a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

[zim]

Hi Jens,

You do realise that there is a price to be paid for all this advice, when you get back you’ll have to show us all some photos! 

As for your original IQ test I think you just took two cars put them both into first gear and drove them both down a straight road. Ok maybe not the best analogy I’ll probably get burned for that 

I don’t have either of these camera’s but I do know which one I’d rather have on a trip like that, 5D3 hands down
1. Weather sealing
2. High iso performance for real fast shutter speeds (doesn’t sound like you’ll be taking a tri-pod) mono-pod?
3. AF for animal action
4. FPS as above

When you are using the above that’s when the 5D3’s IQ shows

You might also want to have a quick read of this
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/

PS Shoot RAW

Happy hunting 

[smithy]

Hi Jens,

You do realise that there is a price to be paid for all this advice, when you get back you’ll have to show us all some photos! 

Hahah when I was growing up, we all used to groan when someone would get out a slide projector and have us sit through all of their travel photos.  Now, thanks to the Internet, we can't seem to get enough of other people's travel photos.

[Quasimodo]

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me.  We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

+ 100

[wickidwombat]

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.

Hi, I have been to africa many times so have some experience here

1) 200mm will not be long enough (hell 400mm wont be long enough)! so get the 100-400 over the 70-200 trust me on this the 5Dmk3 can push its iso up to easily accomodate the extra stop loss of light you will thank me endlessly when you are looking at more great pictures because you can get the reach. (dont worry about the weight of the 100-400) you could consider the 70-300 as a bit of a midway compromise that is lighter and smaller too but in the game parks you will want that reach and range of zoom so if the 100-400 is really too heavy then seriously have a good long look at the 70-300 i think for your uses it will be the better choice

2) the 5Dmk3 will significantly out perform the 650D in every aspect, weather sealing is important, africa is a very dusty place especially in the game parks

3) you will realise the 4 stops better iso perfomance of the 5Dmk3 over the 650D is well worth it as soon as the light is not the best

4) the other 2 lenses i would take are the 16-35 f2.8L II and a canon 50mm f1.4
this gives you your 3 lenses and essentially coverage for everything

[señor Steve]

This thread seems surreal.  Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?  Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference.  I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back.  I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel.  You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools.  As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images.  Best of luck on your trip!

[Northstar]

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... You say you'll be shooting "wildlife and scenics"....I don't think that 200mm is long enough for wildlife.  Get the 1.4 from Canon.   If you see something really awesome/interesting in the bush that is more than 70-80 meters away...you'll be kicking yourself for not having more reach.   Someone else suggested the 100-400mm...I agree, but I also understand the "wife/boss" dynamic involved if you went on the safari and didn't use the lens she just bought you.   

Also...get a good photo editing/management tool like Lightroom or Aperture.  The difference these programs can make in overall IQ is huge, and almost a necessity in today's world of digital photography.

[unfocused]

Wickedwombat,

I'm glad someone else is focusing on the lenses. I would argue that may be more important than the body choice (but I won't because I don't want to start a whole new stream of flamers). I haven't been fortunate or financially able to go to Africa (yet!), but everything I've read has said to take at least a 400mm lens.

I understand that the OP has a real dilemma here. His wife bought him a 70-200 and he doesn't want to appear to be an ungrateful lout by leaving it at home, but I would strongly suggest he try to finesse that one. (This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once. )

I know I am repeating myself, but since it hasn't gotten much discussion I can only urge the OP, once again, to be sure and shoot RAW. Even if you aren't comfortable processing RAW today, you will eventually want to learn how to handle RAW files and you will always be able to go back and improve your original shots even 10 years from now if you've got them in RAW. If they are jpg, you will have limited yourself . Shots that you dismiss as mediocre, you may find with some RAW processing can be the best stuff you've done.

[Northstar]

I understand that the OP has a real dilemma here. His wife bought him a 70-200 and he doesn't want to appear to be an ungrateful lout by leaving it at home, but I would strongly suggest he try to finesse that one. (This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once. )

unfocused....i acutally did LOL when I read this part...so funny.

by the way...I agree with ALL of your advice.

[Canon-F1]

This thread seems surreal.  Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?  Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference.  I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back.  I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel.  You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools.  As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images.  Best of luck on your trip!

and i bet you can´t say what is shoot with what camera when i show you prints.

a nice read for you:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

[thepancakeman]

This thread seems surreal.  Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?  Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference.  I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back.  I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel.  You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools.  As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images.  Best of luck on your trip!

and i bet you can´t say what is shoot with what camera when i show you prints.

a nice read for you:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Maybe.  But take the two cameras, no tripod, shoot 500 photos throughout a day with varied lighting and subjects, and I'll guarantee you most of the folks here can tell you which is which. 

As others have said, with good conditions, an iPhone can take pretty decent photos.  So if you always have "good conditions" then use whatever the heck you like.  If you face uncertainty and want a higher number of keepers, then it make s a huge difference.

[señor Steve]

This thread seems surreal.  Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?  Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference.  I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back.  I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel.  You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools.  As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images.  Best of luck on your trip!

and i bet you can´t say what is shoot with what camera when i show you prints.

a nice read for you:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

I saw that a while back.  I am trying to reconcile that clearly well done example with my own experience.  I suppose i so frequently shoot in marginal lower light situations with moving subjects that equipment has actually improved my results.  I want my photos to be good because of me, but have to admit some of it is the camera in my case.

[dtaylor]

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

Most people would not agree with your definition of "destroyed." But exaggerate away if you must.

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

Which is why OP found such a huge difference in his tests at low ISO.

Oh wait...he found none 

[distant.star]

(This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once. )

I tried that when I was married -- turned into a nightmare. I ended up having white lenses hidden all over the house. Half the time I went looking for a lens all I could find were whiskey bottles. It got very confusing. The day I found one of my lenses with a lens cap missing, I knew the jig was up. Fortunately, in the divorce settlement, she had no interest in white lenses. (She did get to keep the good whiskey though!)

[Northstar]

(This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once. )

I tried that when I was married -- turned into a nightmare. I ended up having white lenses hidden all over the house. Half the time I went looking for a lens all I could find were whiskey bottles. It got very confusing. The day I found one of my lenses with a lens cap missing, I knew the jig was up. Fortunately, in the divorce settlement, she had no interest in white lenses. (She did get to keep the good whiskey though!)

LOL again...you guys crack me up!!

[dtaylor]

This thread seems surreal.  Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?

Because we've taken a wide range of shots under a wide range of lighting conditions, and printed them to large sizes. And at ISO 100-800 the differences just aren't there.

Above 800? Absolutely. Though I would say the 18 MP sensor is good through 3200, the FF sensor shows a greater and greater advantage with each stop past 800. I consider the 5D3 probably the best low light DSLR made. (Haven't tried a 6D.) But if you're not shooting at those ISOs, it just doesn't show an IQ advantage over the many other sensors out there. (Canon's 18 MP APS-C; 5D2 sensor; several Nikon / Sony sensors).

I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel.

He just told you he observed the opposite. Should he believe you, or his lying eyes?

Again I'll say that, given the trip, he should keep the 5D3 unless he is short a critical lens and trading the 5D3 for a 7D gets him the lens. It sounds like that's probably not the case, though his kit is weak on the telephoto end. At the bare minimum he's going to need a 1.4x for the 70-200. And I lean towards the comment that even that won't be enough, and a 100-400 will be the bare minimum for wildlife in this scenario.