gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #11 · 5D3 did I waste my money? | |
snapsy wrote:
It might be if Dan had actually used a 5DM3 and compared it, which based on previous posts I've read from him he hasn't. I've never understood the phenomena of people giving evaluations of camera equipment that they've never actually used. The fact is the 5DM3's AF is significantly better than its predecessor and is apparent to anyone who has shot with both bodies.
It is true that I have not used the 5D3. I have also not been to the surface of the moon to personally verify that it is airless or that the effect of gravity is reduced. I take it on faith that Lincoln actually delivered the Gettysburg address, though I was not there to hear it myself. Although I did not drive all of the automobiles that are currently on the market before making my most recent purchase, I am confident that I made a good choice.
There is, indeed, some value in having experience with a thing. However, I'm calling BS on the frequent "gotcha'" posts that hope to utterly discredit the point of view of a person who knows a lot about something and has investigated it thoroughly, only to decide, based on evidence, that it is not something that he/she is going to purchase. In fact, I was watching the rumors about the 5D3 before it was released, and I had anticipated the possibility that I might get one, depending upon its feature set. I've seen enough (excellent) photographs produced by the 5D3 to know that it is a fine camera, and I said as much in my post. That's not in dispute.
On the other hand, it is a well-known and even documented phenomenon that people who own a thing are not necessarily the most objective when it comes to assessing that thing. (A report on a well-known study of this situation is available here - it illustrates how the perception of the value of thing can drastically alter our assessment of its actual value in very non-objective ways.) I have had the experience of getting a new lens, for example, and being convinced that it was miles better than an earlier lens - only to find that once the thrill of the new acquisition wore off it ended up seeming much less remarkable than I first thought. ;-)
I would argue that in quite a few cases, the person who just spent over $3000 - perhaps a lot more - on the purchase of a new 5D3 kit is perhaps similarly biased toward believing that its objective value is as great as they had hoped. If nothing else, it would hurt a lot to admit that the improvement, while there, was not as life-changing as one believed when clicking the "purchase" button on that photo company web site.
In any case, please keep a few things in mind about my post:
- I left the conclusion open to the reader for the most part.
- I acknowledged that the 5D3 is a very fine piece of camera gear and that it "improves" on the 5D2 in several ways.
- The improvement here seems to be less revolutionary and earth-shaking than some of the breathless descriptions might suggest.
- That this is not unexpected, given what we know from watching many past introductions of new things that some described to be remarkably better, but which ultimately turned out to be better by a much smaller increment.
As to: "The fact is the 5DM3's AF is significantly better than its predecessor and is apparent to anyone who has shot with both bodies." I've often pointed out that the AF system of the 5D3 is improved. In fact, that is arguably the most significant change, since the pixel dimensions are essentially the same and any IQ improvements are marginal at best. As to how "significant" this better-ness is, there seems to be some disagreement among "everyone who has shot with both bodies" - almost all reporting some improvement, but with some disagreement about the size or significance of the improvement.
snapsy also wrote:
But this is a gear forum. Where should gear be discussed if not here?
Discussing gear is precisely what I was doing. Sometimes an intelligent discussion of gear is not the same thing as gear-lusting. It includes a balanced and rational consideration of the actual effects of improvements on the photography of the person asking the question, and it is also valid to consider the value to the user of particular improvements. (If the resolution of a lens were improved by 10%, would it be worth it to spend $1000 more? If the resolution of the lens improved by .1% would it still be worth $1000? What if the photographer regularly makes 24" x 36" prints? What if the photographer usually shares screen-size and smaller jpgs on the web?)
retrofocus wrote:
...or summarizing it simply: the 5D III is what the 5D II should have been in the first place - a good 21MP FF camera with now a good AF.
I'd replace "should" with language based on " some wished" or "we hoped." When the 5D2 was introduced about, what, four years ago, few saw this as a problem. Sure, we would all like a $2400 body that performs like a combination of a 1D and a 1Ds, with a high MP full frame sensor and a top-end AF system... and free beer, and BMWs for the price of Honda Civics... But in reality, those who bought the 5D2 (and the earlier 5D) realized what they were getting - a much lower price on a camera with excellent image quality that had a more basic AF system and was not built to the same heavy/solid standard of the 1-series bodies.
There was exactly zero chance at that time that any company - Canon, Nikon, whoever - would have produced anything else at that price point.
But, yes, updating the AF system in the 5D3 fine years after the 5D2 was introduced was unquestionably a good and useful thing. (Though some aren't so sure about the "upgrade" to the pricing, especially in light of market alternatives... ;-)
Sneakyracer wrote:
If there is one area where the 5D3 whips the 5D2 silly...
Thanks for offering up such a gem of an example for my point about hyperbole. :-)
Dan
Edited on Nov 19, 2012 at 06:31 PM · View previous versions
|
Did you get the 5d3 to compensate for grey matter screwing up once in awhile?