rockwell的无敌小三review来了。# PhotoGear - 摄影器材
l*r
1 楼
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-iii.htm
As expected, stupid-high ISOs like ISO 25,600 work, but look crummy. As expected, they're soft and smeary. They look exactly like ISO 3,200 from point-and-shoots: usable, but soft and smeared in firmware to hide the noise. In other words, with the right post-processing software, you'll get the same results and can get the same stupid-high ISOs from the older cameras by push-processing.
Real photographers don't need ISO 6,400, much less ISO 12,800. Photography means drawing with light, not darkness.
If it's too dark, turn on some lights!
No matter how many ISOs you have, without light, it's going to look crappy anyway.
And on top of that, if the light's dim, use a fast lens, not an f/2.8 zoom! The 50/1.8 is a much faster lens than the 24-70/2.8, and sharper, too — for just $120. f/2.8 is slow, for daylight use. My 50/1.8 is my favorite lens for my 5D, 5D Mark II and now 5D Mark III: small, light, fast, sharp, and disposable. (you rich guys, who are most Mark III owners, probably prefer the 50/1.4 or 50/1.2.)
In any case, if the light's dim, turn on some light or use a faster lens. Higher ISOs are never the answer, but the 24/1.4 or 85/1.8 certainly are. Save $1,300 and get a 5D Mark II instead, and use the $1,300 to get a couple of real lenses to supplement your f/2.8 zooms. How sad it is that people have completely forgotten how to be photographers, which means to master light, not be a slave to the darkness.
Anyway, the 5D Mark III's AF system, stolen from the Canon 7D, is just more complex than the original 5D and the 5D Mark II, and the original 5D stole it from the 20D or similar, so it always was too small for full-frame. At least the AF areas for the 5D Mk III now fill a good part of the frame, but they no longer are well-lit by individual LEDs as they were in the 5D and 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark III AF zones are only shown as dark LCD boxes covering your subject, and at night, lit poorly by an LED at the side. Poo; now the dark rectangles get in the way of trying to see when the subject smiles.
The new AF system takes a few days to figure out, and once I have, it seems like Canon has added so many tweaks to it that we now have one more level to have to sort through for every shot - oh oh.
The auto color-fringe correction works great!
So, yes, the Mark III is better than the Mark II, but if you actually work for a living and the extra $1,300 means something to you, get the Mark II while you still can and put the money into some fast lenses. DSLRs are a rich man's sport, and most of you guys are doing OK, so if you have the dough, of course get the Mark III. The color-fringe correction is a big deal for me for use with Canon's ultrawide lenses; you can see the difference in real pictures, unlike this high ISO or high megapixel baloney, which you can't.
As always, only you can answer Is It Worth It — to you. If you earn your living with it, it is. If not, it's a toy, so it's a question of how much cash you've got to throw at this hobby, The 5D Mark II is still a superb camera, better than anything from Nikon — until the D800 came out. Even the original 5D is better technically than anything from Nikon under $8,000 or the D800, and used 5Ds go for about $1,000, total. The worst thing about the original 5D are its crappy ergonomics and hideous LCD; its images are spectacular.
D800 or 5D Mark III? My D800 isn't here yet so I'll let you know, but having the 5D Mark III and seeing how Canon still hasn't fixed the complete playback lockout until you hit the play button defect, and seeing the crummy black AF squares all over the finder in the 5D Mark III, you know I'm going to be all over the D800, regardless of price; and the D800 costs less!
Forget ISO differences; the stupid-high maximum ISOs look a lot worse than the less crazy highest-ISOs of higher-resolution cameras. It's all marketing why the ISO settings go higher on lower-resolution cameras, not noise. It's also that it takes too much processing to get all the smudging required at hyper ISOs with more pixels, but you can do it later. In other words, even though some cameras can be set higher, they look so much worse than the other cameras set to their (lower) maximum ISOs.
I already showed this with the D3X years ago. Noise depends not on pixel-well size, it depends image magnification. Bigger sensors need less magnification to a given image (print or screen) size. It's the enlargement ratio, not the pixel well size.
As expected, stupid-high ISOs like ISO 25,600 work, but look crummy. As expected, they're soft and smeary. They look exactly like ISO 3,200 from point-and-shoots: usable, but soft and smeared in firmware to hide the noise. In other words, with the right post-processing software, you'll get the same results and can get the same stupid-high ISOs from the older cameras by push-processing.
Real photographers don't need ISO 6,400, much less ISO 12,800. Photography means drawing with light, not darkness.
If it's too dark, turn on some lights!
No matter how many ISOs you have, without light, it's going to look crappy anyway.
And on top of that, if the light's dim, use a fast lens, not an f/2.8 zoom! The 50/1.8 is a much faster lens than the 24-70/2.8, and sharper, too — for just $120. f/2.8 is slow, for daylight use. My 50/1.8 is my favorite lens for my 5D, 5D Mark II and now 5D Mark III: small, light, fast, sharp, and disposable. (you rich guys, who are most Mark III owners, probably prefer the 50/1.4 or 50/1.2.)
In any case, if the light's dim, turn on some light or use a faster lens. Higher ISOs are never the answer, but the 24/1.4 or 85/1.8 certainly are. Save $1,300 and get a 5D Mark II instead, and use the $1,300 to get a couple of real lenses to supplement your f/2.8 zooms. How sad it is that people have completely forgotten how to be photographers, which means to master light, not be a slave to the darkness.
Anyway, the 5D Mark III's AF system, stolen from the Canon 7D, is just more complex than the original 5D and the 5D Mark II, and the original 5D stole it from the 20D or similar, so it always was too small for full-frame. At least the AF areas for the 5D Mk III now fill a good part of the frame, but they no longer are well-lit by individual LEDs as they were in the 5D and 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark III AF zones are only shown as dark LCD boxes covering your subject, and at night, lit poorly by an LED at the side. Poo; now the dark rectangles get in the way of trying to see when the subject smiles.
The new AF system takes a few days to figure out, and once I have, it seems like Canon has added so many tweaks to it that we now have one more level to have to sort through for every shot - oh oh.
The auto color-fringe correction works great!
So, yes, the Mark III is better than the Mark II, but if you actually work for a living and the extra $1,300 means something to you, get the Mark II while you still can and put the money into some fast lenses. DSLRs are a rich man's sport, and most of you guys are doing OK, so if you have the dough, of course get the Mark III. The color-fringe correction is a big deal for me for use with Canon's ultrawide lenses; you can see the difference in real pictures, unlike this high ISO or high megapixel baloney, which you can't.
As always, only you can answer Is It Worth It — to you. If you earn your living with it, it is. If not, it's a toy, so it's a question of how much cash you've got to throw at this hobby, The 5D Mark II is still a superb camera, better than anything from Nikon — until the D800 came out. Even the original 5D is better technically than anything from Nikon under $8,000 or the D800, and used 5Ds go for about $1,000, total. The worst thing about the original 5D are its crappy ergonomics and hideous LCD; its images are spectacular.
D800 or 5D Mark III? My D800 isn't here yet so I'll let you know, but having the 5D Mark III and seeing how Canon still hasn't fixed the complete playback lockout until you hit the play button defect, and seeing the crummy black AF squares all over the finder in the 5D Mark III, you know I'm going to be all over the D800, regardless of price; and the D800 costs less!
Forget ISO differences; the stupid-high maximum ISOs look a lot worse than the less crazy highest-ISOs of higher-resolution cameras. It's all marketing why the ISO settings go higher on lower-resolution cameras, not noise. It's also that it takes too much processing to get all the smudging required at hyper ISOs with more pixels, but you can do it later. In other words, even though some cameras can be set higher, they look so much worse than the other cameras set to their (lower) maximum ISOs.
I already showed this with the D3X years ago. Noise depends not on pixel-well size, it depends image magnification. Bigger sensors need less magnification to a given image (print or screen) size. It's the enlargement ratio, not the pixel well size.
