Oops. Sorry - I just realized that this is the Canon EOS 5D thread, and neither of the pictures above were taken on an EOS 5D. Seems that the only pictures I have taken on the 5D have been shots of stereo equipment. Have to correct that quick!
Canon EOS 5D Mk lll-It's Finally Here
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
What does one do with a "super" SLR camera in a world of 72dpi? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm just really curious. Do you print or develop photos? I remember last year at a HiFi event a well known industry guy was capturing images with a two year old $4000+ Nikon. I shot the same scenes with my Cannon S95 and I though my images were clearer and colors more real. But... I was viewing/comparing his to mine on a computer. I do know that low light image capture is better on the big boys.
Really, Peter, you don't have to be embarrassed by having a tiny lens.
Hmm, maybe a nude photography class with my 100g Nikon Coolpix S220, sounds like a plan.
+1
I've seen pictures from the S95, and they are superb. I thought that the lens was on par with the Canon L lenses.
I still have the Canon Pro1 and that is a point and shoot with an L lens. I'm hankering after the S100 but can't justify spending more money on gear when I just don't take that many pictures. Here's a picture my 9 year old son took last week with the Canon Pro1. I would prefer the Pro1 over using my 5D MkII with a cheap lens.
View attachment 3145
and full crop corner detail. f/3.5 1/40 sec ASA 400
View attachment 3146
The S95 would imho perform even better given it's slightly larger sensor size over the Pro1. The S100 has an even larger sensor!
I've seen pictures from the S95, and they are superb. I thought that the lens was on par with the Canon L lenses.
I still have the Canon Pro1 and that is a point and shoot with an L lens. I'm hankering after the S100 but can't justify spending more money on gear when I just don't take that many pictures. Here's a picture my 9 year old son took last week with the Canon Pro1. I would prefer the Pro1 over using my 5D MkII with a cheap lens.
View attachment 3145
and full crop corner detail. f/3.5 1/40 sec ASA 400
View attachment 3146
The S95 would imho perform even better given it's slightly larger sensor size over the Pro1. The S100 has an even larger sensor!
I like your son's Canon Pro1 shots. They are colorful, but natural, without the intense candy colored saturation of a lot of hi end digital camera shots that you see on the web.
I just bought a S100 and I'm charging the battery. I'm looking forward to a S95 S100 shootout. No pun intended.
Wish they'd shown pix between ISO 800 and 25,600, like 3200, 6400, 12,800...
I made the mistake of wading through the Image Resource reviews over the weekend and now am torn again... Looks like no update for the 7D this year, and the difference between it and Nikon's offerings or the 5D Mk II or III is pretty significant in low light (a lot of my shots are of the kids' concerts, ambient light only). For me the difference in real life is likely in the mud, especially compared to my current Canon P&S (the SX120i, I think), but man those full frame cameras tkae great shots! Just cost a lot... I am sure I am not the first to complain about how much more expensive a decent DSLR is compared to an older film camera with comparable performance.
I made the mistake of wading through the Image Resource reviews over the weekend and now am torn again... Looks like no update for the 7D this year, and the difference between it and Nikon's offerings or the 5D Mk II or III is pretty significant in low light (a lot of my shots are of the kids' concerts, ambient light only). For me the difference in real life is likely in the mud, especially compared to my current Canon P&S (the SX120i, I think), but man those full frame cameras tkae great shots! Just cost a lot... I am sure I am not the first to complain about how much more expensive a decent DSLR is compared to an older film camera with comparable performance.
My daughter has the Canon IXUS 310HS that is IMHO the champion at low-light photography. I've borrowed it (even though it's pink!) to use it at concerts where the snap of the mirror on a DSLR might be intrusive. It's got a fast f/2.0 lens, optical image stabilization, and a "Low Light" setting that reduces the 12MP to 4MP, but increases sensitivity without adding noise. I'll post some of her concert pictures if anyone's interested.
My canon G10 doesn't even come remotely to the low-light fidelity of my DSLRs. Even the DSRLs that are 3+ years older outdo it on noise. Anything above 200 or so ISO is already quite noisy by SLR standards.
My old DSLR was a relatively poor performer in low light, The little Canon SX120 is not that great either. Nikon has by and large stayed with larger pixels (smaller pixel count) to achieve better low-light performance than Canon, and in the process seems to have given up only a little in resolution unless you are really cropping or printing very large.
I really want the 5D, but have to get over the high price compared to the 7D (or similar class, or even a T32i). The initial samples for the Mk III show a clear incresae in resolution at the cost of a little more noise and/or softening at higher lower light/higher ISO. Still cogitating... Also need a fast lens. I have too many toys on my wish list!
Maybe if I show swmbo the top of the line models the 5D won't look so bad... I covered my last splurge of toys (trumpets) with a grand piano; not quite up to that again!
Gary, love to see the pix, should probably start a new thread...
I really want the 5D, but have to get over the high price compared to the 7D (or similar class, or even a T32i). The initial samples for the Mk III show a clear incresae in resolution at the cost of a little more noise and/or softening at higher lower light/higher ISO. Still cogitating... Also need a fast lens. I have too many toys on my wish list!
Maybe if I show swmbo the top of the line models the 5D won't look so bad... I covered my last splurge of toys (trumpets) with a grand piano; not quite up to that again!
Gary, love to see the pix, should probably start a new thread...
That's a big question. And would either be home run enough to cause someone to switch systems. (I doubt it). Big questions include how much Nikon has improved its video and how they handle high ISO noise with so many megapixels.
Amazon says my D800 will arrive next week so I hope to test it later this month.
Amazon says my D800 will arrive next week so I hope to test it later this month.
There is also the question of lens quality. At 33 megapixels, I would think you are trying to resolve lens artifacts at times as much as the image .
.
That is always the same question with every new model. Canon always had more pixels and for most this was linked with "being better". When Nikon introduced the D3 a lot of professional Canon guys sold their stuff and went to Nikon, specially those who shoot Sport pics. The reason was simple, the Sensor is the key element and Nikon improved dramatically the sharpness with high ISO (----> faster shooting time, sharper Picture).
The D800 is in a way a unique Camera, most think, it is a competition to Canon 5DIII or Nikon D700, but it isn't. It is in reality a replacement for Nikon D3x with higher resolution and higher ISO. For sports shooting in difficult light the camera is simply not fast enough (ISO 6400). High pixels need faster times to get sharpness with fast moving objects and ISO quality is the way to go to for that result.
For this task, the D3s or D4 do the better job.
I think, the real question is, how good is the new Canon really now in comparable light?
Yes, the D800 is not fundamentally a sports camera, though if you're willing to go into crop mode you get 5fps and the battery grip makes it 6fps, 50% faster than using the full sensor w/o a grip. Look like the mkIII gets you 6fps full frame, so a mild advantage there. A question always when shooting high speed is focusing speed, so it's a little more complex than just fps.
Pixel density is similar to that of the DX (APS-C) D7000, which does very well at high ISOs. I'd expect the D800 to be better, but we'll see on that too.
Both cameras pretty much allow a photographer to do virtually anything.
Pixel density is similar to that of the DX (APS-C) D7000, which does very well at high ISOs. I'd expect the D800 to be better, but we'll see on that too.
Both cameras pretty much allow a photographer to do virtually anything.
I don't think either is fast enough to be a sports camera, at least for the pros. Nikon has usually gone for better low-light performance and achieving excellent performance with the pixels they have. Canon has provided higher resolution with its higher pixel count at the cost of noise and low-light performance. One thing that stopped me getting a 7D a year or two ago was, looking at comparison photos on e.g. www.Imaging-Resource.com, was noticing the Nikon D300_ consistently seemed to have better pictures, especially at low light or high iso, despite the lower pixel count. Fewer, larger pixels mean less noise. I used to work for an imager company so am familiar with the trade among pixel size, light collection, noise, and speed.
I have had Olympus, Nikon, and Canon through the years. Today I have a mild preference for Canon (primarily due to ease of use and better SW) but have no lens investment so am free to pick. I had settled on the 7D, but kept holding back due to the much higher performance of the full-frames. The 5D MkIII / D800 shootout promises to be interesting...
I tend to shoot and crop later, so high res is good (cropping half in each dimension uses only 1/4 the pixels, turning your 8Mp shot into a 2Mp). I tend to shoot pix at the kids' concerts, so low-light is good. Ugh, tough choice!
I have had Olympus, Nikon, and Canon through the years. Today I have a mild preference for Canon (primarily due to ease of use and better SW) but have no lens investment so am free to pick. I had settled on the 7D, but kept holding back due to the much higher performance of the full-frames. The 5D MkIII / D800 shootout promises to be interesting...
I tend to shoot and crop later, so high res is good (cropping half in each dimension uses only 1/4 the pixels, turning your 8Mp shot into a 2Mp). I tend to shoot pix at the kids' concerts, so low-light is good. Ugh, tough choice!
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |