Another 5D Mk III review

[KeithR]

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/component/content/article/344-canon-5d-mk3-test

The usable dynamic range of a Canon 5D MK3 RAW file at ISO 100 is up to 2 stops larger than of a 5D MK2 file. That is a big difference. In practice we found that the correct exposure in bright sunlight with the 5D MK3 was much easier than with the Canon 5D MK2. On both sides of the histogram, we always had 'space' left, which is the way it should be!

Two stops better at 100 ISO than the 5D Mk II - that's frickin' good.

 

[Ivar]

Review?

RAW vs JPG white balance? RAW vs JPG resolution?

Completely meaningless DR example. What was the tool used for measuring? Shouldn't the image to showcase the recovery space (highlights, shadows), the ultimate use of DR?

I don't think the 5D3 is that bad that such a "review" reference is necessary.

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/component/content/article/344-canon-5d-mk3-test

The usable dynamic range of a Canon 5D MK3 RAW file at ISO 100 is up to 2 stops larger than of a 5D MK2 file. That is a big difference. In practice we found that the correct exposure in bright sunlight with the 5D MK3 was much easier than with the Canon 5D MK2. On both sides of the histogram, we always had 'space' left, which is the way it should be!

Two stops better at 100 ISO than the 5D Mk II - that's frickin' good.

 

[KeithR]

You must be great company at a party, Ivar...

 

[shizam1]

Interesting! I think that's the first thing I've seen that claims any improvement at ISO100. If it's true I'll be happy I've done some ISO 100 studio shots with the 5DIII and didn't notice any large difference against the 5DII ( except for better focus ), but I wasn't looking for DR changes.

Thanks for the link

 

[Yasmin]

Not sure if this link to side by side review of 5D Mark iii and D800 is already posted or not.

Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson

 

[SeanNY]

That review is very good. They did real-world tests of a lot more than resolution. They looked at focus, dynamic range and etc. I recommend reading it.

 

[Joseph]

I did a personal review on the 5D Mark III's HDR feature , it's not super in depth or anything like that - but shows some of the EFFECT results , using auto align , and high ISO's. Enjoy !!!!

I don't know if you have to register to see the samples , but I don't think you do - I have an account so I see them.

http://m2af.com/index.php/topic,122.0.html

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/component/content/article/344-canon-5d-mk3-test

The usable dynamic range of a Canon 5D MK3 RAW file at ISO 100 is up to 2 stops larger than of a 5D MK2 file. That is a big difference. In practice we found that the correct exposure in bright sunlight with the 5D MK3 was much easier than with the Canon 5D MK2. On both sides of the histogram, we always had 'space' left, which is the way it should be!

Two stops better at 100 ISO than the 5D Mk II - that's frickin' good.

That would be absolutely awesome, however, nobody else has seen that. Nobody else has measured that. And nobody else has measured the 13 stops for the 5D2/5D3 they got either, that's even higher than the engineer DR measurements and you can't get any higher than engineering DR. Conclusion is that they have no idea what they doing.

And if they always had space left on either side of the histogram then they were not shooting scenes with very high dynamic range for their real world shot tests, which also points the fact that they don't know what they are doing when it comes to talking about DR.

Praise it away for having apparently awesome AF, a solid fps now, no aliasing/moire, nicer looking high iso noise, outlined histogram, faster trigger, shorter mirror blackout, etc. but no need to push links posting nonsense about things so it can 'be' the best at everything, especially one of the aspects where it actually is most behind.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You must be great company at a party, Ivar...

This isn't a party. Ivar may party it up and be 10x the life of the party as you for all we know.

Think of it this way. You are in the market for a light truck, you need to be able to haul a certain amount of weight. Some Ford owner is so rabid that he believes all Ford light trucks must have the better specs in every regard, he posts links to completely off-base reviews where they say a certain model can pull 2x more than it really can. Nobody dares mention the review is wrong. You go buy that truck. You go to pull something. The back end comes off. Great.... your party analogy reallly served you well there. Everyone treated it like a party and nobody corrected the misinfo and you are now out one truck.

 

[Joseph]

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/component/content/article/344-canon-5d-mk3-test

The usable dynamic range of a Canon 5D MK3 RAW file at ISO 100 is up to 2 stops larger than of a 5D MK2 file. That is a big difference. In practice we found that the correct exposure in bright sunlight with the 5D MK3 was much easier than with the Canon 5D MK2. On both sides of the histogram, we always had 'space' left, which is the way it should be!

Two stops better at 100 ISO than the 5D Mk II - that's frickin' good.

That would be absolutely awesome, however, nobody else has seen that. Nobody else has measured that. And nobody else has measured the 13 stops for the 5D2/5D3 they got either, that's even higher than the engineer DR measurements and you can't get any higher than engineering DR. Conclusion is that they have no idea what they doing.

And if they always had space left on either side of the histogram then they were not shooting scenes with very high dynamic range for their real world shot tests, which also points the fact that they don't know what they are doing when it comes to talking about DR.

Praise it away for having apparently awesome AF, a solid fps now, no aliasing/moire, nicer looking high iso noise, outlined histogram, faster trigger, shorter mirror blackout, etc. but no need to push links posting nonsense about things so it can 'be' the best at everything, especially one of the aspects where it actually is most behind.

I don't know if I would exactly say that the AntiAliasing is that much better , I have an example of my 5D3 aliasing disapointment on my forum at M2AF.com - and I can post them here if anyone really wants to see them - the AA filter is a problem for me , I have several images with issues I consider severe - especially in terms of my images being printable at full resolution , I went back and did some tests on my 5D2 , and my 1D2 just to see what those camera do , and the problem is nowhere close to as bad. Hopefully firmware will be able to fix this - I am a bit concerned. Other than that , love this CAMERA !!!!!!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/component/content/article/344-canon-5d-mk3-test

The usable dynamic range of a Canon 5D MK3 RAW file at ISO 100 is up to 2 stops larger than of a 5D MK2 file. That is a big difference. In practice we found that the correct exposure in bright sunlight with the 5D MK3 was much easier than with the Canon 5D MK2. On both sides of the histogram, we always had 'space' left, which is the way it should be!

Two stops better at 100 ISO than the 5D Mk II - that's frickin' good.

That would be absolutely awesome, however, nobody else has seen that. Nobody else has measured that. And nobody else has measured the 13 stops for the 5D2/5D3 they got either, that's even higher than the engineer DR measurements and you can't get any higher than engineering DR. Conclusion is that they have no idea what they doing.

And if they always had space left on either side of the histogram then they were not shooting scenes with very high dynamic range for their real world shot tests, which also points the fact that they don't know what they are doing when it comes to talking about DR.

Praise it away for having apparently awesome AF, a solid fps now, no aliasing/moire, nicer looking high iso noise, outlined histogram, faster trigger, shorter mirror blackout, etc. but no need to push links posting nonsense about things so it can 'be' the best at everything, especially one of the aspects where it actually is most behind.

I don't know if I would exactly say that the AntiAliasing is that much better , I have an example of my 5D3 aliasing disapointment on my forum at M2AF.com - and I can post them here if anyone really wants to see them - the AA filter is a problem for me , I have several images with issues I consider severe - especially in terms of my images being printable at full resolution , I went back and did some tests on my 5D2 , and my 1D2 just to see what those camera do , and the problem is nowhere close to as bad. Hopefully firmware will be able to fix this - I am a bit concerned. Other than that , love this CAMERA !!!!!!

I meant it's much better for video. I don't know what the difference for stills is.

 

[JR]

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/component/content/article/344-canon-5d-mk3-test

The usable dynamic range of a Canon 5D MK3 RAW file at ISO 100 is up to 2 stops larger than of a 5D MK2 file. That is a big difference. In practice we found that the correct exposure in bright sunlight with the 5D MK3 was much easier than with the Canon 5D MK2. On both sides of the histogram, we always had 'space' left, which is the way it should be!

Two stops better at 100 ISO than the 5D Mk II - that's frickin' good.

That would be absolutely awesome, however, nobody else has seen that. Nobody else has measured that. And nobody else has measured the 13 stops for the 5D2/5D3 they got either, that's even higher than the engineer DR measurements and you can't get any higher than engineering DR. Conclusion is that they have no idea what they doing.

And if they always had space left on either side of the histogram then they were not shooting scenes with very high dynamic range for their real world shot tests, which also points the fact that they don't know what they are doing when it comes to talking about DR.

Praise it away for having apparently awesome AF, a solid fps now, no aliasing/moire, nicer looking high iso noise, outlined histogram, faster trigger, shorter mirror blackout, etc. but no need to push links posting nonsense about things so it can 'be' the best at everything, especially one of the aspects where it actually is most behind.

+1 no sure their claim is that credible.....

 

[akiskev]

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/component/content/article/344-canon-5d-mk3-test

The usable dynamic range of a Canon 5D MK3 RAW file at ISO 100 is up to 2 stops larger than of a 5D MK2 file. That is a big difference. In practice we found that the correct exposure in bright sunlight with the 5D MK3 was much easier than with the Canon 5D MK2. On both sides of the histogram, we always had 'space' left, which is the way it should be!

Two stops better at 100 ISO than the 5D Mk II - that's frickin' good.

That would be absolutely awesome, however, nobody else has seen that. Nobody else has measured that. And nobody else has measured the 13 stops for the 5D2/5D3 they got either, that's even higher than the engineer DR measurements and you can't get any higher than engineering DR. Conclusion is that they have no idea what they doing.

And if they always had space left on either side of the histogram then they were not shooting scenes with very high dynamic range for their real world shot tests, which also points the fact that they don't know what they are doing when it comes to talking about DR.

Praise it away for having apparently awesome AF, a solid fps now, no aliasing/moire, nicer looking high iso noise, outlined histogram, faster trigger, shorter mirror blackout, etc. but no need to push links posting nonsense about things so it can 'be' the best at everything, especially one of the aspects where it actually is most behind.

+1 no sure their claim is that credible.....

+1, it is not credible at all.