Canon 5D Mark IIII and ISO at 8,000

[sactown024]

amazing, from the review i saw from Tony Northrup who recently bought the mark III said there was no major difference and he would recommend the mark II unless you have disposable money.

.. I like her dress

 

[Robin_Usagani]

ISO8000? That's it?

New York Mag's Stunning Sandy Cover Was Shot From A Moving Helicopter

 

[ronlane]

ISO8000? That's it?

New York Mag's Stunning Sandy Cover Was Shot From A Moving Helicopter

lol, well yeah, but if we all went out and got the 1Dx and the 24-70 mk II then who would we be the same and that would be boring. :mrgreen: (But Kathy, if you get the 1Dx, feel free to send me your mk iii as a hand me down).

 

[dbvirago]

I'm a little hard pressed to understand why anyone would buy the 1DX. I'm sure there is a valid reason, but comparing the specs on the Canon site, the biggest difference I see is the price.

 

[ronlane]

I'm a little hard pressed to understand why anyone would buy the 1DX. I'm sure there is a valid reason, but comparing the specs on the Canon site, the biggest difference I see is the price.

Because we all know if you own (in debt) a 1Dx, then you MUST be a professional photographer.

 

[ceejtank]

Thanks for the shots! Theyre very nice.

 

[kathyt]

Very nice Kathy. Thanks for rubbing it in for us "less fortunate". :lmao:

I took on two weddings in one weekend to justify this gem mister! This girl works hard.

 

[kathyt]

I'm a little hard pressed to understand why anyone would buy the 1DX. I'm sure there is a valid reason, but comparing the specs on the Canon site, the biggest difference I see is the price.

I looked at them both, and I agree. I didn't see much difference.

 

[kathyt]

amazing, from the review i saw from Tony Northrup who recently bought the mark III said there was no major difference and he would recommend the mark II unless you have disposable money.

.. I like her dress

I am going to call the bullsh*t flag on this one. He should come look through my raw files of some of my weddings Mark II vs. Mark III and then see if he can see which wedding is which camera!

 

[ronlane]

Very nice Kathy. Thanks for rubbing it in for us "less fortunate". :lmao:

I took on two weddings in one weekend to justify this gem mister! This girl works hard.

I'm not arguing that at all Kathy. Just wished I could shoot a wedding and be able to shoot 2 to earn the money to get the mk iii.

 

[Rick50]

Really nice shots... I also have the Mk III and last weekend I used it hand held and was amazed at the quality of images in dark rooms.

 

[unpopular]

Canon: So advanced, they don't stick to roman numeral convention!

 

[TonyNorthrup]

amazing, from the review i saw from Tony Northrup who recently bought the mark III said there was no major difference and he would recommend the mark II unless you have disposable money.

.. I like her dress

I am going to call the bullsh*t flag on this one. He should come look through my raw files of some of my weddings Mark II vs. Mark III and then see if he can see which wedding is which camera!

OK, I'm in, though maybe you can just email them to me: tony@northrup.org.

I did extensive subjective and objective testing, blind "taste tests" by more than a dozen different photographers, I've been using the two cameras side-by-side since the Mark III came out, and my review has challenged hundreds or thousands of Mark III owners who thought the raw image quality is better than the Mark II's... and so far I haven't seen a single raw comparison that shows the Mark III has better image quality. DXO's objective tests agree with me, showing only a 3% improvement.

Here was my initial review where I did the subjective image comparison:



Click the link 9 seconds in to watch my long-term review, done more recently. I know, the light changed during the first test, invalidating it... stick with it for the other tests, though. Here are the raw files from my objective lab tests comparing the two bodies:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dslr-raw/lab-test.zip

 

[brian_f2.8]

Great shot very clean.