I would like to know if the 5d3 is worth it right now coming from aps-c or should I get the aging 5d2? I would like to know from real owners is it better and why?
How much better is the 5d3 from the 5d2 in terms of IQ and iso from real owners?
- Thread starter KKCFamilyman
- Start date
- Status
I am only a sample of one, but I have a mkII and had a mkIII for the week-end. I just returned it this morning as I thought I had a bad unit. 75% of my shots were soft and felt my 5DmkII was actually sharper. This is likely due to some software issue you can read in other threads as well...but while the mkIII has some improvements over the mkII, IQ wise not sure there is much difference.
Upvote
0
I
irena
Guest
I had the MKII and have had the MKIII over the weekend, shooting my son's birthday party indoors on a dreary cloudy day. I can't speak to softness (I shoot handheld natural light for events and on location portraits) but I stuck to IsO 2000 for nearly every shot and they look as good as anything in the 400-800 range on the MKII and as good as a base image at ISO100 on my old 30D. The light quality was incredible as I could get sharp, beautiful images that looked like they were shot on a bright sunny day with the level of ISO flexibility I had. I love it.
Upvote
0
The 5D mark III is a way better camera in so many areas. When it comes to IQ, you should see better performance being that it uses the new digic V processor but we have to wait for a good raw converter first. Now, real life raw files will probably only see a 1 stop difference in ISO performance, but everything should all around be better. On a separate note, it is a much beefier camera, faster frame rate, better autofocus, better metering, better grip, better controls, super silent shooting, longer batt life, 2nd card slot...tons of new improvements that just make this an overall better camera to use, even if IQ was the same...which it likely will not be.
Upvote
0
Man in terms of ISO/low light it's an insane improvement, I mean ISO 12800 looks totally reasonable IMO, even 25600 really. The thing can essentially see in the dark. The AF is amazing, I have missed only a handful of shots out of a couple thousand. But yes there is something about the colors that just look excellent, I think the resolution is great and I've been using the Mark II for almost 2 years now.
Upvote
0
Although not exactly the answer to your question, I think you should consider this.
I upgraded from 50D to 5DII.
I was struck by the much lower frame rate, and the less able focusing. This for me is a real disappointment. Images however are awesome. I like wildlife photography, and the camera is fine for slow or no-moving targets.
I will be getting a 5DIII shortly to fill the gap, and I will take the 5DII along as a backup camera, and to have a second lens mounted on it for in the field, as it is a great camera.
So those things you should consider, in the context of what you shoot. There is a cost differential, so decide what is important to you.
I upgraded from 50D to 5DII.
I was struck by the much lower frame rate, and the less able focusing. This for me is a real disappointment. Images however are awesome. I like wildlife photography, and the camera is fine for slow or no-moving targets.
I will be getting a 5DIII shortly to fill the gap, and I will take the 5DII along as a backup camera, and to have a second lens mounted on it for in the field, as it is a great camera.
So those things you should consider, in the context of what you shoot. There is a cost differential, so decide what is important to you.
Axilrod said:
Upvote
0
S
SomeGuyInNewJersey
Guest
shizam1 said:
Kind of an important area for a pro camera to be good in though I wonder if we will see any proper reviews until this issue with the RAW processing is sorted out. If I was putting my reputation on the line with a review of as awaited a new camera as this I'd want to make sure I knew the images were processed properly before I released my review.
Upvote
0
S
shizam1
Guest
SomeGuyInNewJersey said:shizam1 said:
I wonder if we will see any proper reviews until this issue with the RAW processing is sorted out. If I was putting my reputation on the line with a review of as awaited a new camera as this I'd want to make sure I knew the images were processed properly before I released my review.
I agree it's an important issue. I also believe, like you do, that the good reviewers are waiting for the RAW conversion to be fixed before posting their opinion.
I've got one coming this week, and I ordered it with the assumption that there's NO WAY that the sensor can be worse than the existing one, and there MIGHT actually be a noticeable higher ISO ( above 1600 ) image quality with it.
But I might get burned, we'll just have to see. I took a gamble, hopefully it pays off
[edit]
I just checked www.the-digital-picture.com and he clarifies that the 5DIII does produce nice sharp images, and it's the software messing up. So hopefully my gamble isn't too crazy!
[/edit]
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
Ordered a refurb 5DII last night to replace my APS-C camera via the canon store. Paid less than half the price of the 5DIII even after including taxes and shipping (1600 vs. 3500). I had been holding out until the 5DIII was fully reviewed before deciding between the 5DII and 5DIII, but the price on the 5DII was too good to pass up. The 5DIII will have an edge in AF and at higher ISOs, but that wasn't worth 1900 to me.
Upvote
0
I guess I did not expect better IQ, except at very high ISO, 3200 and up. However, I was hoping for better DR, but that is questionable.
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive, so I still do not have first hand info for my usage. There are only a couple of preliminary reports from reviewers I trust, and a lot from ones I do not know.
Its to be expected that some will have problems with the settings, and some will have issues with the camera being defective. I hope not too many run into a issue like that.
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive, so I still do not have first hand info for my usage. There are only a couple of preliminary reports from reviewers I trust, and a lot from ones I do not know.
Its to be expected that some will have problems with the settings, and some will have issues with the camera being defective. I hope not too many run into a issue like that.
Upvote
0
Stephen, cool shot in near darkness, did you manual focus it? I personally am impressed with the 5dm3's sharpness despite hi iso's in the testing i have done.Stephen Melvin said:ISO 102,400
24mm
f/1.4
1/25
Processed in Adobe Lightroom. Any questions?
Forget the tests, when you can get shots that create mystery and mood in images like this, who cares about DXO tests!?
Upvote
0
Bosman said:
Thanks. I used the AF light on my attached 580 EX II. Which reminds me of one major improvement they made in the Mk III:
Disabling and enabling no longer requires you to have a dedicated flash attached to the hot shoe and turned on. I got caught by that flaw with my Mk II. I often shoot with the flash disabled, so I can use the AF light without the flash going off. Problem is, it also disables your ability to use monolights, and if you don't have a dedicated flash unit, you can't enable it again.
And yes, I agree! I'm thrilled with the image quality I'm getting at high ISO's.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Stephen Melvin said: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%)
Upvote
0
Stephen Melvin said: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?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
