How much better is the 5d3 from the 5d2 in terms of IQ and iso from real owners?

[nikkito]

that's a pretty cool image

[dadgummit]

ISO 102,400
24mm
f/1.4
1/25

Processed in Adobe Lightroom. Any questions?

Shots like this are going to make people regret selling their canon gear to get a D800.  I believe we are only scratching the surface on the 5d3's potential.

[awinphoto]

I guess for me, I have and other also have said that we wanted a 5d2 in a 7d body... Never was "blown away" by the 5d2 or it's image, but it was clean, professional, and really had no issues that really plagued it after they dealt with the black dots... The DR from the D800 is a blessing and a curse... It's a lot like negative film, but if anyone remembers film prints, printing photos as is with enlarger, film and paper, your pictures really looked dull.  You had to use contrast filters, some up to 5 stops, to really get punch out of your photos the effective DR... Shot to hell.  Color negative film made photographers in a way lazier because they made up lack of contrast (you couldn't use contrast filters on color prints) with color shades and hues so you really had to boost contrast in your scene or you weren't going to get it in print.  Like V8's observations, i find the D800 to be too flat looking... Nikon users are going to have to either add contrast to the scene in post or in camera... and if they do it in post, i'm sure they'll quickly notice all that lovely noise creep into their images, even low iso.  While the IQ wasn't earth-shatteringly improved over the 5d2, I have noticed more leniency in low iso... you can raise or lower exposure in post and not get the noise that you would before.  For those who do a lot of photoshop work, that can be very key.   

[tron]

ISO 102,400
24mm
f/1.4
1/25

Processed in Adobe Lightroom. Any questions?

It's noisy   OK just kidding   Coming from a 5DmkII  I would be interested in seeing ISO 6400, 12800 and 25600 examples... (and if possible a subset of the photo enlarged 100%)

[bp]

ISO 102,400
24mm
f/1.4
1/25

Processed in Adobe Lightroom. Any questions?

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, nice pictures taken at ISO 102,400... mass hysteria!

Is it just me, or is the quality of the noise much better than previous models?  More like the film grain of an old shot from the 70's, less like the robotic noise of a computer?

[liubros]

iso12800 photos,

[V8Beast]

Like V8's observations, i find the D800 to be too flat looking... Nikon users are going to have to either add contrast to the scene in post or in camera... and if they do it in post, i'm sure they'll quickly notice all that lovely noise creep into their images, even low iso. 

I thought I was just crazy, but it seems that are at least two of us that share this sentiment Ultimately, the D800's flat looking images, and the need to bump up the contrast in post, would bug me a heck of a lot more than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DxOMark-reported DR. I find the tonality lacking as well. The 5DIII's files just remind me more of the "look" I'm accustomed to during the old days of shooting color slides. That might be a dumb reason to some considering the Nikon's advantages on paper, but for me how an image looks in print (and on screen) is all that matters.

That said, from a technical standpoint, I'm curious why this is the case with the D800's files. What difference in sensor or processing technology between the two accounts for what the two of us perceive as flat looking images out of the Nikon?

While the IQ wasn't earth-shatteringly improved over the 5d2, I have noticed more leniency in low iso... you can raise or lower exposure in post and not get the noise that you would before.  For those who do a lot of photoshop work, that can be very key.

Have you received you 5DIII yet? If you have, I wanted to ask if you've experience the soft images in DPP that others have noticed.

[wickidwombat]

5D mk3 IQ vs  5D mk2  IQ i'm going to say
15 to 20% worse, so far i'm really not happy with the images
maybe I got a bad unit but for a pro camera its pretty bad
I love the build, handling and features though

[DavidRiesenberg]

Is it just me, or is the quality of the noise much better than previous models?  More like the film grain of an old shot from the 70's, less like the robotic noise of a computer?

That's exactly what I'm observing. And it also appears that color noise is being cleared up easily and in a more graceful manner. Maybe that's just the new ACR but it certainly seemed to me that color noise is way less of an issue now.

edit: In general I'm very pleased. I'm coming from a 5DC and 7D that I own and having shot extensively with rented 5D2s and I must say it does have that special quality that I love so much in the 5DC but found lacking in the 5D2. I have a hard time pinpointing it, but something about the colors, exposure and grain characteristics is very pleasing to me.

[Daniel Flather]

Like you, I came from APS-C, a 50D.  The 5D3's iso obviously is leaps over my 50D.  I really like the thinner DoF I achieve with my fast primes.  I can't compare to the 5D2, never owing one.  The 5D3 vs. the 50D is a really welcomed step up.  The 5D3 images are smoother, sharper, and have a better over all colour and contrast.  The 50D was poor with the colour red; the 5d3 is better with reds.  The AF in the 5D3 is a vast improvement over the 50D's.   My keeper rate with the 50/1.2L is much improved on the 5D3.

It's hard to describe what I'm seeing in my images vs. the 50D, but to sum it up:  the 5D3 images look natural to the 50D's mechanical images.

[thepancakeman]

a pro camera its pretty bad
I love the build, handling and features though

Dang.  That's my opinion of the 7D.  I suppose just the ISO improvements in the 5D3 may make it a worthwhile upgrade for me, but it drives me nuts having a camera that I love everything EXCEPT the IQ.   

[awinphoto]

Like V8's observations, i find the D800 to be too flat looking... Nikon users are going to have to either add contrast to the scene in post or in camera... and if they do it in post, i'm sure they'll quickly notice all that lovely noise creep into their images, even low iso. 

I thought I was just crazy, but it seems that are at least two of us that share this sentiment Ultimately, the D800's flat looking images, and the need to bump up the contrast in post, would bug me a heck of a lot more than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DxOMark-reported DR. I find the tonality lacking as well. The 5DIII's files just remind me more of the "look" I'm accustomed to during the old days of shooting color slides. That might be a dumb reason to some considering the Nikon's advantages on paper, but for me how an image looks in print (and on screen) is all that matters.

That said, from a technical standpoint, I'm curious why this is the case with the D800's files. What difference in sensor or processing technology between the two accounts for what the two of us perceive as flat looking images out of the Nikon?

While the IQ wasn't earth-shatteringly improved over the 5d2, I have noticed more leniency in low iso... you can raise or lower exposure in post and not get the noise that you would before.  For those who do a lot of photoshop work, that can be very key.

Have you received you 5DIII yet? If you have, I wanted to ask if you've experience the soft images in DPP that others have noticed.

Mine is still on order... My 5d2 is sold and getting ready for the 5d3 when it decides to bless me with it's presence.  I think i've seen just enough samples and reviews to last me a lifetime and got a good grasp of what to expect and knowledge of what the camera is and what it isn't.  I was able to print a photo DPR posted (a jpeg) shot at iso 52000... photo was crisp, clean, noise was visible in a small sky area... this was printed at 8x10, but it opens a whole new realm of sales opportunities... I never have been a big low light/high ISO shooter, but holy cow, a print I did shot at 20,000 also from DPR, 8x10, almost no noise was visible and the photo looks great....  This just opens up so many opportunities when you need faster shutter speeds.... This coupled with the AF, this thing is going to be a beast.

Dang.  That's my opinion of the 7D.  I suppose just the ISO improvements in the 5D3 may make it a worthwhile upgrade for me, but it drives me nuts having a camera that I love everything EXCEPT the IQ.   

I wouldn't fret... One thing i've learned, you got to understand peoples expectations and impressions... You're coming from a 40D and 7D... from those to the 5d3, i'm sure you're going to be more than thrilled with the quality... Those coming from 1d camera or those who can nit pick 5d files may be less than trilled.  Also, from what I gathered from wickeds prior comments, DPP is producing less than acceptable raw files due to a bug and he doesn't like the jpeg files so he's in a pickle... DPP you can switch from High Quality to High Speed.  I've heard reports that produces very good results overall (compared to the bug with high quality), and when that bug gets fixed, you obviously will get even better stuff with DPP... and the ACR he's less than thrilled with the beta processing... It's understandable, but this tends to be typical with a new camera release since there is no beta DPP to test and pre-release raw files to play with... Perhaps your findings will be different from his. 

[wickidwombat]

yep, and there are a few people who seem over the moon about theirs so there must be bad ones and good ones but its all relative to what you are changing from. I would say without a shadow of a doubt the images from my aging 1Dmk3 are better than what is coming out of the 5Dmk3 so you can imagine how disappointed I am with the 5D2 vs 5D3 comparison.

This is in relation to low iso shooting

However that said high iso on the 5D3 seems to have taken a big step up, as others have said the quality of the noise seems much mcuh more pleasing to the eye, with a more 70's film look to it so much so that in certain shots I probably wouldnt even bother with noise reduction because the filmy grainout of camera adds more to the image. We have to bear in mind that high iso images are never "sharp anyway" so my issue is with the range where i want razor sharp images.

If I was on the fence about getting one now, my advice would be to wait or cancel the preorder and see how it shakes out for those of us on the bleeding edge. I am really hoping its all fixable in software and maybe some firmware updates.

[KKCFamilyman]

Thats all good but I would like more shots if anyone has any portrait shots at higher iso's to post that would be great.

[jimmyk]

i got my mark 5d iii from b&h  on thursday the march 22, i had a 5d ii for almost 3 years and just sold it last  month i took my kids to bayonne nj park where my son learned to ride his new bike while my daughter rode her razer i took about 300 shots i used 24-105l, 16-35 f2.8 ii and the 70-200 f2.8l ii. the focus system is worlds better than the mark ii every shot was in perfect focus with  all 3 lenses, i only shoot jpegs and thay are absolutly stunning, as much as i loved my 5d ii, i love my 5d iii even more and to me is worth the money, the
pics are razer sharp, i was using center area auto focus, i have shot about 500 pics in all lighting conditions and the camera is everything i was hoping for