Which is better for Higher ISO?

5D Mark II or the 1D mark III

I shoot a lot of weddings. Current setup in sig.

Let me know your thoughts or your first hand experience!

Mark II IMO but you tradeoff the better focus so ...

The 5D2 may have a SLIGHT advantage, but not much. I shot with a 1D3 for over a year and was very happy with its high ISO handling. I tested it against a friend's 5D2 (very unscientific, just sitting around in a dimly-lit cafe and chimping) and I didn't see any massive differences, in fact, the 1D3 edged out the 5D2 in the majority of the shots...but most internet samples I've seen give a slight edge to the 5D2...

The 5D2 has a higher top ISO, but I'd say at 1600-6400 they're very, very close.

coming from a 50D and a 5D classic, my next upgrade is purely Higher ISO. The 1.3 Crop doesnt bother me. They are both very closely priced used.


hard decisions!

Thanks for the input so far! keep 'em coming!

Have you considered a 1Ds2? When I was in the market about 18 months ago, my top contenders were the 1Ds2/1D3/5D2...I ended up going with the 1D3 and loved it. But, I don't really shoot anything moving and I wanted a smaller body and I love FF, so I moved to a 5Dc and now looking for a 5D2.

redfire2002 wrote in post #14356773
coming from a 50D and a 5D classic, my next upgrade is purely Higher ISO. The 1.3 Crop doesnt bother me. They are both very closely priced used.


hard decisions!

Thanks for the input so far! keep 'em coming!

The Mark III is a champ at focusing in low light, so there's that to consider also.

the Mark III is also 1800+ more! haha.

Im leaning towards the Mark III because of 2 things, Fast AF, and low light. Although the 5D Mark II has video capabilities but that would more or less be for personal use anyways, lol.

Both my bodies that i have now are gripped, so the bigger body doesnt bother me. And the 1.3 crop is nice when i throw my 70-200 on there and try to snap some pics of some wildlife, etc.

Im thinking i would should in 1600-2000 ISO in the evening as thats where i shoot now. i may go higher if it looks good, but i would have to test it out first.

The darkness the 1D3 will focus in blew my mind when I had it. It was unbelievable. I took pictures (with the 16-35L II mounted) in places where I literally couldn't see ANYTHING. And yet, somehow, the 1D3 found enough light to focus and lock on. If you do get your hands on a 1D3, test it out...it'll leave you speechless haha.

Haha, yea it sounds like a rock solid camera. I do know someone who has one but I believe his is the victim of the AF issue. Speaking of which, anyone know where i can read up on what to look for on the Mark III for the AF issue?

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14356906
The darkness the 1D3 will focus in blew my mind when I had it. It was unbelievable. I took pictures (with the 16-35L II mounted) in places where I literally couldn't see ANYTHING. And yet, somehow, the 1D3 found enough light to focus and lock on. If you do get your hands on a 1D3, test it out...it'll leave you speechless haha.

redfire2002 wrote in post #14356948
Haha, yea it sounds like a rock solid camera. I do know someone who has one but I believe his is the victim of the AF issue. Speaking of which, anyone know where i can read up on what to look for on the Mark III for the AF issue?

Safest bet is to look for a "blue dot" camera or one out of the affected range...or one that's had the AF fix done at the factory (ask for supporting paperwork).

Mine was technically in the "affected" range, BUT since it was a refurb, I'm pretty sure the mirror fix was done at the factory. Neither I, nor the previous owners, nor the current owner has had any problems, to my knowledge.

redfire2002 wrote in post #14356883
the Mark III is also 1800+ more! haha.

Im leaning towards the Mark III because of 2 things, Fast AF, and low light. Although the 5D Mark II has video capabilities but that would more or less be for personal use anyways, lol.

Both my bodies that i have now are gripped, so the bigger body doesnt bother me. And the 1.3 crop is nice when i throw my 70-200 on there and try to snap some pics of some wildlife, etc.

Im thinking i would should in 1600-2000 ISO in the evening as thats where i shoot now. i may go higher if it looks good, but i would have to test it out first.

I actually meant the 1D Mark III lol.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14357111
I actually meant the 1D Mark III lol.

Doh! My Bad, lol. Makes more sense now, haha

I will say this, the 1D Mark III's files are very receptive to NR and post processing in general