Hobbyist 5MD3/5DM2 Low Light Comparison

After reading about the 5DM3 and how well it handled high ISO and low light, I wanted to see for myself. I am not a professional by any stretch. The photos were SOC (actually the first two taken) and taken with the nifty fifty (A little irony in using a $100.00 lens to test a new $3,500 camera but...). The crops were made using windows picture viewer - no PP at all. ISO was 6400/f1.8/1/15.

1. M3

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40736944@N02/7​016201985/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40736944@N02/7​016202959/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40736944@N02/7​016201421/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40736944@N02/7​016202129/

The 5D3 pic looks better, because 1) better noise performance and most importantly 2) not OOF.

HyperYagami wrote in post #14153096
The 5D3 pic looks better, because 1) better noise performance and most importantly 2) not OOF.

I did notice that the 5D2 did not focus as well....it was hunting quite a bit. The 5D3 locked on.

Not worth twice the price of admission for me.

Would like to see a fair comparison (one where they're both in focus), though...

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14153121
Not worth twice the price of admission for me.

Would like to see a fair comparison (one where they're both in focus), though...

I agree. Yet, the M2 using the exact same set up had a much more difficult time of focusing. All of the M3 photos were in focus compared to none of the M2s being anywhere close. For me, it illustrates not only the noise performance, but the AF performance.

OP is trying to say:

"5D2 did not focus as well....it was hunting quite a bit. The 5D3 locked on" .

CaptB412 wrote in post #14153153
I agree. Yet, the M2 using the exact same set up had a much more difficult time of focusing. All of the M3 photos were in focus compared to none of the M2s being anywhere close. For me, it illustrates not only the noise performance, but the AF performance.

Fair enough...in an AF comparison, this test certainly seems to indicate that the 5D3 is superior. For ISO, though...meh.

As for low light...I think a better lens would go a long way in improving that performance.

The $1700 difference would get you some top-notch glass to replace the Nifty...I was out shooting with the 100 f2 (a relatively budget lens) on my 5Dc this weekend, and it blew me away...in an environment where ISO 3200 (highest on a 5Dc), f2 and 1/40 sec still yielded slightly underexposed shots, it was still focusing well enough to grab some candid keepers (though sometimes it hunted a bit).

Looking at the darker areas there is a significant improvement in noise for the M3. The white balance is also much better on the M3. Focus issues or not, I would choose the M3 shot all day if given a choice.

CaptB412 wrote in post #14153153
For me, it illustrates not only the noise performance, but the AF performance.

Agreed. 5D2's noise performance doesn't bug me that much, but God the AF system is just so limited and dated.

Noise is a little better on the Mk III, color looks a little more natural also. As noted, the Mk 3 apparently focused much better. At ISO 6400, f/1.8, and 1/15 sec, the exposure value is very low and I can see why the Mk 2 was struggling to focus. It is notable that the Mk 3 didn't struggle. Very positive.

This cam can focus at -2 EV shouldn't be a surprise. Are you getting one Tom ?.

Tom W wrote in post #14153311
Noise is a little better on the Mk III, color looks a little more natural also. As noted, the Mk 3 apparently focused much better. At ISO 6400, f/1.8, and 1/15 sec, the exposure value is very low and I can see why the Mk 2 was struggling to focus. It is notable that the Mk 3 didn't struggle. Very positive.

Yes, I will probably be getting one. I'm pretty impressed so far with what I've seen.

I don't have the test shots handy, but I think I could get the Mk II to AF at -1 EV, but very slowly and not without having a very contrasty subject. Definitely in a different league.

If I were a wedding photog, I think this would be the one to get. Actually, I think it's looking like a jack of all trades with its feature set.

Don't forget the outer points are just as good as the center points. Probably the best AF Canon has ever designed (I'm sure 1DX will be even better with additional metering processor).

Tom W wrote in post #14153598
Yes, I will probably be getting one. I'm pretty impressed so far with what I've seen.

I don't have the test shots handy, but I think I could get the Mk II to AF at -1 EV, but very slowly and not without having a very contrasty subject. Definitely in a different league.

If I were a wedding photog, I think this would be the one to get. Actually, I think it's looking like a jack of all trades with its feature set.

DarthVader wrote in post #14153630
Don't forget the outer points are just as good as the center points.

No they are not. The center point and the two points above and below it are better than all the rest of the points. They are cross-type + diagonal + high precision sensors when a f//2.8 or faster lens is attached, and just cross-type with slower lenses (up to f/5.6). The next best points are the 16 immediately surrounding those 5 points, which are cross-type sensors whenever an f/5.6 or faster lens is attached. Then there are the 20 points making up the center two columns of the outer 40 points (10 center points of the 20 points on each side), which are cross-type sensors when an f/4 or faster lens is attached. Finally there are the remaining 20 points, outermost and 4th colum in on each side, which are not cross-type ever.

So actually the outer points are the worst, and if you have a slow lens the entire outer zones are not that great.

Learn more here:

http://www.learn.usa.c​anon.com …n_crosstype_art​icle.shtml

CaptB412 wrote in post #14153114
I did notice that the 5D2 did not focus as well....it was hunting quite a bit. The 5D3 locked on.

Don't say that.. That's just another reason for me not wanting to wait for the price to drop.