moonpeep wrote:
Doesn't excite me either. Rarely shoot auto-focus. . . not much added value for me. Much rather have more megapixels and better DR/high iso. Hell, I'd consider buying that camera even it didn't have auto-focus capability.
This.
Even though the 5D3 AF is nice, it is hardly exciting. Especially since it is something that could / should have been released with the 5D2.
IQ, DR and MP is worth ten times more than any AF improvement.
Rickuz wrote:
IQ, DR and MP is worth ten times more than any AF improvement.
You obviously never have shot action work to say that. I challenge to show me how the IQ of the current Canon sensors is "bad" in anyway even if it can't match the DR of the Sony sensors.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You obviously never have shot action work to say that. I challenge to show me how the IQ of the current Canon sensors is "bad" in anyway even if it can't match the DR of the Sony sensors.
+100...totally depends on what you are shooting. My org just posted one of my pics from the 1D (original 4mp 1D) still looks great even with a 10yr old CCD sensor. Improved DR wouldn't have helped that image in any way, poor AF would have made it nearly impossible to get the shot.
Looks like some folks want a great sensor and have little concern about AF while others demand great AF and OK sensor.
Long ago, before Nikon announced their killer D3/D300, Canon was the king of the hill with the best imaging and AF sensors. What happened? Sigh... I can imagine Canon releasing a high MP, great low ISO camera with a 300D-type AF sensor...
thw2 wrote:
Looks like some folks want a great sensor and have little concern about AF while others demand for great AF and OK sensor.
They aren't mutually exclusive and 5D III sensor is hardly just ok. Yes I would love D800 sensor and Canon needs to get it's act together in some areas, but those saying they are lame because they did not jump to match D800 have short memories. How they probably laughed when 5D II came out with 21MP and Nikon were still on 12MP.
I do agree that Canon cannot keep the same sensor tech any longer however and any new camera released next year better have clear improvements in DR, shadow noise, colour accuracy and resolution (FF at least). The AF bought them some breathing space but that ace has been played.
jctriguy wrote:
+100...totally depends on what you are shooting. My org just posted one of my pics from the 1D (original 4mp 1D) still looks great even with a 10yr old CCD sensor. Improved DR wouldn't have helped that image in any way, poor AF would have made it nearly impossible to get the shot.
Also depends on if you are printing, and at what size too.
retrofocus wrote:
Do you want to sell your 5D III and try to keep prices up....? I think by far the 5D III is much less worth than the D800 given that people who like the 5D III use the camera for a different kind of photography compared to most of the D800 users.
I truly do believe that the 5D3 is worth $3500.
It's not about trying to sell it.
Monito wrote:
A studio camera does not need an integrated grip. An architecture camera does not need an integrated grip. A landscape camera does not need an integrated grip. If you want a grip for those purposes, attach an optional one.
Canon already makes a camera with an integrated grip for sports, photojournalism, and some wedding photographers.
I shoot 80% of time in studio or achitecture, on tripod. I never do sports, photojournalism, wedding.
Anyway yes I largely prefer integrated grip. More solid, better handling, no play between grip/body (specially on tripod for vibrations !), square shaped with Lbracket keep same framing vertical/horizontal on a tripod, and I just hate shooting vertical with small bodie, even horizontally my little finger gets cramps.
I'm really sorry to not think exactly like you. Seems a lot of people fail to understand other people can have other need/wish/use of their tools, all respectfully.
If only Canon would make nice grip, perfectly fitting the body and without any play/vibrations between parts, it would be no problem for me. Now if high mp body get itself in a small body I won't yell everywhere, I will just use the tool that does the job for me.
somebody wrote:
Nothing in canon camp really excites me last 7 years, except the 50mm f1.0 i got couple month ago. Best 7 years of canon investment so far ....still waitting for High MP, 6fps, great low ISO cam.
It must be very exciting to brag about how jaded you can be about all the great lenses and cameras you have.
If people think that the cameras of today are not "exciting" compared to the cameras of 7 years ago, then they need a different expensive hobby.
KiboOst wrote:
Now if high mp body get itself in a small body I won't yell everywhere, I will just use the tool that does the job for me.
Yup. That's the way. Make choices from what's available and keep on making photos without kvetching or bragging.
I have similar feelings but the flip side of the same coin: If a high MP body gets released (at a high price) with high (6) fps and fancy AF and maybe an integrated grip, I won't yell. I'll just keep using what I have now or make other adjustments.
It's amazing how many people think that camera companies owe them this or that camera and how the companies are doomed (doomed!) if they merely release highly competent powerful cameras that blow away the cameras of seven years ago.
Monito wrote:
Yup. That's the way. Make choices from what's available and keep on making photos without kvetching or bragging.
I have similar feelings but the flip side of the same coin: If a high MP body gets released (at a high price) with high (6) fps and fancy AF and maybe an integrated grip, I won't yell. I'll just keep using what I have now or make other adjustments.
It's amazing how many people think that camera companies owe them this or that camera and how the companies are doomed (doomed!) if they merely release highly competent powerful cameras that blow away the cameras of seven years ago....Show more →
Scratched LP stuck playing the same line over and over.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If the AF performance of the 5D III and 1D X alone don't excite you, you aint got a pulse dude.
I get a lot of excitement every time I see the images my 17TSE and 24TSEII lenses make. But perhaps due to my frequent use of those lenses I unfortunately have little capacity left to get excited about autofocus.
That said, last week I just shot a construction job at night with my lowly 5DII where everything was in poor light, and once things started moving fast I put the TSE back in the bag and shot everything with AF zooms. And contrary to the accepted mythology, the autofocus on a 5DII actually does function adequately enough to be useful
So, while the spiffy AF on a 5DIII may be indeed be exciting for some, there are plenty of us with a pulse who still can get by quite well without it.
Even though the 5D3 AF is nice, it is hardly exciting. Especially since it is something that could / should have been released with the 5D2.
IQ, DR and MP is worth ten times more than any AF improvement.
It all depends on what you shoot. I think Canon has done well with their latest offerings in regards to autofocus. Users with high demands on auto focus should be happy. And while this user will benefit as well from a better dynamic range, they're not usually as likely to post process as much as the landscape shooter. It is the landscape shooter that feels a bit left behind with canon... given what the competition has come up with.
moonpeep wrote:
It all depends on what you shoot. I think Canon has done well with their latest offerings in regards to autofocus. Users with high demands on auto focus should be happy. And while this user will benefit as well from a better dynamic range, they're not usually as likely to post process as much as the landscape shooter. It is the landscape shooter that feels a bit left behind with canon... given what the competition has come up with.
Benefiting from higher DR also depends on what you are shooting. I've done sports photography for 10yrs and rarely, if ever, do I dream of higher dynamic range in my shots. I'm sure some sports settings would benefit from high DR, but not stuff I've done. Other heavy users of AF like wildlife might have more need for DR than the sports crowd, but I'm not too sure on that one personally.
But would agree that landscapers do tend to work with scenes that have extreme DR requirements and tend to PP more as well.
jctriguy wrote:
Benefiting from higher DR also depends on what you are shooting. I've done sports photography for 10yrs and rarely, if ever, do I dream of higher dynamic range in my shots. I'm sure some sports settings would benefit from high DR, but not stuff I've done. Other heavy users of AF like wildlife might have more need for DR than the sports crowd, but I'm not too sure on that one personally.
But would agree that landscapers do tend to work with scenes that have extreme DR requirements and tend to PP more as well.
It could help a bit when shooting backlit sports and maybe a little with water sports if the competitors are much darker than white spray and stuff. That said I find the need much more urgent for landscapes and such.
I do notice quite a few sports shooters horrendously blow out bright parts of uniforms to get better exposures on faces at times. With superb DR they might learn and be able to not overexpose so much.
? I think by far the 5D III is much less worth than the D800 given that people who like the 5D III use the camera for a different kind of photography compared to most of the D800 users.
and sorry i don't see much differences between canon full frame bodies in low iso range.
There must be a better paying job out there that fits your skills...Monitor