5d2 vs 5d3 for landscapes ?

boingy wrote in post #15097221
Some other minor benefits of the 5D3 for landscape are bracketing up to 7 shots, In camera HDR, .............

The 5D2 has those things and more, it's called "Magic Lantern". Personally I'd go with a 5D2 and a decent lens.

gjl711 wrote in post #15112838
Source? All the reviews/articles/sampl​e pics and pics here seem to show that other than the stronger AA filter leading to a bit more softness in the MkIII and the stronger use of software noise settings, the raw performance of the sensors are pretty much identical. If the MkIII has really sdolved the banding and pattern noise problem, I'd love to know as I am ready to pick one up and just looking for an excuse to do so other than the fantastic AF the MkIII has. For landscaped AF is a don't care.

I have both cameras and can definitely vouch for the softness of the Mk III, which has the appearance of being the result of an AA filter. Although I don't like the pattern noise evident in both models, the 5D III's noise does have an improved appearance.

It's hard to argue for the 5D III over the 5D II for landscapes, but there are a few nice features that come in handy for landscapes: 1. up to 7 AEB brackets; 2. support for GPS; 3. electronic level. But, those features don't add up to a $1500-2000 value for sure, and that's pretty much the cost differential between the two cameras.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15112892
The 5D2 has those things and more, it's called "Magic Lantern". Personally I'd go with a 5D2 and a decent lens.

That sounds like the smarter move to me. If you want to max-out image quality, lenses easily trump bodies with regards to the 5D II and III. In fact earlier this year I had bought a D800 and compared it to my old 5D II and was a little shocked and dismayed that with same test scene with the same exposure settings the 21MP 5D II delivered an image that appeared sharper with better micro-contrast than the 36MP D800. Well, I had a superior Zeiss 1.4/35mm on the 5D II and the Nikon 24-70mm (@35mm) on the D800, so no wonder...

David Arbogast wrote in post #15112904
I have both cameras and can definitely vouch for the softness of the Mk III, which has the appearance of being the result of an AA filter. Although I don't like the pattern noise evident in both models, the 5D III's noise does have an improved appearance.

It's hard to argue for the 5D III over the 5D II for landscapes, but there are a few nice features that come in handy for landscapes: 1. up to 7 AEB brackets; 2. support for GPS; 3. electronic level. But, those features don't add up to a $1500-2000 value for sure, and that's pretty much the cost differential between the two cameras.

That sounds like the smarter move to me.

5d3 is softer even in Raw? I know the jpg gets cooked harder, but never heard of Raw being softer. If so that's a shame.

Looks like video features have finally detrimented our still photography like many predicted.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15112917
5d3 is softer even in Raw? I know the jpg gets cooked harder, but never heard of Raw being softer. If so that's a shame. ...

Result of the stronger AA filter. The AA filter is a real thing, not a software implementation.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15112904
....
It's hard to argue for the 5D III over the 5D II for landscapes, but there are a few nice features that come in handy for landscapes: 1. up to 7 AEB brackets; 2. support for GPS; 3. electronic level. But, those features don't add up to a $1500-2000 value for sure, and that's pretty much the cost differential between the two cameras.

That sounds like the smarter move to me.

That's how I saw it. If I didn't have a MkII and 7D currently, I would have been all over the MkIII. It's a really nice body, but as I already have a MkII, the new features didn't add up for me.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15112892
The 5D2 has those things and more, it's called "Magic Lantern". Personally I'd go with a 5D2 and a decent lens.

Yes that sounds like a good idea

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15112917
5d3 is softer even in Raw? I know the jpg gets cooked harder, but never heard of Raw being softer. If so that's a shame.

Looks like video features have finally detrimented our still photography like many predicted.

Yep, a little softer Raw files. And that was comparing using the same manual-focus lens on each camera. This difference is very minor, I should point out, but it's definitely the case with the Raw files. I would somewhat liken it to the difference between a D800 and a D800E. And yes, I completely agree that we're getting a slightly compromised image thanks to the priorities given towards video performance.

That said, I do really enjoy my 5D III and am planning to sell my 5D II (it's a shame on me and my procrastination that I haven't sold it yet!).

gjl711 wrote in post #15112927
Result of the stronger AA filter. The AA filter is a real thing, not a software implementation.

I understand that, but I was under the impression that people thought the AA filter was stronger based on JPG softness, and that it didn't actually have a stronger AA filter (to any degree that mattered).

If it really does remain soft in RAW, then yes, the AA filter would be to blame.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15112979
I understand that, but I was under the impression that people thought the AA filter was stronger based on JPG softness, and that it didn't actually have a stronger AA filter (to any degree that mattered).

If it really does remain soft in RAW, then yes, the AA filter would be to blame.

Got ya.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15112966
Yep, a little softer. And that was comparing using the same manual-focus lens on each camera. This difference is very minor, I should point out, but it's definitely the case with the Raw files. I would somewhat liken it to the difference between a D800 and a D800E. And yes, I completely agree that we're getting a slightly compromised image thanks to the priorities given towards video performance.

That's too bad. Although, to be honest, the colors coming out of the 5D3 are some of the best digital renditions I have ever seen. Forgot about that factor, which would be totally worth the slight loss in sharpness.

I would imagine the aftermarket AA removal for a 5d3 would be really killer for landscape work.

As a little exercise.........
I can get another 5D2 with OE battery grip and two batteries off of CL right now for $1500 even. Add Magic Lantern to get time lapse functions, HDR etc for $0. Add a used 17-40 for $750 and I'm at $2250. Add an AA filter removal service and I'm at $2700. Now you can either move towards filters, another lens, a ballhead and tripod. . . . . . .

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15113248
Add Magic Lantern to get time lapse functions, HDR etc for $0.

Really, you're not going to donate? Call it $20. ML also has an 'auto' bracket where it chooses the number and amount of brackets based on the scene. Actually works pretty well.

I'd vote 5DII + 17/24 TS-E (+1.4 TC, v1 is fine) over 5DIII + 24-105, although I'm sure you'll want a walk-around lens too.

The Mk3 files may be soft out of trhe camera but even slight LR sharpening produces a dramatic effect.

mark 2


gunna sound weird but i purchased a mark 3 months ago and returned it for a mark 2


yes i downgraded. the mark 3 didnt appeal to me for the extra $$$

mk3 has a few advantages that are nice.
Less banding - good for pushing shadows a little more
autofocus - yes even with landscapes its handy at times, as is the 6fps
Better sensor cleaning. 5d2 sucks, 5d3 seems much better.
Spirit level - again not always but it does help especially in low light
Viewfinder grid & bracketing etc.

OK I have magic lantern on the 5d2, yes it works and works well but there are a few aspects of it that are downsides. The camera takes longer to come out of sleep and uses more power are the main ones.