Does the 5D3 have a better IQ than 5D2 at ISO 100 ???

[te4o]

This decides whether I'll buy the Mk2 or Mk3.
I am not interested in AF, 25K ISO and 3.2" LCD. Any low ISO IQ improvement spotted?

[wickidwombat]

pretty hard to tell with current samples really, perhaps the reduction in apparent pattern noise from pushed shadows will translate into a better real life dynamic range that can be extracted from raws. Once they are in the wild i am sure there will be plenty of landscape side by side comparisons with raws

[te4o]

OK, WW, I'll be waiting for your opinion: we seem to live under the same skies , so we need similar gear...
I'll post this question a month later again. Agreed, now it is too early to say for sure.

[wickidwombat]

well hopefully i'l have my mark 3 on the 22nd march so i will be testing it side by side with my mark 2

[K-amps]

I want a wicked banding test too please! 

[skitron]

well hopefully i'l have my mark 3 on the 22nd march so i will be testing it side by side with my mark 2

Any chance you could do a head to head RAW comparison of high ISO shot in marginal light?

Most of the ISO comparisons are shot in good light and to me they don't represent what to expect in truly low light shooting conditions.

[wockawocka]

It'll be very difficult to tell ISO100 samples apart.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Download one of the samples and play with it in photoshop.  I downloaded one of the jpeg samples, and the blacks are pure and do not band, even if I pull them up as far as lightroom will go.

I haven't downloaded the photoshop beta to try the raws, that may be a whole different story.

[Caps18]

It'll be very difficult to tell ISO100 samples apart.

That is what I would think. 

Now, if there was a higher resolution (MF) type sensor...

[grahamsz]

It'll be very difficult to tell ISO100 samples apart.

There are some samples of the same scene here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Certainly i'm trying to justify my spending, but I think the mk3 image is quite a bit better, even at 100

[wickidwombat]

well hopefully i'l have my mark 3 on the 22nd march so i will be testing it side by side with my mark 2

Any chance you could do a head to head RAW comparison of high ISO shot in marginal light?

Most of the ISO comparisons are shot in good light and to me they don't represent what to expect in truly low light shooting conditions.

I was planning on doing some twighlight city landscape shots side by side off tripods ISO 100 using cable release and 16-35f2.8L II should be reasonably marginal light with stretched dynamic range and represent the sort of scene that I find banding can really stand out if you push the shadows too hard

[Michael7]

No, it doesn't. Here are RAW conversions of the 5D II and 5D III:

http://www.nicknphoto.com/galleries/upload/2012/03/08/pwg_high/20120308174149-c350eadb.jpg

http://www.nicknphoto.com/galleries/upload/2012/03/08/pwg_high/20120308174145-867d8afd.jpg

http://www.nicknphoto.com/galleries/upload/2012/03/08/pwg_high/20120308174142-c1eb0331.jpg

[kwwalla]

All things being equal I would say "no". At ISO 100, an image taken in good light should be close to the same. There is one gray area that has yet to be confirmed for the 5DIII and that is Dynamic Range. This is an important feature even at ISO 100 and the 5DII has issues with banding while trying to bring the exposure up in the darkest areas of the image. If you don't post-process RAW's or don't plan to, then dynamic range isn't a real concern. The bottom line is the 5DII has enjoyed enormous success and will continue to do so for many years. I'm certain that you will be extremely happy with either one. Best of luck.

[K-amps]

No, it doesn't. Here are RAW conversions of the 5D II and 5D III:

http://www.nicknphoto.com/galleries/upload/2012/03/08/pwg_high/20120308174149-c350eadb.jpg

http://www.nicknphoto.com/galleries/upload/2012/03/08/pwg_high/20120308174145-867d8afd.jpg

http://www.nicknphoto.com/galleries/upload/2012/03/08/pwg_high/20120308174142-c1eb0331.jpg

Thanks!

Contrast more dialed up on the 5D2 and red maybe tad better, but greens much truer on the 5D3. Overall 5D3 more natural but tad washed out... what do you guys think? Can u tell them apart?

[aprotosimaki]

They seem very similar to me. I do note that the foreground seems a little sharper on the 5d3. For example the 'taps' on the candy jar seem more defined to me and the colors jump out a little better. But I am also color blind and myopic!

I too am interested in the banding issue since I also own a 5d2 and have experienced it when processing RAWs.