It was interesting to say the least. Shot with both cameras set to the same settings with the 85mm f/1.2 and 24-70mm. The photos of the Mark III straight out of the camera were so much better than the II in terms of IQ, exposure, and color rendition. When some people say there's not much difference in IQ I have to say they're full of it. The handling of the Mark III just felt so much better and more substantial except for the new joystick on the new grip. It just felt awkward. It will take some time to get used to.
Used my 5D Mark III and II today during a studio shoot
- Thread starter iso79
- Start date
- Status
M
markd61
Guest
iso79 said:
While I have not made side by side comparisons, I agree that the mk3 is subjectively much better handling. As to the IQ, I usually test each camera and calibrate to my flash meter and create an individual camera color profile. In theory they should be quite close.
The only thing I have noticed so far is that I get a lot more in focus images with the mk3 when off tripod.
I also did some playing around in the A+ mode and it delivered astonishingly good exposure and color in very trying circumstances that my mk2 could not have handled.
A few more jobs and I will replace the mk2 with another mk3.
Upvote
0
iso79 said:
The 5d3 has better metering and auto white balances - so that should account for "exposure, and color rendition". Both can be corrected when shooting raw.
iso79 said:
But what does "IQ" mean? Af hit rate? Sharpness? Noise?
When attacking people who can hardly see any difference between 5d2 & 5d3, you should be very specific about the situation, or it's next to trolling I'm afraid to say. No end of tests show only very tiny improvements in the lower iso range, and many users of 5d2 and 5d3 bodies have stated here too that's that not what distinguishes the newer camera when shooting raw.
Upvote
0
trentchau said:
There is more to colour rendition than white balance, so in principle the 5D3 could be different from the 5D2 even in a controlled environment (not saying it is, I don't know).
trentchau said:
Yes, the advantages of the 5D3 to the 5D2 are most pronounced outside a studio environment!
Upvote
0
RichATL said:
We are probably miscommunicating here. They don't matter in a studio environment because
1) You meter yourself. You are using Manual mode.
2) White balance is either 3200k for tungsten or around there or 5500 for flash. If you are shooting off that, you are smart enough to know what it is. Why fix it in raw when you can get it done right in camera.
So using your cameras auto metering and white balance is not required in studio. It's a controlled environment that you as the photographer fully control.
What I said actually should be lauded by you rather than you saying it's lazy time
. Make sense?
Upvote
0
I've read from very reputable websites and reviewers that in terms of image quality, there isn't much of a difference. The photos I've seen seem to confirm that. You get better AF and other tech. advances, but quality is about the same.
I was at a photographer meet-up and was talking to a friend who is an image processor for a very high-end fashion photographer.. The fashion guy uses a 5D MKII. 'Nuff said.
I was at a photographer meet-up and was talking to a friend who is an image processor for a very high-end fashion photographer.. The fashion guy uses a 5D MKII. 'Nuff said.
Upvote
0
you have to pixel peep at 300% to notice any difference hence i kept my 2 5Dmk2 bodys and set one up for use with MF lenses
Upvote
0
trentchau said:RichATL said:
We are probably miscommunicating here. They don't matter in a studio environment because
1) You meter yourself. You are using Manual mode.
2) White balance is either 3200k for tungsten or around there or 5500 for flash. If you are shooting off that, you are smart enough to know what it is. Why fix it in raw when you can get it done right in camera.
So using your cameras auto metering and white balance is not required in studio. It's a controlled environment that you as the photographer fully control.
What I said actually should be lauded by you rather than you saying it's lazy time
I completely agree! I once met a photographer who spent 7 hours doing a fashion shoot with two amateur models and ended up taking over 8 gigs worth of raw images and spent a week editing the images to narrow them down to just 4 half decent images. And when she asked me for my opinion, I asked her why she didn't spend more time prepping her subjects, makeup, posing, lighting...etc..etc...this way she would've had nearly a finished image right out of the camera.
And her response to me was - it's digital, it's not like i'm wasting film.
My next question set her off - So...you would prefer not to learn your craft as a photographer? In that case my grandma who knows next to nothing about photography could take poor pictures and take them to a digital artist to make them decent again...right?
What's funny is that she started yelling at me and the other studio photographer about how she knows people that were never studio trained that take wonderful pictures.
And I told her...that's great for them, however, this studio has a reputation for amazing photographs that are not left up to a hit and miss style...so if you'd like to continue shooting here, you're going to need to learn a few basics. She stormed off.
Sorry for the long story...
Upvote
0
- Status
