Who upgraded from 5d mk2 to mk3 ?

[jimk5d3]

hello i had a 5dii for 2 years and upgraded to 5diii, i am not a pro just a father of a 10 year old and a 7 year old, as much as i loved my mk2 i would never go back, there is no comparison when it comes to autofocus system, i have 24-105l 4.0, 70-200 mk2 2.8, 16-35 mk2 2.8, i had the 24-70 mk1 2.8. 5dmk2 could never keep up with my kids even with the excelent 70-200 mk2 2.8L, my 5dmk3 has no problem what so ever with tracking my kids while they are riding there bikes towards me and then pass me, my finger on the trigger shots are all in focus and sharp. yes i mostly shoot jpegs when shooting action, shoot jpegs and raws when shooting portraits, jpegs are way sharper /better from the 5d3 and raws are about 1 stop better, i have only used dpp for raws, the camera just feels and handles so much better, i have over 15k shots with the 5dmk2 and have compaired with photos from 5d3 that i got from BH the 2nd day it was released, no matter how many times i compair photos the 5d3 photos are always a bit sharper/cleaner. no rgrets love this camera and cant wait to get my hands on 24-70 mk2 2.8l

 

[MartinM]

I got a 5D Mk.3 and sold it again. Since I am not earning money with this, I had to get some funding for larger telephoto lens. Now I decided to sell of my 5d2 and order a 6D. This will allow me the 24-70 II and something larger than my 70-200L. I have more flexibility without too much of a loss. Additionally I don't need hike around with my Samsung Galaxy and missuse it as GPS for tagging my pictures.

Cheers
Martin

 

[suburbia]

I did as I was never that bowled over by the MKII (I bought it on a whim when shopping for a new lens for a travel shoot a year and half before the MKIII was released ), I found the movie mode unintuitive so never used it.

I really enjoyed my MK I and had it for 5 years, the MKIII feels like the true successor to the MKI and I therefore hope to have that for a similar time period.

Ive also felt comfortable dabbling in a few movie mode shots with the MKIII while out and about taking photos.

 

[RLPhoto]

Hey...

Long time lurker,first time poster.

Have had d60, 10d ,1dmk2, 5d , 5d mk2

Gear is 35L , 85Lii, 100macro, 17-40L , 70-200mk2, and just this week a 24-70L mk2
And 600ex plus stert3, 2x550ex

Anyway,to the point- I've been sitting on the fence about jumping to mk3....
Have mk3 owners here generally upgraded from a mk2 or something older?
Since I now have mk2 of 24-70 and 70-200 plus new flash I'm thinking the mk3 would compliment my gear very well

I shoot mostly family stuff with a little concert photography as a sideline

I went from FF cameras like this

Yashica MAT-124G ----- Olympus OM-1 ------ Minolta Maxxum AF -------- 5Dc -------- 5D3

Never cared for the 5D MK2 series.

The 5D3's AF is fantastic.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

I think it's a myth. I did super careful tests with a very sharp lens comparing both and the fine detail and micro-contrast captured on a bill was so close that it's really hard to say. The talk that is looks noticeably softer, as per some rumors, or noticeably sharper, as per others, seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me. Whatever difference there is would take realllllly careful 100% viewing and staring and starting and trying to figure out which one looked what way compared to the other.

I have based this conclusion from 2 facts:

Stills: Camera raw products showed the 5D3 to be less sharp than 5D2. Only when the DPP was updated sharpness became equal! So it seems that DPP boosts the sharpening for 5D3 somehow

Video:
http://tweets.planet5d.com/tweets/195145027335356416

After 9:15 It is admitted that 5D3 video is not very sharp to preserve information but it can be nicely
sharpened in Post Processing. Combining this with the fact that Moire is mentioned to be absent then a strong AA filter is the logical conclusion

I think the initial DPP was just bugged and was applying strong anti-moire tech at times when there should have been an option to turn it off.

Isn't that video discussing video moire? THat's a different thing. The 5D2 and the others did line skipping which introduces radical moire and aliasing. The 5D3 doesn't line skip and it also seems to filter things on top so the video doesn't have more than a bare hint of the nasty moire and such. But that is nothing to do with stills.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In sum, the 5D3 really does have a lot of nice things upgraded that it more natural and quicker to use, it's much more responsive, it has cleaner shadows at high ISO that can occasionally make a very big difference, as a stills cams it's generally really great other than the one real shame in the very old school low ISO dynamic range performance, the one letdown in an otherwise realllllly good camera.



(but again, if you do tripod-based landscape work and nothing else, then it makes little sense to spend so much for so little return for that case)

 

[EOBeav]

Not it. I don't see the 5DIII as a worthwhile upgrade, not for the kind of work that I do, anyway.

 

[bp]

I did as well. Held on to the 5D2, but have become so fond of the 5D3's AF that I can barely stand to use the 5D2 anymore. Usually carry it as a second body and every time I pick it up there's a voice in my head that says "GAHHH!!!! where are all my AF points?!?!"

 

[sdsr]

When I moved to a 5DII from a Pentax K-5 I found the focusing on the Canon far superior (whether that's because of the body or the lenses or both together I can't really say), so I'm amused to read here all the complaints about focusing on the 5DII.

But I may be a bit odd: I only use center point focusing (an ancient habit having died hard) and have not yet been interested in photographing things/people/animals moving fast. Would I find center point focusing more accurate on the 5DIII? (Aside from that, the only feature of the 5DIII that interests me is better low light performance - and again, coming from a non-FF camera the low light performance of the 5DII looks pretty impressive to me.)

 

[Ricku]

I did. The m3 is so much better in every way possible. Best choice

In every way possible? Why are you lying like this?

Yes, the Mark 3 is faster, has very nice AF, and very nice high ISO performance, but when it comes to low ISO shooting (bellow ISO 800), there is zero difference in IQ and DR.

On low ISO settings, the 5D3 = 5D2.

And the banding is still there.

 

[tron]

1. Is anybody aware of the stronger AA filter?

I think it's a myth. I did super careful tests with a very sharp lens comparing both and the fine detail and micro-contrast captured on a bill was so close that it's really hard to say. The talk that is looks noticeably softer, as per some rumors, or noticeably sharper, as per others, seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me. Whatever difference there is would take realllllly careful 100% viewing and staring and starting and trying to figure out which one looked what way compared to the other.

I have based this conclusion from 2 facts:

Stills: Camera raw products showed the 5D3 to be less sharp than 5D2. Only when the DPP was updated sharpness became equal! So it seems that DPP boosts the sharpening for 5D3 somehow

Video:
http://tweets.planet5d.com/tweets/195145027335356416

After 9:15 It is admitted that 5D3 video is not very sharp to preserve information but it can be nicely
sharpened in Post Processing. Combining this with the fact that Moire is mentioned to be absent then a strong AA filter is the logical conclusion

I think the initial DPP was just bugged and was applying strong anti-moire tech at times when there should have been an option to turn it off.

Isn't that video discussing video moire? THat's a different thing. The 5D2 and the others did line skipping which introduces radical moire and aliasing. The 5D3 doesn't line skip and it also seems to filter things on top so the video doesn't have more than a bare hint of the nasty moire and such. But that is nothing to do with stills.

DPP could not be bugged. It had similar results to Adobe software! Both produced less sharp 5D3 raw images

 

[canon816]

Tron.

Interesting.

Both of my 5DIII bodies produce cleaner, crisper, sharper images then my 5DII. I wonder if your 5DIII copy had a problem or my 5DII body had a problem.

Both 5DIII bodies are also much better IQ then my 1DIV and my 7D.

 

[tron]

Tron.

Interesting.

Both of my 5DIII bodies produce cleaner, crisper, sharper images then my 5DII. I wonder if your 5DIII copy had a problem or my 5DII body had a problem.

Both 5DIII bodies are also much better IQ then my 1DIV and my 7D.

This is good news actually!

However: Many people say general things without mentioning the details. You, for example:

1. Are you comparing raw files? You didn't mention Raw of Jpg.
2. What software are you using?

 

[canon816]

Tron,

I shoot Raw. Convert to DNG and then process with Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 4.

My comments refer to then entire ISO Range.

Lenses I have noticed my statements to hold true: 24-105mm f4, 17-40mm f4, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 70-200mm f4, 300mm f2.8, 600mm f4

Mounted on a Gitzo Systematic Carbon Tribod with WH200 Wimberley Head.

Anything else you curious about?

 

[tron]

Tron,

I shoot Raw. Convert to DNG and then process with Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 4.

My comments refer to then entire ISO Range.

Lenses I have noticed my statements to hold true: 24-105mm f4, 17-40mm f4, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 70-200mm f4, 300mm f2.8, 600mm f4

Mounted on a Gitzo Systematic Carbon Tribod with WH200 Wimberley Head.

Anything else you curious about?

Thanks for answering

Keep in mind that Lightroom 4 was reported for not producing ultra sharp 5D3 images!
I didn't make it up I read it in THIS forum (Sometime in April or May I think). You are doing something very interesting though. You convert to DNG first. That's another step and maybe a good one as it seems. Thanks again...

P.S I do not believe that there are problems with bodies. At least not often. They are not lenses. I have a fine 5DII and I try to gather as much info as possible about 5DMKIII. I am thinking of bying it and this thread is definitely a suitable one for this purpose.

 

[canon816]

Tron,

I shoot Raw. Convert to DNG and then process with Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 4.

My comments refer to then entire ISO Range.

Lenses I have noticed my statements to hold true: 24-105mm f4, 17-40mm f4, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 70-200mm f4, 300mm f2.8, 600mm f4

Mounted on a Gitzo Systematic Carbon Tribod with WH200 Wimberley Head.

Anything else you curious about?

Thanks for answering

Keep in mind that Lightroom 4 was reported for not producing ultra sharp 5D3 images!
I didn't make it up I read it in THIS forum (Sometime in April or May I think). You are doing something very interesting though. You convert to DNG first. That's another step and maybe a good one as it seems. Thanks again...

P.S I do not believe that there are problems with bodies. At least not often. They are not lenses. I have a fine 5DII and I try to gather as much info as possible about 5DMKIII. I am thinking of bying it and this thread is definitely a suitable one for this purpose.

You bet.

I tend to agree with you about body issues being rare, however I have personally known of 4 bodies from both Nikon and Canon that had a shutter issue. Apparently a shutter can become loose and will cause a slight amount of vibration which can result in sharpness issues. All of these bodies were repaired by the manufacturer at no charge. A system such as FoCal can show these issues if you compare IQ from two bodies that are the same model and use the same lens.

Mainly I convert to DNG so that I will always have access to my RAW files in the future. Support for old bodies in current editing software is starting to wane, and by converting to DNG you will always be able to edit your old files with future editing programs.

Naturally there are some people who feel that the 5DIII is not worth the upgrade, and I completely respect that opinion. For me... It's worth 10 times the cost. The 5DIII is the best camera I have ever had the pleasure of shooting with. (I have not shot a 1DX)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DPP could not be bugged. It had similar results to Adobe software! Both produced less sharp 5D3 raw images

I know Canon even said DPP had a bug, whether that explained it all, I don't know.

Are you sure about ACR. I don't recall that.

 

[Kernuak]

DPP could not be bugged. It had similar results to Adobe software! Both produced less sharp 5D3 raw images

I know Canon even said DPP had a bug, whether that explained it all, I don't know.

Are you sure about ACR. I don't recall that.

I seem to remember seeing reports of issues with the ACR beta. It certainly wouldn't be the first issues with new Canon (and probably other) cameras on the first one or two updates after support was initiated, as there were issues with the last version of LR2 that was introduced immediately following release of the 7D. LR3 largely corrected the issues.