MIII v. 5D Image quality

Aside from the ability to print larger, and shoot wider, does the 5D offer anything in terms of IQ over the MIII?

RichNY wrote in post #3334622
Aside from the ability to print larger, and shoot wider, does the 5D offer anything in terms of IQ over the MIII?

"Aside from"? Isn't that difference enough? Larger print= larger resolution= potentially sharper image of printed at the same size as the MIII. The one thing that the MIII we know will better the 5D at is ISO sensitivity. Probably because of the new image processor, you can get better color balance too.


Because of resolution, I still see that the 5D has a place. The 1D has seemed to hold a market for sports photographers and journalists. People who need a fast AF and continous shoot. Wedding and portrait photographers seem to gravitate towards the 5D and 1Ds because they want higher resolution and don't need the speed of the 1D. This makes the Canon line up a winning combination IMO.

The results of the MKIII vs 5D have practically made it thee universal camera. Resolution isn't everything. The MKIII can make prints larger than any bride would want.

"My conclusion is that the 1D deals with the push MUCH -*MUCH*- better than the 5D does, which blows me away... Maybe it is the 14 bit?"

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/53562​7/31

The cameras are pretty much apple and an orange when compared side by side. One may have better IQ than the other only in certain circumstances. So you really should get the camera that is best for what you will shoot.

For me, the best consumer decision I ever made was a month ago when I canceled my Mark III order and got a 5D and a 135L. There is just something special about the 5D frame size, friendliness with wide angle lenses, and unique toning (not found in any other camera) that all perfectly compliment my favorite types of shots. Part of this may be that I was originally trained on a full-frame 35mm film SLR for many years. But also, there is a special artistic uniqueness with 5D photos, particularly with tones. The depth of what you can do in RAW is far greater than what I could do with my XTi.

Needless to say I get warm fuzzies and goose bumps every time I see outputs from my 5D so far. It's a very pleasing camera with regards to IQ. It is even possible that it makes me a better photographer . 5D has it's usability quirks and pains for sure, but it's so unique that I would be afraid to update to the next generation 5D for fear of loosing whatever it is that makes 5D shots special for my kind of shooting.

Here is a good read on the good and bad. http://www.butzi.net/r​eviews/EOS-5d.htm

PS, you might like these side by side comparisons of Mark III and 5D at ISO 3200. It's a draw at best for the new kid on the block.

freddyco wrote in post #3335693
The cameras are pretty much apple and an orange when compared side by side. One may have better IQ than the other only in certain circumstances. So you really should get the camera that is best for what you will shoot.

For me, the best consumer decision I ever made was a month ago when I canceled my Mark III order and got a 5D and a 135L. There is just something special about the 5D frame size, friendliness with wide angle lenses, and unique toning (not found in any other camera) that all perfectly compliment my favorite types of shots. Part of this may be that I was originally trained on a full-frame 35mm film SLR for many years. But also, there is a special artistic uniqueness with 5D photos, particularly with tones. The depth of what you can do in RAW is far greater than what I could do with my XTi.

Needless to say I get warm fuzzies and goose bumps every time I see outputs from my 5D so far. It's a very pleasing camera with regards to IQ. It is even possible that it makes me a better photographer . 5D has it's usability quirks and pains for sure, but it's so unique that I would be afraid to update to the next generation 5D for fear of loosing whatever it is that makes 5D shots special for my kind of shooting.

Here is a good read on the good and bad. http://www.butzi.net/r​eviews/EOS-5d.htm

PS, you might like these side by side comparisons of Mark III and 5D at ISO 3200. It's a draw at best for the new kid on the block.

Good read.. though why does he say he can't see the ISO setting in the viewfinder?
"Other really important stuff (like ISO speed) can only be read off the top display"
Is this an issue that was fixed with later models? I can certainly see it.

RichNY wrote in post #3334622
Aside from the ability to print larger, and shoot wider, does the 5D offer anything in terms of IQ over the MIII?

I think, this is tough question. There are not so many situations in "real life" where you can see IQ difference between these two. But, aside from wider angle, it would be interesting to compare original from 5D @ 1600 ISO and upsized (to 12.8 MP size) 1600 ISO image from MKIII. If there would be any visible difference, that would probably be matter of preference.

The main difference I see is when you look at 2 shots that are framed the same with the same lens and settings is the narrower DOF on the 5D and the better noise performance of the MK III.

AdamJL wrote in post #3335848
Good read.. though why does he say he can't see the ISO setting in the viewfinder?
"Other really important stuff (like ISO speed) can only be read off the top display"
Is this an issue that was fixed with later models? I can certainly see it.

I have to press the ISO/Drive button to make the ISO appear in my 5D viewfinder. Perhaps he just didn't know about this feature.

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=3274038&post​count=2863

morehtml wrote in post #3336182
The main difference I see is when you look at 2 shots that are framed the same with the same lens and settings is the narrower DOF on the 5D and the better noise performance of the MK III.

Looking at your comparison shots, I'd say the MK III definitely outshines any other camera at ISO 3200!! Probably the reason Canon disabled ISO 3200 on the 5D was for the critical pixel hounds like us I don't see much heap of difference with noise at 800: I do like the default colors of the MKIII...no doubt it would look different because of the processors. ISO at 1600 seems completely usable on the 5D. So again...5D vs MkIII vs 1Ds MkII, it all boils down to your shooting preference. While the MkIII might be "the universal" camera on this forum because of it being the latest and greatest, Canon hasn't discontinued the 1Ds or 5D.

i don't really see how mark III outshines 5d at 3200 all i see is the same type of noise behaviour with more noise reduction ( hence worse detail) in mark III ...5d seems to have more "punch" too ..meaning color and general look ...have both cameras , did some basic comparisons yesterday ..my excitement has gone away very fast ..i didn't put the same lens on ..i have to admit that but still i don't see $2,000 at all ...i am in a pretty bad mood today because of this ...and af isn't a jump over 5D either so ...what da' hell is going on here ..i don't see "rebuild from ground up " kind of difference here at all

i meant i don't see $2000 kind of difference at all when it goes to IQ

drogos wrote in post #3337184
i don't really see how mark III outshines 5d at 3200 all i see is the same type of noise behaviour with more noise reduction ( hence worse detail) in mark III ...5d seems to have more "punch" too ..meaning color and general look ...have both cameras , did some basic comparisons yesterday ..my excitement has gone away very fast ..i didn't put the same lens on ..i have to admit that but still i don't see $2,000 at all ...i am in a pretty bad mood today because of this ...and af isn't a jump over 5D either so ...what da' hell is going on here ..i don't see "rebuild from ground up " kind of difference here at all

Thats odd i thought one of the MAIN things about the mk3 was the AF and thats said to be better than the MK2 which i know is better than the 5d as i have both .
Rob.

drogos wrote in post #3337184
i don't really see how mark III outshines 5d at 3200 all i see is the same type of noise behaviour with more noise reduction ( hence worse detail) in mark III ...5d seems to have more "punch" too ..meaning color and general look ...have both cameras , did some basic comparisons yesterday ..my excitement has gone away very fast ..i didn't put the same lens on ..i have to admit that but still i don't see $2,000 at all ...i am in a pretty bad mood today because of this ...and af isn't a jump over 5D either so ...what da' hell is going on here ..i don't see "rebuild from ground up " kind of difference here at all

Maybe what you shoot and how (meaning subject speed, shooting pace, light and environment) does not require any more from a camera than 5D can now do well. That is why a any faster (than 5D) camera can not feel better to you. It's like driving 100 with Bugatti Veyron or BMW, they both feel fine. The difference comes when you go to 200-400 area, the other does not even reach that high end.

I feel that Mark III and 5D are pretty close in IQ, but 5D is a bit washed out in especially red colors. Noise levels are practically same, in some images 5D is better, in some Mark III. But remember that Mark III replaces Mark II, and there you have a vast difference in IQ.