Jump to content

Found a lonely 5D mkiii


Recommended Posts

<p>What!?! you didn't whisk it away to a new home? All your lenses would have done a decent job of keeping it company... of course you've no way of knowing just how crippled it is, and whether it's a unit with the new 'light leak fix' ;-)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I still don't have my first digital camera- but if I had walked into a store with a fresh 5D 2 or 3 or a D800 at B&H pricing I would have left with it. The moment would have overwhelmed my common sense which always precludes a purchase from an online vendor.</p>

<p>Every time I see a post like one recently by a 7000 owner who was overexposing - the responses...what about this menu what about that menu what about this combination or that and it goes on and on like that for dozens of posts, literally... why would a person with a job to do subject himself to all that when what I have is so simple and perfect? I immediately reject any consideration of buying digital gear even for fun.</p>

<p> I check a grey card reading when the light changes, set shutter speed and shoot. 10/10 frames are perfectly exposed, roll after roll, hour after hour. White subject, black, color does not matter. Effortless synergy between my mind and the chosen tool.</p>

<p>Maybe the 5D4. LOL.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Depends on what you're looking for<br>

I grew up with film before some people here were both. Still shoot it on collection cameras and some that I'm just damned fond of.<br>

But in my ripening old age, i have to say that digital has made it possible for me to revisit my youth without too much torture. And it does things on the edges that I would have kllled for 50 years ago.<br>

Having said that, I've now owned four Canon DSLRS, i.e. the 20D, and the 5Ds, all three of them. I was in love with each of them and there were pictues I made which might not have been. great but were difficult to impossible with film. And, FWIW the mark 2 was better by far than the 5D and I'm surprised at how much more I appreciate the Mark 3 than the Mark 2. <br>

I would say that where I really feel the difference is around the fringes. It and the new Nikons and I suppose others are excellent in low light. I haven't spent a lot of time at the low ISO of the III, but there is a creaminess to the images at may ISOs that remind me of the Mark 2 with a pulled ISO 50 and a very big aperture. Butter melting in your mouth.<br>

as for 16x20, that's not a biggie. The Mark II was capable of much, much larger than that. The III makes it easier. I love it, although in a sense, while a lot of functions get better, it's a lot like buying a new camera to use a better film. The difference is that the last high speed black and white I bought (and still have some) was ASA 3200. At that speed, digital is now superior with higher end cameras.<br>

Not to mislead you, there re a few digital prints in our house. Most are much older black and whites shot on tri x a long time ago and they look good at 11x14 or, all other things being equal, 16x20. <br>

I'm not much for darkroom work these days, but as the fellow says, sort of, film died when they took my Chrome 25 away and my 64, etc. I have Koda images from 50 years ago as fresh as the day I got them -- and then there are th ethers. Bits are forever -- or until your unredundant hard drive dies.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...