a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

[Jens Lange]

hello,

i am new to this forum and digital photography.
i was using a canon film camera since the 1980s, until now.
never cared much for digital.
for the few photos i took a year my film camera was good enough.

but im a pensioner now and will go on a 8 weeks trip to south africa this year.
so i decided to go digital. 

i bought a 5D Mark3 and a 650D at amazon.
now i have 24 days left to decide if i keep the 5D Mark3 or the 650D

what puzzles me is that the image quality is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same.
i bought a epson R3000 printer and when i print the files i can hardly see any difference.

i know why the 5D Mark3 is more expensive (better build, more functions, FF sensor etc.) but i thought there would be a visible difference in image quality?

sorry if this is a stupid question. as i wrote im totally new to digital cameras.

i just wonder that i get the same image quality in a 700 euro camera and in a 2800 euro camera.
i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera.

[Northstar]

When your subject is moving and/or there is poor available light, that's when you'll notice more of a difference...though, it still is just a small amount

But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.

The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.

[Jens Lange]

But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.

The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.

i have the 70-200mm F4 IS.
that is the lens i made the testshots with.

i will buy 2 other lenses but of course that depends on what body i will keep.
one in the 24-70mm range and one around 14mm (EF 14mm f2.8 or the EF-S 10-22mm).
 

[ewg963]

hello,

i am new to this forum and digital photography.
i was using a canon film camera since the 1980s, until now.
never cared much for digital.
for the few photos i took a year my film camera was good enough.

but im a pensioner now and will go on a 8 weeks trip to south africa this year.
so i decided to go digital. 

i bought a 5D Mark3 and a 650D at amazon.
now i have 24 days left to decide if i keep the 5D Mark3 or the 650D

what puzzles me is that the image quality is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same.
i bought a epson R3000 printer and when i print the files i can hardly see any difference.

i know why the 5D Mark3 is more expensive (better build, more functions, FF sensor etc.) but i thought there would be a visible difference in image quality?

sorry if this is a stupid question. as i wrote im totally new to digital cameras.

i just wonder that i get the same image quality in a 700 euro camera and in a 2800 euro camera.
i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera.

Keep the 5D MKIII that camera is amazing you will have much more all around use with it. For instance better low performance leagues better than the 650D. This is a once in a limetime event and the 5D MKIII will deliver more keepers in a lot more different lighting situations if your technique is right. This all depends on well your pockets can handle keeping the 5D MKIII. Either way happy shooting.

[ewg963]

When your subject is moving and/or there is poor available light, that's when you'll notice more of a difference...though, it still is just a small amount

But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.

The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.

+1

[WSMyles]

In "film" parlance, the 5d3 will give you a finer, better quality "grain" as if from a top-quality negative film versus a cheap off-brand.  It will hold up better in more challenging circumstances too.  Less noise, more light collected.  You are correct in that at 8x10 type print size, there won't be much difference in a well-exposed shot.

I have a 16x10 print from my old 30d that looks great, with less than half the resolution of a 650d.

However, take that shot wrong (over/underexposed in particular) and it'll be harder to fix.  Crop into it and print or view that portion, and you'll start to see the difference.  In theory at least, the FF sensor collects a stop and a half more light, so it's like using film at twice the ISO rating for the same 'grain' -- or that you can get away with half the light at the same ISO.

The quality of the lens in front of the camera is at least as important as the sensor behind that lens.  It also matters whether you have the right lens(es) for the subject matter you are shooting.  You may or may not have EF mount lenses (or L series within that) for your film bodies - but it sounds like you may get more 'mileage' from spending your money on suitable glass for the trip. 

There is nothing wrong with a 650D as a travel camera.  I'd rather have one of those and the 'right' lenses than a more expensive body and only one lens of the 'wrong' focal length or a cheap zoom because that's all I could afford.

You are probably aware that the 650D has a different FoV due to the crop sensor, which changes the 'apparent' focal length.

If you can afford the 5D and have the glass already, go for it.  When you sit down to post-process the images afterwards, you won't be sorry.  I just bought a 5d Mark III myself, with a small collection of L lenses which are *specifically* what I need for my subject matter (24-105, 70-300L, 100L).  They are a compromise, but cover my needs for much less than I would have paid (24-70 II, 70-200 II, 1.4x, 2.0x, 100L.)

For me, it was Hobson's Choice: I wanted a FF camera, didn't like the Nikons, and couldn't afford the 1DX by a long stretch.  As soon as the 6D turned out to have an AF system that is useless for my needs, I jumped on the first decent offer for a 5d Mark III, and I'm delighted with the results.

Both cameras will provide "OK" results from basic EF lenses, and better results from better EF lenses.   A dodgy lens will produce images that look blurry and smeared on both cameras when you zoom in to 1:1.  I can even see that on the 8.5MP 30d.   To really see the difference, try shooting in challenging light or with a really good quality lens.  At least you don't have to deal with EF-S lenses coming from film!  Your 70-200 f4 IS is a pretty good start.

Good luck and happy shooting.  I dare say the 6d with 24-105L was MADE for you.

[J.R.]

hello,

i am new to this forum and digital photography.
i was using a canon film camera since the 1980s, until now.
never cared much for digital.
for the few photos i took a year my film camera was good enough.

but im a pensioner now and will go on a 8 weeks trip to south africa this year.
so i decided to go digital. 

i bought a 5D Mark3 and a 650D at amazon.
now i have 24 days left to decide if i keep the 5D Mark3 or the 650D

what puzzles me is that the image quality is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same.
i bought a epson R3000 printer and when i print the files i can hardly see any difference.

i know why the 5D Mark3 is more expensive (better build, more functions, FF sensor etc.) but i thought there would be a visible difference in image quality?

sorry if this is a stupid question. as i wrote im totally new to digital cameras.

i just wonder that i get the same image quality in a 700 euro camera and in a 2800 euro camera.
i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera.

What was the size of the prints you made? If the prints were small (even 8x10) it is unlikely you will notice any substantial difference.

[Jens Lange]

yes i know that lenses are important, that has not changed.

the test photos i have taken are done under good light conditions.
well daylight so to speak.
and i was pretty conservative with the ISO and i did not go over ISO 800.

im not so much a image editing guy.
i know RAW is the way to go but i have so much new stuff to learn with digital, that i will start with JPG.

but you say im doing nothing wrong, when i see no image quality difference in prints?
i thought i may missed something or doing something wrong.

[Jens Lange]

What was the size of the prints you made? If the prints were small (even 8x10) it is unlikely you will notice any substantial difference.

A3+  with small passepartout borders.

[J.R.]

the test photos i have taken are done under good light conditions.
well daylight so to speak.
and i was pretty conservative with the ISO and i did not go over ISO 800.

Ah... I see your problem. The biggest reason you didn't see any difference in IQ was because your test was very limited and you are not a pixel peeper . ISO 800 is the point after which the 5D3 begins to tear apart the competition. I'd suggest you do another test, this time shooting beyond ISO 800 - bump up the ISO right upto 6400 and you'll clearly see the difference - you will also be wowed with what the 5D3 can do.

but you say im doing nothing wrong, when i see no image quality difference in prints?
i thought i may missed something or doing something wrong.

That's right! you are doing nothing wrong. When you shoot in good light, low ISO and don't pixel peep, you are unlikely to realize the difference in the images. The only thing you are doing wrong is not testing enough to see where the boundaries of the 650D are.

[WSMyles]

yes i know that lenses are important, that has not changed.

the test photos i have taken are done under good light conditions.  well daylight so to speak.
and i was pretty conservative with the ISO and i did not go over ISO 800.

Yeah - try at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 near sunset, with shade - when you're out and about touring, you don't get to pick what time of day you take a photo.  Look at the highlights and the shadows.

Try taking some shots inside the house without flash - you may not be allowed to use flash in some locations.  It's good to know in advance what you can expect from your camera.

im not so much a image editing guy.
i know RAW is the way to go but i have so much new stuff to learn with digital, that i will start with JPG.

Maybe not now, but you will be when you get back.  Even if it's just tweaking the exposure and cropping the image, you'll soon get the bug.  With my 30d images in LR4 there are rarely less than five substantial tweaks to get the image looking right - but with the 5d it's pretty 'right' out of the camera.  As soon as I zoom in to look at something in the background of an image from each camera, the difference is amazing.  On the 30d, a background object that takes 3% of the frame is a blur, pretty much all the time.  That same object with the 5d might or might not be - but it will be recognisable if it was in the focus plane

You shot film, so you should be comfortable using Av/Tv/M or at least P mode.  Set the camera to record Large/Fine + RAW.  Save both files for later.  If you do 'goof' the exposure, it's much easier to rescue a RAW image than a JPEG.   Also, some years from now there may be an amazing new noise filter you can apply to your RAW image, with all its 14 bits per colour -- instead of the 8 bits per colour in JPEG.

but you say im doing nothing wrong, when i see no image quality difference in prints?
i thought i may missed something or doing something wrong.

Not when using the 'sweet spot', no.  It's just a question of how big the sweet spot is

Edit: Since you seem to be interested in WA and UWA lenses, you might try some other tests with high spatial frequencies, emulating a panoramic view at 'infinity.'  In principle, you should get more from a FF than a crop.  The 24-70 f2.8L II is a very capable lens in this regard.  On a 650D, it would be more like a 38mm-110 and you'd need to consider the 10-22 (but will the distortion bother you?)

[sanj]

Sir if money is of concern, I really recommend you return both and get 6d.

[srh]

i know RAW is the way to go but i have so much new stuff to learn with digital, that i will start with JPG.

Not sure about the 650d but the 5D will let you shoot both RAW and JPG. That might come in handy later if you get into editing.

[smithy]

If you're happy with the 650D and you're happy with the lens solutions for crop bodies (EF-S, etc), then I'd say save your money and return the 5D3.  I own (and love) the 5D3, and was using it on the weekend alongside a family member's 650D and the truth is, in everyday shooting situations you can achieve pretty much the  same results from either camera.

It's when you find yourself in more extreme shooting situations that the difference becomes apparent.  Sports, low light, etc.  Also DOF is more dramatic on a full frame camera compared with crop.

Having said that, if you're planning on going on safari while in Africa, you might appreciate the extra 'reach' you gain from your 70-200mm lens when using it with a crop body like the 650D.  It effectively becomes a 320mm lens.

[J.R.]

But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.

The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.

i have the 70-200mm F4 IS.
that is the lens i made the testshots with.

i will buy 2 other lenses but of course that depends on what body i will keep.
one in the 24-70mm range and one around 14mm (EF 14mm f2.8 or the EF-S 10-22mm).

EFS lenses won't work on the 5D3