canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: ronmart_blogspot_com on April 09, 2012, 05:07:18 AM

Title: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: ronmart_blogspot_com on April 09, 2012, 05:07:18 AM
I'm just posting this as a FYI for those of you who have wondered how much better the image quality of the 5D Mark III is over the 5D Mark II:

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-mark-iiiimage.html (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-mark-iiiimage.html)

I'd say substantial! The 5D Mark II was an awesome sensor, but Canon has really hit this one out of the park in every possible way except for the price!
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: Aglet on April 09, 2012, 12:33:45 PM
His other page shows RAW via DPP but only at 100 ISO.
no so much difference altho I'm a bit puzzled why the significant difference in exposure or toning between the 2 bodies..

Well THERE it is... one's sRGB, one's wide-gamut RGB.  More apples vs bananas. :)

www.ronmartblog.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-mark-iiiimage_09.html (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-mark-iiiimage_09.html)
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: shizam1 on April 09, 2012, 12:37:55 PM
Thanks for answering... do you have any apples to apples axamples?

Not really.  I expected the sensor to be equivalent to the 5DII at most low ISO's, and better at higher ISO's.  But if you go look at the comparisons at DPReview, the 5DIII looks equivalent, and maybe even softer even at ISO 100.  And they used the RAW files and did an ACR conversioin...

So I took my 5DII and 5DIII into my studio, and shot some teddy bears at ISO 100.  No need for tripod since strobes are used, but the framing wasn't exactly the same.  Regardless, both showed great detail, the 5DIII looked a bit sharper actually, but that might have been the focus.  It was more accurate at autofocuing on the teddy bear nose than my 5DII.

I also did some ISO 1600 or ISO3200 tests ( can't remember ) and both had plenty of noise, but the 5DIII images just looked better for some reason, more DR maybe, or better colors.I had a hard time pinpointing it, but my wife agreed.

Also, my wife and I just shot an engagement session together, she used the 5DII with 85 f/1.2LII and I used 5DIII with 70-200 f/2.8LII.  She is processing the images and mentioned that the 5DIII images look better, but not dramatically or anything.   That was an ISO100-400 shoot.

Anyway, I'm personally waiting for Canon to fix DPP so that we can see a review at www.the-digital-picture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com) to see a more controlled test with proper processing.
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: shizam1 on April 09, 2012, 12:41:12 PM
... I'm a bit puzzled why the significant difference in exposure or toning between the 2 bodies..

When I was doing my studio tests to see IQ at ISO100, I noticed that the images from my 5DIII body was overexposed by .25 in Lightroom.  Both camera's used the same lens ( 100L macro ).

I know different sensors can have different sensitivies, so I'm thinking that is the case.
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: awinphoto on April 09, 2012, 01:02:57 PM
Thanks for answering... do you have any apples to apples axamples?

Not really.  I expected the sensor to be equivalent to the 5DII at most low ISO's, and better at higher ISO's.  But if you go look at the comparisons at DPReview, the 5DIII looks equivalent, and maybe even softer even at ISO 100.  And they used the RAW files and did an ACR conversioin...

So I took my 5DII and 5DIII into my studio, and shot some teddy bears at ISO 100.  No need for tripod since strobes are used, but the framing wasn't exactly the same.  Regardless, both showed great detail, the 5DIII looked a bit sharper actually, but that might have been the focus.  It was more accurate at autofocuing on the teddy bear nose than my 5DII.

I also did some ISO 1600 or ISO3200 tests ( can't remember ) and both had plenty of noise, but the 5DIII images just looked better for some reason, more DR maybe, or better colors.I had a hard time pinpointing it, but my wife agreed.

Also, my wife and I just shot an engagement session together, she used the 5DII with 85 f/1.2LII and I used 5DIII with 70-200 f/2.8LII.  She is processing the images and mentioned that the 5DIII images look better, but not dramatically or anything.   That was an ISO100-400 shoot.

Anyway, I'm personally waiting for Canon to fix DPP so that we can see a review at www.the-digital-picture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com) to see a more controlled test with proper processing.

Thank you aglet for the raw links... I am curious, with DPP's problems if it was set at fast or high quality processing and if that processing only effects 5d3 files or both 5d2 files also...  Perhaps it could be even more different when canon releases the fix for DPP... then again maybe not.  shizam, thanks for your input...  so basically your saying the 5d3 is better but just not that much...  That's fair enough and inline with what many have said already...
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on April 09, 2012, 01:18:40 PM
Thanks for posting ronmart, and ignore the trolls. 
 
I personally do not notice any big difference under normal lighting.  However, I have noticed better DR in difficult lighting, and, of course amazing ability to retain at least a usable amount of detail at ISO 25600.
 
I have posted numerous images with my 5D MK III that are in the forum.  I'll be doing some AFMA of all my many lenses today with the beta version of FoCal Pro which now supports the 5D MK III
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: shizam1 on April 09, 2012, 01:27:20 PM
...shizam, thanks for your input...  so basically your saying the 5d3 is better but just not that much...  That's fair enough and inline with what many have said already...

As far as image Quality, yes.  AF is much snappier and more accurate ( though I had a weird slowness in a really dark environment ), and metering is maybe better as well.  Not to mention the silent shutter is useful as well!
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: AnselA on April 09, 2012, 01:29:09 PM
ronmart thanks for the fine effort and, yes, ignore the trolls
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: Tracy Pinto on April 09, 2012, 01:31:03 PM
Thanks for posting ronmart, and ignore the trolls. 
 
I personally do not notice any big difference under normal lighting.  However, I have noticed better DR in difficult lighting, and, of course amazing ability to retain at least a usable amount of detail at ISO 25600.
 
I have posted numerous images with my 5D MK III that are in the forum.  I'll be doing some AFMA of all my many lenses today with the beta version of FoCal Pro which now supports the 5D MK III


Look forward to hearing on the impact. I enjoy your posts.
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: BobSanderson on April 09, 2012, 01:51:56 PM
I'm just posting this as a FYI for those of you who have wondered how much better the image quality of the 5D Mark III is over the 5D Mark II:

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-mark-iiiimage.html (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/04/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-mark-iiiimage.html)

I'd say substantial! The 5D Mark II was an awesome sensor, but Canon has really hit this one out of the park in every possible way except for the price!

Ron thanks for your post.

I have trying to decide whether to add the 5D III to my kit or not. Careful work like your own - from a professional with no axe to grind is very helpful indeed.

There have been some questionable writers here ( including one complaining about the speed of auto focus on a shot that took 3 seconds to expose properly - talk about dark!  :) )  who don't know much about technology or photography but are certainly panicked themselves or want to panic others with limited info. It is important to read widely to make an informed decision. The data and information is slowly coming in.

This new camera sounds great so far (and of course there are compromises)  but I have to decide whether to plunge in now or wait to see if a 7D II is produced and better meets my needs.
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: Marsu42 on April 09, 2012, 02:26:32 PM
I'd say substantial! The 5D Mark II was an awesome sensor, but Canon has really hit this one out of the park in every possible way except for the price!

This is certainly very interesting - and looking at the big iso100 difference, I noted your other raw processing link and your statement "However, if you are a 5D Mark II owner looking for a reason not to upgrade, then maybe this will make you feel much better" which puts everything in its place.

Am I understanding you correctly if what you're basically saying that updated software raw converters (dpp, adobe) will widen the gap between the 5d2 and 5d3?
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: zackck on April 09, 2012, 04:18:07 PM
My Mark II is not that soft. There is certainly something wrong with yours. Send it to Canon to adjust. Good luck!
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: JR on April 09, 2012, 04:35:54 PM
The mkIII does shine in those test even if in camera JPEG are used.  High ISO are a definite improvements...
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: Aglet on April 09, 2012, 04:51:22 PM
I appreciate Ronmart's intent, and that of everyone here who spends their time and $ to provide us with more info. Hopefully we don't make many mistakes along the way and provide readers with useful insights. :)

The 5D3 is starting to look tempting enough for me to consider tossing my 5D2 and 7D which would get me one body with better AF and less noise for most of what I would do.  STILL, I'm gonna wait for a while until DPP is completely shaken down and we have a full slate of consistent looking results from a variety of testing.  Maybe the price will even drop a little by then, or they'll kit it with an improved 24-105mm or something else I don't have.

From my own results, the 5D3 is a noticeable improvement over the 5D2, tho still not enough to warrant it being the only tool in my kit.  This aint flame-bait but I'm likely to still order a D800 to do some of my more critical shots; likely have to wait til sometime in September the way my guy's backordered!
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: BobSanderson on April 09, 2012, 09:05:16 PM
I appreciate Ronmart's intent, and that of everyone here who spends their time and $ to provide us with more info. Hopefully we don't make many mistakes along the way and provide readers with useful insights. :)

The 5D3 is starting to look tempting enough for me to consider tossing my 5D2 and 7D which would get me one body with better AF and less noise for most of what I would do.  STILL, I'm gonna wait for a while until DPP is completely shaken down and we have a full slate of consistent looking results from a variety of testing.  Maybe the price will even drop a little by then, or they'll kit it with an improved 24-105mm or something else I don't have.

From my own results, the 5D3 is a noticeable improvement over the 5D2, tho still not enough to warrant it being the only tool in my kit.  This aint flame-bait but I'm likely to still order a D800 to do some of my more critical shots; likely have to wait til sometime in September the way my guy's backordered!

Aglet,
I can only say when you go to Nikon that we will all miss your constant writing on the low ISO banding crisis at Canon. You were way too patient with such a serious problem. What were you doing before joining on Feb 26th?
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: wickidwombat on April 10, 2012, 12:14:03 AM
I posted over 50 raw files comparing the 5Dmk2 and mk3 after micro adjust calibration on half a dozen lenses
personally I found the 5Dmk2 files marginally sharper however this was pixel peeping at 200%, overall those shots were pretty damn close with the mk3 files displaying lessmoire than the mk 2 files.
comparing out of camera jpg is useless IMO you have to compare raw files

pity after all that adjusting work my camera still could not focus properly, hopefully its replacement will :D

here is the link to those comparisons
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4971.0 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4971.0)
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: fotoworx on April 10, 2012, 02:50:22 AM
If my 5D2 was as soft as the images in Ron's review, I'd be sending it and the lens off to Canon.

There's been millions of posted images showing how good the 5D2 is over the last 3.5 years......c'mon honestly, those photos are just plain unacceptably soft and NOT indicative of a 5D2.
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: Aglet on April 10, 2012, 02:56:47 AM
Aglet,
I can only say when you go to Nikon that we will all miss your constant writing on the low ISO banding crisis at Canon. You were way too patient with such a serious problem. What were you doing before joining on Feb 26th?

No worries, Bob.  I'm not "going" to Nikon, I'm merely adding them to my quiver of tools. I'll still be around to share anything new I find useful on the virtues and flaws of various hardware I encounter, whatever the nameplate. :)

Before Feb 26th?...  shooting, learning, lurking here (from the beginning) hoping for news the next generation of hardware would not exhibit said pattern noise (which, it seems, got worse before it gets better), and otherwise not expanding my range of knowledge beyond the big red "C" paradigm that I've shot with for the last 35 years.
I'm leaving out other details, like my day job, prob'ly not relevant. ;)

Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: hoghavemercy on April 10, 2012, 04:32:45 AM
100 ISO on the 5d III looks a lot cleaner than the 5DII, thanks for the comparison. 8)
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: AnselA on April 10, 2012, 10:16:57 AM
Aglet,
I can only say when you go to Nikon that we will all miss your constant writing on the low ISO banding crisis at Canon. You were way too patient with such a serious problem. What were you doing before joining on Feb 26th?

No worries, Bob.  I'm not "going" to Nikon, I'm merely adding them to my quiver of tools. I'll still be around to share anything new I find useful on the virtues and flaws of various hardware I encounter, whatever the nameplate. :)

Before Feb 26th?...  shooting, learning, lurking here (from the beginning) hoping for news the next generation of hardware would not exhibit said pattern noise (which, it seems, got worse before it gets better), and otherwise not expanding my range of knowledge beyond the big red "C" paradigm that I've shot with for the last 35 years.
I'm leaving out other details, like my day job, prob'ly not relevant. ;)

Aglet that is news. If you left everyone would forget how bad Canon is at low ISO and what a problem we should have. A constant flow from you keeps everyone on edge. ;)
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: Aglet on April 10, 2012, 11:55:36 AM
Aglet that is news. If you left everyone would forget how bad Canon is at low ISO and what a problem we should have. A constant flow from you keeps everyone on edge. ;)

gosh, I'd hate to foster complacency; tends to stifle innovation and reduce overall awareness.  ;D

BTW - during my hardware renaissance I've discovered a few other differences in design philosophy between the major mfrs. Minor things but they can add up to daily annoyances.  I'll save those for another time.  (Cough! sensor-dust Cough! cough!) ;)
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: JR on April 10, 2012, 12:59:37 PM
100 ISO on the 5d III looks a lot cleaner than the 5DII, thanks for the comparison. 8)

Remember this is only yusing jpeg.  We have not seen this when using raw file...
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: birdman on April 10, 2012, 07:43:36 PM
Damn, don't you love all of the arguing? I called a reputable camera store and had a salesman tell how much better the 5d3 was regarding IQ versus my 5d2. His exact words: "The sensor is a completely new architecture and produces MUCH BETTER RESOLUTION and COLORS!!"

I find that extremely hard to believe. He did state that the ISO 12,800 shots were astonishing, which I have to generally agree with. They are nice, from what I've seen online. I will not upgrade to the 5d3 unless I "master" my mk2 and it cannot do something I need it to.

Regarding the D800, yes the DR looks unreal. That is Nikon's (or Sony's I should say) bread and butter. They thrive in that technical area. To me, I always thought Canons produced nicer colors. I did preorder a D800 and can't wait to do some landscapes. But if I was going for one system vs. the other, Canon has a much better selection of affordable glass. And their telephotos are much newer. Short primes, OTOH, are what Nikon has been devoting all R&D towards. Each has their strength. choose what you like and tread lightly on others.
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: wickidwombat on April 10, 2012, 08:36:55 PM
My RAWs clearly show the 5Dmk2 edges the mk3 out in sharpness at iso 100

i havent posted high ISO ones however from my observations the "quality" of the noise on the mk3 is significantly better than the mk2 allowing you to imporve it significantly using good NR software
for this reason 12800 is useable and even 25600 can be cleaned up sufficently in post to achieve decent results
or leave the more grain like noise in the image for that more vintage feel.

I have no doubt at high iso the 5Dmk3 is great

Again I have no interest in jpg files out of the camera as they give a false representation of the facts
RAW comparisons are the only true indication but until final raw processing software is available its too hard to make definative calls on which is better.
Title: Re: 5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod
Post by: fotoworx on April 11, 2012, 03:19:27 AM
This is really a totally BS thread and a BS review.