I agree. I usually write to two cards for redundancy. I use CF as my main and SD for backup. Every time I pull the CF card to dump the files on my computer the SD switches to the default. I am used to it now and switch the setting each time I put my CF card back in but I used to always forget and it would really annoy me once I figured it out.Originally Posted by shizam1
It was one month ago today that I started this thread. Since then I've used my Mark III for: (1) Newborn Portrait Session (2) Family Portrait Sessions (1) Wedding and countless images of my daughter :-)
Observations:
One-Shot Focus:
The auto focus is phenomenal. Having points where I need them has been clutch to making images at wide apertures. It's also easy to switch between points without having to take your eye away from the viewfinder.
I noticed this too on a few occurrences. However, when using the Mark II I ALWAYS used the center focus point whereas on the Mark III I NEVER used the center focus point. Next time I will use one of the (5) dual cross-type points to see if that would make a difference. Also, I was using 430EX IIs on both bodies and it can only support up to 9 focus points. I am not sure which ones they would translate to on the Mark III but it's very likely that they were providing little to no help.
AI Servo Focus:
I ended up using this for most of the wedding reception. With low-light, fast glass and wide-open apertures I was thrilled with the results. On the Mark III I was using the 85mm L @ f/1.4 and the 135mm L @ f/2 with great results. Most of the time I was using AF point expansion.
Spot AF:
I rarely (if ever) use this which does surprise me. I have had such great success with both single-point and expansion that it has not come up. I could see using it though when you are dealing with a lot of textures and contrast that could easily confuse the AF system.
Metering:
I actually use Av more than M which for me is a revelation!
High ISO:
To my eye it handles high ISO (>= 800) better than the Mark II. I think anywhere from 1/2 to 1 stop of improvement is realistic.
Disclaimer:
I am not a reviewer, just an observer. I do shoot almost daily though and in a wide variety of situations. I would be happy to answer any direct questions about my experience using either the Mark II or the Mark III.
Last edited by Mark Elberson; 04-30-2012 at 06:24 PM.
Mark
Maybe we can read between the lines here?
Since you said nothing about IQ can we assume that except for the <1 stop of ISO improvement, the IQ isn’t enough to be worth mentioning?
@HD..... my thoughts coming fom a MKII and now using a MKIII..... IQ.....the differences I can discern [ and i'm not really pro] are that the MKIII gives better color, contrast and sharpness than the MKII. My opinion based on what I have taken so far. I still have my old MKII raw files and even tried using the latest DPP to PP and convert them but still shots coming from the MKIII look better for me. I mentioned sharpness coz with the mkii I had sharpness [in DPP] set to 3 and I was already fine, in the MKIII sharpness was only at 2 and I can already notice that it seems sharper.
it is really quite hard to differentiate all this....
That's funny because IQ never even occurred to me :-) I still think that the IQ produced from the Mark II is brilliant. In my eyes, the Mark III just improved all of the other shortcomings of the Mark II. I am still in the honeymoon stage so I don't have much bad to say about the Mark III. If you were expecting a BIG bump in IQ over the Mark II though I'd keep looking. Despite DB's views on the D800's DR, etc I am not jealous nor do I have regrets.
I agree with everything you said.
I took some pictures at my sisters wedding last weekend with the 5DIII and was very happy with its ability to focus accurately and quickly in very low light using any of the cross-type af points. And even though I believe the sensor is only 1/2 stop or so more sensitive, the newer software does do a much better job removing pattern noise. I had no hesitation shooting at iso 12800 and got results that (to me, at least) were very pleasing.
Are you serious Mark? The isosqiggles of the MK3 are a lot furrier then the D800 & the Jblumps of the D800 are perfectly parted in the middle showing more refined deportment and class. It's like comparing oranges with mangos both are great but you wouldn't swallow the seed of one of them????
Heh heh.
Steve U
Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur
i guess what's really important here is that we are satisfied with the results we are getting from our equipment. And our customers, if we are PROs, are also Happy with how their pictures turned out.
me.... no regrets as well.... perfectly happy with my MKIII
I have a regret. Canon, where the &*&@%$^@* is my 1D X?!?
Seriously, though, the 5DIII sounds like an amazing camera. I agree with Mark in that by spec, at least, the 5DIII addressed the shortcomings of the 5DII - and IQ wasn't one of its shortcomings.
Enjoy your cameras, people!
I agree with most of your review, and after using the camera more I am coming to appreciate the AF more, the images I'm getting appear sharper, but I think that's because the AF is more accurate
As far as high ISO though, I really don't see much of a difference until ISO 1600, and then I have a REALLY hard time saying why I like the 5DIII images better, but me and my wife both pick the 5DIII images as "better" when side by side with the 5DII images when they are next to each other. Maybe it's the better color at higher ISO, maybe it's more DR, I'm not sure!
I'm still a bit dissapointed that Canon did some verbal trickery with their marketing about "2 stops ISO improvement" and meaning "2 stop ISO improvement with in-camera JPEG conversions because of the better processor".
I'm happy you like the camera, I'm warming up to it! I still don't think I'll upgrade our other 5DII just because of the much higher cost, and will instead get a 35L that both myself and my wife are pining over!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
