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

nicksan wrote in post #5244774
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 than away from the equation. It's the total package that makes it an attractive body.

crop factor with FF IQ and improved metering and iso handling are pretty attractive to me....but yeah the physical attributes are nice too .

ed rader

image quality is not the debate. anything newer than 4 years old can provide as much image quality that you need. It's all about usability.

Your comparison is like comparing a small engine racecar against a Lexus. they might both do 0 to 60 in under 5.5 seconds, and both are cars, but in practical use, they are in completely different classes and can't really be compared that way.

fordmondeo wrote in post #5244933
Hmmm! I think that may be a debatable point!

You don't think that having 16K levels rather than 4K to select from gives you a more flexible and data-rich file to work with? Whether any given individual knows how to take full advantage of this or not, the flexibility is there.

I can certainly agree/argue that the 1DsIII has far superior image quality compared to the 5D! Even after accounting for all the build/weather/customiz​ation

fordmondeo wrote in post #5244933
Hmmm! I think that may be a debatable point!

no it may not. Highlight detail is dramatically improved. Overexposed highlights hold detail and spot on color rendition so much better. Besides that and slightly better high iso, strictly IQ wise..... I like 5D IQ better. Skin tones are beautifuly iluminated, overall image seems to be 'brighter' at the same EC settings. Mark III's image seems to be more .....flat i think. As every one else mentioned in any other respects mark III is a generation ahead of 5d. AF on 5d is great but only at center point. Pretty much uselesss in dimmed conditions on any other than center point. Build, features, ergonomy ..just a different league

MDJAK wrote in post #5244664
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

It's a professional camera designed for studio use and if you need weather sealing in the studio you need your roof fixing...

The single figure number denotes the professional status...

I regularly use both the 5D and the 1D.

The good news is that they are both great!

As has been mentioned, the 1D has better AF -- use the two side-by-side and this will be evident.

Another feature the 1D has is Highlight Tone Priority. I've tested this, and it applies to RAW files. It is similar to underexposing by a 1 stop lower ISO then boosting the low and mid tones digitally while keeping the highlight detail and can be a timesaver and even an image saver when highlight details are important.

The 14 bit image is meaningful, but in practice I'm not sure how much of an edge it gives. But that's just me.

Some here claim that the Mk III has better high ISO/low noise performance. I haven't seen the tests that demonstrate that, but I've run tests of my own and have seen more chroma noise in shadows with the Mk III, consistent with the higher pixel density/smaller photon sites you have with the Mk III, so I would respectfully disagree with those assertions. However, the default chroma noise reduction applied by Lightroom makes the difference negligible.

I don't hesitate to use either camera. Different situations will prompt me to grab one body or the other. In general, I don't see the Mk III images standing out above the 5D, so when the 5D with ff and its compact body suit the situation, I don't feel like I'm compromising when I use it.

If I had to choose just one of the two bodies, I'd probably choose the Mk III because I do a lot of wildlife photography and the Mk III has an edge there with its AF capabilities, but if I did exclusively landscapes, portraits, weddings, or street photography I very well might choose the 5D.

Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice! In fact, I also have a 30D which makes great images, and I loan that to my son so he can be a "second" when we go out!

I understand that this is more about the 1D III (not the 1Ds), but many of it still applies.
All in all, I agree with everything in the above post.

tonylong wrote in post #5245929
I regularly use both the 5D and the 1D.

The good news is that they are both great!

Yes!

tonylong wrote in post #5245929
As has been mentioned, the 1D has better AF -- use the two side-by-side and this will be evident.

Also very true

tonylong wrote in post #5245929
Another feature the 1D has is Highlight Tone Priority. I've tested this, and it applies to RAW files. It is similar to underexposing by a 1 stop lower ISO then boosting the low and mid tones digitally while keeping the highlight detail and can be a timesaver and even an image saver when highlight details are important.

Very VERY VERY useful. I really do like this feature, and it is one of my favourite!

tonylong wrote in post #5245929
Some here claim that the Mk III has better high ISO/low noise performance. I haven't seen the tests that demonstrate that, but I've run tests of my own and have seen more chroma noise in shadows with the Mk III, consistent with the higher pixel density/smaller photon sites you have with the Mk III, so I would respectfully disagree with those assertions. However, the default chroma noise reduction applied by Lightroom makes the difference negligible.

In my experience, I would say that the 1Ds III has the advantage. But the 5D really isn't far behind. As far as noise is concerned, I'm very happy with both. When you compare the noise between the two at a 1:1 level (e.g., 100%), they are comparable. However, when you consider that the 1Ds is doing this at 21mp, it is very impressive. The noise basically disappears at full resolution.

The 5D is, and will continue to be an amazing camera. I will always enjoy using it. The III simply has better features, ridiculously high res, superior build, and HTP!

KAS wrote in post #5245989
However, when you consider that the 1Ds is doing this at 21mp, it is very impressive. The noise basically disappears at full resolution.

The 5D is, and will continue to be an amazing camera. I will always enjoy using it. The III simply has better features, ridiculously high res, superior build, and HTP!

I thought we are talking 1D mark III here ..

drogos wrote in post #5246017
I thought we are talking 1D mark III here ..

I know...just wanted to chime in....many of the features are shared

my eyes and skillz is what make the MKIII sizzzzzle.

Kevin034 wrote in post #5246054
my eyes and skillz is what make the MKIII sizzzzzle.

i don't know too many people with heat ray vision and pyrokinisis....


physically, the weaker AA filter (as compared to mkii) and improved raw data from the sensor (as well as photodiodes with the same size as a 5d, not same pixel width but same diode size) make the mkiii stand out above prior models. however, the photographer is 90% of the shot (well, if you count focusing, you're closer to 40% the shot, camera is 30%, and the subject is the other 30%)

Just commenting on 12-bit versus 14-bit here.
I have 1DsMkII and MkIII.

For color in the studio, there is not much difference between the two cameras in terms of final output.

For color outdoors, the MkIII's 14-bits tend to be just a little more accurate across the spectrum.

For B+W conversion, the MKIII dusts the MkII and I have no doubt it is the 14-bits doing it.

Finally workflow, although I can usually get the MkII's images to look as good as the MkIII's, the MKIII's images come out fairly close to perfect everytime. thus saving much effort on my part.

With regards 5D versus 1DM3, can't really say, but I would rather have the 14-bit camera from a IQ standpoint, and the FF camera from a utility standpoint. Moot point for me obviously.

Youz takes your picks.

Just my opinion,

I use both, 5D and 1D MK III and I think they are not really in competition. The first is the WA monster (12mm FF is such a thing), the latter is the sports gun. The quality of both is far from questioning, I like them both.

drogos wrote in post #5245879
no it may not. Highlight detail is dramatically improved. Overexposed highlights hold detail and spot on color rendition so much better. Besides that and slightly better high iso, strictly IQ wise..... I like 5D IQ better. Skin tones are beautifuly iluminated, overall image seems to be 'brighter' at the same EC settings. Mark III's image seems to be more .....flat i think. As every one else mentioned in any other respects mark III is a generation ahead of 5d. AF on 5d is great but only at center point. Pretty much uselesss in dimmed conditions on any other than center point. Build, features, ergonomy ..just a different league

I could not agree more..