5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III Comparison using same lens on a tripod

[Aglet]

Aglet that is news. If you left everyone would forget how bad Canon is at low ISO and what a problem we should have. A constant flow from you keeps everyone on edge.

gosh, I'd hate to foster complacency; tends to stifle innovation and reduce overall awareness. ;D

BTW - during my hardware renaissance I've discovered a few other differences in design philosophy between the major mfrs. Minor things but they can add up to daily annoyances. I'll save those for another time. (Cough! sensor-dust Cough! cough!)

 

[JR]

100 ISO on the 5d III looks a lot cleaner than the 5DII, thanks for the comparison. 8)

Remember this is only yusing jpeg. We have not seen this when using raw file...

 

[birdman]

Damn, don't you love all of the arguing? I called a reputable camera store and had a salesman tell how much better the 5d3 was regarding IQ versus my 5d2. His exact words: "The sensor is a completely new architecture and produces MUCH BETTER RESOLUTION and COLORS!!"

I find that extremely hard to believe. He did state that the ISO 12,800 shots were astonishing, which I have to generally agree with. They are nice, from what I've seen online. I will not upgrade to the 5d3 unless I "master" my mk2 and it cannot do something I need it to.

Regarding the D800, yes the DR looks unreal. That is Nikon's (or Sony's I should say) bread and butter. They thrive in that technical area. To me, I always thought Canons produced nicer colors. I did preorder a D800 and can't wait to do some landscapes. But if I was going for one system vs. the other, Canon has a much better selection of affordable glass. And their telephotos are much newer. Short primes, OTOH, are what Nikon has been devoting all R&D towards. Each has their strength. choose what you like and tread lightly on others.

 

[wickidwombat]

My RAWs clearly show the 5Dmk2 edges the mk3 out in sharpness at iso 100

i havent posted high ISO ones however from my observations the "quality" of the noise on the mk3 is significantly better than the mk2 allowing you to imporve it significantly using good NR software
for this reason 12800 is useable and even 25600 can be cleaned up sufficently in post to achieve decent results
or leave the more grain like noise in the image for that more vintage feel.

I have no doubt at high iso the 5Dmk3 is great

Again I have no interest in jpg files out of the camera as they give a false representation of the facts
RAW comparisons are the only true indication but until final raw processing software is available its too hard to make definative calls on which is better.

 

[fotoworx]

This is really a totally BS thread and a BS review.