5D vs 1DMarkIII (Image quality) Question!

studiom wrote in post #5545699
If bucks aren't an issue then the Mark III is a no brainer... It's noise performance at high ISO is incredible, better than the 5D.

Well, its not a no brainer IMO...

I cold swing a MKIII financially, but I couldn't live with a crop body as my main camera. If Canon could weather seal and improve the AF on the next round of the 5D, I'd be a very happy camper. I could never justify spending $8K on a 1Ds III.

drisley wrote in post #5545604
One of the first things I noticed too about the MK3 is it's improved metering vs any other camera.

This fact has been one of the prime determining factors with my decision to go ahead and order the MK3. I can't wait to see what it gives me. Overall, I love the 5D but I have sometimes been slightly disappointed with it in this area. However, I think the 5D will make an excellent backup body.

On high-ISO, low-light noise performance alone, the two will be very, very close, but the MKIII would win because it has ISO6400 and seems to just pip the 5D, which one would hope would be the case, seeing as the 5D is 2.5 years old with a single, older processor!

However, if you're talking about IQ, the MKIII won't give you the full frame look to your images, nor will you get the full frame experience. As much as I'd love one, I wouldn't give full frame up for a cropped body. YMMV.

perryge wrote in post #5547869
....
However, if you're talking about IQ, the MKIII won't give you the full frame look to your images, nor will you get the full frame experience. As much as I'd love one, I wouldn't give full frame up for a cropped body. YMMV.

Which is why I've kept my 5D - and 350D too - although my youngest uses it most these days - and it has the EFs60mm macro on - so she can get pretty much as close as she likes and it still focus's! She takes some pretty good shots too - for a 7year old!

For it's PRICE ~~ unbeatable.

Take my word for it, my 5D is beating my 1DMKIII it is making me thin k that I might pay for the 1DsMKIII after all ~

Of course price has something to do with it ~ otherwise just buy both cameras and you'll know yourself ~~

eigga wrote in post #5060787
coorz....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?

Well I have had the Mark III now for several months and I could not have made a better decision. Mark III is amazing!

I switched to the MKIII after having owned the 5D for over a year, and I am very happy with the MKIII.

IQ wise, the MKIII is indeed better. Also has about 3/4 to 1 stop ISO advantage which for me was a pretty big factor when deciding.

It also operates "faster" and is more solid feeling.

That said, if for some reason I had to go back to the 5D, I won't be kicking and screaming...far from it.

I was just reading a review of the 70-200/2.8IS on dpreview, and what is weird is it performed MUCH better on full-frame (5D) than it did on the 1.6x crop cameras. It's almost the opposite of what you would expect! I would assume on a 1.3x crop it would be somewhere in between.

(Ironically, the nikon 70-200VR behaved the opposite. Results on the full-frame D3 were not very good at all compared to a 1.5x crop camera.)

drisley wrote in post #5549766
I was just reading a review of the 70-200/2.8IS on dpreview, and what is weird is it performed MUCH better on full-frame (5D) than it did on the 1.6x crop cameras. It's almost the opposite of what you would expect! I would assume on a 1.3x crop it would be somewhere in between...

When you talk about performance, do you mean image quality? I love my 70-200 2.8 IS. It's my favorite lens. I'd hate to think I'd lose anything when I get my Mk III.

drisley wrote in post #5549766
I was just reading a review of the 70-200/2.8IS on dpreview, and what is weird is it performed MUCH better on full-frame (5D) than it did on the 1.6x crop cameras. It's almost the opposite of what you would expect! I would assume on a 1.3x crop it would be somewhere in between.

The 70-200 IS is an exceptional performer on all formats. I've honestly found it to be outstanding on 1.6, 1.3, and full frame bodies. I still remember the day I bought it - still had the 10D, I believe. My very first shots, at f/2.8 & 200 mm really blew me away. The clarity was exceptional. Maybe I was blessed with an exceptional copy, but I think it is the most "prime-like" zoom I've owned.

Phil Light wrote in post #5549785
When you talk about performance, do you mean image quality? I love my 70-200 2.8 IS. It's my favorite lens. I'd hate to think I'd lose anything when I get my Mk III.

You wont. The MK III is only a 1.3x crop, not 1.6x like they are talking about.
On my 1D cameras, the 70-200 lenses have been RAZOR sharp ( 160mm, F2.8 ) to say the least.