a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

[docsmith]

If I was going to africa for 8 weeks, a once in a lifetime trip for me, build quality would be a major consideration....depending on how I was traveling, I would be very tempted to have two camera bodies just in case one failed.  But this would have me leaning to a 7D at a minimum or keeping the 5DIII between the two options you give.

Regarding image quality under good lighting conditions, there is a very small difference, but it may not be discernable unless you are pixel peeping.  Even then, it is tough.  This is a comparison of both camera bodies with the same lens under the same conditions.  The differences are there, but I can understand why you don't see a difference when printing on your printer: 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=792&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=808&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Honestly, I was surprised by how comparable those two images were (BTW, if not familiar, you toggle back in forth between images by moving the cursor onto the image and off the image). 

I don't know where you are going on your trip, but I think you should consider that in making this selection for two reasons: light and weather sealing.  If you will always have good light, then there may not be much of an IQ difference.  However, in the rain forests of Costa Rica, I needed ISO 6400.  Amazingly little light makes it past canopies of rain forests/jungles.  You will want the 5DIII or 6D if you need to shoot at greater than ISO 1600, definitely ISO 6400.  If you will be in tough environmental situations, I can see wanting the weather sealing of a 7D or 5DIII.

So, build quality/ISO performance would be two critical factors to me in your decision making. The other would be reach.  The 650 being a cropped sensor (same with 7D) will have 1.6x more reach.  So, if you have a 200 mm lens, it will behave as a 320 mm lens would on the 5DIII.  Of course, on the wide end, you would need a 15 mm lens to give you the same field of view as a 24 mm lens would on the 5DIII.

Once in a lifetime trip to Africa, money a slight factor (no big white lenses), I am probably taking a 5dIII, 24-105 f/4, 7D, 100-400 L and something like a 50 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4 for low light options.  If I didn't already own the 100-400L, I would consider the 70-300L or maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 II with 1.4x and 2x extenders.  Carry those around in a good backpack or something like a Storm 2500 pelican case.  Also, I'd have a CPL, and some graduated ND filters.

[dtaylor]

The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs,

"Destroy" is an exaggeration, but it will certainly be better.

larger prints, and in sharpness from FF.

At low to mid ISO there won't be an observable difference, as our friend discovered.

In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.

Agreed.

I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.

Given his trip, the Rebel makes a fine backup body on a budget.

[mrzero]

I realize that we're getting pretty far off of the original question (relating to image quality), but I would suggest that you keep both cameras.  I took a two week trip to Africa and I was swapping my lenses out more often that I preferred.  If I could afford to, I'd keep both. 

On safari, put that 650D on your 70-200 (to take advantage of the crop factor) and your wildlife photos will have much better reach.  In daylight, unless you are trying to track a moving cheetah or something, I think that combo will do great.  Put the normal or wide angle lens on the 5DIII and get beautiful scenics, and you can swap the 5DIII onto the telephoto if the distance shortens, the light drops, or the action speeds up.  Everywhere else, and for sunrise/sunset/evenings, take the 5DIII.  You can hand off the 650D to your travelling companions (so you can be in some pictures) or just have it on hand as a spare.

You didn't really mention lenses or whether you bought these in kits, but you could also pick up a 650D body or a 600D body used or refurbished to do the same thing.  Don't sacrifice your whole kit just to have the 5DIII, but if you can have good lenses, a tripod, a flash, and two bodies, I would do it. 

Most important, for an 8 week trip, you will need storage space (memory cards, laptop, and/or external hard drive).  On my two week trip, I nearly filled all of my cards shooting JPG only.  If you shoot RAW or RAW+JPG, you will fill them up very fast.  Being gone that long, you will want to keep your files in at least two places.  You can do lots of cards backed up to your laptop and not erased, or a few cards backed up to your laptop and an external hard drive before erasing the cards, or, with the 5DIII having dual card slots, you could backup one card to the other and rotate out your backup cards to the bag where you keep your dirty underwear, and nobody will steal them.  Cards and hard drives are not too expensive any more, but I would rather haul a lot of SD and CF cards rather than a laptop, ipad, or hard drive.

Post more questions as you prepare.  Some of us on here are living vicariously through your travels!

[sdsr]

As others have said, you will notice differences as the light goes down and/or ISO goes up.  If you don't expect to shoot at ISOs higher than c. 800, you will see few differences (aside from the obvious ones of crop magnification and depth of focus) if you start out with the correct exposure.  If you need to tweak highlights or shadows, you can get more out of a RAW full-frame image. 

As for the superior features the 5DIII has compared to your 650D, how much do they matter to you?  They don't much to me, which I why I decided to supplement my 5DII with a 6D rather than a 5DIII; and the 6D is even (albeit only marginally) better than the 5DIII in low light.  Had you asked for such advice, if those features don't matter much to you either I would suggest returning the 5DIII in exchange for a 6D (I would probably want to keep the 650 D as a back-up for such an important trip; or, if this is affordable, a second FF camera such as a second-hand 5DII).

[tomscott]

I found where it counts the 18mp on my 7D (same sensor) at ISO100-400 was really quite noisy, because of its high pixel density. Push the images a bit and it looks a lot noisier, I just wasn't satisfied even in the prints it was blatant. The 5DMKIII is a lot cleaner but you expect that also much better higher up. In perfect light it was great but how often do you get perfect light? 10-20% of the time. Just wasn't good enough for my commercial use.

Depends what you want, money clearly isnt an issue, with being able to buy these exotic cameras and this trip, so why not have the best?

The 5DMKIII has a better burst rate too which is helpful, apart from the 1DX it is the best camera canon makes.

You also have to remember the 650D is a crop camera so with all the EF lenses you have to multiply the focal length by 1.6. So getting wide angle is difficult. 24-70 is more like 38.4mm not exactly wide. With crop you would have to buy a 15-85, 17-55 or 10-22mm to get that wide. Non of these lenses offer weather sealing but offer high end IQ. Having owned the 10-22 and still own the 17-55mm they are fantastic lenses.

But it works to your advantage with longer lenses, the 70-200mm you have is essentially 112-320mm. So you can get closer without spending a fortune on long glass.

Now I have a 5DMKIII would I go back to crop? No chance, there is something in the FF format that is more inherently film like, you also get thinner DOF like you would be used to with film. Especially that 18mp sensor, it was noisier than older canon cameras like the 40D where it counts, but obvs better higher up.

Depends what you want you could have gone between with the 7D, im not really sure why you bought the 650D and the 5DMKIII to compare, the 650D is really quite basic and the 5DMKIII much more complex.

The only reason I would keep the 650D is for weight saving, the 5D is a hefty camera in comparison. But its weather sealing is not advisable if you are in dusty situations. I took my 40D to north africa in 2006 and had it in a 4x4 and got it extremely dusty in the outback then it rained and it got wet before I had chance to clean the dust off and even with its weather sealing, dirt got into the shutter button and it stopped working. That was the end of it for that trip. Only way I got it working was when i got home was pouring alcohol down the battery compartment which was a last ditched attempt to fix it. Worked but taught me a lesson.

[Sony]

As same as you, I was with film photography for years. I started jumping into digital photography with 500D kit (EF-S 15-55mm + 55-250mm), then 50D with 24-70mm MKI + 70-200mm MKI later. Today Im with 5D MKIII + 24-70mm MKII + 70-200mm MKII.
IMO, if you start with 650D, your skill will stop there or you will have to buy 5D MKiii later when your skill improves; if you start with 5D MKiii, you wont have to buy new gears later. I learned that. Of course it depends on your pocket and how much the love with photography you have. Cheers.

[TrumpetPower!]

Jens,

If you're still hanging in there, the simple answer is that the 650D has excellent image quality and the 5DIII has superlative image quality. And, unless your printer is too big to fit on a desktop and takes ink by the gallon, you're not going to notice a difference in image quality between the two. In some circumstances you can get a slightly shallower depth of field from the 5DIII, but that's all you're likely to notice.

...in terms of image quality at the sizes you can print with a consumer printer.

Once your prints get into the 24" x 36" range and above, then, yes, the 5DIII produces visibly superior image quality -- but it's not like the 650D suddenly turns to S___. You can still make an excellent 24" x 36" print from a 650D; it's just that a similar print from a 5DIII will be not merely excellent but superlative.

Aside from image quality, the 5DIII is significantly superior in every way, particularly its autofocus performance. There's no competition there. But, if the 650D is good enough and you're happy with the prints you get from it, you've got nothing to gain from the 5DIII.

Cheers,

b&

[Jackson_Bill]

...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.

I did not see where you said what kind of photos you are planning to take. With the 70-200 and a wide lens, it sounds like more landscape and less hard-core wildlife. If you are thinking about wildlife, I think you'll need a bigger lens - perhaps a rental - especially if you go with the 5DMiii.
I agree with what another poster said - two bodies would be very advantageous for a number of reasons.
1. You might drop one (that's happened to me)
2. You can reduce the need for changing lenses, which in a dusty environment really drives me crazy
3. Able to go from long to wide in seconds

[Canon-F1]

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

i guess that is why he wrote it depends on the camera he keeps...   


as to the original question.

i think you should be happy with the 650D and it´s extra reach for a safari.
200mm is not very long. and in daylight, as you noticed, you will hardly see a difference.

thought if money does not matter buy a 5D MK3 and a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter.

or buy a 7D if the 650D feels a bit toyish.

[Jens Lange]

oh so many replys..   
i have to read them all but to the ones i have read:

my longest lens is the 70-200mm F4 IS and it is the only EF lens i own right now.
it was a present from my boss (my wife) on my last day at the job.
i knew i would definately want that lens. because it´s lightweight.
i also used to shoot a lot in that range with my trusted T90.
 
as much as i would love to have a 400mm lens with me, two things speak against it.
1) my wife. she said one camera and three lenses is the maximum.
2) has to do with 1. i don´t want to carry so much camera gear with me on the trip.
the EF 100-400mm would be a great choice maybe, but it´s to big and heavy.

i thought about the EF 24-105mm F4 IS (or EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS) and a ultra wideangle as second and third lens.
i also thought about buying a teleconverter.
is the canon 1.4x really worth twice as much as a kenko 1.4x teleconverter?

i do see where the 5D Mark 3 is better.
i guess the info about the AF system takes more pages then the whole manual of my T90.
the build and handling is fantastic, no question.

i just thought with all the stuff i read about FF vs. APS-C sensors that i would immediately see a difference in image quality.

keeping both cameras is not a bad idea.
i could give one to my wife. 
she bugs me with "hey look over there... hurry take a picture" anyway. 

thx for all your replys.
i hope you understand my english, im from germany, so please excuse that it is far from perfect.
 

 

[Jens Lange]

I did not see where you said what kind of photos you are planning to take.

the usual when someone is going on a safari.

wildlife and scenics both are equal important, i think.
it´s my first safari.   

[Jens Lange]

At high ISO Canon's FF sensors start to show their edge. If you're shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 and making larger prints, you will observe improved IQ with the FF sensor. At 6400 and above the difference will be large. That said, Canon's 18 MP crop sensor makes very good prints through ISO 3200 with a little NR.

coming from film i am maybe overly conservative.
but yes when these cameras offer much higher ISO i should try them. 

 

[Jens Lange]

To me another thing is important - larger and brighter viewfinder: this is a big plus to me! It´s easier to use and feels better after a long day of shooting.

oh yeah definitely!!

compared to my analog canon the 650D viewfinder is like a tunnel.
the 5D Mark3 viewfinder is much better.

my post was just about the image quality difference.. or no difference.

[c-law]

I have been to South Africa a couple of times before and will be there again in April.

I can tell you that a lot of Safari tours happen early in the morning to try and catch the animals and you will be glad of the better high ISOs from the 5DIII.

I found that while I was there I wanted to make the most of my days and was shooting early in the mornings through to late at night. The middle of the day usually didn't make much of a difference (unless I was shooting indoors in the villages - could get quite dark in there), but my 5DII made quite a difference for many of the shots I ended up loving from dawn or after twilight.

[RLPhoto]

The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs,

"Destroy" is an exaggeration, but it will certainly be better.

larger prints, and in sharpness from FF.

At low to mid ISO there won't be an observable difference, as our friend discovered.

In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.

Agreed.

I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.

Given his trip, the Rebel makes a fine backup body on a budget.

1. A stop better ISO performance is DESTROYED in my book. The 5D3 is atleast 2 stops better.

2. haha, Thats a joke right? @ 100 ISO my 7D is like Iso 400-800 on my 5D3.