[Chewy734]

well apparently it might just be a firmware update, and they may not be recalling, but delaying the next batch of shipments.

[The1]

how's your comparo project coming along?

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

how's your comparo project coming along?

meh. I haven't had time to shoot as much. I do have some comparison photos between the 5D2 and 5D3, which I'll try to post up this week. Mike's been hogging the D800, so I haven't been able to shoot with that as much. That being said, the D800 was sold earlier today, since Mike decided to buy the D700 for his own use instead.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

meh. I haven't had time to shoot as much. I do have some comparison photos between the 5D2 and 5D3, which I'll try to post up this week. Mike's been hogging the D800, so I haven't been able to shoot with that as much. That being said, the D800 was sold earlier today, since Mike decided to buy the D700 for his own use instead.

lol, so a small chunk of the project is scrapped then...

That's unfortunate.

[Chewy734]

Yup. Oh well... honestly, the D800 was sitting in its box in my apartment for 5 days, because I didn't have any Nikon lenses.

[kamek]

I want a 5D3.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by kamek

I want a 5D3.

Me too. The Lord willing, I'll have one by year end.

[Chewy734]

Despite me being a "Canon fanboy"... DxOMark sucks.

[rodi]

?

[Chewy734]

rodi, check out the scores... gotta love their bias. They've pretty much rated the 5D3 sensor slightly better than the 5D2, worse than the Sony NEX cameras, Nikons, etc. Hell, the DR is the same as the 3-year-old 7D... supposedly.

Oh yeah, and the D800 whips the 5D3 on the ISO score.

[rodi]

that i don't understand. a smaller-pixel sensor like the D800 making a better ISO score than the 5D3's larger pixels.

[Chewy734]

Yeah, it's because of their biased tests. They downsample everything to 8MP, which is what they consider the normalized print size. So, in this case, the greater the starting resolution the more downsampling, which means lower apparent noise. That lower apparent noise means better ISO performance and more dynamic range.

[M_Six]

I was looking at a Mk III review on The Digital Picture website and Bryan's pics show little noise advantage over the Mk II. But Bryan does state, "...you need to take what you see with a big grain of salt until I can update the sample images with properly-processed ones." This goes back to DPP's apparent inability to deal with the Mk III images.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I was looking at a Mk III review on The Digital Picture website and Bryan's pics show little noise advantage over the Mk II. But Bryan does state, "...you need to take what you see with a big grain of salt until I can update the sample images with properly-processed ones." This goes back to DPP's apparent inability to deal with the Mk III images.

Yep. OTOH, the in-camera jpegs are pretty darn stunning vs. the MkII. I think that the RAW gains are going to be relatively modest and those can't be judged accurately until DPP gets fixed. (I read in the last day or two that it is now fixed and available for download). The improvement that I'm hearing the most about is almost complete elemination of moire and really stunning colors.

I'm waiting to see the DxO Optics Pro processing of the MkIII. I compare that to DPP and LR. Man, I hope that DxO is still the winner for me. I'm addicted to it's fast processing with the latest upgrade (v. 7.2.2). It takes me a few seconds to fine tune each image and DxO does the RAW conversion in 4 to 10-sec on my system. Last time I used DPP, it was minutes in processing, but that was before I had a 64-bit OS and 8GB or RAM. Since it comes with the camera, I'll be trying it out.

I wish that Canon would treat DPP as a serious workflow component and streamline some of the interfaces and allow for large batch processing. IME it's always resulted in a fine image, but it was just too darn slow (both in user interface and processing) to use on any significant volume of images.

Dave

[signes]

Agree on in camera JPEG (here's a pic for you Dave), was pretty impressive during a recent trip. I haven't gotten a chance to play around with the RAW images yet, looking forward to some software that actually does a good job (I hate loading LR "release candidates", just want a real final update to load.) Will post up some other impressions of the camera soon (from a Nikon guy's perspective.)



BTW, the in-camera HDR feature is pretty neat. Here is a quick handheld shot straight out of the camera.

[dcstep]

Wow! Yes, nice colors and feather details.

[Hambone]

Signes, what lens are you using?

[signes]

The "kit" 24-105. Our little feathered friend got pretty close! Dave, I am wanting a super-tele...

[signes]

Each is straight out of the camera, no editing at all (which may be obvious but still shows a very good jpeg engine.)

This one was taken at dusk with what was really very little light. Love the low light capabilities of this thing:



Good detail and color rendition.



Did well with mixed light, good dynamic range.



I forgot to take a tripod on the trip and was VERY impressed with the IS in the 24-105 lens. Worlds better than the IS in the Nikkor 18-200.

[Chewy734]

awesome pics!

I just wrote my explanation of the 5D3 sensor results from DxOMark. Hopefully I didn't make any glaring mistakes, and it makes sense.

DxOMark: The sensors comparison explained

[signes]

Is that your write-up? Very impressive... I have a D800 coming in the next few weeks and will make my decision. I am moving up from a D200 so either will be a huge upgrade. Won't be an easy choice I'm sure...

[Chewy734]

Yeah, thanks. Honestly, I think it mostly depends on what you're shooting and your style of shooting.

That's cool, you'll have to let me know what you think of it once you have it.