a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

[Txema]

Shoot Raw + Large fine jpeg. You'l have the jpeg files and raw to cover from exposure errors. Basic raw developing is really easy.
You'll see more the difference between the two cameras when developing raw.

Have a good one.

 

[Meh]

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

Oh bollocks. Nobody is assuming anything rather expressing why he may not have seen much difference in image quality in his test shots and the comments are bang on. The OP said he's a pensioner but didn't get caught up in cost and, afterall, he is in a position to order two new bodies to try out and says he will buy more lenses. It seems perhaps that image quality is his primary concern rather than cost and in that context he should keep the 5D3 or as another comment suggested, return both and get a 6D.

There are many aspects to image quality and most are not about pixel peeping or editing. Noise is a biggie and in the well-lit daytime conditions that the OP did the test shots there will be very little noise in any image even from an iPhone. Images at dusk, dawn, night, or indoors will be a different story. Or images with deep shadow regions.

 

[K-amps]

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

+1

If he cannot see the difference then let him be... He is getting good pics with the 650, great. Let him spend the extra cash on some nice lens if he wants to.

 

[The Bad Duck]

This is one of the best questions asked in a long time. I come from film myself and started out with a 30D (140 000 exposures taken), 70-200 /4 L IS and 17-40 /4 L.

Now I have a 5D mkII and I am very happy with that camera.
As you have noticed, at low ISOs cameras these days all look great. As has been said, IQ differences comes into play in more extreme situations. But there are other things that matters to your final image and that is how lenses behave on each camera.

On a full frame camera the lenses behave as they used to do on film. That is, f/4 gives a rather short DoF (yes I know, focal length, subject/background distance). I think of it as f/4 on FF is approximately f/2.8 on crop. That means you get less DoF at the same apeture and framing. That also means that for portraits the FF has an advantage for bluring backgrounds, but APS-C has the upper hand on sharp landscape shots with everything in focus. You would think that you can stop the lenses down even on FF to get a large DoF and while you can do that, diffraction will set in earlier compared to APS-C (I think). You also get the greater compression of for instance the 85mm lens on FF compared to a 50mm lens on APS-C, giving more flattering portraits.

Also, the 650D has no AFMA so there is a chance of having to send camera and lenses to Canon to get them all adjusted for maximum sharpness. Sometimes that is important - the need for 100% focus is much greater whit the high resolutions we have today. It is much harder to get a 100% sharp photo with the 5D mkII compared to the 30D I think.

There are great wide angle lenses for both formats, but to get greater reatch the tele lenses get more expensive if you are unwilling to crop in post.

The autofocus of the 5D is more capable than the 650D making it more suitable for action.

To me another thing is important - larger and brighter viewfinder: this is a big plus to me! It´s easier to use and feels better after a long day of shooting. Also I like that I can use my 5D mkII with my mittens since I live in Sweden and I don´t stop photographing in the winter. I don´t want a smaller camera body.


So what do you need?
If you want to do portraits, extreme low light, more action, shallow DoF, adjust focus on your lenses? Keep the 5D.
If you want to do landscapes? Keep the 650D.
But yes, both cameras are capable and they both are great imagecreating mashines. The difference is in the format and how that affect the image, not really the image quality itself.

I hope this helps you.
And don´t forget how to use your tripod!

 

[unfocused]

You pose a great question OP. The fact is, its pretty easy to get caught up in this latest tech game ... and honestly, there is a bit of 'all the cool kids have ____ so therefore I need to get a ____ to be cool' in photography...

Excellent point.

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

Another excellent post.

Now my two cents worth. The gulf between film and digital is immense. Even the most inexpensive digital cameras will give far greater image quality than what most of us long time film shooters ever saw with film. The differences between the two larger digital formats (APS-C and "full frame") is much smaller and really only apparent at the margins (shooting high ISO or extremely large prints, for example)

If you shoot at ISO 400 or below, you can easily print as large as A1 with no discernible loss of image quality using an APS-C camera.

I am going to suggest a third option for you: Consider the 7D, if you like the handling of the 5DIII but are satisfied with the APS-C image quality. Both use the same sensor, but the differences are in the build quality, handling, autofocus and frame rates. The 7D is relatively inexpensive right now, in anticipation that a replacement model will be announced in the coming year. But, it remains, in my opinion, the best crop-frame camera available.

Why the 7D? Because I assume that a trip to South Africa will involve some wildlife shooting and under those conditions the autofocus and higher frame rate will help you get shots that you might not otherwise get.

In addition, I would suggest that if you return the 5DIII you look seriously at a longer telephoto lens. Again, assuming you are planning to shoot some wildlife, I think you will find the 70-200 zoom a little too short even on an APS-C body. The obvious options are the 70-300 "L" and the 100-400 "L" zooms.

The 70-300 "L" is newer, a little lighter, maybe a tiny bit sharper, easier to carry in a camera bag and the autofocus is a bit more responsive. The 100-400 "L" gets you an extra 100 mm, which is no small consideration in shooting wildlife and remains a great lens at a reasonable price.

Finally, I'd suggest you take a little time to learn RAW processing. I see no reason to shoot RAW + jpg, unless you need to immediately upload or print your images from the field. Even if you shoot in RAW and do nothing more than open the files and save it in Photoshop as a jpg, you will still have the RAW files later to work with.

Going from a film camera to a digital camera is amazing, but be prepared for something even amazing-er when going from processing and printing film-based images to processing and printing digital images using RAW. It simply offers options that could never be achieved with film – adjusting the color temperature of the image, tweaking the exposure over an almost infinite number of gradations, adjusting whites, shadows, blacks, contrast, highlights, etc. all independently. Creating smart objects that allow you to tweak one part of the image in one way, another part in a completely different way and a third, fourth, fifth, sixth part if you choose and then merge the various pieces in Photoshop. All with the ability to return to your original exposure at any time if the need arises.

 

[J.R.]

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

Oh bollocks. Nobody is assuming anything rather expressing why he may not have seen much difference in image quality in his test shots and the comments are bang on. The OP said he's a pensioner but didn't get caught up in cost and, afterall, he is in a position to order two new bodies to try out and says he will buy more lenses. It seems perhaps that image quality is his primary concern rather than cost and in that context he should keep the 5D3 or as another comment suggested, return both and get a 6D.

There are many aspects to image quality and most are not about pixel peeping or editing. Noise is a biggie and in the well-lit daytime conditions that the OP did the test shots there will be very little noise in any image even from an iPhone. Images at dusk, dawn, night, or indoors will be a different story. Or images with deep shadow regions.

+1

The OP's question was only regarding the IQ and why he could not see a visible difference between the two cameras. . The majority of responses are addressed towards that. He has tested the cameras only upto ISO 800 so I guess he has not put the 5d3 through its paces.

To my understanding he never asked which camera he should keep.

And everyone suggesting he keep the 650D, have you considered that he may find the high ISO performance of the 5d3 useful or do you think he will always shoot in good lighting at ISOs below 800

 

[RLPhoto]

The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs, larger prints, and in sharpness from FF. In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.

I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.

 

[applecider]

Maybe for a further test try setting both on auto iso and try to get some late day or lower light shots. I assume you will do some wildlife shooting, so maybe head down to your local pond around sunset and try to get some twitty bird photos. This could test situations in which you will need a high shutter speed and still be shooting at higher iso. Let us now what you finally decide.

 

[dtaylor]

i bought a 5D Mark3 and a 650D at amazon.
now i have 24 days left to decide if i keep the 5D Mark3 or the 650D

what puzzles me is that the image quality is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same.
i bought a epson R3000 printer and when i print the files i can hardly see any difference.

It's hard to express the joy I get out of a post like this ;D

The reason you can hardly see a difference is because contrary to the exaggerated claims of some FF fans, there is hardly a difference at low to mid ISO. Properly processed and printed, a shot from Canon's 18 MP crop sensor in that ISO range will be indistinguishable from a shot from any of Canon's FF sensors. This is true at 13x19, 16x24, 20x30...any size actually.

At high ISO Canon's FF sensors start to show their edge. If you're shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 and making larger prints, you will observe improved IQ with the FF sensor. At 6400 and above the difference will be large. That said, Canon's 18 MP crop sensor makes very good prints through ISO 3200 with a little NR.

As to what you should do: I'm leaning towards the recommendation that you keep the 5D3 because of your trip. That's a once in a lifetime experience and the 5D3's AF, high ISO, and weather sealing will not let you down. I would maybe suggest returning it for a 7D if you need additional lenses for that trip and if you can use the money saved for that purpose. I don't know your budget so I can't make that call.

You mention wanting to buy a 24-70 zoom and a wider prime. What is your longest lens? If you are going to do any wildlife shooting on that trip, I would suggest budgeting for an additional telephoto. Canon's 300 f/4L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter (which could also be used with your 70-200), or a 100-400L.

If you can get the lenses you need and keep the 5D3, I would go that route. If you are going to be without a critical lens for the trip, consider the 7D plus the lens you need. Either way, try to keep the 650D for a backup. If you can't, take something as a backup, a P&S super zoom maybe. Again, it's a once in a lifetime event so make sure you're prepared.

 

[docsmith]

If I was going to africa for 8 weeks, a once in a lifetime trip for me, build quality would be a major consideration....depending on how I was traveling, I would be very tempted to have two camera bodies just in case one failed. But this would have me leaning to a 7D at a minimum or keeping the 5DIII between the two options you give.

Regarding image quality under good lighting conditions, there is a very small difference, but it may not be discernable unless you are pixel peeping. Even then, it is tough. This is a comparison of both camera bodies with the same lens under the same conditions. The differences are there, but I can understand why you don't see a difference when printing on your printer:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=792&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=808&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Honestly, I was surprised by how comparable those two images were (BTW, if not familiar, you toggle back in forth between images by moving the cursor onto the image and off the image).

I don't know where you are going on your trip, but I think you should consider that in making this selection for two reasons: light and weather sealing. If you will always have good light, then there may not be much of an IQ difference. However, in the rain forests of Costa Rica, I needed ISO 6400. Amazingly little light makes it past canopies of rain forests/jungles. You will want the 5DIII or 6D if you need to shoot at greater than ISO 1600, definitely ISO 6400. If you will be in tough environmental situations, I can see wanting the weather sealing of a 7D or 5DIII.

So, build quality/ISO performance would be two critical factors to me in your decision making. The other would be reach. The 650 being a cropped sensor (same with 7D) will have 1.6x more reach. So, if you have a 200 mm lens, it will behave as a 320 mm lens would on the 5DIII. Of course, on the wide end, you would need a 15 mm lens to give you the same field of view as a 24 mm lens would on the 5DIII.

Once in a lifetime trip to Africa, money a slight factor (no big white lenses), I am probably taking a 5dIII, 24-105 f/4, 7D, 100-400 L and something like a 50 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4 for low light options. If I didn't already own the 100-400L, I would consider the 70-300L or maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 II with 1.4x and 2x extenders. Carry those around in a good backpack or something like a Storm 2500 pelican case. Also, I'd have a CPL, and some graduated ND filters.

 

[dtaylor]

The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs,

"Destroy" is an exaggeration, but it will certainly be better.

larger prints, and in sharpness from FF.

At low to mid ISO there won't be an observable difference, as our friend discovered.

In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.

Agreed.

I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.

Given his trip, the Rebel makes a fine backup body on a budget.

 

[mrzero]

I realize that we're getting pretty far off of the original question (relating to image quality), but I would suggest that you keep both cameras. I took a two week trip to Africa and I was swapping my lenses out more often that I preferred. If I could afford to, I'd keep both.

On safari, put that 650D on your 70-200 (to take advantage of the crop factor) and your wildlife photos will have much better reach. In daylight, unless you are trying to track a moving cheetah or something, I think that combo will do great. Put the normal or wide angle lens on the 5DIII and get beautiful scenics, and you can swap the 5DIII onto the telephoto if the distance shortens, the light drops, or the action speeds up. Everywhere else, and for sunrise/sunset/evenings, take the 5DIII. You can hand off the 650D to your travelling companions (so you can be in some pictures) or just have it on hand as a spare.

You didn't really mention lenses or whether you bought these in kits, but you could also pick up a 650D body or a 600D body used or refurbished to do the same thing. Don't sacrifice your whole kit just to have the 5DIII, but if you can have good lenses, a tripod, a flash, and two bodies, I would do it.

Most important, for an 8 week trip, you will need storage space (memory cards, laptop, and/or external hard drive). On my two week trip, I nearly filled all of my cards shooting JPG only. If you shoot RAW or RAW+JPG, you will fill them up very fast. Being gone that long, you will want to keep your files in at least two places. You can do lots of cards backed up to your laptop and not erased, or a few cards backed up to your laptop and an external hard drive before erasing the cards, or, with the 5DIII having dual card slots, you could backup one card to the other and rotate out your backup cards to the bag where you keep your dirty underwear, and nobody will steal them. Cards and hard drives are not too expensive any more, but I would rather haul a lot of SD and CF cards rather than a laptop, ipad, or hard drive.

Post more questions as you prepare. Some of us on here are living vicariously through your travels!

 

[sdsr]

As others have said, you will notice differences as the light goes down and/or ISO goes up. If you don't expect to shoot at ISOs higher than c. 800, you will see few differences (aside from the obvious ones of crop magnification and depth of focus) if you start out with the correct exposure. If you need to tweak highlights or shadows, you can get more out of a RAW full-frame image.

As for the superior features the 5DIII has compared to your 650D, how much do they matter to you? They don't much to me, which I why I decided to supplement my 5DII with a 6D rather than a 5DIII; and the 6D is even (albeit only marginally) better than the 5DIII in low light. Had you asked for such advice, if those features don't matter much to you either I would suggest returning the 5DIII in exchange for a 6D (I would probably want to keep the 650 D as a back-up for such an important trip; or, if this is affordable, a second FF camera such as a second-hand 5DII).

 

[tomscott]

I found where it counts the 18mp on my 7D (same sensor) at ISO100-400 was really quite noisy, because of its high pixel density. Push the images a bit and it looks a lot noisier, I just wasn't satisfied even in the prints it was blatant. The 5DMKIII is a lot cleaner but you expect that also much better higher up. In perfect light it was great but how often do you get perfect light? 10-20% of the time. Just wasn't good enough for my commercial use.

Depends what you want, money clearly isnt an issue, with being able to buy these exotic cameras and this trip, so why not have the best?

The 5DMKIII has a better burst rate too which is helpful, apart from the 1DX it is the best camera canon makes.

You also have to remember the 650D is a crop camera so with all the EF lenses you have to multiply the focal length by 1.6. So getting wide angle is difficult. 24-70 is more like 38.4mm not exactly wide. With crop you would have to buy a 15-85, 17-55 or 10-22mm to get that wide. Non of these lenses offer weather sealing but offer high end IQ. Having owned the 10-22 and still own the 17-55mm they are fantastic lenses.

But it works to your advantage with longer lenses, the 70-200mm you have is essentially 112-320mm. So you can get closer without spending a fortune on long glass.

Now I have a 5DMKIII would I go back to crop? No chance, there is something in the FF format that is more inherently film like, you also get thinner DOF like you would be used to with film. Especially that 18mp sensor, it was noisier than older canon cameras like the 40D where it counts, but obvs better higher up.

Depends what you want you could have gone between with the 7D, im not really sure why you bought the 650D and the 5DMKIII to compare, the 650D is really quite basic and the 5DMKIII much more complex.

The only reason I would keep the 650D is for weight saving, the 5D is a hefty camera in comparison. But its weather sealing is not advisable if you are in dusty situations. I took my 40D to north africa in 2006 and had it in a 4x4 and got it extremely dusty in the outback then it rained and it got wet before I had chance to clean the dust off and even with its weather sealing, dirt got into the shutter button and it stopped working. That was the end of it for that trip. Only way I got it working was when i got home was pouring alcohol down the battery compartment which was a last ditched attempt to fix it. Worked but taught me a lesson.

 

[Sony]

As same as you, I was with film photography for years. I started jumping into digital photography with 500D kit (EF-S 15-55mm + 55-250mm), then 50D with 24-70mm MKI + 70-200mm MKI later. Today Im with 5D MKIII + 24-70mm MKII + 70-200mm MKII.
IMO, if you start with 650D, your skill will stop there or you will have to buy 5D MKiii later when your skill improves; if you start with 5D MKiii, you wont have to buy new gears later. I learned that. Of course it depends on your pocket and how much the love with photography you have. Cheers.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Jens,

If you're still hanging in there, the simple answer is that the 650D has excellent image quality and the 5DIII has superlative image quality. And, unless your printer is too big to fit on a desktop and takes ink by the gallon, you're not going to notice a difference in image quality between the two. In some circumstances you can get a slightly shallower depth of field from the 5DIII, but that's all you're likely to notice.

...in terms of image quality at the sizes you can print with a consumer printer.

Once your prints get into the 24" x 36" range and above, then, yes, the 5DIII produces visibly superior image quality -- but it's not like the 650D suddenly turns to shit. You can still make an excellent 24" x 36" print from a 650D; it's just that a similar print from a 5DIII will be not merely excellent but superlative.

Aside from image quality, the 5DIII is significantly superior in every way, particularly its autofocus performance. There's no competition there. But, if the 650D is good enough and you're happy with the prints you get from it, you've got nothing to gain from the 5DIII.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Canon-F1]

But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.

The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.

i have the 70-200mm F4 IS.
that is the lens i made the testshots with.

i will buy 2 other lenses but of course that depends on what body i will keep.
one in the 24-70mm range and one around 14mm (EF 14mm f2.8 or the EF-S 10-22mm).

EFS lenses won't work on the 5D3

i guess that is why he wrote it depends on the camera he keeps... :


as to the original question.

i think you should be happy with the 650D and it´s extra reach for a safari.
200mm is not very long. and in daylight, as you noticed, you will hardly see a difference.

thought if money does not matter buy a 5D MK3 and a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter.

or buy a 7D if the 650D feels a bit toyish.

 

[Jens Lange]

oh so many replys..
i have to read them all but to the ones i have read:

my longest lens is the 70-200mm F4 IS and it is the only EF lens i own right now.
it was a present from my boss (my wife) on my last day at the job.
i knew i would definately want that lens. because it´s lightweight.
i also used to shoot a lot in that range with my trusted T90.

as much as i would love to have a 400mm lens with me, two things speak against it.
1) my wife. she said one camera and three lenses is the maximum.
2) has to do with 1. i don´t want to carry so much camera gear with me on the trip.
the EF 100-400mm would be a great choice maybe, but it´s to big and heavy.

i thought about the EF 24-105mm F4 IS (or EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS) and a ultra wideangle as second and third lens.
i also thought about buying a teleconverter.
is the canon 1.4x really worth twice as much as a kenko 1.4x teleconverter?

i do see where the 5D Mark 3 is better.
i guess the info about the AF system takes more pages then the whole manual of my T90.
the build and handling is fantastic, no question.

i just thought with all the stuff i read about FF vs. APS-C sensors that i would immediately see a difference in image quality.

keeping both cameras is not a bad idea.
i could give one to my wife.
she bugs me with "hey look over there... hurry take a picture" anyway.

thx for all your replys.
i hope you understand my english, im from germany, so please excuse that it is far from perfect.

 

[Jens Lange]

I did not see where you said what kind of photos you are planning to take.

the usual when someone is going on a safari.

wildlife and scenics both are equal important, i think.
it´s my first safari. ;D

 

[Jens Lange]

At high ISO Canon's FF sensors start to show their edge. If you're shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 and making larger prints, you will observe improved IQ with the FF sensor. At 6400 and above the difference will be large. That said, Canon's 18 MP crop sensor makes very good prints through ISO 3200 with a little NR.

coming from film i am maybe overly conservative.
but yes when these cameras offer much higher ISO i should try them.