the limit. This means I can stay in Av mode and not have to worry about my shutter speed when inside a dark church, and neither do I have to worry about changing my ISO or aperture when I leave the church.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom