5D vs 1DMarkIII (Image quality) Question!

Tom W wrote in post #5063158
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!

ah ok, i was just about to say ... "what's wrong w/ my 5D?" Thanks for the explain, sorry that I can't read so good today.

Tom,
That is great info. My main concern was spending the extra $$ on features other than IQ. I know the Mark III has amazing features but I feel very few people had compared IQ and high ISO and I wanted to hear that to finalize my decision.

Once again POTN has given me the info I need to make an informed decision.

Eigga, I have seen other tests and comparisons on the net (with pictures) that show about 2/3 of a stop of difference in visible noise between the 1D3 and the 5D. Mine turned out a little closer to my eye, but I'll be looking at this some more.

It's hard to quantify when there are other subtle differences as well (saturation and contrast). I found that bumping up saturation one notch on the 5D seems to equalize the saturation, but at a slight expense of visible noise.

I will mess with it more tonight when I get home.

Tom W wrote in post #5065364
It's hard to quantify when there are other subtle differences as well (saturation and contrast). I found that bumping up saturation one notch on the 5D seems to equalize the saturation, but at a slight expense of visible noise.

That may be due to the 14 bit advantage of the MKIII.
This is consistent what what my friend (the amazing post processor) reports when I let him play with my RAW files and he compares them with the 12 bit images from his 5D and 1DS MKII.

Tom I think my tests are close to yours but the 5D has a lot more luminance noise. The chroma is different with the two bodies, a bit smoother with the mkIII....At 3200 the Luminance on the 5D is very pronounced, the specs seem brighter than the mkIII. Just my observations

Tom W wrote in post #5065364
Eigga, I have seen other tests and comparisons on the net (with pictures) that show about 2/3 of a stop of difference in visible noise between the 1D3 and the 5D. Mine turned out a little closer to my eye, but I'll be looking at this some more.

It's hard to quantify when there are other subtle differences as well (saturation and contrast). I found that bumping up saturation one notch on the 5D seems to equalize the saturation, but at a slight expense of visible noise.

I will mess with it more tonight when I get home.

yep....the pictures made by the 1d3 just look better .

ed rader

Was just messing around at home and was shooting in my room with the mkIII and 50L @ 6400, it's dark except for the computer screen, couldn't believe it even locked, but the mkIII 50L combo see's in the dark....just amazing to me....Put the 50L on the 5D right after wards and it wouldn't lock.....My wife would probably not be to happy if she knew I posted this....but...
mkIII, 50L, 6400, 1/80th @1.2

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

OK, she saw it....told me to put a better one up....so, here
mkIII, 70-200/2.8IS, 100ISO

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I found the 1DIII is slightly better, with other better features, such as fps, build, larger lcd, live view. Hence why I kept the 1DIII

You know it's funny that my 5D does the same thing too. In certain low light situations, the 5D sometimes has difficulty locking AF. There really is a noticeable difference when comparing AF between the 5D and MK III. Me and my buddy did a bridal shoot today and he used his 40D. He couldn't lock AF in low light with the 40D. Than he turned to me and asked me to take the shot( with the MK III) and when I composed, it locked without a hiccup. Gotta love 1D bodies. I'm hooked! This is one of reason why I'll never go back to an XXD body.

I don't see a point comparing the two. You either want relatively cheap FF or you want speed. You'll be the weak link regardless.

cdifoto wrote in post #5077531
I don't see a point comparing the two. You either want relatively cheap FF or you want speed. You'll be the weak link regardless.

I agree with you for once Don. :p

thatkatmat wrote in post #5076773
Was just messing around at home and was shooting in my room with the mkIII and 50L @ 6400, it's dark except for the computer screen, couldn't believe it even locked, but the mkIII 50L combo see's in the dark....just amazing to me....Put the 50L on the 5D right after wards and it wouldn't lock.....My wife would probably not be to happy if she knew I posted this....but...
mkIII, 50L, 6400, 1/80th @1.2
.....

Most definitely, my 1D3 can focus in lower light than my 5D could (the 40D can also). And the 5D did better in very low light than my 1D2 did. Canon has made some forward strides in this area.

I compared them because that is one feature that is important to me. ISO 6400 would be of little use if the camera couldn't focus in lighting situations where that ISO setting was necessary.

For my needs which was low light capabilities and high IQ I needed to make sure the 5D wasn't better. If it was then the 5D was the choice for me because I was limited with the 40D in some situations.

But, if the Mark III met those two needs the same as the 5D then it was the choice because it would improve my capabilities in the sports part of my business as well.
It also was important me to get a camera that writes to two cards.

My biggest fear was getting the Mark III and learning its IQ or low light capabilities were slightly inferior...hope that makes sense

Ditto. These are two completely different cameras for completely different uses.

Some say that a 5D is a 'lite' version of the 1DsMkII and the 40D a 'lite' version of the 1DMkIII.

As a wedding photographer I could't imagine carrying around a 1DmkIII with a lump of glass like the 24-70 f2.8 or a 70-200 f2.8 IS on it for hours and hours. As a portrait photographer I couldn't imagine using anyting but a 5D in the studio.

For me the 5D is the ultimate all round wedding and portrait camera.

There is no doubt that both of these cameras are truly outstanding but you have to consider what satisfies your needs the most.