Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Front Room' started by Big G, Oct 1, 2011.
Absolutely pointless comparing JPEGs.
Yeah you're probably right but it's better than nowt until he sorts his RAW samples out. Not everyone shoots in RAW but I personally haven't shot a JPEG on mine for about 2 years.
I'd like a 5x4 or 1:1 in camera crop plus ISO 25 in the next Canon. The D800, like the D3, has the ability to crop the frame from 3×2 to 5×4.
There's RAW samples up on DPreview here - http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkiii/12
I'd say the Mk3 has maybe about half a stop over the D800 when the ISO gets high? Still doesn't make up for the woeful ISO 100 dynamic range in my book
Jessops are so gay, no mk3 on the shop front. Wasn't asking some teenage girl who knows nothing to get me one to fiddle wth
Going to Jessops for a camera is like going to Arnold Clark for an Aston Martin.
Yeah I wasn't going there for it, I just happened to be nearby so I thought I'd pop in.
Would I save lots of money buying 2d3 with 2-70 kit? Or would it be worth getting the 5d3 now, getting used to it a little then getting the lens when it comes out? Is there expected to be a big saving?
I would buy just the body tbh if you have lenses you can use in the mean time. My problem would be that I have nothing EF wider than 50mm and then I have the 70-200 so there would be another gap (although <50mm would be more of a concern).
I have lenses but they're probably not going to be able to show off the camera at it's best. I just don't want to have to wait to June/July if that rumour's true Could use them to get used to the camera and all the tricks but I really want to do my Underground shots and they'll be much better with an uber lens.
Does anywhere stock the Mk3 yet?
Some places have it with the 24-105, looks like most offering body only don't currently have any.
I've been pouring over resolution graphs and crop samples of equivalent Nikkor lenses and I have to say they're not great compared to the Canon equivalent. Canon's TS-E 24mm II, the 24-70mm f/2.8 EF L and the 16-35mm f/2.8 EF L have much, much better control over chromatic aberration than the Nikkor lenses.
I take it back. I'd rather invest in superb glass than base ISO DR given sensors change every 4 years, so GIFV MK3 K THX. The other option would be Zeiss primes but I'd lose the tilt / shift option.
I'll post lens samples tonight to show you what I mean.
Good stuff, I was always suspecting the Canon equivalent lenses would be a little better. Don't know why. Probably my RAGING FANBOYISM
So I was having a "fantasy camera setup" and looking at the D800 and the Mk3. I've already waxed lyrically like Bodhi to Sony about the super duper dynamic range of the D800, but I did some digging at what lenses I'd need to get if I ever decided to jump into the full frame arena.
For me, I'd need / want:
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 (to replace my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, fucking sweet lens)
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (to replace my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, staple wide angle landscape zoom - i'd want f/2.8 for astro / milkyway)
- Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 TS-E II (one of the primary reasons that'd entice me to a full-frame)
The equivalent Nikkors are:
- Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens
- Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 IF AF-S ED (there is a 14-28mm f/2.8 that's awesome, but that has a massive bulbous front element that would fuck up my filter setup)
- Nikon 24mm f3.5D ED PC-E
So here are the lenses compared (mouse over the image to switch between them):
Canon 16-35 Vs Nikon 17-35 - at f/2.8 (16mm / 17mm respectively) - The Nikon is just pish and next to useless in the corners wide open. Granted, the Canon is a bit soft too but it's nowhere near the Nikon.
Canon 16-35 Vs Nikon 17-35 - at f/8 (16mm / 17mm respectively) - More of a landscape aperture, Canon looks great but the Nikon's CAs are just not acceptable for a nigh on £1500 lens. It will clean up in Camera Raw, but it's still far from ideal.
Canon 24-70 Vs Nikon 24-70mm - at f/2.8 (24mm for both) - Again, CA much better controlled on the Canon, sharpness looks ok for both.
Canon 24-70 Vs Nikon 24-70mm - at f/8 (50mm for both) - CA doesn't seem to get any better on the Nikon when stopped down.
Canon 24mm TS-E Vs Nikon 24mm TS-E at f/8 - Canon's most awesome wide angle prime on the planet. Pretty close here, but still slightly more CA on the Nikon than the Canon.
Canon 24mm TS-E Vs Nikon 24mm TS-E at f/8 fully shifted - apply maximum shift and the Nikon's CA (running theme here...) reveals it's ugly head even in the mid frame.
I can't say I'm that impressed with the chromatic aberrations on the Nikkors and I think I'd always have a wanting for Canon glass after comparing them closely and noticing that they're generally sharper looking (not to mention that they may not perform as well on the 36 MP D800).
I could never change from Canon after investing a lot of money in the body and then the lenses.
Aye, it's a damn expensive thing switching camera systems if you've got glass investment.
Totally agree, the money is in the glass not the body.
I hope this stays a rumour then
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/...umors/rss (Canon Rumors)&utm_content=FaceBook
Stop being long Canon! Only just noticed the 24-70 has been officially delayed until July. Laaaaaaaaaaaame.
Perhaps the best wide angle is the Nikon 14-24 >> http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/view/the-nikon-14-24-on-a-canon-1ds3-a-landscapers-report
I've seen it on Antony Spencer's same set-up and it was impressive.
Yeah I mentioned that above (I incorrectly referred to it as the 14-28), but that massive front element wouldn't work with most filter kits. I understand Lee do one that fits, but it's damn expensive and I don't think they've got a 10 stop to go with it.
Ah you did. I missed that. Yes: http://www.studiokitdirect.co.uk/Catalogue/Lee_Filters/SW150.htm
Why are Lee filters so good?
Good quality, pretty neutral.
It's not until you try buying other, cheaper filters that you realise the quality of Lee filters. That said, I've heard good things about Singh Ray filters.
I bought a hi tech filter once, returned it because it was junk.
I am not heavily invested in Canon lenses; all I have worth keeping is the 135L which I absolutely adore. What's the general consensus regarding the Nikon/Canon battle this time around?
I think I've posted many angles and discussion points in this thread that should sum it up.
I just wish Canon had improved base ISO dynamic range. Nikon certainly excelled at that, but it's not the be all and end all. Try having a read here for first hand Mk3 opinions / discussion and here for D800.
Also, EOS 1D C announced today.
Looks like Canon are branching out and really pushing strongly into video now.