5D II vs III high ISO comparison?

I've decided to upgrade my 5Dc to either the II or the III, mainly because I need the ability to shoot at ISO 1600-3200 and maybe push it to 6400 at times.
I have no issues with the ancient AF on the c or II but definitely I need a camera that does high iso and have a usable screen.

How good is the II at high iso compared to the III?

http://www.dpreview.co​m …/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/22

Raw performance seems to be under 1 stop (many say about 1/2), but straight out of camera JPG (or using DPP to convert raw to JPG where settings are honored) is nearly 2 stops. Huge improvement in the software on the camera most definitely, not a dramatic improvement at the sensor level though, at least based on looking at side by side direct same shot comparisons.

This has been discussed before. But if you are interested have a look at this setwhere I shot comparison shots with the two bodies under exact the same conditions.

They're both killer.
Just get a 5d II and a pretty chunk of glass.
(unless you're shooting video, in which the 5d3 has some very nice upgrades)

thanks all, yeah Im pretty much set on the II as it does everything I need and $2,000 cheaper than the III.

was hoping to see more direct comparison shots at 1600 and 3200
vk2gwk, thanks for the link even though it was an ISO comparison at 100 and 6400, it gave me a general idea on what to expect with the II

5D3 is about 1/2 stop better than the 5D2 in high ISO performance, if that much.
Check out my review in my Sig. I have side by sides in there.

Viva-photography wrote in post #14596067
They're both killer.
Just get a 5d II and a pretty chunk of glass.
(unless you're shooting video, in which the 5d3 has some very nice upgrades)

Or something which moves where AF of 5dmk3 is real handy. That is the best upgrade IMHO.

nicksan wrote in post #14597137
5D3 is about 1/2 stop better than the 5D2 in high ISO performance, if that much.
Check out my review in my Sig. I have side by sides in there.

nick, I appreciate your review and the comparison samples between the II and III.
as I never, if ever rarely, use AI serve mode or the outer AF points, I think I'm sold with the II over the III for now.
For what I need (landscape, portrait, street) the II is more than enough for me.

nicksan wrote in post #14597137
5D3 is about 1/2 stop better than the 5D2 in high ISO performance, if that much.
Check out my review in my Sig. I have side by sides in there.

Maybe it's just me, but in your side by side comparison photos, esp the ones featuring the colorchecker, it seems as if the colors from the 5D Mk II are a little bit more vibrant/bolder, or have richer color than those from the 5D Mk III.

Of course a lot of the actual photos I've seen in the 5D Mk III thread feature nice, bold, vibrant, bright, eye popping colors so maybe it was just the test.

I honestly can never understand why people don't process their images to give them the brightest, deepest, boldest, most vibrant, popping, saturated colors.

Why pay thousands of dollars for a top end camera to produce, flat, almost colorless, dull, color images? (Unless of course it's for a specific "look")

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #14597599
I honestly can never understand why people don't process their images to give them the brightest, deepest, boldest, most vibrant, popping, saturated colors.

Why pay thousands of dollars for a top end camera to produce, flat, almost colorless, dull, color images? (Unless of course it's for a specific "look")

I'm guilty of falling into this, but then when I look at the photo, it looked significantly different than it actually did when I took the photo. Image wise that might be a good thing, but if it's for preserving a memory there is a certain amount of restraint that should be used.

For (little amature) me - The MKII is 80% what the MKIII is at half the price.

But I doooo love that extra 20%

I can't really understand the tepid reviews of the Mark III here. I upgraded from the 5DC so don't really know the capability upgrades of the II but the III is phenomenal. I've shot at ISO 10,000 with outstanding results.
Also, I take issue with the review of "whitelensrules" where he (or she) says:
"I honestly can never understand why people don't process their images to give them the brightest, deepest, boldest, most vibrant, popping, saturated colors."
I've seen many images where saturation was way over the top--totally unnatural. I do, however, have a color vision issue, so may not be the best judge, but to me, subtle, natural colors are very attractive. In film, I used mostly Velvia, but not for all subjects, certainly not humans. There is no one style that works all the time.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #14597599
Maybe it's just me, but in your side by side comparison photos, esp the ones featuring the colorchecker, it seems as if the colors from the 5D Mk II are a little bit more vibrant/bolder, or have richer color than those from the 5D Mk III.

Of course a lot of the actual photos I've seen in the 5D Mk III thread feature nice, bold, vibrant, bright, eye popping colors so maybe it was just the test.

I honestly can never understand why people don't process their images to give them the brightest, deepest, boldest, most vibrant, popping, saturated colors.

Why pay thousands of dollars for a top end camera to produce, flat, almost colorless, dull, color images? (Unless of course it's for a specific "look")

Yeah, the color balance might have been different between the cameras. I might have used AWB. Don't remember. It was more to gauge the high ISO noise than anything else. I wasn't overly concerned with making them look vibrant. That would invalidate the test no?

nicksan wrote in post #14600394
Yeah, the color balance might have been different between the cameras. I might have used AWB. Don't remember. It was more to gauge the high ISO noise than anything else. I wasn't overly concerned with making them look vibrant. That would invalidate the test no?

That's true.

It wasn't meant as a critique, rather more of an observation. The 5D Mk III clearly has the better high ISO, and your side by side tests proved that.

Being that I myself really couldn't careless about high ISO's, especially in the extreme range, I am more interested in how vibrant, crisp, bright, crystal clear, and eye popping colorful images a camera can produce. Do they make the viewer almost feel as if they can literally "touch" the subject?

And from some of the images I've seen posted from the 5D MkIII, the answer is yes. (Of course I've seen images posted from other cameras that can also give an answer of yes to the above question.)

I'm definitely not knocking the camera. From what I've seen, it produces some very exceptional quality images.

(And hey, for me to praise a 5D series camera is something. Being that I'm a true, dedicated 1D fan.)

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #14601124
I am more interested in how vibrant, crisp, bright, crystal clear, and eye popping colorful images a camera can produce. Do they make the viewer almost feel as if they can literally "touch" the subject?

This probably has more to do with the lighting, lens, settings, composition, subject placement, etc. The high ISO shots were shot under household lighting just to illustrate a point that while the 5D3 was indeed superior in high ISO noise handling, it wasn't by an astronomical amount.

IMHO, the real star of the 5D3 is the AF system probably only bested by the 1DX.