5d vs 5d Mark 3

So I own the 5d Mark 3 but I'm thinking of downgrading so I can use the money for other things. I'm curious to all you have used both - I know what I'm losing in speed, autofocus capability, video functionality, etc. but is the picture quality really discernibly better with the Mark 3? I do have decent glass which obviously makes much more of a difference.

the 5D set the standard in (affordable) image quality 9 years ago, but you will see a difference today. I noticed a difference when I went from a 5d classic to 5d2

Hmm. But how much? I'm sure it's hard to quantify, but I'm just trying to get a handle on how much of a downgrade the 5D Classic is.

Image quality losses include;

Dropping your MP resolution nearly in half.
Going from 14 bit color back to 12 bit color -edited- (IMHO, this is a deal breaker for me)
Loosing the huge improvements that have been made with controlling noise. (another deal breaker IMHO)

^^ The 5D is a 12 bit camera.

I started with a 5D and upgraded to a 5DIII last year. I was still happy with the image quality after 5 years. Overall, I was happy with the 5D except for the autofocus. The outer points were pretty much useless for my needs.

The megapixels were fine but I don't often print larger than 8x10. I do appreciate that the 5DIII has enough pixels that I can get a portrait orientation crop from a landscape image and still print an 8x10 at 300 ppi if needed.

The ISO capabilities of the 5DIII are impressive. I have some shots of my daughter at ISO 12,800 that simply wouldn't have been possible without a flash on the 5D. I still usually use a flash indoors anyway but its still nice to know the capability is there when needed.

Overall, the killer feature in the upgrade was the autofocus. Having something like 41 cross type points is a HUGE deal for me. The dual cross type sensors down the middle are also impressive when paired with a fast lens like the 24-70mkII which I rented this weekend.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17209693
Image quality losses include;

Dropping your MP resolution nearly in half.
Going from 14 bit color back to 8 bit color (IMHO, this is a deal breaker for me)
Loosing the huge improvements that have been made with controlling noise. (another deal breaker IMHO)

Aall of these would be a deal breaker for me. If you wanted to save about $1000 you could look into a 6D. That's as far of a downgrade as I would go. You won't lose any image quality at all. The ISO alone would be a huge factor for me.

Where and what do you shoot. In a studio the difference is small, for weddings the iso advantage is huge. For landscapes the 5Ds lack of a dust shaker would be a deal breaker. 5DII or 6D seem a better backstep.

why not just step down to a 6D instead

I have both the original 5D and the mkIII and I am still happy to use the original one, although the mkIII is my main camera of course.

Used within its comfort zone, the original 5D produces great images (I am still getting images taken by mine accepted for national exhibitions) and you would struggle to tell them apart from the mkIII images except by resolution. For smaller prints (up to say 24x16) or web use, you would find the images from the classic equal to those from the mkIII.

However, the key part there is "within its comfort zone". If you need higher ISOs then you will see a difference (or be unable to shoot at all, as it only goes to 3200) so light needs to be good. The AF system is great on centre point, particularly with the assist points engaged, I find that it tracks very well. However the outer points are only usable in good light and even then can be dodgy if the lines of contrast are orientated the wrong way for the AF point. When conditions are good you will see little IQ difference between the two, in the end result, however the rest of the time the mkIII will be clearly ahead and often I have got great results from the mkIII in situations where the classic couldn't even make an attempt.

It depends what you shoot really. If you are primarily a studio shooter, and don't want huge prints, then the classic is still a great choice as you control the conditions and can keep them where it works best. There is also a certain indefinable tonal quality to a 5D image, with skin tones in particular, that is very pleasing to many people, even in preference to the mkIII.

If I could only have one body it would be the mkIII, however I would be sad to be without the classic as it still produces great results in the right conditions.

The 5D can produce great photos if you are in an ideal environment like a studio where you can control the lighting and things are not moving spontaneously about. It can not compete with keeper rates against the 5Diii if the situation gets outside of these parameters.

snake0ape wrote in post #17210251
The 5D can produce great photos if you are in an ideal environment like a studio where you can control the lighting and things are not moving spontaneously about. It can not compete with keeper rates against the 5Diii if the situation gets outside of these parameters.

Great statement. The 5d, to me, makes files that the 5d3 can't compete with in that older, film, dreamy style. Give it good light and a stationary subject and it rocks. Put it in a dark room, with a moving subject however and there is no comparison.

Both are great - I use my 5d as a backup at my weddings mainly for portraits and I strap it to a 35L and it just plain rocks. 5d + prime = awesomeness

I have never shot anything but a 5D when it comes to digital, but I think the biggest thing you'll miss is the autofocus. My only real complaint is the autofocus. You'll probably miss the megapixels too, if like to crop your shots.

the 5Dc produces great photos, but it cant deal with heavy crops well. As long as you get composition super good in camera, you'll be ok, and get fairly close results. High ISO, it's a complete blowout, the 5D3 is considerably different. The menus of the older 5D are ok, very basic. Biggest issue by far is the lack of Autoiso, then autofocus. both are annoying, but not a total deal breaker.

Heya,

Why not trade in the 5D3 and get the 6D instead. Pocket some money, but stick with a really good modern camera?

Very best,