Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13sb82b3mk2um7b@news.supernews.com...
> Savant wrote:
>
>> I work with the Canon Mark II 1D and 1DS. Does anyone have any
>> experience with the Mark III who can compare the differences? Thanks
>> and please visit me at http://www.brsten.com
>
> I highly recommend the Mk III. I really enjoyed mine, but sold it in
> favor
> of the Nikon D3. The D3 is a better choice since you are getting better
> build quality, better lens system, and higher ISO performance with sharper
> images. All around the D3 is the better choice. Plus, should you decide
> you want a Mk III you can use your Nikkor lenses on it via an adapter.

The D3? Sharper? Than what, a boxy old D60? Check this link:

http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811

D3 isn't all it's cracked up to be, not hardly, and not worth the money.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Savant" <2bu.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1610181e-07e1-46a8-9718-db17b58547e2@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I work with the Canon Mark II 1D and 1DS. Does anyone have any
> experience with the Mark III who can compare the differences? Thanks
> and please visit me at http://www.brucekersten.com

Read this and start crying:

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/1Ds_markIII/

To sum it up:
Difficult to find second curtain sync (must be set on the flash)
No GPS, except with a 800.- WFT-E2A wireless file transmitter AND a separate
GPS!
No auto focus in Liveview mode
Liveview degrades image quality
Liveview heats the body so much, it can be permanently damaged (!)
Compared to viewfinder, Liveview is 2-4 degrees out of whack
So are the pictures
Max ISO only 3200
Only 5 fps

Canon? C'mon! Are you into masochism, buy Canon.... LOL


--
Sosumi
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13sbcrhis327r95@news.supernews.com...
> Jufi wrote:


> Sadly, most Canon shooter don't use the proper lenses.

Sadly, some posters don't have any verifiable data to back up what they
post.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Sosumi" <sosumi DeleteThis @home.nl> wrote in message
news:PoudnR9nCuSBIljanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@novis.pt...


> Canon? C'mon! Are you into masochism, buy Canon.... LOL

Buy a D300 for WAY more money than a 40D? The two are MUCH more equal than
the cost. LOL
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

I am waiting for Canon Mk IVxD. It will be a competitor of D3. Wow! Izak
Rabin

Rita Berkowitz napsal(a):
> Savant wrote:
>
>> I work with the Canon Mark II 1D and 1DS. Does anyone have any
>> experience with the Mark III who can compare the differences? Thanks
>> and please visit me at http://www.brsten.com
>
> I highly recommend the Mk III. I really enjoyed mine, but sold it in favor
> of the Nikon D3. The D3 is a better choice since you are getting better
> build quality, better lens system, and higher ISO performance with sharper
> images. All around the D3 is the better choice. Plus, should you decide
> you want a Mk III you can use your Nikkor lenses on it via an adapter.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"van dark" <van.dark.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fq4htu$2s1s$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
>I am waiting for Canon Mk IVxD. It will be a competitor of D3. Wow! Izak
>Rabin

Eh, you must be very young to have so much time?


--
Sosumi
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

> Charles wrote:
>
> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:13sbcrhis327r95@news.supernews.com...
> > Jufi wrote:
>
> > Sadly, most Canon shooter don't use the proper lenses.
>
> Sadly, some posters don't have any verifiable data to back up what
> they post.

....or, confuse biased subjective opinion with fact.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

On Feb 28, 6:26 am, "Douglas" <crypto... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with his assumption about the lens being an
> equaller. and "live view" is not good enough for critical focus when
> scientific evaluation is being done.

Hey fool, it doesn't matter that you agree with it. Its the truth.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Jufi" <bowser DeleteThis @work.com> wrote in message
news:ythxj.614$C8.157@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>
> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:13sb82b3mk2um7b@news.supernews.com...
>> Savant wrote:
>>
>>> I work with the Canon Mark II 1D and 1DS. Does anyone have any
>>> experience with the Mark III who can compare the differences? Thanks
>>> and please visit me at http://www.brsten.com
>>
>> I highly recommend the Mk III. I really enjoyed mine, but sold it in
>> favor
>> of the Nikon D3. The D3 is a better choice since you are getting better
>> build quality, better lens system, and higher ISO performance with
>> sharper
>> images. All around the D3 is the better choice. Plus, should you decide
>> you want a Mk III you can use your Nikkor lenses on it via an adapter.
>
> The D3? Sharper? Than what, a boxy old D60? Check this link:
>
> http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811
>
> D3 isn't all it's cracked up to be, not hardly, and not worth the money.

All that "test" proves is that the Canon adaptor was machined precisely and
like many attempts to make one before this "test", the Nikon adaptor may not
have been so precise.

There is no mention from the "tester" about back focus calibration for that
lens. At best, this "test" highlights the need for precision calibration
BEFORE testing. You certainly couldn't rely in this sort of test to make a
judgment of which camera is sharper with a view to parting with money to buy
one or the other.

My newest camera (yep, the Nikons have all arrived) demonstrates very
clearly how much of a compromise I had been making by using Canon lenses and
bodies. Skin tones are more lifelike with the D3 than either a 20D or 5D.
The 20D never was much of a contender for sharp images but the 5D did
produce what I thought to be sharp images... Until I looked closely at an
image of a resolution chart I shot with all three cameras.

I don't know where this fellow got his wires crossed but crossed they must
be. The Canon's can't hold a candle to either a D3 or D300 for image
sharpness. Using a telescope with machined flange adaptors with no guarantee
the adaptors have been checked for focus errors is just asking for
controversy... He's got plenty of that now.

The Nikon's have a hugely better flash system which I got to sample on the
Canon's by taking Rita's advise and buying a Nikon flash. On a Nikon camera
it simply blows Canon's pathetic effort out the door.

Canon fanboi... Get your facts straight first. Don't believe those who
grandstand about "their" test being definitive... His is a long way from it.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Douglas" <cryptopix DeleteThis @gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
zzsxj.20244$421.10563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jufi" <bowser DeleteThis @work.com> wrote in message
> news:ythxj.614$C8.157@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>>
>> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:13sb82b3mk2um7b@news.supernews.com...
>>> Savant wrote:
>>>
>>>> I work with the Canon Mark II 1D and 1DS. Does anyone have any
>>>> experience with the Mark III who can compare the differences? Thanks
>>>> and please visit me at http://www.brsten.com
>>>
>>> I highly recommend the Mk III. I really enjoyed mine, but sold it in
>>> favor
>>> of the Nikon D3. The D3 is a better choice since you are getting better
>>> build quality, better lens system, and higher ISO performance with
>>> sharper
>>> images. All around the D3 is the better choice. Plus, should you
>>> decide
>>> you want a Mk III you can use your Nikkor lenses on it via an adapter.
>>
>> The D3? Sharper? Than what, a boxy old D60? Check this link:
>>
>> http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811
>>
>> D3 isn't all it's cracked up to be, not hardly, and not worth the money.
>
> All that "test" proves is that the Canon adaptor was machined precisely
> and like many attempts to make one before this "test", the Nikon adaptor
> may not have been so precise.
>
> There is no mention from the "tester" about back focus calibration for
> that lens. At best, this "test" highlights the need for precision
> calibration BEFORE testing. You certainly couldn't rely in this sort of
> test to make a judgment of which camera is sharper with a view to parting
> with money to buy one or the other.

Er, the lens was focused manualy (no AF) and the focus was checked using the
live view of each camera magnified to the maximum of each body and triple
checked by 3 different people, as Flip Wilson used to say WYSIWYG!

> My newest camera (yep, the Nikons have all arrived) demonstrates very
> clearly how much of a compromise I had been making by using Canon lenses
> and bodies. Skin tones are more lifelike with the D3 than either a 20D or
> 5D. The 20D never was much of a contender for sharp images but the 5D did
> produce what I thought to be sharp images... Until I looked closely at an
> image of a resolution chart I shot with all three cameras.
>
> I don't know where this fellow got his wires crossed but crossed they must
> be. The Canon's can't hold a candle to either a D3 or D300 for image
> sharpness. Using a telescope with machined flange adaptors with no
> guarantee the adaptors have been checked for focus errors is just asking
> for controversy... He's got plenty of that now.
>
> The Nikon's have a hugely better flash system which I got to sample on the
> Canon's by taking Rita's advise and buying a Nikon flash. On a Nikon
> camera it simply blows Canon's pathetic effort out the door.
>
> Canon fanboi... Get your facts straight first. Don't believe those who
> grandstand about "their" test being definitive... His is a long way from
> it.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

On Feb 27, 1:59 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> Jufi wrote:
> >>> I work with the Canon Mark II 1D and 1DS. Does anyone have any
> >>> experience with the Mark III who can compare the differences? Thanks and
> >>> please visit me athttp://www.brsten.com
>
> >> I highly recommend the Mk III. I really enjoyed mine, but sold it in
> >> favor
> >> of the Nikon D3. The D3 is a better choice since you are getting
> >> better build quality, better lens system, and higher ISO performance
> >> with sharper images. All around the D3 is the better choice. Plus,
> >> should you decide you want a Mk III you can use your Nikkor lenses
> >> on it via an adapter.
>
> > The D3? Sharper? Than what, a boxy old D60? Check this link:
>
> >http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811
>
> > D3 isn't all it's cracked up to be, not hardly, and not worth the
> > money.
>
> <YAWN>
>
> I had both and I will be sticking with the D3. Oh, before I forget, great
> tests that shows Nikon's aggressive AA filter. I like the lens/scope and it
> shows what the Mk III can do when you put real optics in front of it.
> Sadly, most Canon shooter don't use the proper lenses. I loved my Mk III
> with Nikkors in front of it. Now since you are done trolling you can take
> the sock off.
>
> Rita

Wow! I am surprised by your opinion. I will have to read some more
about the D3. Thanks.
<a href="http://www.brucekersten.com">Long Island Photographer - Bruce
Kersten Photography</a>
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III