Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III

"Douglas" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

"Jufi" wrote in message
...

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
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.

"Charles" wrote in message
. ..

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...


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

12 versus 10 MP
bigger sensor (1.5 versus 1.6 crop)
much better LCD screen
GPS connection with just a cable, versus a 800.- WFT for Canon
HDMI interface
Flash system that runs circles around Canon
No separate date/time battery needed
Internal flash commander mode for wireless external flashes
Format with 2 buttons; no menu scrolling needed
Change flash options with two buttons, no menu needed.

and the list goes on.

You are right: they are exactly the same...


--
Sosumi

"jean" wrote in message
...

"Douglas" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

"Jufi" wrote in message
...

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
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!


So Jean, you feel OK that a picture on an LCD screen some 60mm or so wide
with 3 guys looking at it is a good enough focus method for scientific
evaluation, do you?

Seriously Jean, The sheer number of working photographers who have quite
literally dumped their Canon gear and bought Nikon, must mean something or
do you think they are all wrong and this fellow right?

Before I made the move, I had a pre-release D3 for a couple of days. I did
some testing of my own and my results conflict entirely with what this
fellow gets. 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.

Given that the lens is an integral part of a camera system and ordinarily
cannot be exchanged around camera brands, I view his finding with a great
deal of suspicion. I'd be way more receptive to his tests if he'd used
makers best lenses instead of a telescope.

There is a company who's products I use with excellent results that
specialises in fixing lens faults during development of RAW images. Maybe if
you read what they have to say about lens faults, you might think
differently too. http://www.dxo.com/intl/image_quality

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.

On Feb 28, 1:31*am, "Douglas" wrote:

There is no mention from the "tester" about back focus calibration for that lens.

Hey moron, backfocus is not an issue with manual focus.
Jean has already explained this to you.
Using the Live View and magnifying the image 10x is a mch better
method of attaining proper focus than looking through the small
viewfinder. If you actually had a camera with Live View you would
know this.


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.

Yeah, we all believe that you own a D3. NOT!
Just like we all believe that crap about all your digital print
centres and all those other Canon bodies that you own but rarely post
any pics from.

So go take a photo of the D3 right now and post it to prove me wrong.
Otherwise, STFU because nobody is buying what yu're selling.



The Canon's can't hold a candle to either a D3 or D300 for image
sharpness.

The test proves the opposite of what you say. But every day is
Opposite Day in your world.
Why not post those images you supposedly made comparing the 20D, the
5D, and the D3? We'd all sure love to see them. Were they also
walking panos?

On Feb 28, 6:26*am, "Douglas" 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.

On Feb 27, 1:59 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" 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

"Douglas" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

"jean" wrote in message
...

"Douglas" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

"Jufi" wrote in message
...

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
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!


So Jean, you feel OK that a picture on an LCD screen some 60mm or so wide
with 3 guys looking at it is a good enough focus method for scientific
evaluation, do you?

Seriously Jean, The sheer number of working photographers who have quite
literally dumped their Canon gear and bought Nikon, must mean something or
do you think they are all wrong and this fellow right?

If it's done the same way for both cameras, then that removes the ever so
critical diopter adjustment which changes from one person to the next. What
you see on the screen is what will be recorded on the card, unless there is
"some processing" involved which changes the focus of a manual focused lens,
am I right in this assumption or not? Oh and don't forget, the Nikon has a
MUCH higher resolution screen than the MK2, so the focus would have been
much more precise no?

All the white lenses I see on TV news must be used by amateurs or are they
used by pros just waiting for their Nikons?

Before I made the move, I had a pre-release D3 for a couple of days. I did
some testing of my own and my results conflict entirely with what this
fellow gets. 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.

Given that the lens is an integral part of a camera system and ordinarily
cannot be exchanged around camera brands, I view his finding with a great
deal of suspicion. I'd be way more receptive to his tests if he'd used
makers best lenses instead of a telescope.

That's just ONE test, if you can find another in the same vein with Nikon
coming out on top, please post it, won't make me change my camera system but
it could be enjoyable reading.

There is a company who's products I use with excellent results that
specialises in fixing lens faults during development of RAW images. Maybe
if you read what they have to say about lens faults, you might think
differently too. http://www.dxo.com/intl/image_quality

If you read Chasseur d'Images and look at their tests of lenses on different
camera bodies, you will see that lenses made by Nikon and Canon and all the
others ALL have abberations (which are corrected by DxO, I use it too). Now
tell me honestly, if Nikon lenses with Nikon bodies did not have any flaws,
why would you need any of the corrections from DxO? I know there IS a
difference even with Canon L lenses so I expect there would be with Nikon
lenses too since DxO was developped by the testing labs used by Chasseur
D'Images.

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.

Good, enjoy your equipment and use it well, and the more the pros dump their
Canon stuff, the cheaper it will be for me, something I haven't seen
happening yet! drat! (I'd put up with the lousy quality of a 500mm or 600mm
f4 L any day, repeat, any day, if you have one for sale, contact me and
since it's really crap, don't expect the price to be the same as a new one)

Jean

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

That's just ONE test, if you can find another in the same vein with Nikon
coming out on top, please post it, won't make me change my camera system but
it could be enjoyable reading.

Ahem... It's worse than you imagine! In *that* test,
the Nikon D3 actually did come out on top. You have to
read the whole thread (and perhaps the discussion about
it on dpreview) though.

It took a bit of work to get the RAW files from the OP,
whose agenda and lack of technical knowledge were more
significant than his claimed results from the cameras.

In the end though, even the OP admitted the D3 produced
superior results in his test. He had made at least
three very fundamental mistakes. First, the software
that he used was flawed. Second he was upsizing the
Nikon image and not the Canon image, which of course has
a dramatic effect. Third, he had underexposed all of
the images by a serious amount.

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.

That is indeed a fact... However, your response below
is absolutely valid!

Good, enjoy your equipment and use it well, and the more the pros dump their
Canon stuff, the cheaper it will be for me, something I haven't seen
happening yet! drat! (I'd put up with the lousy quality of a 500mm or 600mm
f4 L any day, repeat, any day, if you have one for sale, contact me and
since it's really crap, don't expect the price to be the same as a new one)

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?!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

"Charles" wrote in message
. ..

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...


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

12 versus 10 MP
bigger sensor (1.5 versus 1.6 crop)
much better LCD screen
GPS connection with just a cable, versus a 800.- WFT for Canon
HDMI interface
Flash system that runs circles around Canon
No separate date/time battery needed
Internal flash commander mode for wireless external flashes
Format with 2 buttons; no menu scrolling needed
Change flash options with two buttons, no menu needed.

and the list goes on.

Very underwhelming. Yawn.

I notice that you did not mention image quality, dynamic rage, etc.

"Charles" wrote in message
. ..

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

"Charles" wrote in message
. ..

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...


I notice that you did not mention image quality, dynamic rage, etc.

As an example:

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/...=org&id=191587
http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/...=org&id=191662