# This web site is making me question why I lurk here



## AnselA (Mar 29, 2012)

As a long time lurker and recent active poster I continue to be shocked by the thrashing, whining and crying here regarding the real and imagined limitations of the 5D Mark III. If you read Nikon Rumors ( you should it is very informative and professional) nothing like that happened there with their two recent introductions and there were almost no catty attacks at Canon as you find regularly against Nikon and any firm that doesn't worship Canon properly or at the same time knock it down appropriately.

What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. Much of this was just impulsive childish behavior - pure and simple. When you can't tell the trolls from the faithful things have gotten out of hand.

That all said, of course there are issues and the camera, as amazing as it is, did not meet all the expectations and there have been some surprises. How could it? There were compromises made along the way - ie. 22 vs 36 Megapixels - there would have been complaints either way. You can just make a list but from where I sit it is was mainly cup half empty or half full. I have played with two copies and I would love to have one!

I wonder what the reception would have been if it was priced $1,000 cheaper? Would it have been received with less anger and skepticism. Don't get me wrong. It is all not emotional but, I'm afraid, much of what is written here sounds like what a grammar school child that is waiting and waiting and waiting for a beanie baby would write. It could never meet all the needs once it was shipped from Amazon. Was the packing enough for my beanie baby? Should I have waited for another color? What is coming out next? 

There is a lot of very worth while information also available here from very knowledgeable shooters but the nut cases and the unstable one are winning out. I have learned a great deal about Canon products and photography in general reading here. That is why I lurked and will lurk. 

In closing....if your blood pressure has risen since the introduction and you are hitting refresh every few minutes, take a chill pill, learn basic photography first, read the friggin' manual, do the necessary adjustments to the camera and its settings ( don't be a d0uche!) and finally take some decent shots that you can share for feedback and assistance. Most importantly buy from a retailer that will calmly accept your return. That is a sane option if this camera is ruining your life and, of course, there will always be Nikon. 

I find early adopters without the proper risk taking temperament are the root cause of most the problems here. Canon's product has become secondary. Thank god the introduction of the flagship model will cost almost what a car costs. The angst will mainly be virtual.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 29, 2012)

IBTL


Interesting post, but get the flame-proof suit on. I'll agree I've learned lots from many on this forum; you just have to pick and choose what you want to read.


----------



## eskoeunmo (Mar 29, 2012)

so true, so many gear nerds. It's also crazy how people are getting 5d2/3's as a first dslr. I just got a 5d3 after many years shooting on a crop, and going full frame is amazing. I love my 5d


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 29, 2012)

eskoeunmo said:


> so true, so many gear nerds. It's also crazy how people are getting 5d2/3's as a first dslr. I just got a 5d3 after many years shooting on a crop, and going full frame is amazing. I love my 5d



+1


----------



## photophreek (Mar 29, 2012)

AnselA great post and I couldn't agree more! I will continue to read the posts here for information and entertainment value. However, it seems that the valued information is a dismal second place to the entertainment value. :-[


----------



## BobSanderson (Mar 29, 2012)

This is well written and I have to say I heartily agree. I'm glad someone took the time to state some of the issues I was feeling.

I also read Nikon Rumors and am sorry this site is not more like that one. I find this site as informative but only after I chop through the all the underbrush. I am a regular reader here every week.

I have owned kits from both companies and feel Canon balances what my needs best. I hope there is a 7D Mark II in my future...


----------



## eeek (Mar 29, 2012)

Feel that? I just gave you an e-hug. Totally agree.


----------



## rpt (Mar 29, 2012)

AnselA said:


> As a long time lurker and recent active poster I continue to be shocked by the thrashing, whining and crying here regarding the real and imagined limitations of the 5D Mark III. If you read Nikon Rumors ( you should it is very informative and professional) nothing like that happened there with their two recent introductions and there were almost no catty attacks at Canon as you find regularly against Nikon and any firm that doesn't worship Canon properly or at the same time knock it down appropriately.
> 
> What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. Much of this was just impulsive childish behavior - pure and simple. When you can't tell the trolls from the faithful things have gotten out of hand.
> 
> ...



AnselA, you make a number of valid points. I read it a number of times.

Like Daniel, I agree, you need to absorb the useful stuff and loose what you do not need. I strongly suggest you chill. The "rest" will get by. Do what you do best.

I recommend 2 to 4 shots of single malt whiskey (of your choice) followed by a walk on the beach - without reaching the waterline...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 29, 2012)

Great read, thanks for sharing.

I am conscience of the issues you're speaking of, and were trying to figure out a solution to change the dynamics of some of the conversations.

I always appreciate people that "report" posts, we do read those and usually agree and take the appropriate action. Anyone can do it.


Thanks
Craig


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 29, 2012)

Nice post and I'd mostly agree with the comments by yourself an others. However, I personally think of this site not as a photography (how to) site, but a camera hardware site. As such, people who know more about hardware than photography should almost be more welcome here than great photographers with no hardware understanding. Now, I did say almost because both sides have things to offer.

But that difference still dones't explain the complaining that your complaining about (ironic isn't it...and I love it).

And I'll leave this post with the infamous last words of my uncle Bob who said "A truck!"
(joke credit to Emmo Phillips)


----------



## BobSanderson (Mar 29, 2012)

RE: Posted by: rpt Today at 10:51:32 PM 


> I strongly suggest you chill.



If you read the article carefully you would realize your comment is rather silly and totally misses the point. What was presented was a reasoned and calm description of one person's point of view on what has been going on here. I think it needed to be said and it will resonate with many here.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 29, 2012)

+10

Most of them didn't make the switch to another system either like I did (Nikon to Canon) and if they did we'd never hear the end of it 

Is the 5D MK3 perfect?
No, but I'll wager it is better than I am 

I'm here to learn primarily.
There's nothing to be learned from bashing people or equipment.
Study yoga, take a chill pill, relax, who knows, you may take better photos...

ET


----------



## eeek (Mar 29, 2012)

CanineCandidsByL said:


> However, I personally think of this site not as a photography (how to) site, but a camera hardware site. As such, people who know more about hardware than photography should almost be more welcome here than great photographers with no hardware understanding. (joke credit to Emmo Phillips)



Agree. But to know your hardware, you have to know how to use it. And that's the OP's point. A lot of people, for example, are saying 'the 5D3's focusing sucks.' However, they are coming from an XTi and don't understand absolute basics of how to set focus.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2012)

AnselA said:


> As a long time lurker and recent active poster I continue to be shocked by the thrashing, whining and crying here regarding the real and imagined limitations of the 5D Mark III. If you read Nikon Rumors ( you should it is very informative and professional) nothing like that happened there with their two recent introductions and there were almost no catty attacks at Canon as you find regularly against Nikon and any firm that doesn't worship Canon properly or at the same time knock it down appropriately.
> 
> What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. Much of this was just impulsive childish behavior - pure and simple. When you can't tell the trolls from the faithful things have gotten out of hand.
> 
> ...



Agreed, And I love how peeps like to post their gear lists but dont like to link to there portfolios to backup their work.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 29, 2012)

Thanks AnselA this is so true. I always be suprised how many people are talking about cameras they had never in their hands. Everybody shall buy what fits best to his needs and D800 and 5D mark III are fitting to different needs in some detail. I do have a M3 in my hands for 3 days now and I can only say, it´s a phantastic camera fitting my needs perfectly. But does everybody, blaming Canon for that camera, realy knows his needs and what he´s talking about? I have my doubts here!


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2012)

Aside from the snarky and superfluous comments about the pictures the some persons post here, there are some good points made in the original post. (Frankly I find the average quality of images posted here to be quite high)

I have watched Canon Rumors go through several experiments in reader feedback and perhaps a bit of history lesson is in order.

A few years back, CR was structured just like Nikon Rumors, allowing readers to comment on the blog posts directly. The result was pretty disastrous. Conversations not only went quickly off topic, but often degenerated into slurs and name calling that were an embarrassment to the site. I and others protested to CR Guy and he responded with the forum system. Not perfect, but it certainly helped significantly.

No secret, I was a fan of the Karma system. I felt it kept people in check and discouraged flame wars. I'm pretty sure we've seen a significantly deterioration in the site since the Karma was removed. (Sometimes little things do matter). 

Nonetheless, I am apparently in the minority. It's CR guys website and he decided to make a change based on user input. I think it was a mistake, but so be it. 

The announcement of the 5DIII seems to have brought out all sorts of crazy. Perhaps its just a result of the pent up demand and inevitable disappointment by persons with unrealistic expectations. Hopefully things will settle down soon. One particular frustration is that everyone and his brother seems to feel the need to start a new forum thread with their every rant. Unfortunately, I don't see a good way to limit the number of threads or the ability of individuals to start a thread that would not destroy the democratic nature of this site. (Of course, this comes from someone who just started a new thread five minutes ago.)

I'm guessing I'll continue to check the site too many times during the day and continue to participate more frequently than I should. But, I do share some of the frustrations of the original post.


----------



## se7en (Mar 29, 2012)

lol at OP, i've been thinking the same thing...I think people need to RTFM, seems people are more opt to reading their return policy than fully understanding the $3500 camera they just bought...i'm a total noob and when I got less than desirable results with the mkIII I automatically assumed I was at fault, and guess what, I was...%100 of the time...


----------



## rpt (Mar 29, 2012)

BobSanderson said:


> RE: Posted by: rpt Today at 10:51:32 PM
> 
> 
> > I strongly suggest you chill.
> ...



I kind of agree with this and will rearrange...

Here goes...
AnselA, you make a number of valid points. I read it a number of times.

Like Daniel, I agree, you need to absorb the useful stuff and loose what you do not need. I strongly suggest you chill. The "rest" will get by. Do what you do best.

I *strongly* recommend 2 to 4 shots of single malt whiskey (of your choice) followed by a walk on the beach - without reaching the waterline...


That better?


----------



## BobSanderson (Mar 29, 2012)

unfocused,

I think the Karma system was useful for very little. We differ on that. People would nick other people simply because they had a different opinion or just because they were in bad way that moment. When I first got started I wondered what was going on and then I realized, for a few people, this gave them a sense editorial power, such as it was. It may have restrained some people (probably ones it shouldn't have) but the real ones with harsh opinions would not be stopped by that. It is like locks on a door - they stop the honest - the robbers will get by them easily.

unfocused


> Aside from the snarky and superfluous comments about the pictures the some persons post here, there are some good points made in the original post. (Frankly I find the average quality of images posted here to be quite high)



I read the posting differently - to be focused on the images provided as proof of problems with the 5D Mark III. I have to admit I searched and searched for good photos to show the camera actually took any decent pictures at all and found few here. Most of what was provided was pretty sad. That does not impugn some of the great work that people routinely post here on a variety of subjects. I think there are some very talented photographers here.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 29, 2012)

To the original poster, I am in 100% agreement with you. I am very sick of all of this whining - 

- I am _so_ disappointed with the 5D3 specs. I cannot believe they did not add 3D and warp drive.
- The Nikon D800 is _so_ much better. My grandmother said so.
- I have the 5D3 right now and it keeps eating my son's homework.

Seriously, what I find sad is the utter stupidity of so many people who earn enough to afford a $3500 camera. *It's just a camera!* Get over it!

People really need to get out and take photos. I had the 5D2 and I now have the 5D3. They are both very nice cameras and they both enable one to take very nice photos. Instead of all of this bashing and whining, why not spend your time improving your photography skills.

What I would really like to see CR do is change the algorithm that displays the top posts on the front page to display the more helpful threads - such as advice on lenses, how to take particular types of photos, or asking for critique for particular photos.

The alternative is to let this site continue to be dominated by the same morons that make most sane people avoid DPReview.


----------



## nesarajah (Mar 29, 2012)

i lust after the 5Dm3 . 
I read religiously all the posts about problems and issues. 
I love it. The second I see less of the issues when update time rolls by , I might plonk down the cash to get one. 
Its a rumor site. Its going to get bitchy. 
Thats my take. 

ps. There are photo forums out there that are horrible. This is mild or almost pleasant.


----------



## photophreek (Mar 29, 2012)

As soon as I read..."the 5d3 AF system sucks", I move on to another website (sorry Craig and your advertisers). I don't seem to get any useful information from that comment which invariably the post started with "dude or bro". So, please tell me why the 5d3 AF system sucks because I haven't bought the camera yet and I'd like to make an informed purchasing decision.


----------



## Alker (Mar 29, 2012)

Very nice topic.
And I agree with all..

Thanks.


----------



## Gennadiy (Mar 29, 2012)

After regularly visiting this website for a few months, this post has actually made me register and contribute to the conversation. I am not a professional photographer... its more of a hobby for me. I had a crop body for a few years, but last Christmas I have upgraded to 5DMark II and I love the beautiful "creamy" photos its giving me (and frankly thats all I care about). 
I have to agree that too many people whine about the 5DIII, and thats just my impression. May be there is something I don't understand just yet, but weren't most of the complains about the 5DII addressed with the new release? (i.e. High ISO, better autofocus, higher fps). 
I can't help but compare canon users to Leica users... Look at the camera bodies they are using. On paper Leica camera bodies are years behind Canon (or Nikon). I'm saying "on paper" because I have never used an M camera system. But I think it comes down to loving what you are doing, and getting the most of your camera. After all, cameras can't take photos for you. They are you assistants.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 29, 2012)

Amen.

And I'm pretty sure those complaining about the lack of megapickles don't ever actually make large prints.

I've got an iPF8100 sitting ten feet away from me. I just got the 5DIII on Monday so it'll be a while before I've shot anything worthy of making a real print, plus a bit longer to do the post-processing and what-not.

But, as soon as I do, I'll be loading up the 42" roll of Tyvek banner (the widest I've got on hand; coating is the same as Canon's Heavyweight Matte) and making a 42" x 63" print. And I fully expect it to be stunning.

Sure, it'll "only" be 91 ppi. But that's about the same resolution as your monitor, so it'll basically be the same as pixel peeping but with the full image.

I have no doubt that the D800 is an amazing, fantastic camera, and that we'll soon be seeing some incredible photos made from it. Had I bought into the Nikon system originally, I'd be drooling over it just as much as I'm currently drooling over my sniny new 5DIII.

But, you know what all those extra megapickles the D800 would get me with my over-five-foot print?

All of 117 ppi instead of 91 ppi.

Now, don't get me worng. That's nothing I'd turn down if you offered it to me. But nobody's going to tell the difference unless you put the two side-by-side and stick your nose a few inches away -- and, if you're doing that, you've _so_ missed the point that it's not even funny.

Dynamic range, too. Just for kicks this morning, I did a quick-and-dirty in-camera handheld HDR shot of the sunrise. You know what? The resulting dynamic range blows the D800's single exposures out of the water. Of course, with either camera, you'd do HDR in such situations -- and that's my point. The set of situations where the native DR of the D800 is sufficient, the 5DIII is insufficient, and you wouldn't be doing HDR (especially with modern rapid-fire automated bracketing) is practically nil.

Both cameras are fantastic. If you're bitching about the shortcomings of either in relation to the other, you've probably missed the point.

Personally, I think Canon's going down a better path than Nikon with this latest round. Raw image quality with the 5DII's sensor is already more than ample for the 135 format -- if you actually need more (and damned few people do), you should be shooting a larger format. But now compare the non-sensor specs of the 5DIII with the 1-series film cameras, and you'll realize that, as a camera, it's simply unbelievable. Nikon is quite admirably squeezing every last drop out of low-ISO image quality, but the D800 falls short of the 5DIII on the non-sensor side of things, like autofocus and framerate. Plus, the only 400 f/2.8 you can mount to the D800 weighs half again as much as the one I'm using with the 5DIII.

So, if you're a photographer, you're damned lucky -- pick the camera to match your glass and bask in the warm glow of the incredible images you'll create. If you're a photographer, and you're shooting Canon, and you're thinking of switching to the D800 because of its sensor, you should forget 135 and go straight to medium format.

But the rest of all y'all who're complaining...you're not photographers, you're measurebators. And that's not intended as a compliment.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Mar 29, 2012)

This sort of issue crops up in any gear-centric profession or hobby. 

Basically, ever since it was possible to gain entry to an activity simply with money, by buying a piece (or pieces) of equipment, you have many people who feel that somehow getting better equipment will improve their performance. Sometimes this is true, and in the case of cameras, it's partly because of all the astonishing things they can do these days, allowing somebody with no clue what they are doing to put out an acceptable image. 

But the fact is that for the most part, it really doesn't matter what the piece of equipment is, it matters who is holding it. That's not ego, it's just the truth. I'm also a musician, and I experience this every day - the music instrument market is not driven be professionals - far from it. Most pros don't even materially participate in that market - they either have the instruments they are happy with and retain them most of their lives, or they are given them through endorsements. All the instrument manufacturers stay in business because of the people such as the complaint is here; people that desperately hope that trading a few thousand dollars will net them a better end result and performance. They're not willing to put in the THOUSANDS of hours that it takes to truly master a craft or art. 

The problem with photography is that cameras, lenses, etc cost money. This gives the buyer some false sense that by paying, they are getting something and are owed something - a response we're all conditioned to. Consider writing, as a professional. The cost of entry is exactly zero - one can begin writing a novel, or newspaper columns, or articles, or whatever, for the cost of a pencil and piece of paper, which are freely given out in our society, and then by adding their time and talent. You don't see any of these discussions in pro-writing forums - because at the end of the day, there's nothing to blame but yourself if the end result is not what you want. The same is true of photography/videography, but it's hidden behind this mask of the cost of the gear.


----------



## Macadameane (Mar 29, 2012)

Having been around for a year and a half on this forum (usually reading daily), I can say that it is fairly civil until the last few months. There are many people coming to the site that normally wouldn't with the release of the 5D in search of answers or sometimes to bash.

Things will settle down soon enough. The 1DX being as highly priced as it is, won't have as many whiners gravitating to the forums. Then the next 7D will be released....


----------



## triggermike (Mar 29, 2012)

The highest selling image I own (which includes up to today) is a wildlife shot I took with a 6.3MP Canon 10D. I have a print of my own at 20x30, optimized with Geniune Fractals, in my family room which has outstanding clarity, color and sharpness. There are xillions of other 1dmkiin, 1dmkiii, 5d, 5dmkii etc. owners which have been, and continue to, make a living selling stock, print, journalism, wedding, sports ..... photos.

Having a 5d mkiii is icing on the cake . . .


----------



## agierke (Mar 29, 2012)

bluegreenturtle said:


> This sort of issue crops up in any gear-centric profession or hobby.
> 
> Basically, ever since it was possible to gain entry to an activity simply with money, by buying a piece (or pieces) of equipment, you have many people who feel that somehow getting better equipment will improve their performance. Sometimes this is true, and in the case of cameras, it's partly because of all the astonishing things they can do these days, allowing somebody with no clue what they are doing to put out an acceptable image.
> 
> ...



great post....so true.

i have always felt that the mark of a true photographer was their grasp of light and how skillful they were at creatively interpreting how we see things vs how a chosen tool records things. it is for this reason i havent lost my love for other formats such as film, polaroid, and non silver (though i regret i dont get to play with these as much anymore). 

last summer i went on my honeymoon and though i brought my 5d it mostly lost out to shooting on my Polaroid 320 Land Camera. i brought 10 packs of color film and 5 packs of B&W and i surprised myself when i ran out after the first week. my lovely wife graciously tolerated me as i spent half a day searching the SF area for a camera shop that was carrying some pack film (cant tell you how giddy i was when i found some). the point is, i was having a blast shooting on this outdated tech and getting some really fun and interesting results which ignited my passion! always a good feeling.

i hope when the dust settles there will be more talk about the cool things people are doing with their canon gear and maybe we can encourage more people to post actual pictures!


----------



## thure1982 (Mar 29, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> eskoeunmo said:
> 
> 
> > so true, so many gear nerds. It's also crazy how people are getting 5d2/3's as a first dslr. I just got a 5d3 after many years shooting on a crop, and going full frame is amazing. I love my 5d
> ...



+2


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2012)

If people posted one or two of their images to demonstrate their positive or negative points, then there would be more believability. Some do, but most do not.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 29, 2012)

AnselA said:


> What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.



You mean to tell me that people getting hard-ons over their poorly lit, terribly composed, and otherwise uninspiring snap shots - just because they can see amazing detail in their girlfriends' hairy arm pit when pixel-peeping at 100% - doesn't impress you ;D?


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> AnselA said:
> 
> 
> > What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.
> ...



This man speaks the truth.


----------



## joos (Mar 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If people posted one or two of their images to demonstrate their positive or negative points, then there would be more believability. Some do, but most do not.



Hey now let's not be reasonable... its easier not to post photos so people won't criticize your work..... Who wants to hear about how they can improve.... Everyone is an expert... 

All kidding aside, when I get around to posting photos, I welcome criticism. For me, that is the only way I get better. 
I think sometimes some people forget that a camera is only half of taking a good photo, and us as users are the other half...
For me being in the military, my rifle is not going to automatically qualify me as an expert. I have to learn my weapon system, work on my technique, and continue to practice fundamentals so I ensure I put rounds on target. As far as I'm concerned, photography is no different.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Mar 29, 2012)

+1

really great post, the whiny gear heads need to take a chill pill once in a while so they can quit making a bad name for us regular gear heads


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 29, 2012)

Although I agree that this forum seems to have had some recent deterioration, this thread only exemplifies the situation.

Whining about whiners--really? Pause and think about that for a second. And belittling others photographic skills (or lack there-of) is neither productive or friendly.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 29, 2012)

I frankly did know what kind of reception my posting would bring but I am happy it has been read and appreciated by many. Craig and others - thanks

For some reason, a few folks here think I was criticizing 90% of all photos posted on this site. I was not. Rather I wish I could shoot as well as many here who have routinely posted amazing images of their work. If it was not clear from my post, I was focused solely on the photos initially posted in reference to the 5D Mark III's performance. I might have been somewhat hyperbolic but they were not a pretty lot and did not help me understand what this machine could do nor what the real problems might be.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 29, 2012)

AnselA said:


> I find early adopters without the proper risk taking temperament are the root cause of most the problems here.


I must admit this one is very true of me. I am not keen on being an early adopter. Knowing how anticipated the 5d3 was by so many I preordered to make sure I got one before the summer when I am going on a great trip that I really want to be upgraded in time for. I didnt want to be looking at the shots from that trip later this year, the duds and even the better shots wishing that I'd gotten my 5d3 in time. 

I have learned early adoption is not for me. Too stressful with too many added variables. Youve just spent a lot of money on this new piece of kit that you want use for years to come and find that your first few shots are not sharp. Is it you, is the new kit lens, is the camera? You dont want to just slam out shot after shot to get used to the camera because you need to take under 200 shots to return it. 

Some of the hysteria, that I admit to having partaken in when I should have known better, is seeded in the issue with people who dont usually use DPP having to use it because their usual software for organising images (Lightroom or Aperture) cant read the files. This combined with the fact the jpgs are a bit weird looking to a lot of people because of the amount of NR turns peoples attention to the camera.

Once the issue with DPP was highlighted and people were able to use ACR 6.7 to get atbthe RAW files the issue is resolved but the damage is done... 

The seeds of doubt were sown with a lot of people... Its hard to shake that first impression even though it turns out the camera was not at fault.



AnselA said:


> What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.


Are you one of the people who downloaded the rather dull and uninteresting RAW files I posted yesterday of a house? If so, I apologise. 

I wasnt going anywhere interesting to actually take good shots but I knew people were asking about RAW shots of outdoor scenes so I hastily posted a few of my own "crappy composition, worthless lighting" test shots so anybody interested in looking at 5d3 RAW files could. Again I should have know better. I deleted the post a few hours later. 

I find a lot of the problems with scenic images most people post on the web to say "look at this stunning shot with camera x" are pointless, they are just showing the photographers composition skills and a pretty scene he took his new camera to. When you reduce the full image to 800 pix wide you arent showing the capability of the camera at all. A shot with many cell phone held steadily at the same scene would look great reduced that small.



AnselA said:


> I wonder what the reception would have been if it was priced $1,000 cheaper?


I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected. 

For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 29, 2012)

photophreek said:


> As soon as I read..."the 5d3 AF system sucks", I move on to another website (sorry Craig and your advertisers). I don't seem to get any useful information from that comment which invariably the post started with "dude or bro". So, please tell me why the 5d3 AF system sucks because I haven't bought the camera yet and I'd like to make an informed purchasing decision.



I actually laughed out loud when I read you post, thanks! 

+100000000000


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 29, 2012)

SomeGuyInNewJersey said:


> I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.
> 
> For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.



You might want to step back and take another look.

The 5DII already had superlative image quality and low light capabilities. The 5DIII improves on them, but (of course!) it doesn't turn it into a medium format camera.

But compare the non-sensor specs with any other camera but the 1DX and the 5DIII either comes out on top or is running neck-and-neck.

You do realize, don't you, that the celebrated 1N and 3 (film) cameras ``only'' did 6 FPS, and only with a battery booster / grip? And they had 24 (or 36) image buffers, after which you had to swap out the film canister in order to clear the buffer? And that the 1DsIII only does 5 FPS? And none of them had the 5DIII's autofocus system. Or high ISO performance, or megapickle count, or or or or....

I mean, really. What more could a photographer want? A flying unicorn pony to carry your 12-1200 f/1.0L IV IS?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## dstppy (Mar 29, 2012)

I'll take a shot at the psychiatrist's chair too! (nice to be on the other side for once ;D)

I honestly blame Facebook/Twitter . . . no really. This last year has been a nasty one for rude and uninformed people. I used to keep my mouth SHUT because almost everyone here really knew a lot more about things, now you've got to scroll a page or two before you get an informed opinion.

I think it happened around the 'giveaway' time . . . that and/or when we got a few really good juicy rumors and then the armchair news aggregators put us on the radar for the masses.

Don't confuse this with my REGULAR 'web 2.0 ruined society' posts 

This last year really seems to have brought the worst out in some posters . . . then again, maybe it's just the 'bad driver' effect . . . you just notice the really bad ones so much that it SEEMs like there's more of them.

I really miss the sidebar on the main site that showed the 'recent activity' when there weren't all the same topic/different thread there. We should have 3 mk3 threads: samples, reviews and complaints. BTW, weren't there a large share of these people moving to Nikon because Canon abandoned them?


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 29, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> SomeGuyInNewJersey said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.
> ...


Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying? Improvement from 5d2 to 5d3 rather than a revolutionary leap?
The fervent over defending of the 5d3 on this site is as bad a the 5d3 bashers...


TrumpetPower! said:


> You do realize, don't you, that the celebrated 1N and 3 (film) cameras ``only'' did 6 FPS, and only with a battery booster / grip? And they had 24 (or 36) image buffers, after which you had to swap out the film canister in order to clear the buffer? And that the 1DsIII only does 5 FPS? And none of them had the 5DIII's autofocus system. Or high ISO performance, or megapickle count, or or or or....
> I mean, really. What more could a photographer want? A flying unicorn pony to carry your 12-1200 f/1.0L IV IS?
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



Are you really releasing this pent up tirade about film cameras and unicorns because I said that as a new version of the 5d2's line the 5d3 was improvement not revolutionary? The 5d2 was a game changer the 5d3 improves on its weaknesses... what is so provacative about that?

Of course I must be deluded and dumb because I dared say anything other than the 5d3 is the most amazingest ever possible camera. I didnt even say anything negative about it.
Do you want to use this as an excuse to brag about your wonderful printer again? You must be soooo superior to those of us who only sell our prints at 20x30 inch.
This forum really is getting screwed up...


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 29, 2012)

See how easy it is to get pulled into the flow...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 29, 2012)

SomeGuyInNewJersey said:


> Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying?



What you were writing, as I recall, is that the 5DIII was more expensive than you expected yet it came with less-than-you-expected improvements.

So, pray tell, what improvements _did_ you expect that would have made it worth the $3500 price tag? A _pink_ flying unicorn pony?

No, really. I'm serious. I'd have thought that top-of-the-line autofocus, better-than-1DsIII FPS, the best high ISO performance in any 135-format camera available on store shelves, the second-highest resolution sensor in the format, a top-of-the-line viewfinder and LCD screen, and one of the best-ever movie cameras in the format would have at least met expectations -- but, clearly, it didn't meet yours.

What were you expecting?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## kuwazome (Mar 29, 2012)

*5D3*

I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there _*are*_ print sizes _*between*_
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Theres also the problem that most photographers do not come from a print
background and don't really understand that there is a huge difference between 300ppi
and 400ppi printing. Its not so much about whether or not your clients can see it, or
whether the general viewer can see it. It is about striving for more than "just okay."

Just because they do not consciously see it, does not mean that no points are
added unconsciously to their first impression of your work. Go out and find a print sample
book that has 300ppi vs 400ppi photos and then tell me if you don't see a difference.
400ppi looks like a USM sharpened photo on paper as if it were a screen.
Its really something else.

A 12x18 print at 400ppi is around 34.5mp. That size is pretty common to see in
photos that run an entire spread... including the bleed.

Keep in mind that the typical commercial printers you have at home, or your local
print house printers are not able to create something of this quality. Not all 400ppi prints
are equal, I'm talking about commercial, large scale presses.

Interpolation really isnt a solution as much as its just a temporary fix. If you
cannot tell the difference between a high res photo and an interpolated photo, then
your attention to detail is lacking... I really question the quality of your photos as well.
Sure you can make a ton of money being "just okay," but we're talking about
achieving more than that.

Resolution does not make a photo better, but bad resolution really takes away
from a photo. That argument that people are not going to look at a poster up close
is really, really false. Every time I put a poster up, the first thing anyone does
is look at it up close... as long as they can get to it.

Sometimes photographers also forget that there is typography set on the posters
as well. These are vectors so naturally they are super sharp and high resolution. Put
that together photo and all of a sudden the photo doesnt look quite as good.

Don't get me wrong, almost all of the people complaining about resolution have
no idea what I'm talking about, nor do they have access to print such large and high
resolution prints. I'm just saying, don't write resolution off for the rest of us that
actually want to be perfectionists.

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 29, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> SomeGuyInNewJersey said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying?
> ...


I didnt say it was more expensive than *I *expected or that *I* expected more improvements. 
I was looking at the reasons why people may have been disappointed with the 5d3 and its price in response to the OP's question. Its called looking at things from another persons point of view... it is possible to do that without ridiculing their position or talking about unicorns...


TrumpetPower! said:


> So, pray tell,


This is where I stopped reading... I dont see any point in talking to people like you. I dont know why I am even bothering to reply this much to be honest


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 29, 2012)

I think part of the problems is a combination of the JPEGs that Canon posted and the use of JPEGs without turning off the noise reduction by most of the reviewers. All that succeeded in doing, was producing images devoid of any detail. That would have been fine, but many people then took them as representative of the best the camera could achieve and consequently slagging off the poor image quality. The first thing I did when I fired off a test image at Focus on Imaging, was to switch off the noise reduction to do a very rough comparison on the LCD with my 5D MkII in the same lighting conditions. Sharpness was good, despite the lack of care on my part to avoid camera shake. My main aim was to look at the amount of noise, so ultimate sharpness wasn't something I was aiming for, but it was still alot better than most of the crappy sample images that have been floating around. It was good to see some good examples in the MkIII forum here (even if they weren't all as helpful as they could have been).


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 29, 2012)

*Re: 5D3*



kuwazome said:


> I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
> if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.
> 
> The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
> ...


Very much +1


----------



## marcust (Mar 29, 2012)

Very well said AnselA. I was beginning to think this was an anti Canon forum.
Now, granted I dont have thirty years experience with a camera, but some of waht I read on here and other forums makes me wonder why some people even own a DSLR. I for one want to learn about photography, not piss and moan about the decisions the engineers at Canon make.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Mar 29, 2012)

*Re: 5D3*



kuwazome said:


> I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
> if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.
> 
> The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
> ...



I am on vacation with limited Internet and felt compelled to register to this forum to agree with this post. The Internet is rife with people without the proper background, knowledge, education or experiences to be posting as someone in the know. I am an admitted gear head with many years of product marketing and Chinese manufacturing experience to see most people provide inaccurate opinions on product marketing and profit drivers. 

I admittedly did not understand all of the above post but it was well written enough to prove the point that to many people, MP is important if not necessary. 

I personally don't understand the emotional and often aggressive rants to "go out and shoot and stop worrying about the technology". It's ironic because this is a gear site after all.


----------



## triggermike (Mar 29, 2012)

> The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
> What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
> 12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.



Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 29, 2012)

it changed radically in the near lead up to the 5Dmk3 announcement.

I think there were record numbers of new registrations, with many trolls and single posts whining and complaining about megapixels. People signing up to just tell us all how unhappy they were at canon and they were going to change to nikon (really like we care or can do anything about the camera release. People get a grip)

Removing karma has probably removed a deterent for people to unload on others.
I never felt karma limited my posting I knew certain posts would get smited like saying i didnt like the output of photomatix that was a goody! and criticising the image quality of the 7D as a couple of examples 

I was sort of hoping after the releases things would calm down and people would just get over the megapixel thing and it would get back to normal around here, lots of helpfull people and I've learned a heap from this site and the very experienced and knowlegable people on here.

Thanks CR


----------



## kuwazome (Mar 29, 2012)

triggermike said:


> > The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
> > What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
> > 12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.
> 
> ...



Yes, this is the industry standard.

Most if not all 400ppi prints on commercial design work are using
photos shot with a MF camera.

But you do realize that smaller studios do not have that sort of budget
to be spending $20-40k on a back alone and upgrading it every few years.

High mp 35mm cameras are definitely feasible as shown by the D800,
I really dont see why there cannot be a shift away from shooting medium format.
Photo equipment is severely overpriced, whose to say that it cannot get cheaper?

The world should move forward, not sit back on
existing business models "that works."


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 29, 2012)

triggermike said:


> > The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
> > What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
> > 12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.
> 
> ...



Exactly.

Complaining that a top-of-the-line 135 format SLR can't produce the same quality output as an 80 megapickle 645 format back (or, for that matter, drum-scanned large format film) is every bit as silly as complaining that your Mercedes SL gets smoked by a Formula 1 racer (or, for that matter, a top-fuel dragster).

I mean, really? All y'all are so desperate to rip on Canon's failure to deliver an _invisible_ pink flying unicorn pony that you have to complain that it merely just barely comes short of medium format picture quality?

Damn.

I guess some people just love to be miserable, I suppose.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## BobSanderson (Mar 29, 2012)

*Re: 5D3*



kuwazome said:


> Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
> they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
> more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.



I think I lost your train of thought. The 5D II, a 21.1 Megapixel Full-Frame Sensor, was popular for what reason that Canon forgot? The 5D II is used today in many thousands of studios worldwide just as it is configured. The III is better in many dimensions. Why has Canon failed? Because it has not made the equivalent of 4x5 camera right now? I am lost.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 29, 2012)

kuwazome said:


> triggermike said:
> 
> 
> > > The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
> ...


Canon delivered what most of their users indicated they wanted, and where they thought the market was going. Whether there was some technical reasoning behind that we can't tell.

3 months ago, Nikon had the 24MP 3DX. Then they released a 36MP monster. Canon has not said they will not release such a camera (after all a 7D @ FF is > 45MP), but right now they have released what they thought the market wanted / needed 2-3 years ago.

I understand your frustration, but your phrasing appears to indicate game over, just 'cause Canon did not know Nikon would release a high MP camera... There is a short term game, which a lot of people here seem to be worried over, and thus are considering a switch. There's a longer term game also and by the end of the year, we will hopefully know where Canon thinks it will make the most impact (financially...), and can then see if it still aligns with our needs. If I switch, it won't be because I don't think Canon can deliver, but I do think they are somewhat conservative.

AnselA wrote a good piece which resonated with many members. Having an "outside / less regular" posters' perspective is good to make people step back and think. Maybe we should have a "Vent" category, where people can airs their gripes, irrespective of their abilities and everyone knows what these posts will contain. 

For me, I get a lot of benefit from the site, and have learnt a lot of tech from people far more knowledgeable than I. And for me, that's why I frequent the site.... The flotsam is well... just that


----------



## kuwazome (Mar 30, 2012)

*Re: 5D3*



BobSanderson said:


> kuwazome said:
> 
> 
> > Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
> ...



I'm not sure where I said failed? You do realized what "logical next step" means right?

Sorry, but I think it is you that needs to read a little bit more carefully.


----------



## kuwazome (Mar 30, 2012)

I actually do not think its game over or I need to switch.
In fact I don't think there would _*ever*_ be any reason for me to ever sell and change
to another brand, save for maybe if Canon goes bankrupt -- which will not happen.

I just find it absolutely ridiculous that any sort of comment made that does not fall along
the lines of "oh Canon is so great" gets bashed. I mean... why? If one doesn't criticize oneself,
how will one improve? I simply mentioned a need that I have and that the current Canon
offering will not fulfil, so I will simply keep on waiting until it does get fulfilled, that is all.

The overwhelming hostility and brand affiliation on this site is almost as bad as POTN, and
probably is a predominate Canon-user trait. None of my Nikon friends exhibit this behavior.

The minute anyone criticizes Canon... or perhaps even Apple, someone immediately
jumps to a conclusion and starts being ultra defensive of their views. I thought forums were
for discussions? Clearly not.

By the way, I shoot with two 1D Mark 3s, surprised?


----------



## kuwazome (Mar 30, 2012)

BobSanderson said:


> I'm surprised you suddenly mastered English. Now just answer the question.



Last post here. I gotta get back to doing productive things.
Keep up with that attitude, there might be a career in it.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 30, 2012)

kuwazome said:


> I actually do not think its game over or I need to switch.
> In fact I don't think there would _*ever*_ be any reason for me to ever sell and change
> to another brand, save for maybe if Canon goes bankrupt -- which will not happen.
> 
> ...


I shoot with a pair of 1Ds MK IIIs, so no, not surprised at all 

And I was not trying to defend Canon or bash you, so sorry if that is how it came across.... I said I understand your frustration, I felt the same when Canon released the MK II hence why I ended up with two 2nd hand MK IIIs.

I am surprised on how many people appear to think that Canon & Nikon will always release similar specs at almost the same time, as though the industry is "geared"...

I find the D800 appealing and interesting, and I will be closely watching to see where the market pans out. Photography is pleasure for me, and it is the longer term view I will take based on what I think both companies may offer, from bodies to lenses. I've also considered a Pentax MF and a 2nd hand Phase One....


----------



## cpsico (Mar 30, 2012)

It was a well written post, however until you can prove you are a better photographer than the people you call hacks you have no valid ground to stand on. Having a user name meant to invoke thoughts of a well known photographer is simply not good enough. PS Ansel adams was not known for his expensive high end camera gear. He just photographed what he loved and it shows in the work, skip the nerdy techy crud and just shoot what you personally love to shoot. If everyone else likes it fine, but that really isnt the point


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 30, 2012)

So if I'm reading things correctly, this thread has become a technique vs. gear debate? Here's my worthless take, from observing how the industry has changed with the advent of digital in the last 10 years. 

1) The big tech head photographers - those that know everything there is to know about everything from DxOMark test standards to film emulsions - often produce very underwhelming work. 

2) The artsy-fartsy "seat-of-the-pants" photographers - some who don't even know how many megapixels their camera has (that's not a joke!) - often produce the best work.

Nonetheless, the best photographers are the ones that are a combination of #1 and #2. Not only do they have the natural artistic qualities that can't be taught in a book or in a classroom, they also supplement those abilities with booksmarts which ultimately enhances their work. These chaps have managed to strike the ideal balance between the technical and artistic elements that are required to produce outstanding photography. That means you have to always work to improve your technique, but you also have to stay on top of the latest and greatest technology, as technology offers new venues and opportunities through which to push the limits of creativity.

I've witnessed many photographers that were the class of the field during the film era that flat out got left behind after the digital revolution. They refused to embrace digital for as long as they could, and once they did, they were WAY behind the curve. Competitors had already refined their post processing skills, and learned to refine their technique in the field to best utilize the flexibility of digital. Maybe the purists thought the digital guys were silly tech heads, but ultimately, many purists got left in the dust. 

There will always be those that produce underwhelming images with overwhelming equipment, and those that produce overwhelming images with underwhelming equipment. It's all about finding a balancing act between both extremes. IMHO, it's the photographers that continually hone their technique as new technology opens new creative possibilities for them that will rise to the top.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 30, 2012)

V8: Good post. 

One thought: This isn't new with digital. I remember a lesson I learned back in the ancient 70s when I was a struggling newspaper photographer. The other photographer was a much better technician, but whenever we had to shoot a portrait of somebody for the paper, the subjects very seldom liked his pictures. 

Eventually I figured out why that was. He spent so much time perfecting the lighting that he never paid any attention to the subjects. I was then, and still am a "seat of the pants" sort of guy. So, I'd get the lights up as simply as possible, usually with just a nice, soft umbrella, but all the time I was setting things up I'd talk to the person, find out what their story was, and just generally try to distract them and make them more comfortable. 

The lesson I learned: Photography, like everything else is about 10% technical skill and 90% people skills. If you can't empathize with people, put yourself into their shoes and have a real interest in them, it usually comes across in your pictures. 

I suspect that even if your business is taking beautiful images of incredible cars, you're still dependent on your people skills.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 30, 2012)

AnselA said:


> As a long time lurker and recent active poster I continue to be shocked by the thrashing, whining and crying here regarding the real and imagined limitations of the 5D Mark III. If you read Nikon Rumors ( you should it is very informative and professional) nothing like that happened there with their two recent introductions and there were almost no catty attacks at Canon as you find regularly against Nikon and any firm that doesn't worship Canon properly or at the same time knock it down appropriately.
> 
> What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. Much of this was just impulsive childish behavior - pure and simple. When you can't tell the trolls from the faithful things have gotten out of hand.
> 
> ...



I continue to be shocked by the thrashing, whining and crying here regarding the real and imagined limitations of the 5D Mark III  *You are one of them*

If you read Nikon Rumors ( you should it is very informative and professional)  *This is CR not Nikon Rumors, if you don’t like it, skip it or go to Nikon*

What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that these anxious obsessives have posted here to get feedback  *Not all CR members are doing this for living. That’s why we have internet – Iooking for information.*

I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. Much of this was just impulsive childish behavior - pure and simple. When you can't tell the trolls from the faithful things have gotten out of hand.  *Again, how long it took you to master all these skills? 15-25yrs??? So, give them sometime to learn and feed them with positive feedbacks – instead your whining*.

learn basic photography first, read the friggin' manual, do the necessary adjustments to the camera and its settings ( don't be a d0uche!)  *have you look at manual lately???? *


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 30, 2012)

i think this thread has gone on 5 pages longer than it needed to, 
whats with all the name calling and abuse. I wish i could lock or delete it
I'm sick of reading the drivel that is getting pumped out lately


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 1, 2012)

unfocused said:


> The lesson I learned: Photography, like everything else is about 10% technical skill and 90% people skills. If you can't empathize with people, put yourself into their shoes and have a real interest in them, it usually comes across in your pictures.
> 
> I suspect that even if your business is taking beautiful images of incredible cars, you're still dependent on your people skills.



Very true. I don't have the right personality for weddings, portrait, or fashion work, but even shooting cars requires some people skills. People often show up for shoots late, with broke down cars that don't run, and then want to take off early before the job is done. Dealing with difficult situations, and willing your way through a shoot, has nothing to do with photography skills, but if you can't handle the situation you'll likely produce poor images.


----------



## nesarajah (Apr 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm sick of reading the drivel that is getting pumped out lately



agreed. just adding another page with this comment i'm afraid.


----------



## Live Refocused (Apr 9, 2012)

I am an inexperienced photographer with sufficient resources and passion to own the 5DM3. I am one of the "late registrants" on the forum who has made some regrettable posts pertaining to B&H customer service issues. If I had that do over again, I'd've kept my hyper-emotional opinions and keyboard in check. Looking back, it was embarrassing.

Yep, there is whining. Sometimes, depending on the thread, quite a bit of it. But being as this was my first serious camera purchase, I spent a lot of time over at Nikon Rumors while trying to decide between the 5DM3 and the D800. My own observation is that on the whole, the Canon folks are more friendly, helpful, _*humble*_, and respectful than the Nikon folks, judged solely on the tone of the messages on the two forums. That wasn't a deciding factor (what I wanted to do with the camera was), but it did give me a comfort level.

I tend to read political sites a lot, and compared to the drivel encountered on those sites, I'd say that the Canon Rumors forum is incredibly mature. But if the CR folks were looking to make improvements to the quality of the conversation, there is one site in particular who's approach seems to have kept the conversations on-topic and thoughtful. I'll decline sharing the site name so as to keep this thread on topic, but the moderators there simply _close_ registration except for once or twice per year. It appears that only the cream of the crop on that site get to post - that is, folks with a grasp of the language and the ability to contribute in a meaningful way from all sides of the political spectrum. It has worked well and made the forum enjoyable to read.

Am I bummed that I am not part of the chosen few who can post? Sometimes, but usually someone else who can contribute has already said what I would say, and said it better than I could have. Not sure it could work here, but if the intent is to raise the quality of the conversation, sometimes the best way to do that is to limit the number of people talking.

My thanks to those here who have over the years taken the time to share their experience and perspective to others just starting out. I welcome criticism because I want to be worthy of my camera some day, so if someone wants to lob some my way, my stuff is at www.smugmug.com/liverefocused. 

It's probably not the camera's fault.


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 10, 2012)

This posting by Ansela was one the best and most timely I have read here. It captured the moment very well and, now that the frenzy had calmed down, it still reads well. Cheers!


----------

