5D Mark III is it better than the 5D Mark II

[Hector1970]

Hi All,
Since the 5D Mark III came out there seems to be alot of people on this forum disappointed about it. Some say that Canon didn't listen to the users. Others are saying the Nikon D800 beats it on all specs.
I like alot of people who come here probably have invested a fair deal in Canon compatible lens and so at least for the moment are fairly stuck with Canon. It would be a major chance to move to Nikon at this stage and a major sell off of existing gear. :-\
What I am wondering is are there people here with real world experience (as opposed to Spec knowledge) of the 5D Mark III and how does it compare to the 5D Mark II?
Is it a major improvement on the Mark II? ???
Kind Regards
Hector.

 

[Bosman]

I have the 5DM1 and it has the exact same focus system as the 5dm2. I cannot use the outer focus points at all, they might as well not be there but many photogs just center focus and recompose, thats a tough thing to do at shallow DOF. The 5DM3 has the top of the line 1d series focus system, that alone is worth the price increase. The high iso capabitlity is amazing at 12,800 iso. The colors that come out of the 5DM3 camera are so incredible i think my work in post will be almost eliminated at least for this camera. It truely blows my mind how stunning the captures are and re-invigorates my love for the 5d all over again. Before the 5DM3 when shooting weddings I used the 1dm3 as the main body since i always needed a focus system for most scenarios, the 5d as my second body. Now the 5dm3 will be my main go to and the 5dm1 my second. The 1dm3 will be used for reach with the 70-200. and when i want to make my 24 F1.4 closer to a 35mm aspect.

Real world the 5DM3 is Canon listening to shooters who use the 5D1 & 2.

Selling your gear will be the biggest mistake you make and an expensive one and for what, more mega pixels? Really? Both Nikon and Canon have outstanding cameras and neither should switch. Canon does have more lenses so for some that will be a reason. Canon also has the largest lens mount which is why they can make F1.2 lenses. Nikon will only achieve F1.4.

 

[Spooky]

Fully agree with you Bosman regarding the quality of picture v the resolution and the expense of moving. Stick with Canon!

I'm not so sure about the lens mount diameter restricting the lens f number though (up to a point), I think I can remember a Nikon f1.0 lens from a while back and I think they also do a f1.2 standard lens. The f number is purely a ratio of focal length divided by the aperture diaphragm, plus the mount diameter has to let pass the full image circle of a ff sensor.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hi All,
Since the 5D Mark III came out there seems to be alot of people on this forum disappointed about it. Some say that Canon didn't listen to the users. Others are saying the Nikon D800 beats it on all specs.
I like alot of people who come here probably have invested a fair deal in Canon compatible lens and so at least for the moment are fairly stuck with Canon. It would be a major chance to move to Nikon at this stage and a major sell off of existing gear. :-\
What I am wondering is are there people here with real world experience (as opposed to Spec knowledge) of the 5D Mark III and how does it compare to the 5D Mark II?
Is it a major improvement on the Mark II? ???
Kind Regards
Hector.

I haven't used a 5D3 yet but on paper the AF is way better than the 5D2.
The fps is much better as are the trigger response time and mirror blackout times.
The image review is better and other little UI things such as video/stills toggles and histogram outline, etc.
Video doesn't have aliasing and moire anymore and has at least 1.5 stops better SNR.
High ISO seems to be a little bit better, hard to say how much yet, high iso dr might be somewhat better maybe more improved than SNR, hard to say yet.

The downside is the MP count is basically the same and shockingly did nothing to improve low ISO dynamic range so it doesn't really take landscape-type stuff better than the 5D2. It's certainly not worse, but after so many years you'd think it would do at least one thing better for landscapes.

They also crippled AutoISO yet once again, although it is less crippled than on the 5D2 where it's a total disaster, so that is better than the 5D2 but still bungled all the same.

They left out video basics like zebra stripes (which 5D2 can actually get with hacked firmware), focus peaking and a truly sharp 1.6x 2x2 c300-like sampled video mode (so still no crop video and still no super-crisp video). Not that the 5D2 had that but the 5D3 sure as heck should have.

If you don't care about body speed and AF or video then the 5D3 doens't offer much over the 5D2 though,if you do then it should be quite a bit better.

As for the D800:

The D800 probably has better metering, it has built-in flash and intervalometer, working autoISO, interchangeable focusing screens, it has a lot more MP for more detail and more reach, it has MUCH better low ISO dynamic range and similar high ISO performance until you start getting really high where it's high ISO shadows appear to become worse, especially ISO6400+. It has a little bit sharper video but it suffers from moire and aliasing and has maybe almost 2 stops worse SNR for video (granted most video is shot under better lighting where that doesn't matter as much, but when you do see that bear in the evening or shot some natural lit scene in dark lighting, etc. the 5D3 video would look a lot cleaner). It has only 4fps in FF mode, but it does have 5fps 25MP 1.2x crop mode and 1.5x crop 16MP mode (the latter with grip only though). As for AF, it is hard to say, some say it is better, some say it is worse, some say it is slower in poor lighting (although in super poor it does have an IR beam and can focus to some degree where 5D3 alone can't at all), who knows.

 

[te4o]

Hector,
The 5D3 is so good that I started BUYING Canon AF lenses again ! I test-shot my own at the shop with various AFs and at home had actuallyto look at the EXIF to see the ISO... I happened to be using 1600 like 200 on RAW. 6400 does not need NR! The 70-200 Mk II locks focus before I blink even against fastrunningcars!
The body feels snappy - all controls just fall into a snap when youmovethem. Adjustments are so customisable - people here complaining haven't read the manual to the end... One must be a real nerd to want more functionality.
Sharpness is like the 5-2. In other words- sharp enough.
The only thing I don't like at the moment is the lack of user interchangeable focusing screens. Is it true that D800 has them? Both the 5-3 and the D800 can have a brightscreen at present. I am considering this for my CZ 35/1.4 ZE where using AF confirmation doesn't work well.
Light leak... Skip this thought.
Price? Well, think of using this one for five+ years, myself: until it breaks if it breaks but they all break don't they, right after the warranty expires... Then I'll buy THE SAME AGAIN. Hope it will be cheaper

 

[psolberg]

there are plenty of D800 comparison threads on still image quality so I'm not going to comment on that. But I don't think the 5DmkIII is worth the upgrade at all except if you really needed the speed and better AF. If you were a studio/landscape photographer, you better hope for something else down the road. If the camera had come at 2500 - 3000 dollar range it would be a no brainer. But as it stands it doesn't really do anything your 5DII can't that much better to justify the price.

VIDEO:
Moire is almost gone and you can record at high ISOs without much noise. but in return, the 5DIII video's resolution is very poor (EOSHD estimates it far less than true 1080 and more like 720p upscaled). It's video looks waxy and smudged. People are even removing the OLP to try and aid this problem and overshapening in post. But in the end, the D800 easily outclasses by quite a bit (with a 1200p internal readout before sampling down to 1080) it on top of letting you record true 4:2:2 color with an HDMI recorder. The All-I codec in the 5DmkIII suffers from a very noisy implementation at all ISO levels and macro-blocking is an issue. The B frame recorder is better but it is 28mbps yet it looks worse than the Nikon B frame codec. If you NEED to shoot brick patterns in the dark, the 5DIII will do well, but compared to the 5DII specially if you know how to shoot around moire, the upgrade isn't really significant.

if you want to see just how poor resolution-wise the 5DIII video is look no further than this
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii
yup. canon should be embarrassed to even call this camera a FULL HD camera. it ain't.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

there are plenty of D800 comparison threads on still image quality so I'm not going to comment on that. But I don't think the 5DmkIII is worth the upgrade at all except if you really needed the speed and better AF. If you were a studio/landscape photographer, you better hope for something else down the road. If the camera had come at 2500 - 3000 dollar range it would be a no brainer. But as it stands it doesn't really do anything your 5DII can't that much better to justify the price.

VIDEO:
Moire is almost gone and you can record at high ISOs without much noise. but in return, the 5DIII video's resolution is very poor (EOSHD estimates it far less than true 1080 and more like 720p upscaled). It's video looks waxy and smudged. People are even removing the OLP to try and aid this problem and overshapening in post. But in the end, the D800 easily outclasses by quite a bit (with a 1200p internal readout before sampling down to 1080) it on top of letting you record true 4:2:2 color with an HDMI recorder. The All-I codec in the 5DmkIII suffers from a very noisy implementation at all ISO levels and macro-blocking is an issue. The B frame recorder is better but it is 28mbps yet it looks worse than the Nikon B frame codec. If you NEED to shoot brick patterns in the dark, the 5DIII will do well, but compared to the 5DII specially if you know how to shoot around moire, the upgrade isn't really significant.

if you want to see just how poor resolution-wise the 5DIII video is look no further than this
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii
yup. canon should be embarrassed to even call this camera a FULL HD camera. it ain't.

Yeah he makes some good points about the video, but I still way disagree with him on the D800 video being better. Did you see the Gizmodo test where it turns a night-time scene into a Christmas tree of colored lights due to color moire problems? Sure it is a bit crisper but if it is aliased and moired and still, itself, not exactly a really crisp FullHD anyway then so what? I just don't buy that the D800 video is better from anything I've seen.

 

[fotoworx]

I've never had the slightest problem with the AF of the 5D2.

 

[birdman]

I've never had the slightest problem with the AF of the 5D2.

Amen, brother. I am in the same boat. The 5d3 would be faster, especially in f/4.0 zooms. For the 35L, it focuses lightning quick anyway. Beautiful combo with the 5d2. The only things on the 5d3 I yearn for are: 1) auto CA correction, 2) faster FPS in the rare event I need it, and 3) better HIGH ISO (especially 6400)

With proper lighting, the 5d2 and 5d3 are not too far apart up to about ISO 3200. I can see a huge improvement with the mk 3 above 6400 though. The price tag hurts my feelings, really. I can't justify dumping my 5d2 and paying over $1,500 premium. Thats just me though

 

[7enderbender]

Hi All,
Since the 5D Mark III came out there seems to be alot of people on this forum disappointed about it. Some say that Canon didn't listen to the users. Others are saying the Nikon D800 beats it on all specs.
I like alot of people who come here probably have invested a fair deal in Canon compatible lens and so at least for the moment are fairly stuck with Canon. It would be a major chance to move to Nikon at this stage and a major sell off of existing gear. :-\
What I am wondering is are there people here with real world experience (as opposed to Spec knowledge) of the 5D Mark III and how does it compare to the 5D Mark II?
Is it a major improvement on the Mark II? ???
Kind Regards
Hector.

I think this all depends. I haven't used the 5DIII yet. Looks like a good camera to me. I personally see no reason to sell my 5DII and spend significantly more on the Mark III. The only benefit to me would be the better AF system and even that is not a top priority to me. The better AF comes at the price of non-interchangeable focus screens and for people like me who ultimately prefer manual focus that could be a bit of an issue. Everything else is not of much interest like the higher ISO or any video capabilities. I don't care for either.
The new flash system seems quite nice so that might be a plus but again not enough to upgrade on body + several speedlites + controller unit at this point.

It comes down to what your needs and expectations are and if you are invested in something already. And let's be clear: all systems have some issues and nothing is perfect. Digital SLRs have come a long way and are now more than acceptable and quite useful. And that's about it. I personally chose Canon based on my prior experience with film gear and because I think that for the money they have the best lenses (build quality in general is nothing to call home about but then Nikon isn't any better only you pay more for the equivalent lenses).

Bodies are the disposable part in this day and age, unfortunately. So pick that based on your current needs and which of the quirks you're more willing to put up with. If money were no objective I'd have a look at what Leica has to offer...and if time and space was unlimited I'd still shoot film. In real life and with finite budgets and time my 5DII does a great job. I'm sure the 5DIII or whatever is out by then will as well.

My 2c

 

[acoll123]

For me, the 5DIII is a legitimate 2nd body for sports - first body is 1DIV. 5DII just wasn't because of focus and FPS.

Also, shot a landscape today with some horses in the foreground. Had absolute confidence in the off-center focus points - would have focused with the center point and re-composed with my 5DII. Shot with 85L and yes I did run 3 frames through photomatix in Aperture for HDR.

 

[Gatorsv80]

I made a switch from a Nikon D300 to a 5D back in 2009. At the time I had the 70-200mm 2.8 VR and several other Nikon lenses. The switch was painless and didn't cost much because most of the gear I had was purchased used, and for the most part, I sold everything at basically the same price except for the body. Making a switch is not as hard as everyone makes it out to be.

That said, I would not make the switch back, not because I'd lose money, but because canon bodies and lenses feel better and the L lenses definitely perform better. Bodies can come and go.

I also believe the 5d3 will ultimately produce what I see as better image quality, and from what I've seen so far, it has less noise at high ISO. It most definitely improves in the AF department.

I currently own a 7d and 5d3.

 

[jmp2000]

I have the 5DM1 and it has the exact same focus system as the 5dm2. I cannot use the outer focus points at all, they might as well not be there but many photogs just center focus and recompose, thats a tough thing to do at shallow DOF. The 5DM3 has the top of the line 1d series focus system, that alone is worth the price increase. The high iso capabitlity is amazing at 12,800 iso. The colors that come out of the 5DM3 camera are so incredible i think my work in post will be almost eliminated at least for this camera. It truely blows my mind how stunning the captures are and re-invigorates my love for the 5d all over again. Before the 5DM3 when shooting weddings I used the 1dm3 as the main body since i always needed a focus system for most scenarios, the 5d as my second body. Now the 5dm3 will be my main go to and the 5dm1 my second. The 1dm3 will be used for reach with the 70-200. and when i want to make my 24 F1.4 closer to a 35mm aspect.

Real world the 5DM3 is Canon listening to shooters who use the 5D1 & 2.

Selling your gear will be the biggest mistake you make and an expensive one and for what, more mega pixels? Really? Both Nikon and Canon have outstanding cameras and neither should switch. Canon does have more lenses so for some that will be a reason. Canon also has the largest lens mount which is why they can make F1.2 lenses. Nikon will only achieve F1.4.

I totally agree. I stepped up from a 5D1 to the 5D3 and I'm totally amazed with how good it is. Between the focus system and the ISO I'm sold.

The thing I don't understand is why does everyone needs to upgrade every product cycle. I'd rather just skip a cycle and save some cash. Lets face it when was the last time anyone printed over 12x18? That's as big as I need to shoot and I print a large number of images every month.

As far as the price thing goes, I was happy to spend the $3,500 because if I was a Nikon guy and spent $3,000 for a 40mp, then I would have to upgrade my computer just to handle the files. So what is that $3,000 really $5,000?

Honestly if Canon did do a 40mp 5D3, I would have been the guy buying the 5D2.

 

[takoman46]

Hi All,
Since the 5D Mark III came out there seems to be alot of people on this forum disappointed about it. Some say that Canon didn't listen to the users. Others are saying the Nikon D800 beats it on all specs.
I like alot of people who come here probably have invested a fair deal in Canon compatible lens and so at least for the moment are fairly stuck with Canon. It would be a major chance to move to Nikon at this stage and a major sell off of existing gear. :-\
What I am wondering is are there people here with real world experience (as opposed to Spec knowledge) of the 5D Mark III and how does it compare to the 5D Mark II?
Is it a major improvement on the Mark II? ???
Kind Regards
Hector.

Hector,

There are a lot of people complaining about the 5D Mark III, but have all of these complainers used a 5D Mark III? I think most have not. Out of all the photographers I know that are using the 5D Mark III (including myself), not one of them said it wasn't worth it. It is a great camera in comparison to the 5D Mark II (which I still use a backup or second body). That is... until I order another Mark III. Actually, I'm waiting on the 1Dx to be released before I make a decision on ordering another Mark III. I'm gonna rent a 1Dx and see if it fits my needs. I shoot weddings a lot so I'm curious as to how much better the 1Dx high ISO performance is over the Mark III.

Anyway, getting back to the Mark III; the AF system is spectacular and focuses fast and in low light; the ISO performance is also a major plus, the color reproduction is even better than the Mark II; ergonomics is a bonus; even the metering system is improved for high contrast situations (you will likely encounter high contrast when forced to shoot with available light); faster continuous shooting speed is also icing on the cake. I almost makes me look down upon my Mark II (which has served me very well and am sad to demote it to a backup body).

So my final verdict is it IS a major improvement over the Mark II.

 

[birdman]

Damn, you people have me really wanting to fork out $1,500 more to upgrade my 5d2 with less than 8,000 clicks. Maybe common sense will prevail and force me to keep it and truly come close to pushing it to the limits. I doubt it though.

JMP2000, if you're listening the reason some of us (I may only be speaking for myself) feel the need to upgrade every product cycle is that my current 5d2 will only continually depreciate in value. In all honesty, if I knew that I could keep it another 1-2 years and could still sell it for around $1,700 then I would have no qualms about keeping it. Plus, you have better upgrades and tweaks with new tech in general. For instance, my 40d (from 2007) and my current SLR, the 5d2 are so very similar in every way. Menus, options, AF, metering. Basically I have a 40d body with a 1d mk 3 21.1 MP sensor. The 5d2 is well known to be a pieced together 5d classic.

I love it, and it produces awesome pictures. Knowing the 5d3 is slightly better in low ISO (my primary shooting) there are some things I still want. I wouldnt mind a little faster FPS, as my 40d did 6 FPS. I wouldn't mind a better built body, as my 5d2 feels like the bottom will eventually break off when I shoot for an extended amount of time. I wouldnt mind 2 memory card slots. And so on and so forth. To each his own.

 

[bycostello]

"5D Mark III is it better than the 5D Mark II" well derrrr......

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Hi All,
Since the 5D Mark III came out there seems to be alot of people on this forum disappointed about it. Some say that Canon didn't listen to the users. Others are saying the Nikon D800 beats it on all specs.
I like alot of people who come here probably have invested a fair deal in Canon compatible lens and so at least for the moment are fairly stuck with Canon. It would be a major chance to move to Nikon at this stage and a major sell off of existing gear. :-\
What I am wondering is are there people here with real world experience (as opposed to Spec knowledge) of the 5D Mark III and how does it compare to the 5D Mark II?
Is it a major improvement on the Mark II? ???
Kind Regards
Hector.

People say all sort of things. Doesn't make them right.

One of the best lessons when you're looking at forums on the internet is to learn to differentiate between the junk and the truth.

Another one is that you need a *camera system* to suit your needs. Write down your needs and work out whether a particular body will satisfy your needs. Stop looking at stuff that doesn't make any difference to you.

Alternatively, waste your money by selling and moving over to a system where you (probably) wouldn't notice the difference

 

[Bosman]

Damn, you people have me really wanting to fork out $1,500 more to upgrade my 5d2 with less than 8,000 clicks. Maybe common sense will prevail and force me to keep it and truly come close to pushing it to the limits. I doubt it though.

JMP2000, if you're listening the reason some of us (I may only be speaking for myself) feel the need to upgrade every product cycle is that my current 5d2 will only continually depreciate in value. In all honesty, if I knew that I could keep it another 1-2 years and could still sell it for around $1,700 then I would have no qualms about keeping it. Plus, you have better upgrades and tweaks with new tech in general. For instance, my 40d (from 2007) and my current SLR, the 5d2 are so very similar in every way. Menus, options, AF, metering. Basically I have a 40d body with a 1d mk 3 21.1 MP sensor. The 5d2 is well known to be a pieced together 5d classic.

I love it, and it produces awesome pictures. Knowing the 5d3 is slightly better in low ISO (my primary shooting) there are some things I still want. I wouldnt mind a little faster FPS, as my 40d did 6 FPS. I wouldn't mind a better built body, as my 5d2 feels like the bottom will eventually break off when I shoot for an extended amount of time. I wouldnt mind 2 memory card slots. And so on and so forth. To each his own.

Should i assume you are photographing birds which is why you want more FPS? I actually permanently set my camera to silent shooting, it is amazingly quiet and less distracting. I Give up fps for that one.