UK Mag "Practical Photography" Rates 5DIII best FF.

I just got my "Spring 2013" copy of Practical Photography, and it has a comparison test of six FF bodies:
Nikon D600
Nikon D800
Sony a99
Canon 6D
Canon 5DII
Canon 5DIII
I always thought PP seemed to slightly favour Nikon, but to my surprise they gave overall "Tester's Choice" to the 5DIII, summarising: "While it can't compete with the remarkable resolution of the Nikon D800 and is left lacking very slightly in dynamic range, the Canon is an exceptionally easy to use camera with amazing battery life, an incredible screen, a whopping 61 focus points and the fastest shooting speed in the set. The ISO also goes up to 25,600 for incredible low light performance, standing out impressively against the D800's maximum of 6400."

I also found it impressive how IQ seems to have come on, as they gave the 5DIII and the two Nikons 5 out of 5 for IQ and the 5DII only got 3. I think the 5DII's IQ is great. Do 5DIII users agree there is a big step in IQ from the MarkII?

I'm not trying to make any statement about the 5DIII or the Nikons; I just thought readers here would be interested in my early sight of this report.

From what I've read, I thought the 5D2 had a slight edge in IQ at low ISOs, but the 5D3 would leave it behind at ISO 1600 and up. All in all, not that much of a difference.

I bought a 5D last year because I didn't need the 3200+ ISO of the 5D2, or the amazingly versatile AF of the 5D3. Buying either one of those bodies would have tied up a lot more money, for absolutely no gain in my final images. "Best" is a relative term. I bought the 5D because it was the 'best' option for me.

Last year I traded my 5D2 in for a 5D3. I think low light is slightly better (high ISO performance). Autofocus is a world of difference. IQ: I don't see much difference between the two and I think IQ depends a lot on the glass as well...

I think the IQ is a good bit better with the 5DIII over the 5DII.

In a real world situation and in the hands of a good photographer probably not an ounce of difference between all of them,

I would say 5DII and III are pretty much equal up to ISO3200, beyond there the is a very slight edge to the III but it is really negligable.

Neilyb wrote in post #15731236
I would say 5DII and III are pretty much equal up to ISO3200, beyond there the is a very slight edge to the III but it is really negligable.

I think the iso differences at and beyond 3200 are huge!
On the 5D2 I rarely went to 6400, and could make 3200 work...
On the newer body, I will gladly shoot at 12,800 where I'd hesitate at 6400 on the older body!

I don't own a 5Dmk3 but I would be appalled if there wasn't a significant difference in image quality between it and the mk2. Comparing 1024 jpgs may well give the impression that they're comparable but I am pretty certain a 100 ISO mk3 and mk2 image at full resolution will be night and day.

Edit: Apparently they're not that different! I'm appalled.

As someone who has actually owned both the 5DII and the 5DIII, I'm of the opinion that there is little difference in IQ. Now if you want to talk about focusing and tracking ability, that's a different story.

The 5DIII has less blotchyness at ISO6400 or so, but I would not say it is a stop better. Better is the banding for sure.

I don't think people can really take advantage of the increased resolution of the D800 unless they shoot primarily landscapes and studio. Even then, there are limitations on where you can even see a difference in resolution. It doesn't surprise me that the 5D3 edges it out with the overall performance, but in reality both are simply amazing bodies.

As for the 5D2, within low to medium ISO, I can't see any appreciable difference in IQ whatsoever. Let's not forget how many simply amazing images the 5D2 has produced.

Look everyone. There are very very minimal differences in IQ B/T a 5D3 and a 5D2.

The differences B/T these 2 bodies rests in 3 critical areas for photographers

1. Dual cards
2. About 1/2- 3/4 ISO improvement
3. Af system- 61 working focal points v/s a single center point that works on the 5D2

There is no comparison B/T a 5D2 AF system and the 5D3 AF system.....the 5D3 blows the 5D2 out of the water in this department

Consider this- A 1DsMKIII was priced at $7000.00 and was the top of the line camera that you could purchase for the past 5 yrs

The 5D3 is $3200.oo right now. Its matches a 1Ds at everyplace you can test it against with the only advantage the 1Ds has over a 5D3 is build. But, The 5D3 blows a 1Ds away after 3200 ISO and the AF system on the 5D3 is definitely a much much better system than what a 1Ds offers.. I have tested both cameras and i would take a 5D3 over a 1Ds any day of the week.

It does surprise me that any professional photography company would say a 5D3 is a great value. $3200.00 V/S $7000.00. Ive been shooting canon since 1974. To date, the 5D3 is the best value in canons line up. There is only 1 camera that is better. Its the 1Dx.

Nothing can touch a 5D3 it its price point for professional use. I own 2 and have another one on my radar.

How did the 6D finish? For pure IQ many people say it is not only above the 5DII but the 5DIII as well (by a hair). I know that for high ISOs the 6D is close to a stop better than the 5DII and maybe a third of a stop better than the 5DIII. But of course the 5DIII is a more professional body with a lot more features better AF etc.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15731541
How did the 6D finish? For pure IQ many people say it is not only above the 5DII but the 5DIII as well (by a hair). I know that for high ISOs the 6D is close to a stop better than the 5DII and maybe a third of a stop better than the 5DIII. But of course the 5DIII is a more professional body with a lot more features better AF etc.

Gabe

where are you seeing that the 6D is better in ISO performance than the 5D3....That would be impossible. canon would never allow that to happen.

The reason i can say this confidently is that its totally impossible ?? And i have never shot with a 6D

The 1Dx is only a 1/2 stop,, maybe 3/4 of a stop better than the 5D3 in ISO performance on a raw file

That means canon would allow an entry level camera at $2000.00 to be on par with its flagship the 1Dx at $7000.00......OK think twice now... Do you really think a company like Canon would let that happen

Check bryans eveluations on Digital picture-- there's where your answers about ISO performance can be answered.

Have to disagree Gabe.