a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

[robbymack]

200 even with a 1.4 will be woefully short on ff. on crop it is still short but getting closer. I have never shot in Africa but I do shoot at our local wildlife preserves and after the first visit with 200 max I knew I was severely outgunned. There is a reason wildlife pros use the big white primes. The wife bought you the 70-200 you're stuck taking it even if you don't use it. So rent a 100-400 and see what else you can sneak into the bag.  Ideally you'd rent a 600ii but that  probably won't fly with her (happy wife, happy life). I'd still lean toward the crop sensor for even more reach but at least with 400 on ff you will be able to pull out some decent shots and the 5diii files can take a pretty decent crop.

[dbm]

My two cents: I recently used a trip to South Africa as an excuse to upgrade my rebel body to a 5diii (6d wasn't out yet so I didn't have to make that decision) and I got much better images than I had ever obtained previously
Improvement was more in the depth of field and color rendition than the resolution per se.  For me enjoying the challenge of all the possibilities of the camera added a lot to my enjoyment and I have no regrets even though the camera is admittedly much better than I will ever be.  If it animals you will be shooting keep in mind something that I had not considered, which is that they tend to hide in shadows and that you might be shooting a lot at dawn and dusk, so lighting conditions might not be as great as one might think, at least that was my experience. 
My suggestion for safari shooting might be to rent as long a lens as you are willing to carry, as even with a 70 - 200 with an extender I found myself cropping a lot (another advantage of the 5d)
Enjoy the trip

[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?

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.

A couple of days shooting who knows what (the house cat and such) does not constitute the real world to which I was referring.  Especially not something as challenging and exciting as his upcoming trip.  I agree on all other points, especially lenses.

[jp121]

The main reason I got the 5D3 was that my once in a lifetime trip to Cuba was ruined when my Rebel (550D) died. It couldn't handle the weather conditions.

FYI: It was raining. The Rebel was in an optech plastic rain coat, under my rain coat and an umbrella. AND it still died!

So weather sealing is very very important and a back-up camera. I had to make do with my G12 on manual.

IQ wasn't part of the criteria for selecting a new camera. My presumption was that all new DSLRs would be an upgrade regarding IQ. A big successful business, such as Canon, would only release a DSLR with decent or better IQ with each new product.

My main criteria was weather sealing and robustness. So the choice came down to old 7D or new 5D3. New 5D3 won outright.

Some posters have suggested an extender to work with your 70-200 f/4. I seem to have read somewhere where that the 5D3 doesn't AF @ f/8. This supposed to change with an update coming out this year.

[jp121]

OP said

"i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera."

In this statement, it seems that you are comparing film types. Ie different ISOs, film styles and processing quality. And in your original post, you are now comparing cameras. If you use the same film type in 2 different Canon cameras would you see much of a difference.

Please remember that with digital, both ISO & film style (jpg) are now adjustable in camera. Digital now gives you the choice to process your images to the nth degree before converting them to physical photographs.

[Old Shooter]

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.

Your path sounds like mine - a long-time film shooter who moved to digital... My first body was a 450D and then I moved to a 5DIII... First let me tell you, right off the bat, that 8 weeks in Africa sounds amazing!

I think the reason you are seeing very little difference is the test conditions - good lighting conditions with ISO at or below 800 - levels the playing field. Also, you are evaluating JPG's side-by-side - and with good light and reasonable ISO they look pretty darn good...

I would keep the 5DIII... You are going on an incredible trip - the additional card slot is worth the peace of mind! Silent shooting, great AF, 6 FPS (3 in silent), 3200-6400 useable ISO, that 22MP FF sensor, AFMA, etc... If you pick up a 2X TC to get some extra reach on that 70-200 - you will have an f/8 lens - and the higher ISO's will become very valuable...

I find the 5DIII battery life rather short - I would order an extra for the trip and have two at 100% every morning... Good quality CF and SD cards... I get better results when I double the shutter speed over the old 1/x rule...

I was leery of RAW at first - shot just JPG's - now I wish I had all those files in RAW to go back and rework... Me, personally, I would shoot everything in RAW+JPG - you can enjoy the JPG's right away and save the RAW files for potential PP later... Processing RAW files makes me feel like I am back in the darkroom again...

[K3nt]

To everyone: AWESOME THREAD and POSTS!  Best, ever.

To the original poster: RSA for 8 weeks! I wish I was going with you. As for your camera woes, do what you feel comfortable with. If the 5D3 feels overkill, it might just be. Someone else suggested the 7D as an alternative, I can definitely recommend that. The 7D with nice glass is an awesome device.
The 650D however, a good camera, but the sealing is not quite on par with the 7D or the 5D3, and where you're going I would say that should be part of your decision.
Also, another hint, whichever camera you do eventually stick with, get rid of the 'steal me!' Canon neck-strap. Plus the comfort factor using a Black Rapid RS-7 or Sunsniper shoulder strap cannot be underestimated when walking around with the camera for long periods of time.
Good luck with your trip and please, post some pics for us when you get back.

[Canon-F1]

If you use the same film type in 2 different Canon cameras would you see much of a difference.

problem with your analogy is, the 5D MK3 and 650D don´t have the same sensor.

OP said

"i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera."

In this statement, it seems that you are comparing film types. Ie different ISOs, film styles and processing quality. And in your original post, you are now comparing cameras

it makes absolute sense to me what the OP says.

film in analog cameras = sensor in digital cameras.

if you buy a cheap film, the quality of the images will be worse then with expensive film.
the grain is bad, colors are worse, resolution is worse.

with all the talk about how great FF is, you could expect a big difference in image
quality when going from APS-C to a FF sensor.
but that´s not the case. all you get is better quality when using high ISO.

and even this difference is only visible to pixelpeeper.
the normal customer, who prints 13x18cm, will not notice it.

Some posters have suggested an extender to work with your 70-200 f/4. I seem to have read somewhere where that the 5D3 doesn't AF @ f/8. This supposed to change with an update coming out this year.

a 1.4x teleconverter will work fine (f4 + 1.4 extender = f5.6).

but yes for f8 you need the coming firmware upgrade expected for april.

[Hillsilly]

Hi Jens, I think everything has been covered, but just wanted to weigh in with my 2c.  First up, as a predominantly film shooter myself, I just wanted to say you're making the right decision to go digital for the trip.  The freedom to take as many photos as you want without worrying about processing costs, xray machines, availability of film, ease of sharing photos etc can't be underestimated.  Plus, you'll probably be surprised how good digital is compared with film these days.  Its no longer a competition.  However, as mentioned above, there are new challenges, including batteries, backup storage, security, should you take a laptop with you, raw vs jpeg...I'm sure you'll have fun figuring out your own solution. 

On to serious matters.  You've inadvertantly stumbled onto the deep, dark secret of the camera industry.  In well lit conditions, a camera phone can take a photo that is as captivating as a full frame camera.  Canon and Nikon jointly fund a PR company to deal with problem people like yourself.  I'd be expecting a knock on the door any moment from someone offering hush money....  So why go full frame with the 5Diii?  Marginally more background blur.  Better image quality at high ISO's (and if you look really closely, better at low ISO's too).  A little bit less "noise" in dark parts of your photo. Comparing your two cameras, the 5D will have better autofocusing and subject tracking abilities (not that the 650D is "bad') and will be less likely to break if you get some rain on it (although, I'd be very surprised if the 650D couldn't withstand a few drops).  The 5Diii is a better camera and at the extremes, you will be able to take photos with it that the 650D will struggle with.  Do these differences matter to you and are they worth the price increase?  Some people say yes.  Many say no.

One of the earlier posters raised a very good point.  If keeping the 5Diii impacts on your ability to fund lenses (or have an enjoyable trip), I know which way I'd lean.  Also, I get the impression that you're a little older than the average Canon Rumors poster.  If that's the case, I'd be really wary about weighing yourself down with a lot of camera gear unless that's the driving focus of the trip.  Anyway, have fun!

[ewg963]

To everyone: AWESOME THREAD and POSTS!  Best, ever.

To the original poster: RSA for 8 weeks! I wish I was going with you. As for your camera woes, do what you feel comfortable with. If the 5D3 feels overkill, it might just be. Someone else suggested the 7D as an alternative, I can definitely recommend that. The 7D with nice glass is an awesome device.
The 650D however, a good camera, but the sealing is not quite on par with the 7D or the 5D3, and where you're going I would say that should be part of your decision.
Also, another hint, whichever camera you do eventually stick with, get rid of the 'steal me!' Canon neck-strap. Plus the comfort factor using a Black Rapid RS-7 or Sunsniper shoulder strap cannot be underestimated when walking around with the camera for long periods of time.
Good luck with your trip and please, post some pics for us when you get back.

+1 Thank you for recommending the Black Rapid RS-7 strap. I learn something new here all the time. I currently have the Crumpler The Industry Disgrace on my 5D Mark II (I had to get rid of that dreaded Canon one) but will have the Black Rapid on my future 1 DX.

[bycostello]

it isn't just IQ, construction, burst rates, iso performance etc etc....  but at the end of the day a camera is a camera, not a whole lot of difference....

[Canon-F1]

some people here should read the original posters message carefully.

his question was about IMAGE QUALITY not which camera he should keep.

i don´t think he needs help to see the differences in both cameras.
he already wrote the 5D MK3 handling and build is "fantastic" and he also noticed that the 5D MK3 offers more options.

so most of you guys bring owls to athen.... as they say.


i know this will sound arkward for some here....
but not all people like to carry a 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 around all day when they go on vacation.

some are more interested in enjoying the trip while they are there, then making photos (that is something most japanese tourist do not understand  ).
 
but i 100% understand why he wants to travel as light as possible.

[Canon-F1]

  Also, I get the impression that you're a little older than the average Canon Rumors poster.  If that's the case, I'd be really wary about weighing yourself down with a lot of camera gear unless that's the driving focus of the trip.  Anyway, have fun!

+1

he is doing a trip with his wife.
he already wrote that he thought about the EF 100-400mm but thinks it´s too heavy.
yet some suggest to rent a even bigger and heavier lens. 
 
so i guess the photography part is .. well part of the trip but not the single purpose.

i would buy a 2x teleconverter if he goes on the vacation after april 2013.
canon will have released the firmware update for the 5D MK3 that allows focusing at f8.

or as he wrote he could give the 650D to his wife.
put the 1.4x teleconverter and the 70-200mm on it and it should be decent for wildlife.

the 5D MK3 could be used with the wideangle lens and a 24-70mm or 24-105mm.
less lenses switching is always good. 


by  the way:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8065882473/gearing-up-for-an-african-safari

[Sith Zombie]

Awwwwww now i'm confused?!?
I'v heard in other posts and throughout the web that FF images have a 'magical' quality about them, now I hear you can't distinguish them from a rebel?! I was thinking of going FF for low iso studio and landscape stuff. Don't think I'll bother now.
For the OP, I second a 7D. better af and build than the rebel, similar iq to 5dmkiii [apparently] at lower iso's, extra reach on lenses, less cost than 5dmkii.

[smithy]

some people here should read the original posters message carefully.

his question was about IMAGE QUALITY not which camera he should keep.

i don´t think he needs help to see the differences in both cameras.

Frankly I just think it's nice that the community here cares enough about the OP's situation to provide 5 pages of advice for him.  Even if not everyone quite grasps the original query.  That's something to think about.