How do you feel about 5D3 color/feel compared to 5D2?

I don't know if there are any direct photo tests (not just scientific) of the 5D3 vs the 5D2, but every time I see a picture from the 5D3 I can't help but think it has this overly digital feel to it and its colors. Whereas the 5D2 has just the right balance to achieve a very filmic look right off the bat - even in video.

Is it just me being delusional? And is there any way to make a 5D3 color feel the same as a 5D2?

Interesting thought, so I just popped outside and took a couple of snaps with both. Same lens used, 40mm pancake, and settings for both images are f/5.6, 1/400s, ISO 100. No processing other than being converted from raw to jpg in Photoshop, and resized.

Top image is 5D2

Thanks a lot for the test. At first glance I can't see much of a noticeable difference in color. I forgot to recall that most of the shots I was speaking about had some sort of depth of field going on. I was going to whip out a few hundred bucks to rent both cameras and do some testing but you just saved me a lot of cash, thanks again.

An outdoor sunny shot between any 2 cameras aren't going to yield much differences you are going to see as a 2x3 image. Perhaps rent a 5D3 and try them side by side indoors at higher ISOs?

Images taken indoors at ISO 3200. f/8.0 and 1/400s in both cases. Again no processing other than resizing and converting to jpg in Photoshop and, as before, 5D2 image is the top one.

imo no noticeable difference...

For me, the "filmic" look always has depth of field involved, even if it's not as lot. So if you can shoot a subject anywhere from f/1.4-4.0 with their backgrounds blurred I think we'd see a bigger difference?

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16321225
For me, the "filmic" look always has depth of field involved, even if it's not as lot. So if you can shoot a subject anywhere from f/1.4-4.0 with their backgrounds blurred I think we'd see a bigger difference?

No discernible difference with the 5D2 vs 5D3... The 5D3 gives you a huge jump up with its AF, generally better high ISO performance, and some other small tricks. General color/contrast and DOF changes aren't really going to change by any appreciable difference.

Here's a blog post / comparison that pits the mark ii vs mark iii for high ISO astrophotography.
(Ok fine it's about the 1Dx but whatever, it has ii and iii in there)

http://www.uncagetheso​ul.com …/best-canon-night-camera/

Mark III won hands down with much better color retention at high ISO.

Also from the images I've seen they're basically indistinguishable from each other at base ISOs. I'm pretty any differences that can be "seen" are psychological... try to pick which is which without knowing what camera they are from. Heck, if you threw in a different camera I'm sure you wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't the mark ii either!

Yeah you guys are right. The overly "digital", oversaturated and oversharpened photos I saw were probably just users using zooms over primes, flat lighting and bad color correction...err not "bad" but lets just say not my style.

Thanks for all the help guys, I have more than enough reason to buy a 5D3 now!

Had 5dc, 5dmk3, and 5dmk3. They all the same. And 6d is also same.