Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III

jean wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 87zltk71yw.fld.RemoveThis@apaflo.com...
>> "jean" <try_to.RemoveThis@find.it> wrote:


>>> Life would be better if people used their cameras to shoot pictures rather
>>> than shooting rifles, aside from that, life is good, enjoy it, I know I
>>> am.
>> People feed themselves shooting with rifles around here. It isn't
>> optional, assuming you don't want to starve to death...
>
> Aww, you know what I mean now don't you... and I think canibalism isn't
> accepted in too many cultures.
>
> Jean
>
>

Well, except for one little town down in the Missouri Ozarks, but we
don't talk about that.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in
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.

Than the 1Dsmk3 or the 1Dmk3?

The 1Dsmk3 has a hair more shot noise at the image level than the D3, and
significantly less read noise at the image level than the D3. If the 1D3
seems to be giving better high-ISO performance, you are being fooled by
noise reduction.

Of course, the D3 is better than the 1Dmk2 (noise-wise) in some ways, and
just about all the other Canons in every (noise-related) way.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.TakeThisOut@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

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

> Max ISO only 3200

There is really no max ISO on any camera in manual exposure mode (unless
the RAW data is black-clipped above true mean black), and there are as many
more stops than the top enumerated one as there are stops of negative EC,
in auto-exposure mode. In-camera top ISOs are usually nothing more than
pushes, either literally, or for all intents and purposes.

Here's the 1Dsmk3 at ISO 51,000, originally a 100% crop, simple RAW
conversion with no noise reduction, downsampled at a ratio that makes the
entire sensor 12 MP. On the thumbnail page is the original 100% crop:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/92026024/original
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS RemoveThis @no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> 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 

"Douglas" <cryptopix.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jTwxj.20347$421.12065@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> The bottom line for me is the Nikon D3 and D300 produce sharper, more
> lifelike images with less noise and higher ISO availability than any
> Canon camera in the same price range. All the other benefits of owning
> Nikon are just bonuses.

The D3 is up there near the top for image quality, better than most Canons,
but the D300 is not Canon killer. If you think the D300 gives better IQ
than the 40D, then you're basing your decisions on post-capture noise
reduction. The D300 captures less photons than the 40D with the same real
world exposure, and has a read noise floor a stop higher than the 40D
(higher than the 400D, too). The 450D will most likely have less read
noise than the D300.

One of these days, hopefully, someone is going to make a commercial RAW
converter that treats cameras equally with the same settings, and all of
this slight-of-hand bullshit will come to an end.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.RemoveThis@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in
news:13sd8p0bgfltka0@news.supernews.com:

> And hell, a
> lot of pro Canon shooters are coming over to the D3 just to be able to
> use a real wide angle lens, the 14-24/2.8.

If you haven't noticed, Canons can use Nikon lenses with adapters, and
there's even one that translates protocols now.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS DeleteThis @no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> 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 

"John Sheehy" <JPS.TakeThisOut@no.komm> wrote in message
news:Xns9A53ADAEEDC22jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196...
> "Sosumi" <sosumi.TakeThisOut@home.nl> wrote in
> news:PoudnR9nCuSBIljanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@novis.pt:
>
>> Max ISO only 3200
>
> There is really no max ISO on any camera in manual exposure mode (unless
> the RAW data is black-clipped above true mean black), and there are as
> many
> more stops than the top enumerated one as there are stops of negative EC,
> in auto-exposure mode. In-camera top ISOs are usually nothing more than
> pushes, either literally, or for all intents and purposes.
>
> Here's the 1Dsmk3 at ISO 51,000, originally a 100% crop, simple RAW
> conversion with no noise reduction, downsampled at a ratio that makes the
> entire sensor 12 MP. On the thumbnail page is the original 100% crop:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/92026024/original
> --

Yes, that's virtually noise free, LOL


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

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87d4qfnvkm.fld@apaflo.com...
> "William Graham" <weg9.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>news:87skzbob0q.fld@apaflo.com...
>>> "jean" <try_to.DeleteThis@find.it> wrote:
>>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>>>87zltk71yw.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>>> "jean" <try_to.DeleteThis@find.it> wrote:
>>>>>>> I use Nikon gear. Soon enough Canon will come out with
>>>>>>> a camera body that is better than the D3. I won't be
>>>>>>> switching then any more than you are now! Soon enough
>>>>>>> after that, Nikon will come out with another camera body
>>>>>>> that beats the Canon. It will be a never ending cycle
>>>>>>> (I hope), and we'll each buy at a peak in the cycle for
>>>>>>> the brand we use. How could life get better?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Life would be better if people used their cameras to shoot pictures
>>>>>>rather
>>>>>>than shooting rifles, aside from that, life is good, enjoy it, I know
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>am.
>>>>>
>>>>> People feed themselves shooting with rifles around here. It isn't
>>>>> optional, assuming you don't want to starve to death...
>>>>
>>>>Aww, you know what I mean now don't you... and I think canibalism isn't
>>>>accepted in too many cultures.
>>>
>>> I was discussing camera tests, you brought up rifles,
>>> and now cannibalism??? Rest assured that I do *not* have
>>> a clue what you mean...
>>>
>>She was probably talking about people using guns to kill people, without
>
> But that is *not* anything she said.
>
>>eating them. But in some environments, people need guns to protect
>>themselves from other people, which is also a valid use for them, since
>>the
>>police, while good at tracking down perpetrators and bringing them to
>>justice after the fact, can't really prevent crime. That's something one
>>has
>>to do for one's self.
>
> That is certainly true... for people who don't have the
> sense to get the Hell out of places like that!
>


Yes, they should shoot their way out.............................
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III 

"Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote in
news:NdWdnQCw3NsW0lTanZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d@novis.pt:

>
> "John Sheehy" <JPS.RemoveThis@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A53ADAEEDC22jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196...

>> Here's the 1Dsmk3 at ISO 51,000, originally a 100% crop, simple RAW
>> conversion with no noise reduction, downsampled at a ratio that makes
>> the entire sensor 12 MP. On the thumbnail page is the original 100%
>> crop:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/92026024/original
>> --
>
> Yes, that's virtually noise free, LOL

Read the text. There is no noise reduction in this image, whatsoever.
The level of RAW illiteracy is astounding to me; back in the days of
film, a good percentage of photographers knew about darkroom chemicals,
pushing and pulling films and their limits, now, no one is interested in
what cameras can actually capture in the RAW state. Most likely, you
have never seen a RAW D3 image at ISO 51,000, or any ISO.

This is *NOT* from a converter; this is the RAW data, interpolated to
fill in the full RGB planes, and white-balanced. That's it. No
shennanigans with noise reduction.



--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.RemoveThis@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III