5D vs 1DMarkIII (Image quality) Question!

I am about to add another camera. I want a comparison of these two based on IQ and High ISO only.

Is there a significant winner in IQ (especially for portraits)

For low light performances will one be significantly better at ISO 1600+

I know there is a major price difference but I just want these issues compared and I will be able to make a decision. Thanks!!!

Which Mark III, there are two and no-one can answer your question properly until you tell us.

I don't have much experience with the 5D, however I did have a blue dot 1D Mark III for two months. I have a 30D, and the ISO/IQ from the Mark IIIis in a completely different league. Here's an untouched example at ISO3200:

The one I can afford, the non "s"... hope that helps

But in case...this one

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …egoryid=139&mod​elid=14999

Thanks off, i appreciate your input

On pure IQ / high ISO the 5D cannot be beaten for it's price.

coorz....thanks for the comment but I dont want "for it's price comparrison'

Just straight up based on high ISO and IQ what would you pick if they were the same price?

eigga wrote in post #5060787
coorz....thanks for the comment but I dont want "for it's price comparrison'

Just straight up based on high ISO and IQ what would you pick if they were the same price?

Same price, no brainer the MKIII! IQ and ISO performance of the MKIII bests the 5D's or at least rivals it.
In addition to that the MKIII is an astounding shooting experience when you come from the xxD series.

I have both and they are both great cameras but serve different purposes.

IMHO the full frame with studio lights is magical and in bad light @ 1600 ISO is a great.

IMHO the Mark III out on the sports field in both good and bad light is a winner.

I have both too, high ISO's the mkIII is marginally better than the 5D. Also the fact that if you expose to the right, 6400 on the mkIII is very usable and you don't get 6400 on the 5D. As far as everyday IQ, they are close but I think the mkIII meters better for WB and light levels. But after PP they are very close. I think I have comparison shots somewhere, if I can find em, I'll post em

Awesome, real world comments that I need to hear. I appreciate your time!

From my experience, ISO on 1DMKIII us about 3/4 to a full stop better than the 5D.
Although I miss my 5D for its Full Frame, I don't miss it for the high ISO.

Can't go wrong either way in terms of noise control.

I too have both cameras and the difference at high ISO is very marginal. I have had great results from both and at 3200 they both produce great images. If it makes any difference if I know I'm doing something that I know will require high ISO stuff 8 times out of 10 I take the 5D. Shooting RAW and doing some PP you cant really tell the difference.

burnxkr wrote in post #5061106
I know I'm doing something that I know will require high ISO stuff 8 times out of 10 I take the 5D. Shooting RAW and doing some PP you cant really tell the difference.

I do the exact opposite, I find the 1DmkIII focuses better in darker situations and gives...as Nick suggests, about a stop better performance, plus, I might need 6400........Different strokes for different folks

Looks like I will be getting a Mark III
I mainly shoot childrens performances/sports but have been adding tons of portraits as well. I have a 40D and am very happy with it as the sports/performance camera. I just felt I needed a little more for portraits to produce the extreme quality I expect.

It sounds like the Mark III can easily double as sports/portrait camera

Although if you keep the 40D you could get the 5D and add to an already really great kit. The 5d is a GREAT portrait body