p.6 #1 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
bhollis wrote:
I don't think DPP 3.11.4 will open 5D3 files.
Ok, I assumed since it had the DLO correction it must also support 5D III. I can't check it at work as I don't have old dpp installed. Manual talks about suport for 5D III however.
p.6 #2 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
Regarding the LCD protectors..from Canon Australia a replacement screen cover with the Canon coatings is 8.95 for the big screen on a Mk4...it's actually cheaper the replace the original than buy a cover which to me ruins the view ability of the screen in daylight.
Always laugh when I hear camera sales people in shops saying to buy a protective cover for Canon dslr's so as to protect the LCD...
p.6 #3 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ok, I assumed since it had the DLO correction it must also support 5D III. I can't check it at work as I don't have old dpp installed. Manual talks about suport for 5D III however.
The version of DPP that came with my Mark III is 3.11.10.
p.6 #4 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
geniousc wrote:
Don, how does the new viewfinder compare to your 5D? Is it any brighter, or superior in anyway?. Thanks for all of your comments.
Gene
Now that I've got the Mark III, I'm afraid I've left the 5D on the shelf -- new toy and all. But I pulled it down this morning and put the 85mm on both of the cameras. Yes, there a bit more viewing range -- 100% vs 96% -- and, yes, it's a little brighter. That's just a quick glance, though. You wouldn't upgrade for the viewfinder alone, of course, but it's just one of the many enhancements you'll find on the Mark III. Psychologically, it's nice to have the 100% view ... and a little brighter.
p.6 #7 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
Don Ellis wrote:
Now that I've got the Mark III, I'm afraid I've left the 5D on the shelf -- new toy and all. But I pulled it down this morning and put the 85mm on both of the cameras. Yes, there a bit more viewing range -- 100% vs 96% -- and, yes, it's a little brighter. That's just a quick glance, though. You wouldn't upgrade for the viewfinder alone, of course, but it's just one of the many enhancements you'll find on the Mark III. Psychologically, it's nice to have the 100% view ... and a little brighter.
It doesn't sound like you're impressed. I hope it doesn't require shifting your eye up and down just to see the settings along with a dim view. I like nice bright viewfinders as in a 1D.
p.6 #9 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
geniousc wrote:
It doesn't sound like you're impressed. I hope it doesn't require shifting your eye up and down just to see the settings along with a dim view. I like nice bright viewfinders as in a 1D.
It's just fine ... no shifting of eye position to read anything. Keep in mind that I have no experience with the 1D series and I'm not a professional reviewer -- just a guy with a new camera who's posting some images and thoughts.
p.6 #10 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
Speaking of thoughts, I just started playing with the AF points last night -- not actually taking photos ... that would be too useful -- but just seeing how they worked and how easy they were to set on the fly. They ... are ... amazing! I'm very impressed with the ability to change things quickly.
As for the focus itself, I took a lot of photos the other night at the book launch function, with centre focus and with at least a third of the shots at ISO25,600 ... and the camera never once failed to focus immediately on what I pointed it at. This, I love.
p.6 #14 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
mttran wrote:
I have to agree with you both - 33% view in DNG - all parameters in worse case setting. It is nice to see something like this since 1ds2
I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but... I think Don made a mistake with the black frame sample. According to the EXIF, it's an ISO 3200 exposure. That is probably the reason why this black frame doesn't exhibit characteristics we'd expect from a ISO 100 black frame from a 5D3.
p.6 #16 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
timbop wrote:
Hey, it's underexposed!
Looks pretty darn clean to me!
stanj wrote:
That's the best lens cap image I've seen in a long time!
mttran wrote:
I have to agree with you both - 33% view in DNG - all parameters in worse case setting. It is nice to see something like this since 1ds2
stargazer78 wrote:
I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but... I think Don made a mistake with the black frame sample. According to the EXIF, it's an ISO 3200 exposure. That is probably the reason why this black frame doesn't exhibit characteristics we'd expect from a ISO 100 black frame from a 5D3.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Some of us shoot lens caps and/or insides of closets at ISO 3200. What's right for you may not be right for others
p.6 #17 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
stargazer78 wrote:
I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but... I think Don made a mistake with the black frame sample. According to the EXIF, it's an ISO 3200 exposure. That is probably the reason why this black frame doesn't exhibit characteristics we'd expect from a ISO 100 black frame from a 5D3.
p.6 #18 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
stanj wrote:
Some of us shoot lens caps and/or insides of closets at ISO 3200. What's right for you may not be right for others
True. But the original request specifically asked for an ISO 100 black frame, so when I downloaded the CR2 file I assumed that it was ISO 100.
When I opened up the shadows in RAW, and saw no banding... I was ecstatic. I concluded that the samples we had seen from pre-production cameras 2 weeks ago were not representative of production model cameras.
After 30 seconds of ecstasy, the cynic in me prevailed and I peeked at the EXIF. All hope came crashing down. But at least for 30 seconds, I knew what it felt like to be a Nikon user!
p.6 #20 · 5D Mark III -- First Impressions, plus JPG and RAW files
stargazer78 wrote:
I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but... I think Don made a mistake with the black frame sample. According to the EXIF, it's an ISO 3200 exposure. That is probably the reason why this black frame doesn't exhibit characteristics we'd expect from a ISO 100 black frame from a 5D3.
Next time write the instructions with a bigger crayon. Yes, I have the Auto ISO set up to go to ISO3200 if you find yourself in a coal chute. So give me a few minutes and I'll lock it into ISO100 and do it again.
But I pulled it down this morning and put the 85mm on both of the cameras. Yes, there a bit more viewing range -- 100% vs 96% -- and, yes, it's a little brighter. That's just a quick glance, though. You wouldn't upgrade for the viewfinder alone, of course, but it's just one of the many enhancements you'll find on the Mark III. Psychologically, it's nice to have the 100% view ... and a little brighter. 
