alan_green4

<p><img src="http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/images/userimages/large/long_eared_1DX01245_iso_1600_crop.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="561" /></p>

<p>from Andy Rouse (wildlife shooter who uses Nikon)</p>

<p>http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/blog/223.php</p>

<p> </p>

<p>here's the short by tyler stableford<br>

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/sample_videos/shattered.shtml</p>

<p>here's a couple making-of videos<br>

http://moovyboovy.blogspot.com/2012/05/behind-scenes-of-tyler-stablefords.html</p>

<p>peter j</p>

<p>re: your comment: "Your provided link is Canon owned and edited. Why don't you post something from a non Canon run blogger who has used the camera extensively in an appropriate forum here?"<br>

<br /><br>

i did not post 1dx images from a non-canon blogger because there are none. they don't exist. almost nobody (in the world) has used this camera 'extensively'. the 1dx has yet to be released. as such, the imagery and comments from ostling represent a unique opportunity to get a feel for what this body has to offer despite the fact they're on a canon site.<br>

<br /><br>

there are a few other (1dx images) but, as they don't meet your strict criteria for posting, i won't insult you with a link</p>

<p>part of this went up before, but just a bit. now finished, fairly comprehensive. good side-by-side (same subject) hi-rez shots. <br>

mainly concerned with low ISO performance<br>

<a href="http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/comparision-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mark.html">http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/comparision-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mark.html</a></p>

<p>both by ron martinsen</p>

<p>N800 rez comparison</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/how-much-detail-can-you-get-from-an-eos-5d-mark-iii/">http://www.canonwatch.com/how-much-detail-can-you-get-from-an-eos-5d-mark-iii/</a></p>

<p>5D review including in-camera HDR and high ISO</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/03/canon-5d-mark-iii-real-world.html">http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/03/canon-5d-mark-iii-real-world.html</a></p>

<p>nathan<br>

true. you can't really tell too much from a small screen. dynamic range is indicated but little else. i'm sure someone will post sample of a small part of the image which will help but perhaps not for a few weeks.</p>

<p>i don't think 4k can be appreciated on anything less than a, say, 50-inch display, give or take. it's for movies -- the big screen</p>

<p>'act of valor' (and many others) was made on the 5dII. 1DC isn't as high end as the C500 and they're saying the C500 is better than the RED or Arri (on which gobs of movies have been shot):</p>

<p>total recall<br>

resident evil: retribution<br>

the amazing spider-man<br>

the girl with the dragon tattoo</p>

<p>more here<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_digital">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_digital</a></p>

<p>i'd go with the mark III. for speed, instead of a 1.2 lens, with the mark III you can just use normal lenses (especially with IS), boost the iso to 6400 +/- and still come away with excellent shots</p>

<p>i'd say, with the glass you have, the mark III would be great for outdoors shooting</p>

<p>produced by shane hurlbut (dp on 'act of valor' which was shot on 5DII). directed by po chan who says the canon 1DC "crushes the F65, Epic, Alexa in one fell swoop."<br>

lots of tech specs, good info, good film</p>

<p>http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/04/the-next-gen-in-digital-film-capture-canons-4k-1dc/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i wonder what, if anything, will be canon's spin on this. it looks more clear, yeah, but is it better? some people sharpen until the image is brutalized, but they think it looks 'clearer'. so, 'looks better' might not be better <br>

this guy was willing to, in a way, trash a new body, and nikon is releasing a body w/o a low-pass filter -- what does that say.<br>

i'd just as soon get rid of aa filters</p>

<p>here's <a href="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase">more</a> (video) with 5D3 that's had the low-pass filter removed</p>

<p><a href="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase">http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase</a></p>

<p>that would be a good hoax. especially hosted on a pro videographer's site. and, after a bunch of people tore down their new 5d3 to rip out the low-pass filter, only to ruin it and void the warranty -- that would be a riot.<br>

maybe i should have waited till tomorrow to post this</p>

<p>Thought you might find interesting:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase">http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase</a></p>

<p><img src="http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/5d-mark-iii-aa-filter.jpg" alt="" width="660" height="674" /></p>

<p>nathan makes an excellent point. 70/75-300 lenses extend about 3 or 4 inches when zoomed to 300mm.<br>

you sound like you want to try a different class of optic. 'never been really satisfied' sounds like looking at hundreds of shots and not liking them, or wishing they were just a tad better. while the 70-300 may be better it's only somewhat so.<br>

cannot compare to glass like the 70-200 family or a prime<br>

suggest you consider a canon 200 f2.8. they run about $600. or -- save up for a 70-200 f4 (IS or non-IS). you can couple either with a 1.4 tele-converter and get excellent results.</p>

<p>i just get the feeling you will not be wowed by another lens in the same family as you now have. you want cheaper, lighter, better, comparable zoom range -- these elements are rarely found in a lens</p>

<p>a couple primes seems like the best option.</p>

<p>ps -- 17-55 (with a hood) is no more prone to flare than the 17-40</p>

<p>glenn<br>

great site. thanks</p>

<p>am very much looking forward to getting the 24 1.4 II -- hear it's good.<br>

also need/want the 35 1.4 (mark III?)</p>

<p>long exposure captures rainbow, or in this case 'moonbow, that would otherwise be invisible to human eye.</p>

<p>http://www.astropics.com/moonbow-haleakala-1393.html</p>