[sb in ak]

Pretty sure I have a couple of oil stains as well, as far as I can tell. I've only noticed them in a few pictures so far at 100%. I need to sit down and do a good wet cleaning, as everything I've seen suggests that even oil stains can be cleared. I wouldn't let it make you rethink your purchase-from what I've seen, a stain or two and a bit of stubborn dust is pretty common with the majority of newer full frames. Annoying, yes, but at least it can be taken care of at home.

What do you use for your wet cleaning? I've actually never had to do it with my 5DII in the year I've had it (despite the lower sensor performance, the camera's self cleaning abilities are superb. At the most, I've just hit it with a rocket blower). I don't think it will make me rethink as the D600 fits in a perfect place as far as price and performance goes for my shooting.

[NVSteve]

What do you use for your wet cleaning? I've actually never had to do it with my 5DII in the year I've had it (despite the lower sensor performance, the camera's self cleaning abilities are superb. At the most, I've just hit it with a rocket blower). I don't think it will make me rethink as the D600 fits in a perfect place as far as price and performance goes for my shooting.

Sensor swabs, which are from Visible Dust, although I can't remember the exact model. Along with the Visible Dust Smear Away solution. I bought a 4 pack of the swabs which also included the solution to get a feel for wet cleaning. My only problem was that the solution included was in a tiny little vial & it was hard to get it out. The larger plastic bottle of the Smear Away or any of the other ones is much easier to use. Along with a sensor pen I have yet to use, I'm also thinking about the DustAid Platinum sensor stamp. The swabs seem to work okay, but I'd like to try as many different options as possible to find the best fit for my needs.

[Qwntm]

If there has ever been any one model line (in general) from Canon that I would not recommend - it would be any version of the Canon 5d. I'd rate most any Pentax camera over any version of the 5d, especialy for shutter life, and the ability for the camera to actually function fully. There have been many, many cases where the mirror simply does not hold up to professional use, even semi-professional use. The so called weather seals also leave much to be desired.

I'd recommend any other camera that is full frame over and of the 5d models; especially the flagship Canon full frame, or any Sony model, or especially Nikon - given the recent price points of the recently released Nikon's

I would have agreed with you BEFORE the D800. The D700 was a workhorse and made to a high standard.

BUT, NIkon seems to have cut quality in order to achieve a price point with the newest cameras. Reports of paint that's really thin and brassing quickly, and of course the left AF fiasco.

Ironically, the 5D III is the best of the Canon 5D series, and it seems Canon upped their game with this one, fully grasping the smaller lighter PROFFESSIONAL concept.

As for Sony sensors being better than Canon's right now, your talking by a SMALL SMALL margin. Small enough that Photographers who actually know what their doing realize it's insignificant, like Art Wolfe as an example.

And by the way, Art Wolfe is using the 5D III exclusively these days to get his work done. Must be up to the job by his standards at least. (Google Art Wolfe Blog for his comments.)

[JohnBee]

As for Sony sensors being better than Canon's right now, your talking by a SMALL SMALL margin. Small enough that Photographers who actually know what their doing realize it's insignificant, like Art Wolfe as an example.

The problem I see with such reasoning is where many people(including myself) won't likely be inclined to invest in a FF camera with a sensor that somehow proves to have less performance than an APS-C in any given area. Therefore, as a K-5 owner, I can't help but feel this way even IF the differences are likely unnoticeable. That being said, from a sensor stand-point, the only option that feels worthy of upgrading to at this time seem to be the D800 and D600 sensors.

PS. It really looks as though every manufacturer have their own own share of QC issues these days(Nikon buttons falling off, oil spots on sensor etc).

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 11-09-2012 at 09:39 AM.

[rawr]

Photographers who actually know what their doing realize it's insignificant, like Art Wolfe as an example.

Who is Art Wolfe, and who cares? I've never heard of him.

Celebrities, fanboys, and guys who are really just trying to sell us stuff tell me nothing creditable on technical matters. If DxO tests Canon's sensor, and says it is a poor performer, and matches that conclusion up with lots of actual test data, I'll pay attention to them over Wolfe.

One day Canon will re-badge a Sony FF sensor and it will get a great DxO score. Suddenly every Canon shooter will be the biggest fan of Sony sensors and DxO.

[sb in ak]

It's all about increasing the amount of keeper shots. For my landscape photography, the Sony Sensors are a big deal. I might run out to take a photo of a rapidly changing sunset with my 5DII. If I set up my ND filters, etc. or throw the camera on a tripod for HDR, I might not make the shot just due to the rapidly changing conditions. With the K5 and other Exmor sensor cameras, you can quickly run out, and shoot with 1 shot and and at least have the latitude to lift shadows later to a higher degree for a possible keeper. That same shot with the 5DII might be full of banding in the shadow areas. Ultimately, I'd still want to use NDs on an Exmor camera but I know I'd at least have that opening shot.

The Exmors will not make you a better photographer IMO but will increase the amount of keeper photos if you're doing certain types of photography. And that is a big deal.

[CDW]

As a landscape and night sky shooter, I completely agree with other posters who have found the Canon sensors simply have too much noise in shadow area. It is difficult to deal with when trying to extract as much detail as possible from shadow or near-black areas of an image. The indisputable fact is that at the present time SONY is producing state of the art sensors in APS-C and FF sizes that are superior to Canon and both Nikon and Pentax implement them in their bodies better than SONY does in their own, IMO.

As for someone who questioned why Art Wolfe uses a 5DIII....it's called sponsorship/money!

[Qwntm]

Who is Art Wolfe, and who cares? I've never heard of him.

Celebrities, fanboys, and guys who are really just trying to sell us stuff tell me nothing creditable on technical matters. If DxO tests Canon's sensor, and says it is a poor performer, and matches that conclusion up with lots of actual test data, I'll pay attention to them over Wolfe.

One day Canon will re-badge a Sony FF sensor and it will get a great DxO score. Suddenly every Canon shooter will be the biggest fan of Sony sensors and DxO.

Well, that is a fairly ignorant reply.

If your work is better than or equal to Art Wolfe's, then have at it, and I'll shut up. I can Google Art Wolfe and see his images, visit his galleries, sign up for his workshops or even watch his television programs. I won't try to Google yours...

Enjoy your test charts on DXO!

[Qwntm]

As a landscape and night sky shooter, I completely agree with other posters who have found the Canon sensors simply have too much noise in shadow area. It is difficult to deal with when trying to extract as much detail as possible from shadow or near-black areas of an image. The indisputable fact is that at the present time SONY is producing state of the art sensors in APS-C and FF sizes that are superior to Canon and both Nikon and Pentax implement them in their bodies better than SONY does in their own, IMO.

As for someone who questioned why Art Wolfe uses a 5DIII....it's called sponsorship/money!

Hey, I shoot K-5/K-5 IIs and Canon 7d/5D2 and 5D3.

When I'm standing at Bryce Point, I've got a FF Canon on the tripod. The things being argued about here are small potatoes compared to the BIG advantage of a FF sensor, even one as LOUSY (?) as the Canon's. (Lol.)

The right tool for the right Job.

If Pentax would get a FF 24mp sony senor out there, we'd all be happy, no question.

[Class A]

Sorry guys crop cameras just can't cut it compared to FF, I have K5 5D II and 5D III, here are a couple tests with the K5 and 5D II
1, 5D II EF 24-105, f4, 1/200, ISO 12800
2, K5 DA 16-50. f4 1/200, ISO 12800

When using the same F-stop and shutter speeds on FF and APS-C, you are achieving the same exposure, but you are giving the FF sensor more than twice the amount of total light (and produce shallower DOF with it).
For a fairer comparison, you need to stop the FF down to f/5.6 and up the ISO to 192000. Only then you are creating (roughly) equivalent images and a noise comparison makes sense.

[rawr]

If your work is better than or equal to Art Wolfe's, then have at it, and I'll shut up. I can Google Art Wolfe and see his images, visit his galleries, sign up for his workshops or even watch his television programs. I won't try to Google yours...

Ad hominem much?

Every part of the world has its own provincial celebrities that no one has ever heard of, and yet they often have very enthusiastic fans. That's nice for folks like Wolfe.

But forgive me for not sharing your opinion of the art and prestige of these local celebrities, or paying any attention to opinions they may offer on subjects where they simply cant match the expertise of others.

[dr_romix]

I guess I will comment on this, since I just finished selling off my Canon 5D outfit. I had the 5D Mark 1 (clasic), which didn't offer some of the features that the Pentax's would fulfill. The 5D's are still used by many landscape & wedding photographers because of the quality prints it will produce. The 5Dc does not have near the iso capability of the newer cameras, but one thing it does have is lack of digital noise. When I started looking at photos from the K-5 & K-30 the first thing I noticed was the digital noise. They are pretty clear, but no match for the clarity I was getting with my old 5Dc, below 400 iso. From what I have looked at, I think the 5D was better up to 400 iso, tied with the K-5 at 500-600 iso, and above that the Pentax was better, and of course the Pentax has much better higher iso's. But for landscape I use a tripod very seldom ever went above 400 iso. The 5Dc has no liveview and sometimes I had a lot of difficulty getting my eye ball to look through the eye piece. Also, the focus is pretty slow, but again for landscape I don't need speed.
But the 5D does have it's limitations and that is why I am jumping into the Pentax world.

thank you.

[jcasey52]

For those that don't know Art Wolfe, he's an avid nature shooter and one of the best! Art is also a great guy and has spent many years honing his talent behind the lens. While I'm a big fan of Art's work, he did switch from Nikon to Canon years back, (I believe) because of sponsorship. When you're world renowned like Art, you can shoot with whatever you feel like and he shoots Canon because they are willing to pay him and give him WHATEVER he want's, absolutely FREE of charge!

If Art was into getting panoramic or gallery quality landscape shots like Peter Lik, he might be more inclined to take along a Hasselblad, Phase One or Mamiya camera but considering he shoots wildlife and people, he needs light, semi-fast equipment with lots of lens choices and Canon and Nikon are the two biggest names in that arena. Do they produce the best images.... it depends.... on what you're shooting. For wildlife, nature and people combinations... yes, Canon and Nikon hold that market well! For landscapes... not even close! Landscape shooters need more MP and better IQ than what can be squeezed out of a FF DSLR and that resides with either Medium Format Digital or film cameras and large format film cameras like a 4x5 field camera.

Nikon is challenging landscape shooters by getting bolder with the D800E but they're still not quite there yet. And Pentax... well... I'm still waiting Pentax... K-3 perhaps? Only time will tell.

[normhead]

The resolution in this test on the 5D came on at about 2500 lw/ph

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Exposure - Review

Resolution on the K-30 in this test

Pentax K-30 Camera Exposure - Review

Extinction was about 3600 lw/ph on both cameras shooting raw.

We were able to resolve a little more with an Adobe Camera Raw conversion, about 2,250

You don't get much for your $2000.

They are pretty clear, but no match for the clarity I was getting with my old 5Dc, below 400 iso.

In my experience you can see a difference of 200 lw/ph so I have no doubt you could see a difference, however that being said, I have seen comparisons of K-5 s and 5D Mk3s where the Pentax image was more desirable. They are close enough that other factors like what exact focus point is selected by the auto-focus makes more difference than the camera being used. ANd as far as I can tell that's a crapshoot. I know everyone says manual focus, but with my eyesight, it's still a crapshoot.

[WerTicus]

Canon is a downgrade in many important areas... Why do you even want full frame?

Look at the d800 instead.