My mate is friends with a few of the Canon reps so they let us have a few minutes with the 200-400. Flicking the extender into place didnt seem to slow the AF much, if at all and the sharpness still seemed excellent. Its a beast of a lens; It felt heavier than the 400 f/2.8 IS ii, which they also let me handhold and mount my own camera on. Certainly, for short periods of time, handholding the new 400 2.8 should be quite easy for some people, like Petkal
Regarding the 5Dmk3, I viewed a preview (at 100% mag) of a RAW file on the rear LCD at ISO 6400; "WOW!" Any other file characteristics aside, the ISO performance is astounding. The Canon rep claimed a two stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 for RAW, not jpg, and I'm inclined to believe it based on what I saw (proper tests of a production body may confirm or not). Its certainly looks 2 stops better than the 1Dmk4. He also claimed that the 1Dx would have negligible ISO advantage over the 5Dmk3. ie almost identical.
Aside from that, the AF seemed very fast and accurate, the body felt nice in the hand, but to be honest it does look a little cheap. Not that it matters, once the price drops I'll buy one without hesitation
As a complete overall package, IMhO, this body is in a different league to the 5Dmk2, but I still dont think Canon can justify the launch price. The reps confirmed what others have said, that the 5Dmk3 does not replace the 5Dmk2 (for now I suppose), but will be sold along side it. Anyway, thats my 2p , sorry for another 5Dmk3 thread.
p.1 #5 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Bones74 wrote:
Regarding the 5Dmk3, I viewed a preview (at 100% mag) of a RAW file on the rear LCD at ISO 6400; "WOW!" Any other file characteristics aside, the ISO performance is astounding. The Canon rep claimed a two stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 for RAW, not jpg, and I'm inclined to believe it based on what I saw (proper tests of a production body may confirm or not). Its certainly looks 2 stops better than the 1Dmk4. He also claimed that the 1Dx would have negligible ISO advantage over the 5Dmk3. ie almost identical.
Not to take away from the apparently low high ISO noise here but what you see on the preview is JPG though. And the JPG files do have 2-stop better noise level than that of the 5D Mark II. If the Canon rep's name is Chuck Westfall, then it would be different and I would take that piece of data/information to the bank. But for right now, I would rather wait before drawing any conclusions.
p.1 #8 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Wow, the 200-400 is that heavy
Did they give an idea of release date and price ?
I did press the rep but he said he genuinely didnt know. He did say that they wouldnt have it at a show if they werent going to make it. So thats good! A different rep did nod when I mentioned $11k....
p.1 #11 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
AGeoJO wrote:
Not to take away from the apparently low high ISO noise here but what you see on the preview is JPG though. And the JPG files do have 2-stop better noise level than that of the 5D Mark II. If the Canon rep's name is Chuck Westfall, then it would be different and I would take that piece of data/information to the bank. But for right now, I would rather wait before drawing any conclusions.
Corrected typo
Got it and I agree. Once we see the RAWs from from a production model we'll have a far better idea. The rep (not Chuck or even fake Chuck!) who let us play with the 5D3 said that unit was his to test and he'd had it for a couple weeks. I'm also just going on what he said... and pinching a little salt
On a side note relating to a different thread in the canon form, a senior Nikon rep said the DPreview D4 samples were an unsanctioned test of a pre-production model and that the production D4 is a lot better... It has now been delayed a further two weeks until the end of this month. Apparently they have had more orders than expected and want to fill most orders simultaneously.
p.1 #12 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
howard wrote:
You sure have the arms for this lens
and yet it still felt heavy! As Robdickson pointed out, it may be the materials used in these pre-production copies. Maybe also the built in extender. It is definitely heavier than the 400mm f/2.8 IS ii, which I hand held with a 1D4. Very managable and beautifully balanced. All the super teles had 1D4's mounted:
p.1 #15 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Bones74 wrote:
The Canon rep claimed a two stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 for RAW, not jpg, and I'm inclined to believe it based on what I saw (proper tests of a production body may confirm or not).
I don't quite believe that since they would need an insane efficiency level. But if it manages 1 true stop better in RAW that would be nice. Maybe it does.
It is a bit odd that at first Canon said that a good chunk of it was from jpg processing and then they said some of it was and now they say nearly none of it is.
He also claimed that the 1Dx would have negligible ISO advantage over the 5Dmk3. ie almost identical.
I actually find this believable. Some Canon reps have started claiming 1DX is 1 stop better but I wonder if that is not to make 1DX owners feel better and to lessen pre-orders swaps for 5D3.
Although one guy who tried the 1DX,D800,5D3,5D2,D3s claimed the 5D2 and 5D3 were about the same and the 1DX,D8000,D3s were better. I'm not sure I put too much weight in any of it yet.
As a complete overall package, IMhO, this body is in a different league to the 5Dmk2, but I still dont think Canon can justify the launch price. The reps confirmed what others have said, that the 5Dmk3 does not replace the 5Dmk2 (for now I suppose), but will be sold along side it. Anyway, thats my 2p , sorry for another 5Dmk3 thread.
p.1 #16 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
200-400 3.1-3.2kg, 400 mk II, 3.9kg
Maybe handholding the 400 2.8 tired me out Seriously though, three of us held the 200-400 and we all agreed it felt heavier. Is it possible that the zoom is more front heavy and therefore feels heavier to handhold? I did read that Canon had lightened the front element of the prime somewhat.
p.1 #18 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
skibum5 wrote:
I don't quite believe that since they would need an insane efficiency level. But if it manages 1 true stop better in RAW that would be nice. Maybe it does.
It is a bit odd that at first Canon said that a good chunk of it was from jpg processing and then they said some of it was and now they say nearly none of it is.
Trust me, I started to give the guy funny looks when he made these claims (for the RAW files)... He said "the 5Dmk2 has a two stop advantage over the 5D and the 5Dmk3 has a 2 stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 so the 5Dmk3 has a 4 stop advantage over the 5D" and then he grinned like he was personally responsible for this amazing feat of engineering that may or may not be true Time will tell.
)
, you have a point! At least its not this giant Cannon (Sigma)