DSLR & Lens Coming on January 15, 2013? [CR1]

[DWM]

The max. selectable iso says absolutely nothing about usable or clean iso - take the 5d2->5d3->6d, the latter has the highest usable iso, but the older 5d2 has still the best (sharpest/dr-rich) low iso. And there's unfortunately no one stopping marketing from implementing a H4 mode @iso51200 for impressive tech specs, even though it's a noise generator unless downsizing to 320x200.

Maybe I am the one that don't understand then. The 6D and 5DIII have the same ISO range 100-25600. (Keep in mind I disregard all the H modes because they are useless to me.) You would expect the 5DIII to perform better than the 6D being that the latter is what I consider the Rebel of full frame. Now for the 5DII I can't say if if is better than the mkIII. I have no experience with any full frame but many seem to believe the mkIII is better. Can you show me where the mk ii beats the mk iii? 

[Marsu42]

You would expect the 5DIII to perform better than the 6D being that the latter is what I consider the Rebel of full frame

"Better" is relative here - the 6d gains a little higher iso capability (maybe about 1/3 stop) but produces less sharp images than the 5d3, so it's about what people want from a ff sensor. To me, the 6d appears like a downgraded 5d3 sensor with some readout adjustments and forced chroma noise reduction even in lower iso modes (in higher iso modes, the 5d3 also has nr in raw).

Can you show me where the mk ii beats the mk iii?

The 5d2 has a higher dynamic range (highlight recovery) and spatial resolution (i.e. sharpness) in low iso modes, even with the little less mp count than the 5d3. This fact has been known for long, Canon changed the iso/mp/dr tradeoff to gain better high iso performance and probably less banding on the 5d3 - all these ff models basically all use the same sensor tech. Since ff is about higher iso shooting it's a smart move, but I recon most 5d3/6d owners don't really want to know anyway :-p

The best proof of this I know is a recent German 6d review one on traumflieger.de - but the differences between the 3 ff bodies are not large enough to make a decisive difference for potential buyers, but it proves the point.

[wickidwombat]

You would expect the 5DIII to perform better than the 6D being that the latter is what I consider the Rebel of full frame

"Better" is relative here - the 6d gains a little higher iso capability (maybe about 1/3 stop) but produces less sharp images than the 5d3, so it's about what people want from a ff sensor. To me, the 6d appears like a downgraded 5d3 sensor with some readout adjustments and forced chroma noise reduction even in lower iso modes (in higher iso modes, the 5d3 also has nr in raw).

Can you show me where the mk ii beats the mk iii?

The 5d2 has a higher dynamic range (highlight recovery) and spatial resolution (i.e. sharpness) in low iso modes, even with the little less mp count than the 5d3. This fact has been known for long, Canon changed the iso/mp/dr tradeoff to gain better high iso performance and probably less banding on the 5d3 - all these ff models basically all use the same sensor tech. Since ff is about higher iso shooting it's a smart move, but I recon most 5d3/6d owners don't really want to know anyway :-p

The best proof of this I know is a recent German 6d review one on traumflieger.de - but the differences between the 3 ff bodies are not large enough to make a decisive difference for potential buyers, but it proves the point.

Absolute bollocks I am afraid. In my experience 5d3 files have more highlight headroom than mk2 files when processing in lightrôom.generally all round the 5d3 files are more flexable than mk2 from my experience. Do you own these cameras or are you quoting the internet?

[Octavian]

Oh here we go......   

[Marsu42]

Do you own these cameras or are you quoting the internet?

You see most of my equipment under to the left - and I already stated that the dr comparison is from the traumflieger review. Also see here, the 6d has ~1 more stop of dr at higher iso: http://www.sensorgen.info/ ... though of course I cannot verify the validity of their testing and methods.

iso 100:
5d2 - 11.2 dr
5d3 - 11.0 dr (like 6d @iso 800)
6d - 11.5 dr

iso 6400:
5d2 - 8.3 dr
5d3 - 8.5 dr
6d - 9.3 dr

The said review is very definite on the spatial resolution test, and at least this falls in line with what the CR user mst (Canon beta tester) often wrote and what I've seen myself when looking at 5d2/5d3 sample raw shots.

[wickidwombat]

Do you own these cameras or are you quoting the internet?

You see most of my equipment under to the left - and I already stated that the dr comparison is from the traumflieger review. Also see here, the 6d has ~1 more stop of dr at higher iso: http://www.sensorgen.info/ ... though of course I cannot verify the validity of their testing and methods.

iso 100:
5d2 - 11.2 dr
5d3 - 11.0 dr (like 6d @iso 800)
6d - 11.5 dr

iso 6400:
5d2 - 8.3 dr
5d3 - 8.5 dr
6d - 9.3 dr

The said review is very definite on the spatial resolution test, and at least this falls in line with what the CR user mst (Canon beta tester) often wrote and what I've seen myself when looking at 5d2/5d3 sample raw shots.

when i first got my 5dmk3 and compared it to the mk2 i was super disappointed because i was only looking at pure unedited raw files

the 5d2 files were sharper when pixel peeping however after having used the 2 camera side by side for over a year now i have to say absolutely the 5Dmk3 files respond much better to post processing they can be sharpened more without artifacts occuring the files respond much better to noise reduction at any iso as the noise is cleaner and less blocky, it has a more organic film grain feel and as I said there is definately more recoverable highlight headroom when exposing to the right.

Just be carefull quoting the internet categorically without actually having first hand experience

the 5dmk2 still makes nice images for sure but the 5Dmk3 is better accross the board in every single respect
except maybe the silly picture review zoom

I put less than zero credability into any of these back of the lens cap naval gazing DR tests people seem obsessed about.

I'm talking about real world shooting real world processing and real world results.
i havent used a 6D so i wont comment on its real world abilities however the camera doesnt really meet my needs and the 5Dmk3 far exceeds it in a significant number of areas that are significant to me

[Marsu42]

Just be carefull quoting the internet categorically without actually having first hand experience

Thanks for the information concerning your 5d3 experiences, it's in line with what I've read here before. Though I don't think a "hands on" experience is necessarily more valid than a research across multiple sources, just because it's published on the Internet doesn't mean it has to be wrong.... and btw what you're writing is in the Internet, too :-p

I put less than zero credability into any of these back of the lens cap naval gazing DR tests people seem obsessed about.

Me, too (believe it or not :-)), I already wrote the differences are too tiny to really matter - I only mentioned it because a user wrote that newer cameras necessarily have a better sensor across all aspects, and this simply isn't correct.

[DWM]

I only mentioned it because a user wrote that newer cameras necessarily have a better sensor across all aspects, and this simply isn't correct.

I must have missed that because I haven't seen where anybody said a newer camera necessarily have a better sensor across all aspects. 

[Marsu42]

I must have missed that because I haven't seen where anybody said a newer camera necessarily have a better sensor across all aspects.

Oh my, please don't be too picky, I don't deliberate too long over everything I write here and it's a recreational rumors thread - but there was talk of "significant iq improvements" somewhere in the vicinity of your name :-> ... I read this not only concerning snr and thus responded also to dr/sharpness, please do forgive me if I misunderstood.