Susi, Are you all on Tallyn's list. I am # 43. Four Mark III have been shipped, and 2 has cancel that were ahead of me. If we are on the same list then # 8 has move me closer.
Geeee Susi... you have one ordered too? It should be awesome.. we always seem to end up with the same stuff... lol (sure is quiet over at dic huh?)...
well.. good luck getting one soon... Ill keep my fingers crossed for you that you get it soon (and its working great)...
Nope Tink , I think just a few of us here on that list.
RiverEyes, yep..gotta have this one, sounds too good to pass! plan to sell a couple cameras when it arrives! Where are you getting yours?
Yeh, DIC isn't the same anymore
DavidP wrote:
He can . . but in the past month or so, if you did that, it just got swallowed up into the main big honkin' threads once the moderators saw it.
I've even had 1D"S"3 questions swallowed by the blob that is the 1D3 thread.
I still think the time for sanity is here and the - sorry Jeff - thread/discussion police should let us talk...
Susi...
Im on the list at Hunts... as far as I know there are over 250 people on that list.. they got 20 in the first shipment.. if im lucky I might get a camera on the 2nd shipment.... if not.. the third.. so it could be a month or more before I get one...
The camera is set to be delivered to me on Tuesday. There was a link earlier to the manual. Sure would like to look it over before the camera gets here.
Does anyone have a link they could share to view the owners manual?
so did an assignment with the III yesterday and I shot jpegs. I have the "L" setting all the way to 10. But I was surprised the file sizes were around 4mb or about the same or even smaller than the 10-setting on the Mark II. Does this make sense given the sensor has more pixels? Maybe more compression for jpegs on the MarkIII? anyway, after custom setting the heck out of the camera, I really love it. oh be careful on setting the contrast up one notch--it is waaaay too much. that picture profile is hokey--but easy to master once you get the hang of it.
ok, any canon experts out there? still wondering about this--seems to me the files s/b larger than the 8 mega pixel camera. maybe i am setting something wrong.
additional question:
does the review screen appear very high in contrast to you?
are you getting MORE jpeg pics available on the same size card--I did. what gives?
Not a Canon expert - nor a compression expert, but it does make sense.
Depending on your subject, how much similar detail you have, the final compressed file could come out to the same - with the area of detail on transitions being better on larger file sizes, but same size due to improvements in processing (much faster processors on Mk3)
Consider an image of something simple: color chart. Static image with fine line divisions. With JPEG compression, it will look at sections and compress similar detail levels. The larger the compression setting (10) then the smaller the area looked at for compression.
But if it pics up an area with all red, then it can compress that alot - instead of 100 individual red pixels in RAW:
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...
JPG says Rx100 and moves on to the next spacing.
Whether this is on an 8Mpix camera or 10Mpix - makes little difference. That same area of coverage on the 8Mpix camera would equate to Rx80 (because there is 20% less pixels in the same area). So the storage of Rx100 vs Rx80 is negligible in binary.
Then again, does the JPEG algorithm look at the same relative area on each sensor, and therefore the area of compression is the same
ZIP technology is the same - looking for similarities in files. Try compressing the alphabet using ZIP and you get a larger file - there is nothing to compress. However, compress a text file of all the same letter and it comes out tiny.
Where I think you'll notice a bigger difference in images that have lots of detail throughout the image and particularily when you get to high ISO, where the noise causes incremental areas to be 'different' and JPG compression cannot be as efficient.
The method Hammy described is RLE (run length encoding) compression, its what most forms of GIF images use. JPEG uses something different (and far more complex) but the idea is similar and as a result, like as described a low noise image will have higher compression at the same quality. I would think that this is part of it, furthermore your application is probably rounding to the nearest MB or KB and there is some room for file size differences there that won't show up in a 1MB rounded integer.
