5D vs 1DMarkIII (Image quality) Question!

Yep, that was exactly what I was thinking...

Better yet, 1D MKIII + 5D = bliss!

thatkatmat wrote in post #5061365
Although if you keep the 40D you could get the 5D and add to an already really great kit. The 5d is a GREAT portrait body

yep, I'm very very happy with this combo, say Nick, still happy as a clam with your mkIII?

Don't forget that the MKIII outputs 14bit RAW files vs 12bit Raw for the 5D.

I've given my MKIII RAWS to a fellow POTNer who is a very heavy (and very talented) post processor, probably the best I've seen. He is floored by how much more he can do with the MKIII raw files over his 5D and 1DSMK2 images. Personally, I don't see as much difference, but I don't do as much aggressive post processing.

However, I've seen great images from both. I know the MKIII has better noise control at higher ISO's (about 2/3rd of a stop).

Have a look at these amazing images, taken with both the MKIII and 5D bodies. It's hard to tell which is which!
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1032&messag​e=26836992

He used ISO2500 on the MKIII shots and ISO1600 on the 5D shots.
.

nicksan wrote in post #5061397
Yep, that was exactly what I was thinking...

Better yet, 1D MKIII + 5D = bliss!

That's what I have too and it's a great combo.

Well " 6D or 5D II" can replace the 40D later and then I will have an amazing combo. I just have to pick one for now based on what I need which is better IQ and useable 3200 ISO

eigga wrote in post #5061743
Well " 6D or 5D II" can replace the 40D later and then I will have an amazing combo. I just have to pick one for now based on what I need which is better IQ and useable 3200 ISO

1DmkIII, no question in my mind

I have both 5D and 1DMKIII. In al honesty, the IQ on both camera get the job done, it's the other things about the 1DMKIII that give it an advantage. Weather proofing, ISO 6400, highlight priority, etc. But, if you put two cameras at the same settings on a tri-pod, the resulting image is something used for internet arguments only - completely no relevance to actual customer satisfaction.

eigga wrote in post #5061743
Well " 6D or 5D II" can replace the 40D later and then I will have an amazing combo. I just have to pick one for now based on what I need which is better IQ and useable 3200 ISO

Here you go... 1D MKIII, ISO3200, Adobe Camera Raw Defaults, No additional noise reduction.

[QUOTE=eigga;5060787]c​oorz....thanks for the comment but I dont want "for it's price comparrison'

Just straight up based on high ISO and IQ what would you pick if they were the same price?[/quote]


i've owned both and the 1d mark III is better for IQ.

at iso 1600 they are both excellent.

ed rader

[QUOTE=eigga;5061326]L​ooks like I will be getting a Mark III
I mainly shoot childrens performances/sports but have been adding tons of portraits as well. I have a 40D and am very happy with it as the sports/performance camera. I just felt I needed a little more for portraits to produce the extreme quality I expect.

It sounds like the Mark III can easily double as sports/portrait camera[/quote]

i think the 1d mark III is the most versatile DSLR made by anyone .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #5062623
i think the 1d mark III is the most versatile DSLR made by anyone .

ed rader

I agree with this.

I've done some preliminary comparison shots at ISO 1600, 3200, and 6400 (the 5D at 3200, underexposed by 1 stop and pulled up in PP to achieve 6400). What's interesting is that the 5D shoots at 1/3 stop faster shutter to obtain the same visible exposure. That is, at 3200, f/8, and 1/10 second, the exposure visibly is the same brightness as the 1D3 at 3200, f/8, and 1/8 second. This matches Phil Askey's observations that the older Canons are actually 1/3 stop higher ISO than indicated while the newer bodies (400D and later) have been adjusted to be accurate to the standard.

Anyway, my initial tests with visibly equal exposure (as opposed to having the same settings which would expose the 5D at 1/3 stop brighter) under moderate incandescent light with both cameras set the same brings similar results. A lot more similar than I had expected. I'll still give an edge to the 1D3 but it's quite close - probably 1/3 stop in this test. Actually, given the higher pixel density of the 1D3, being close or slightly better than the 5D is a bit of an achievement.

I will say that the 1D3 does have slightly richer colors, with both cameras set at neutral picture style, 0 contrast, saturation, & color tone, and sharpening at level 3. Contrast on the 1D3 is a little higher as well, perhaps taking advantage of the 14-bit files. Since I framed equally, the shallow depth of field of the 5D (using a longer focal length) was evident.

The "pushed" 6400 image of the 5D was better than I had expected, but it was a bit more subdued than the actual ISO 6400 shot from the 1D3. As always with these higher ISO settings, strong exposure is a major factor in low noise. Expose to the right and all that.

I intend to test further. Pending some free time during daylight hours, I want to compare latitude at more normal ISO settings like 400 and 800 to see which body can pull up shadows more cleanly, and which (if any) has more headroom.

BTW, all my tests are in RAW, and I use DPP to view and compare them.

Tom - sorry ... maybe I don't know my 5D as well as I think I do, how did you get 6400 ISO on your 5D?

Read his first paragraph - he explains it there. He simulates it, he doesn't actually shoot 6400.

S Taylor wrote in post #5063089
Read his first paragraph - he explains it there. He simulates it, he doesn't actually shoot 6400.

Exactly - I shot the 5D at ISO 3200, but underexposed by 1 stop. I then "pushed" it in post processing by raising the exposure by 1 stop to simulate ISO 6400. This is pretty taxing on the image, but it can work if you expose pretty high and don't have a lot of shadow detail that you want to preserve. And, of course, your final image size isn't a 2-page magazine spread!