Quote:

---

This means that a single shot basically takes around 20 minutes to complete (5 minutes tracked + dark frame subtraction and then 5 minutes untracked + dark frame subtraction).

---

This is your first issue. You should never let the camera take an "Auto Dark". YOu are wasting precious star time letting the camera take the darks.
PLUS, those are NOT efficient at actually reducing your overall noise!!!!
You need to spend all of your time, AT NIGHT, capturing LIGHT frames. Take the darks yourself later when tearing down your equipment, or the next night out when it is cloudy(if the temps are similar,etc)..
There is a LOT of logic and reason behind these two statements..and I am not going to get into it more that this..but, I really suggest you read some of Jerry's(Lodriguss?) books/online books...


Now, RE: Mark II VS Mark III..
This will ALL be speculative til we actually get our hands on one...
But, being an owner of a modified Mark II, I can tell you, it is going to be quite an amazing feat if they actually improve on, what MANY call, the BEST DSLR for AP(currently available, and for the $$$!).
The Mark III has been shown already to produce about 1-2stops better than the Mark II **in JPEGs** out of the camera thanks to some new noise reduction in-camera processing.
Raw files on the other hand are only looking to be about 1/2stop better than the Mark II..which is not a giant leap forward...

Canon DID NOT DESIGN THIS CAMERA TO IMPROVE THE IMAGES of the 5D line. The only *REAL* improvements are the AF system, which is coming from the 1Dx's new AF system.and that is a $7k camera. So to put an AF system in like that, this is EXCEEDING people's expectations for the Mark III, because most simply wanted a blend of the 7D and 5D Mark II..keep the same brilliant ~21mp Full Frame Sensor, keep the AMAZING images and sensitivity. BUT install a USEABLE AF system.

The ONLY reason I AM going to buy a Mark III, is so that I do not have to use TWO cameras(5D Mark II and a 40D/7D) for all of my imaging needs. The Mark III is exactly what I had hoped it would be..brilliant AF system but with the same sensor and tech(no need for 38mp like some wanted...WHY??when you sacrifice sensitivity and pixel size, noise,etc just to get more MP...I can tell you what, I can easily crop my 5D2's images MUUUUUUUCH more than I can a 7D's..and the pixels in the 7D are ~2um SMALLER!!!)
the point is. the 5D Mark II is NOT GOING anywhere! It IS a remarkable camera, and will continue to be a remarkable camera.
But the Mark III is being marketed to those people that shoot sports/action/wildlife,etc that NEED that advanced AF system...all while keeping the same beautiful images that the Mark II produces...
AND IF, IF, they can actually get even a little(1/2 stop is plenty IMHO) better performance from the Mark III images, GREAT!!! if not? who cares!!?


SO. My question to you would be;
Do you NEED a VERY advanced AF system?
that should really be the only deciding factor when choosing between these two.
And if so, is it worth the ~$1500 MORE over the Mark II just to have a better AF system.
To me? YEP!!!
but, not everyone will agree/have the same criteria..


If you want/wanted a Mark II, NOW is the time to buy one as people are dumping them for REDICULOUSLY cheap prices just to pre-order the Mark III, which is the usual trend..but it will disappear quickly, too...(I am talking as low as $1500 for a VERY good condition used unit!!!).And at those prices, to me, it is a no brainer...ANYONE who has thought about upgrading to the full frame Mark II, NOW is your time to do so...

Take it however you want..but I sorta do this for a living , and am just trying to be honest..

Again, my 2's..

Good luck!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Have there been any CNers using 5D MkIII for astrophotography these days?

p.s. Sorry to revive an old thread but I would like to see if things have changed.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I read a very in-depth review on the 5d3(Lloyd Chambers' paid site: highly recommended). The results aren't very encouraging. There is quite a bit of pattern noise. Also dynamic range is sub-par compared with Nikon. Lloyd's conclusion: at best a 12bit sensor.

I would not worry too much about the above issues if I was spending under $1000 but at over $3000, I don't believe it is a worthwhile investment for astro.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

One of the many things that concerns me is Canon applied a "black-box" noise reduction algorithm when the signal is readout from the signal and before it hits the .CR2 file.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

One of the many things that concerns me is Canon applied a "black-box" noise reduction algorithm when the signal is readout from the signal and before it hits the .CR2 file.

---

Why? The resulting image is really the point.

---

You're right in a way. If you've read Craig's article on Canon DSLR Linearity published recently, you will find out that what Canon has done, reasonably, to the raw file output. This, however, poses a hurdle to the calibration of the images.

From the DxOMarks evaluation of the 5DIII and 5DII, they both don't seem to have a significant difference in dynamic range and sensitivity. But I would like to see how such improvement could translate into real-world difference.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I do a lot of fishing/conservation photography and despite 20 years with Canon decided to not get the 5D III but went over to the "dark side" and bought a Nikon D800. I looked very carefully given my investment in Canon lens and felt the Mark III was a minimal upgrade.... for $3.5k. The images on the D800 with the Nikon lens are all they are advertised to be... try effectively a medium format camera... so all in all I would save your money and forget the Mark III, maybe invest in a SBIG older model which would come in well under $3k.... if you want to do AP with a good device....

---

Post Extras: