canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => EOS Bodies - For Stills => Topic started by: azezal on March 06, 2013, 03:03:42 AM

Title: Is this true
Post by: azezal on March 06, 2013, 03:03:42 AM
I don't know,the threads about the high iso looked as if they beat the mark 3 by a mile and the autofocus I thought that the rate of accuracy would be at least 80% .I don't care about video and I will only be using the cam for night photography.I just want to get this straight is a mark 2 really as good as he says ???
5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III comparison: Portraits, studio, landscapes, wildlife, night, and HDR review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Ums46kKsE#ws)
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: azezal on March 06, 2013, 05:08:59 AM
i don´t trust kids with grey hair.....  ;)

and yes you wont see much difference in image quality.
the ISOs where the 5D MK3 is significant better are ISOs i never use.

i would mabye go one stop higher with the 5D MK3 in special cases.

if you only use it for night photography as you say, the 6D is maybe tailor made for you.
it has better focus in low light then the 5D´s and i guess you use the center AF point most of the time anyway?

I don't know about the 6d,after the 7d it somehow felt lacking
I guess its a choice between 7D and 5D2 vs a 5D3,but I don't want to sell my 7d.Its my first dslr
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Rienzphotoz on March 06, 2013, 05:18:39 AM
I just want to get this straight is a mark 2 really as good as he says ???
5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III comparison: Portraits, studio, landscapes, wildlife, night, and HDR review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Ums46kKsE#ws)
Yes and no.
MK II is a great camera and I agree with most of what he said but I do no agree with him about noise and sharpness.
Regarding noise, MK III much better than his results ... maybe his needs to be sent to Canon to get it fixed.
4.01 he says he can't tell the difference in detail between MK II & MK III ... he definitely needs to get his eyes or his glasses checked ... it is very clear that the image made with MK III showed more detail but for some reason he doesn't seem to be able to see it.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Rienzphotoz on March 06, 2013, 05:23:31 AM
I just want to get this straight is a mark 2 really as good as he says ???
5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III comparison: Portraits, studio, landscapes, wildlife, night, and HDR review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Ums46kKsE#ws)
Yes and no.
MK II is a great camera and I agree with most of what he said but I do no agree with him about noise and sharpness.
Regarding noise, MK III much better than his results ... maybe his needs to be sent to Canon to get it fixed.
11.45 he says he can't tell the difference between MK II & MK III ... he definitely needs to get his eyes or his checked ... it is very clear that MK III was sharper but for some reason he doesn't seem to be able to see it.

well NO.

the 5D MK3 is NOT sharper.
all test i have read so far will tell you the the 5D MK2 is slightly sharper then the 5D MK3.

and that´s not by looking at images it´s done via repeatable resolution tests.
I disagree ... by the way there was typo in my post, so I've edited it a bit.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Canon-F1 on March 06, 2013, 05:31:37 AM
4.01 he says he can't tell the difference in detail between MK II & MK III ... he definitely needs to get his eyes or his glasses checked ... it is very clear that the image made with MK III showed more detail but for some reason he doesn't seem to be able to see it.

Sorry but that is an Urban Myth 5D Mark3 user love to believe.
Anyway it´s wrong.

The 5D Mark3 seems to have a stronger AA filter.
That leads to less maximum spatial resolution at ISO 100 then the 5D Mark2 sensor.
Or lets say the 1 MP more and the stronger AA filter chancel each other out.

I have testet that myself with the canon EF 100mm f2,8 macro and Imatest Software (http://www.imatest.com/ (http://www.imatest.com/)) and found it to be correct.

Now at High-ISO the 5D Mark3 images look better.
But that´s because of less noise, not better sharpness.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: azezal on March 06, 2013, 06:28:11 AM
I'm just more confused now i know I don't want the 6d after the 7d it just felt too weird,I could not get used to it even though I spent a week with it,sure the images were great but I don't know something felt wrong I don't use af anyway so that center point can't help unfortunately

I love my 7d except for low light long exposures and landscapes(the 3 Ls ).a used Mark 2 would save me a lot of money for lenses and that gitzo
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: azezal on March 06, 2013, 08:58:01 AM
again, what exactly did you miss?  :)

what you said sounds more like a "ah other people don´t like the 6D so i get a bad feeling from using it" syndrom. ;)

why would you prefer the 5D MK2 that, overall, has no better image quality?
and at higher ISO the 6D has an edge.

you don´t care about AF (my biggest complain about the 6D) and they cost the same (at least here).

sure the reduced x-sync sucks and the viewfinder could/should be 100% on such a camera, but then the 5D MK2 viewfinder is not much better.

but you get GPS & WIFI, more FPS, better pushable RAW files (less shadow banding), it weights less, has a longer battery life (same battery but it lasts longer. at least without wifi and GPS enabled), better LCD screen, startup time is faster, less shutter lag, CA correction, better exposure compensation and control, full speedlite 600EX-RT Control.

and an electronic level, something i find very usefull for night shots.





 


I'm one of those who is rooting for the 6d have used it and amazed by its quality but a second hand 5d2 will always cost less.The 6d justddoesn't inspire confidence that my 7d does that was the very same reason I bought it over the 5d2 . So u can understand a 5d Mark 3 is all I need and more but money is a big constraint .I need good lensesmore than anything and can't really decide about selling my 7d
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: RGF on March 06, 2013, 09:02:07 AM
When I upgraded from 5D M2 tote M3 I was able to routinely use higher ISO.  Did not quantity this and do very little night photography
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: RLPhoto on March 06, 2013, 11:06:17 AM
The MK3 has a finer pattern noise and less banding from the MK2 + 1 Megapickel. Otherwise, the IQ is very similiar.

The MK3 major improvements are AF, general operations, and Video. Which make this a whole new class of camera compared to the mk2.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: rpt on March 06, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
well it´s you against the most reputable photographers on the internet then..
ROTFL!

I don't think Rienzphotoz would ever consider this a reprimand...
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on March 06, 2013, 12:07:04 PM
The main advantage my 5D MK III has over my 5D MK II's is the better autofocus and performance in extreme high ISO's over 6400.  I use it at up to ISO 25600 when I have to, and my 5D MK II up to 6400.  Obviously, you don't want to push it to those values unless you have no choice, but in theater photography, its sometimes just necessary.
 
Its a pretty fine distinction, and irrelevant for most users, but, if you need the AF capabilities or the extreme high ISO capabilities, then its the one to get.  It also finally has auto ISO in manual, but no exposure compensation, so full manual might be better in difficult lighting. 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Skirball on March 06, 2013, 01:05:31 PM
I'm one of those who is rooting for the 6d have used it and amazed by its quality but a second hand 5d2 will always cost less.

Which makes sense.  But another way to look at it would be: for a couple hundred dollars you get a brand new camera under warranty with some added features.  And if you wanted to put in the leg work you could get the kit package, sell off the 24-105 and pretty much break even with a used 5d2.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: azezal on March 06, 2013, 01:12:47 PM
I'm one of those who is rooting for the 6d have used it and amazed by its quality but a second hand 5d2 will always cost less.

Which makes sense.  But another way to look at it would be: for a couple hundred dollars you get a brand new camera under warranty with some added features.  And if you wanted to put in the leg work you could get the kit package, sell off the 24-105 and pretty much break even with a used 5d2.

That's really smart I believe the 6d is better at base iso (s)
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Skirball on March 06, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
I'm one of those who is rooting for the 6d have used it and amazed by its quality but a second hand 5d2 will always cost less.

Which makes sense.  But another way to look at it would be: for a couple hundred dollars you get a brand new camera under warranty with some added features.  And if you wanted to put in the leg work you could get the kit package, sell off the 24-105 and pretty much break even with a used 5d2.

That's really smart I believe the 6d is better at base iso (s)

I (sort of) understand the community uproar about the 6D and the features it doesn't have, the minimalist upgrade, etc.  But this is mostly coming from people with 5d3 and 1dX cameras.  If you're coming from nothing or upgrading from a 60 or Rebel series it takes on a different light.  Personally I think you'd be crazy to buy a used 5d2 over a 6d, but that's just coming from my point of view.  If the added features mean nothing to you, you prefer the tried and true of a model like a 5d2, and a couple hundred dollars is worth the savings for you, then I guess the 5d2 is your camera.  I almost passed up on the 6d myself after reading all the crap on here, but after putting it perspective I saw that it was mostly just internet measurebating.  It may not be a revelation, but it looks like a good camera for anyone looking for a FF at around a $2k pricepoint.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: skitron on March 06, 2013, 01:29:51 PM
Concerning OP's question and the conclusion the video makes, my experience (after owning 5D2, 6D, 5D3) is the 5D3 is noticably better than 5D2 in terms of noise and ISO performance as ISO increases. The difference in noise is as others have pointed out: less banding, less color noise, and a more "film like" noise pattern.

I can tell you different editors and NR softs will make for slightly different conclusions when comparing the two bodies. I use Capture One v7 here and when comparing in that, 5D3 is noticably better in terms of noise and ISO.

That said, 6D (which I had for a short while and sent back for a 5D3) was even a bit better at noise and high ISO than 5D3. If these were my primary concerns, I'd probably have stayed with 6D. But despite how good the 6D center AF point is in low light, the 5D3 AF system is in a different league altogether, as is build quality, and these swayed me to 5D3 and very happy with it.

And all of that said, I'd take the 6D over the 5D2.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: distant.star on March 06, 2013, 01:35:19 PM
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Beyond that, this is just a lot of picking flypoop out of pepper for me.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: robbymack on March 06, 2013, 01:46:52 PM
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Beyond that, this is just a lot of picking flypoop out of pepper for me.

HAHAHA

Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: skitron on March 06, 2013, 01:53:28 PM
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Maybe it is some sort of weird dialect?  ;D
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: RS2021 on March 06, 2013, 02:18:54 PM
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Beyond that, this is just a lot of picking flypoop out of pepper for me.

+1

Hehehe...plus he looks like a mix between Anderson Cooper and Ellen Degeneres with that grey hair and jacket...difficult to take him seriously  ;D
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: skitron on March 06, 2013, 02:28:41 PM
Hehehe...plus he looks like a mix between Anderson Cooper and Ellen Degeneres with that grey hair and jacket...difficult to take him seriously  ;D

LOL, note to self..."Never do an internet video. Ever."   :D

Entertainment value of video aside OP is just asking about what to buy next, which is fair enough.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: STEMI_RN on March 06, 2013, 03:07:04 PM
thank you for saying what REALLY needed to be said distant.star.  Every time I heard this guy say "eee-soh" I wanted to punch my monitor.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: wickidwombat on March 06, 2013, 11:13:47 PM
I just want to get this straight is a mark 2 really as good as he says ???
5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III comparison: Portraits, studio, landscapes, wildlife, night, and HDR review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Ums46kKsE#ws)
Yes and no.
MK II is a great camera and I agree with most of what he said but I do no agree with him about noise and sharpness.
Regarding noise, MK III much better than his results ... maybe his needs to be sent to Canon to get it fixed.
11.45 he says he can't tell the difference between MK II & MK III ... he definitely needs to get his eyes or his checked ... it is very clear that MK III was sharper but for some reason he doesn't seem to be able to see it.

well NO.

the 5D MK3 is NOT sharper.
5D MK3 users can tell that themself as long as they want.. makes it not true. :)

all test i have read (and done myself) so far will tell you the the 5D MK2 is slightly sharper or equal (per pixel sharpness) then the 5D MK3.

and that´s not by looking at images it´s done via repeatable resolution tests.

if comparing raw files only and unedited, yes the mk2 is a little sharper
however the 5dmk3 raw files have more latitude in post than the mark 2 file
and iso 3200 and above the mk3 leaves the mk2 in its dust
I own and shoot with both cameras

the mk2 is still a good camera but the mk3 is better and thats without even getting into all the additional functions of the mk3 and better build, ergonomics etc
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: azezal on March 06, 2013, 11:14:08 PM
Thanks for the replies everyone I am more confused than ever about what to get but atleast I know what I want now. The 6d though good always felt like a rebel the ergonomics and the build did not inspire confidence,I felt I could damage it just by tightening my grip .I really tried to love the 6d but as they say people differ after the 7d the 6d felt wrong (i love it but I wouldn't use it).I know what I want is impossible to get so I just want to get as close to it and not regret. I guess I want a camera with Mark3 ergonomics,6d sensor and autofocus at a 5d2 price but since its not possible I just gotta keep looking till I find it maybe what i want would be a 7d2

Anyway we just wish our 7d had a 6d sensor,it would be the best camera in the world for some of us
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: azezal on March 07, 2013, 05:36:17 AM
Damn I will just rob a bank or something
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Rienzphotoz on March 07, 2013, 09:44:06 AM
I just want to get this straight is a mark 2 really as good as he says ???
5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III comparison: Portraits, studio, landscapes, wildlife, night, and HDR review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Ums46kKsE#ws)
Yes and no.
MK II is a great camera and I agree with most of what he said but I do no agree with him about noise and sharpness.
Regarding noise, MK III much better than his results ... maybe his needs to be sent to Canon to get it fixed.
11.45 he says he can't tell the difference between MK II & MK III ... he definitely needs to get his eyes or his checked ... it is very clear that MK III was sharper but for some reason he doesn't seem to be able to see it.

well NO.

the 5D MK3 is NOT sharper.
all test i have read so far will tell you the the 5D MK2 is slightly sharper then the 5D MK3.

and that´s not by looking at images it´s done via repeatable resolution tests.
I disagree ... by the way there was typo in my post, so I've edited it a bit.

well it´s you against the most reputable photographers on the internet then..
So now we've gone from one photographer to photographers ... well anyway, no one can stop your "reputable photographers" from making any amount of claims  ::)
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Rienzphotoz on March 07, 2013, 09:45:42 AM
well it´s you against the most reputable photographers on the internet then..
ROTFL!

I don't think Rienzphotoz would ever consider this a reprimand...
Huh ???
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: risc32 on March 07, 2013, 05:06:08 PM
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Between that, the fact that he's wearing a t-shirt with a sport coat, creepy calm, he's clearly light in the loafers.... yeah, a weirdo. he seems like a serial killer, and i wouldn't trust anything he says.
Title: Re: Is this true
Post by: Rienzphotoz on March 08, 2013, 01:59:45 AM
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Between that, the fact that he's wearing a t-shirt with a sport coat, creepy calm, he's clearly light in the loafers.... yeah, a weirdo. he seems like a serial killer, and i wouldn't trust anything he says.
That's a bit mean but didn't stop me from LOL ;D