What Gives the 1DMkIII it's "Sizzle?"

IOW, strip away the differences in mearly mechanical trappings: higher fps, build, wx sealing, integral vertical shutter, etc, etc, etc...

If you put a full res RAW image from the 5D (12Mp) next to a full res RAW image from the MkIII (10Mp) what (if anything) makes the MkIII image better?

Is it even actually better?

- Is the Digic III processing markedly superior? (Better noise suppresion, etc?)
- Does the MkIII actually process 1s and 0s in a different/better way?
- Do RAW images come out of the MkIII needing less sharpening or other "basic" RAW tweaks?
- Is there something about RAW from a MkIII that can yield superior images after full PP that you can't get out of the 5D?
- Elfin Magic?

I guess my ultimage question is: What makes the MkIII "Pro" and the 5D "Prosumer" at strictly the final image level?

I'm honestly asking in the hope that some technical info can be shared here...

TIA to those who care to chime in.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5243420
IOW, strip away the differences in mearly mechanical trappings: higher fps, build, wx sealing, integral vertical shutter, etc, etc, etc...

If you put a full res RAW image from the 5D (12Mp) next to a full res RAW image from the MkIII (10Mp) what (if anything) makes the MkIII image better?

Is it even actually better?

- Is the Digic III processing markedly superior? (Better noise suppresion, etc?)
- Does the MkIII actually process 1s and 0s in a different/better way?
- Do RAW images come out of the MkIII needing less sharpening or other "basic" RAW tweaks?
- Is there something about RAW from a MkIII that can yield superior images after full PP that you can't get out of the 5D?
- Elfin Magic?

I guess my ultimage question is: What makes the MkIII "Pro" and the 5D "Prosumer" at strictly the final image level?

I'm honestly asking in the hope that some technical info can be shared here...

TIA to those who care to chime in.

Who called the 5D "prosumer"?

45 point AF system that is faster then any other Canon camera. Able to servo track very fast and erratic movement. 10fps for serious sports shooting, Built like a tank to take abuse from being run over by football players and other rugged events, ISO 6400 that is pretty clean for such a high ISO. It is built for what its ment to be used for Action, Sports and poor weather condition shooting.

IQ alone is not enough to make the jump from 5D to 1DMkIII worth it. a 3/4-1 stop improvement in high ISO noise control alone may not justify the extra expense. what you're buying into is pro build, weather-sealing, high speed performance, advanced specs/features/technol​ogy & customisation up the wazoo.

Honestly (Flame me guys), I really think that in my humble opinion, by using my eyes to look a the pictures, that the image that comes out of the 5D is actually better than the one that comes out of the 10MP Mark III.

Now another completely different story is the image that comes out of the 1Ds at 21MP. Sorry, there is nothing that compares to that. I got one the week after ISAP and all I can say is it is incredible, amazing, etc. (all of those terms are overused in our language, but they fit here).

The Mark III is good for its speed and buffer, images are exceptional, but I still don't think up to the level of the 5D. Also I find the Full Frame a lot nicer to work with than the Crop............
Mark H

The 5D is prosumer only in that it's not weather sealed, no integrated vertical grip, slow frame rate, etc.

The images which come from the 5D are professional in every way and equal to or better than almost any 35mm DSLR on the market, save the 1DsMKIII and the D3.
mark

P51Mstg wrote in post #5244645
Honestly (Flame me guys), I really think that in my humble opinion, by using my eyes to look a the pictures, that the image that comes out of the 5D is actually better than the one that comes out of the 10MP Mark III.

Now another completely different story is the image that comes out of the 1Ds at 21MP. Sorry, there is nothing that compares to that. I got one the week after ISAP and all I can say is it is incredible, amazing, etc. (all of those terms are overused in our language, but they fit here).

The Mark III is good for its speed and buffer, images are exceptional, but I still don't think up to the level of the 5D. Also I find the Full Frame a lot nicer to work with than the Crop............
Mark H

i think the mark III makes a better picture than the 5d. close but the mark III is better. brighter and more detail.

ed rader

I am pretty sure some shots the markIII can take easily while the 5d could be struggling. How about song bird BIFs shots? I am sold on the AF and the burst rate alone. You can shoot 30 frames in raw before clearing the buffer on the mark III. With my 30D, about 11 frames before clearing the buffer.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5243420
IOW, strip away the differences in mearly mechanical trappings: higher fps, build, wx sealing, integral vertical shutter, etc, etc, etc...

If you put a full res RAW image from the 5D (12Mp) next to a full res RAW image from the MkIII (10Mp) what (if anything) makes the MkIII image better?

Is it even actually better?

- Is the Digic III processing markedly superior? (Better noise suppresion, etc?)
- Does the MkIII actually process 1s and 0s in a different/better way?
- Do RAW images come out of the MkIII needing less sharpening or other "basic" RAW tweaks?
- Is there something about RAW from a MkIII that can yield superior images after full PP that you can't get out of the 5D?
- Elfin Magic?

I guess my ultimage question is: What makes the MkIII "Pro" and the 5D "Prosumer" at strictly the final image level?

I'm honestly asking in the hope that some technical info can be shared here...

TIA to those who care to chime in.

artyboy wrote in post #5244130
IQ alone is not enough to make the jump from 5D to 1DMkIII worth it. a 3/4-1 stop improvement in high ISO noise control alone may not justify the extra expense. what you're buying into is pro build, weather-sealing, high speed performance, advanced specs/features/technol​ogy & customisation up the wazoo.

i don't see that much iso improvement. i think the two cameras are very close in this respect but i do think the mark III is better.

the biggest improvements i see between the two are:

-- improved metering.

-- more responsive (no shutter lag).

-- better color and detail.

in general i just like the mark III images better.

ed rader

TooManyShots wrote in post #5244700
I am pretty sure some shots the markIII can take easily while the 5d could be struggling. How about song bird BIFs shots? I am sold on the AF and the burst rate alone. You can shoot 30 frames in raw before clearing the buffer on the mark III. With my 30D, about 11 frames before clearing the buffer.

the 5d actually tracks pretty well but the 3fps is a hair to slow. i can get by with 4 fps but i deally i like 5 or 6 for what i do.

the mark III also doesn't have that slight hesitation when you push the shutter like the 5d.

after owning the 1d mark III i no longer have any attraction for a FF camera because i'm not a WA shooter and the images are better overall than what i got with my 5d.

ed rader

Well, 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW, which gives you a vastly more flexible RAW to work with.

But most of the differences between "Pro" and "Prosumer" cameras are those "mearly (sic) mechanical trappings".

Jon wrote in post #5244750
Well, 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW, which gives you a vastly more flexible RAW to work with.

But most of the differences between "Pro" and "Prosumer" cameras are those "mearly (sic) mechanical trappings".

true. the file size is close to that of the 5d.

ed rader

I think the IQ is very close. The 1D MKIII is about 3/4 stop better in the ISO department.

The 1D MKIII is all about the speed and build so it's kind of silly to take that away from the equation. It's the total package that makes it an attractive body.

I'm not sure how everyoen thinks that price and featues must also equal better IQ. The Canon range of DSLR all create VERY similar images in a static environment.

ISO abilities, rendering, colour space etc. are all so close it's quite amazing. Look at the noise link in my sig and see. Stick any range of Canon DSLRs on a tripod in a room and the real difference is the crop and sensor size. I did.

Now.

It's the ability for the body to capture the image that sets the 1 series range apart from the non-grip, "prosumer" bodies. Durabiltiy in extreme conditions. 45 point AF. Battery life. Ergos to adjust on the fly etc.

I'd rather get a shot of similar quality than not get the shot at all.

Jon wrote in post #5244750
Well, 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW, which gives you a vastly more flexible RAW to work with.

Hmmm! I think that may be a debatable point!