p.7 #1 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Try a chipped lens like he did. I don't know if the 7D works like the 5D3 ? But I belive there is a difference if using chipped and non chipped lenses for MF
My lens is Leitaxed, and that's the closest I have at the moment. No ZE lenses in my cupboard, sadly. The Leitax chip is decent using 5D2's center point & the focus screen.
I had not even mounted the lens on 7D until this morning, but small point AF looks OK with it, too, and f/1.2 makes for nice bokeh on crop.
Apr 07, 2012 at 08:47 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #2 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
I don't know because I don't own any of those two bodies But the reviews (5D3) say the focus assist works very well for MF. But only with chipped lenses. So I don't know about your Leitaxed ?
p.7 #4 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't know because I don't own any of those two bodies But the reviews (5D3) say the focus assist works very well for MF. But only with chipped lenses. So I don't know about your Leitaxed ?
Yeah. I am thinking hard about selling a good chunk of my FF kit and alt glass collection for 5D3 and a small kit of ZE's. I doubt it would improve my photos on a technical basis, but I think it would be a real pleasure to use.
p.7 #7 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
philber wrote:
Sorry for not answering this thread, which I initiatied, but I am in the middle of a trip to Patagonia with Boris, where Internet connections are as rare as the hair on top of my head.
By now I have hundreds more shots with 5Diii, and in comparison with 5Dii, which I brought along as backup. I stand by what I wrote. So far, the specter of missed focus due to the lack of EG-S has not reared its ugly head, but then I have mostly shot stopped down. Tomorrow I will use 35 and 25 wide open or close, and report when I can. That is, if weather lets up, because, right now, the word "rainforest" takes on its fullest meaning.
Furthermore, on camera-LCD inspection, IQ on the new cam seems substantially better.
Siddhu, I use centre point only, then focus and recompose, back from my 5Dii days, when it was the best option for me....Show more →
I can't wait to see the results of your trip. I've been using both single point and single point with expansion. i haven't felt any real difference in achieving focus and I have used most of the focus points . . . even out on the edges. All of this has been hand held. In fact, I have yet to put the 5DIII on a tripod! Definitely a big improvement over the 5DII
p.7 #12 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
rji2goleez wrote:
I like what I like!
I know. I like what you like, too! That's the problem!!
Apr 07, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #13 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
It's funny reading Diglloyds review of the 5D3 and Nikon D800. He even stating that many of his reader like to change from Canon to Nikon because the Canon 5D Mark III is not offering interchangeable screens. And then he say the D800 appears to offer that Further down in the article he have a link to BrightScreen.com that lists several screens for the D800/D800E. They list exactly the same screens for the 5D3 but he don't say that
p.7 #15 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
Yeah, Lloyd Chambers is not as careful as he was earlier. I don't think I'll renew next time. The 5DIII seems like a fine camera, although it bothers me that Canon removed the interchangeable screen option. I also wish the D800 had the choices of the D3 series.
p.7 #16 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
Some additional findings (all tests were using the 35 Distagon f/1.4 wide open):
- I was consistently able to focus faster and more accurately with the 5D2 using the EG-s screen compared to the 5D3 without any sort of focus assist, just the stock screen in the 5D3.
- Even with AF micro-adjustment, there was variations in focus on each shot meaning that the focus confirm has a "range" thats greater then the DOF of the 35mm f1.4 at about 2 meters.
Important, YMMV. My testing was based on shooting the 35 wide open at f1.4 at different distances with and emphasis on distances needed to frame someone for a full length portrait as I find this a difficult distance to focus accurately with the 35mm.
I tried calibrating the AF and I found that a setting of +4 or +5 gave me the most accurate results BUT there was a lack of precision as some shots were closer in focus than others. This calibration was done using a test target and the camera on a tripod. This was by no means the most rigourous scientific test (don't have the time right now) but it was educational.
I think that with careful calibration of the AF for each lens, one could definitely rely on the AF for focus for the majority of situations, but one would still have to be careful when shooting at f1.4 or f2.
I would love it if someone else was to give it a go with the 35 Distagon f/1.4 wide open and report back.
I'm going to do some more testing tomorrow before I have to return the rental 5D3.
On another note, 3200 ISO is definitely better than the 5D2.
p.7 #17 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
What's all the uproar about Lloyd? As far as 'slighting' the Mk. III, he simply states that if it's a choice between that OR the D800, there is no contest. The bigger question he alludes to is that if you're heavily invested in Canon glass, is this camera really a worthy "upgrade" from the Mk. II and are you getting your money's worth considering the elevated price, some 16-20% higher than the D800. Even devoted fanboys will have to admit that unlike its aggressively priced predecessors, this pricey iteration isn't earth shattering.
Don't shoot the messenger.
His methodology is scientific and thorough, articulated with known limitations and caveats, in contrast to other 'experts'. Look at Bjørn Rørslett; notwithstanding a science PhD, and despite a reputation of 'guru', his reviews consist of short, subjective snippets without a shred of supporting data. Often useful but purely subjective user-based opinion.
Apr 08, 2012 at 09:52 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #18 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
j.liam wrote:
What's all the uproar about Lloyd? As far as 'slighting' the Mk. III, he simply states that if it's a choice between that OR the D800, there is no contest. The bigger question he alludes to is that if you're heavily invested in Canon glass, is this camera really a worthy "upgrade" from the Mk. II and are you getting your money's worth considering the elevated price, some 16-20% higher than the D800. Even devoted fanboys will have to admit that unlike its aggressively priced predecessors, this pricey iteration isn't earth shattering.
Don't shoot the messenger.
His methodology is scientific and thorough, articulated with known limitations and caveats, in contrast to other 'experts'. Look at Bjørn Rørslett; notwithstanding a science PhD, and despite a reputation of 'guru', his reviews consist of short, subjective snippets without a shred of supporting data. Often useful but purely subjective user-based opinion. ...Show more →
I'm not complaining because he is stating that the D800 is better. It probably is. But look what he wrote about focusing screens and those cameras. Nearly everything he wrote was wrong and not true at all. What scientific methodology did he use when saying the D800 have interchangeable screens but not the 5D3
p.7 #20 · 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer!
One of the draws of the Mk II was the easy interchangeability of focusing screens and options from Canon. While Nikon has no OEM options, the screens were known to be removable but third party options affect metering. (I swapped out the one in my D700 for a KatzEye and lost spot metering).
Figures the forum enabler wouldn't have any ghetto glass. 
