5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality

[Otter]

I was wondering for those that actually own the 5d Mark II and III, is there a difference in image quality with RAW files around the lower ISO ranges (100-3200).  I have heard that they are the same quality?

[bdunbar79]

I was wondering for those that actually own the 5d Mark II and III, is there a difference in image quality with RAW files around the lower ISO ranges (100-3200).  I have heard that they are the same quality?

Pretty much the same quality.  However, color rendition and saturation seems to be slightly better in the RAW images I'm shooting with the 5D Mark III, but post-processing they are the same quality in my opinion.  5D Mark II is a great value camera.  I don't think the differences between the cameras is IQ.

[Physicx]

It is the least thing you would care about unless you blow your photos to A2 size.

If you shoot and print on normal size, I bet you wont tell much difference between a good compact and the 5DII. focus on your shooting. Less talking.

the 5DII is a good camera, you should only get the 5DIII if you need one. that is if you need large prints in low light. The 5DII is sufficient in low light. At 6400 ISO using a 50 1.4 your shutter speed in low light is around 1/30 to 1/50 even with +4/3EV as the meter will be confused by the bright lights. So it is shootable. If you find yourself shooting in lower light then you are really shooting things that even your own eyes can't realy see. You are not composing, but using your camera like a photon counting device...taking a picture in the dark of what's out there when you can't see yourself.

I find that my 5DII is just sufficient with the lens. During the day, you are better off getting a better lens. I can bet you that you dont need to spend an extra $3000 to improve your photos. It is the photographer. Moving from 5DII to 5DIII only make some of your pictures better resolution in low light. If a photo is a S___ photo, taking the same S___ composition with the 5DIII will turn that into the same S___ composition boring photo where you can pixel perv a bit more. Not very useful is it?

I'd love to get a 5DIII in the future. But for now, even I have more than enough funds, I won't want to buy anything. I don't need it. It is tempting to replace my 24-70 with the mkII as that is better money spent. But I really don't need that. Most of these improvements are there to make us feel inadequate, and marketing tries to get us consumers justify that we need more, when in fact if we take a closer look, we are most likely to be more sufficient than we thought we were.

[wickidwombat]

i did an extremely detailed iso 100 comparison of this using
16-35 f2.8L II
50 f1.4
24-105 f4L
70-200 f2.8L II
300 f4L
and sigma 85 f1.4

on both 5Dmk3 and 5Dmk2

i posted all the raws up here but the hosted raws have all been deleted now because it was a while ago
basically the IQ is a wash you can notice some slightly better sharpness in the mk2 at 300% and slightly better control of moire on the mk3

[iso79]

I was wondering for those that actually own the 5d Mark II and III, is there a difference in image quality with RAW files around the lower ISO ranges (100-3200).  I have heard that they are the same quality?

Pretty much the same quality.  However, color rendition and saturation seems to be slightly better in the RAW images I'm shooting with the 5D Mark III, but post-processing they are the same quality in my opinion.  5D Mark II is a great value camera.  I don't think the differences between the cameras is IQ.

Pretty much this. Also more keepers

[kevl]

Here's a real-world shot at ISO 6400 that I took tonight for a friend with my brand spanking new 5D3. Shot in RAW, no noise reduction added (camera set to Standard, but I don't think that affects RAW at all), 180mm, ISO 6400, 1/50th, and  f2.8.

Only edits are lens profile (70-200 2.8L), strong contrast curve and I enhanced her eyes in Lightroom 4.

I know this is higher ISO than you were talking about, but I think it may still be helpful.

Kev

[SambalOelek]

Here's a real-world shot at ISO 6400 that I took tonight for a friend with my brand spanking new 5D3. Shot in RAW, no noise reduction added (camera set to Standard, but I don't think that affects RAW at all), 180mm, ISO 6400, 1/50th, and  f2.8.

Only edits are lens profile (70-200 2.8L), strong contrast curve and I enhanced her eyes in Lightroom 4.

I know this is higher ISO than you were talking about, but I think it may still be helpful.

Kev

Looks like there is quite a lot of Chroma NR being applied to this picture. ISO 6400 with absolutely no NR looks very messy, but it does clean up quite nicely, like in this picture.

I have shot SxS comparisons between the Mk II and III at all ISOs. I'd say the difference from 50-800 is negligible. At higher ISOs, the amount of (unreduced) noise is actually quite similar, but the Mark III files look much better after NR. IMHO

Even at very low ISO's, if you push the exposure in post, you will see ugly blotches of color noise in the shadow areas in Mark II images. Mark III files have the same issue, but it's slightly less prominent.

[kevl]

Looks like there is quite a lot of Chroma NR being applied to this picture. ISO 6400 with absolutely no NR looks very messy, but it does clean up quite nicely, like in this picture.

Here is the shot as it was taken, no profile correction, no strong contrast curve, and no edit to her eyes. Just like the last time I posted it there is NO noise reduction at all. This was shot in RAW with the faithful picture style.

ISO 6400 only looks poor with the 5DIII if you are under exposing. In this case I slowed the shutter to 1/50th, and had the image properly exposed in camera at ISO 6400. Under exposing at any ISO and then using Lightroom to make up for it will make any file look like junk.

The worst of noise lives where images are improperly exposed. I've only shot with the Mark II momentarily so I can't speak to how it performs, but my T3i behaved just exactly the same. Of course it can't shoot at 6400 and get a usable file in any sort of light.... but I am able to make usable files at 3200 with it.

Kev

[edawg]

My biggest disappointment with the 5D III has been posterization even at low isos (100). It doesn't record low color/brightness gradients well; the shift from shadow to sky or water is harsh. Supposedly the 5d II is similar although I've never owned one. Glad I got the III because I intend to use the camera for 5-7yrs and my hit rate is pretty high with the nice AF. However the II seems just about as nice for the landscapes I currently shoot. Even in the cat picture example you can see what I'm talking about in the shift between dark shadow in the lower left to the relative highlight to the right. You wouldn't be able to push that area at all in post. Granted this is 6400 ISO but it's an issue even at lower isos.

Don't get me wrong, no regrets on the purchase at all and still very happy with the camera, it's just something to be aware of. No camera's gonna work miracles.

[Otter]

Thanks for the replies and info all.  My MKIII is in the mail and should be here @ weeks end.  For me the deciding factor between the MKII and III was ISO performance and auto-focus.  I don't upgrade my camera often, as it's a big step up from my current 20D, which is 7 or so years old.   Maybe some of the later firmware updates will clear up some of the issues mentioned above.  Regardless, it seems like a good amount of camera and based on what I've read and heard, for my needs, I don't mind paying a bit extra for the auto-focus and higher ISO.  It does bother me that the MKII is sharper @ lower ISO's, but coming from the 20D I am sure I will be pretty happy.

[Marsu42]

I was wondering for those that actually own the 5d Mark II and III, is there a difference in image quality with RAW files around the lower ISO ranges (100-3200).  I have heard that they are the same quality?

Pretty much the same quality.

Compare 5d2 vs 5d3 (vs d800) for yourself: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28

I even downloaded all raws, imported them into Lightroom and compared them - the result: I am unable to see a difference 5d2/5d3 up to and including iso1600, and it's not very noticeable at iso3200. You can see a difference at iso6400+ and the 5d3 has a "nicer" noise pattern, but then dynamic range starts getting. For my 2 cents both have basically the same sensor, and for me it hardly matters.

[canon816]

If you shoot and print on normal size, I bet you wont tell much difference between a good compact and the 5DII. focus on your shooting. Less talking.

Had to laugh at this one... Following up "less talking" with quite the rambling post...

5DII is a great camera.  It's IQ is outstanding.  Where it does lag is with AF and FPS.  Even with very fast glass it still doens't snap into focus on moving subjects.  Its really not that great for wildlife and sports, so depending on what you will be using your camera for this might make a big difference to you.  I love my 5DII, but if the subject is moving or if I need more frames per second on quick action then I always use my 1DIV.

I will agree with Physicx that the photographer makes great images... not the camera. Budget aside, The 5DIII is a lot more camera and well worth the extra $$$.

[jaduffy007]

I was wondering for those that actually own the 5d Mark II and III, is there a difference in image quality with RAW files around the lower ISO ranges (100-3200).  I have heard that they are the same quality?

I do not own a 5d3, but was involved in some intensive tests between the 5d2, 5d3 and D800.  (Wish we had the D800E too, but no).
No difference in IQ between the 5d2 and 3.  Canon has refurbished 5d2's for $1760.  That's a LOT of camera for $1760!
Well, until the Nikon D600 comes out   

[jaduffy007]

Thanks for the replies and info all.  My MKIII is in the mail and should be here @ weeks end.  For me the deciding factor between the MKII and III was ISO performance and auto-focus.  I don't upgrade my camera often, as it's a big step up from my current 20D, which is 7 or so years old.   Maybe some of the later firmware updates will clear up some of the issues mentioned above.  Regardless, it seems like a good amount of camera and based on what I've read and heard, for my needs, I don't mind paying a bit extra for the auto-focus and higher ISO.  It does bother me that the MKII is sharper @ lower ISO's, but coming from the 20D I am sure I will be pretty happy.

Congrats!  Enjoy the sweet camera.

[kevl]

Thanks for the replies and info all.  My MKIII is in the mail and should be here @ weeks end.  For me the deciding factor between the MKII and III was ISO performance and auto-focus.  I don't upgrade my camera often, as it's a big step up from my current 20D, which is 7 or so years old.   Maybe some of the later firmware updates will clear up some of the issues mentioned above.  Regardless, it seems like a good amount of camera and based on what I've read and heard, for my needs, I don't mind paying a bit extra for the auto-focus and higher ISO.  It does bother me that the MKII is sharper @ lower ISO's, but coming from the 20D I am sure I will be pretty happy.

Congrats!  Enjoy the sweet camera.

Yep for you the debate is over! You have an excellent camera on the way! Enjoy it! I'm loving mine. It was scary to spend that much on a camera, but it is truly excellent.

Congratulations on your purchase!
Kev