Will a 1D Mark III be better or worse than my 5D Mark II?

I own, am very comfortable with, and can't be torn apart from my 5D Mark II. A friend of mine offered to let me use his 1D Mark III for a couple upcoming weddings. What would I be better off shooting with? Of course I'll bring both bodies and have lenses attached for convenience but I already know the 5DMII produces a million times better images than our 50D, how does it compare to the professional 1DMIII since it's a crop body?

Also, which lens should I attach to my 5DMII, 50D and the 1DMIII? (I'll have my second shooter carrying around 1 of the extra bodies)

I have these lenses-
85mm f/1.2L II
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L IS
17-40mm f/4L

(have but maybe don't need to bring?)-
28mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.4
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
85mm f/1.8
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 (Any cool ideas to use this super macro at a wedding?)

Mostly I'm just wondering if the 1DMIII is any better than my 5DMII. I highly doubt I'll be needing 10fps. But for future reference, is the 1DsMIII a huge improvement from the 5DMII either, would it be worth the upgrade later down the road?

Thanks for the help in advance! I've been driving myself crazy trying to figure this out!

Define what you mean by "better" and let us know what area you are looking for improvement in.

Good point.

I noticed when taking pictures with exactly the same settings using the same lens (70-200mm) and shooting the same subject (a license plate for example) on my 5D and 50D, the 50D is no where near as sharp or clear.

Is this because of the sensor (crop)? Megapixels? Processor? Is the 1DMIII going to compare to the 50D because it's also a crop body with lower resolution? I've also compared a 40D to the 5DMII, same results.

So would I be better off using the full frame for what I designate the "important" shots? Or will the 1D have comparable image quality? I should probably just pick it up early and do some test runs! But if anyone has any experience with both bodies, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on which you would choose.

I think your 50D needs to go to Canon for a checkup. The 5D should be a little better, but not a million times.

The 1D series has quite different controls to the 50D/5D series, so you'd have to have it in advance to practice so you know how to use it.

5D has a full frame sensor, which will give you essentially a wider angle with the same lens. I can't see how this would be anything other than an advantage for most wedding situations.

Also, the full frame with the increased pixel count will stand up to larger prints. If your clients routinely like big 20" by 30" prints (or larger), and you have to sometimes crop these a bit for improved composition, then images from the 5D will print better, which will especially make a difference if the prints are ever going to be displayed where they will be viewed at a close distance. Oftentimes when prints are displayed in residential settings, even huge prints may be viewed from just a couple feet away.

Big 24" by 36" print, being viewed/scrutinized from only 4 feet away - I'll take the 5D II every time!

The 1DIII will scare you with its responsiveness, and the AF will spoil you, but a sharp photo from either one will be dependent on the resolution for detail; the 5D II has more detail. It will be a trade-off, responsiveness vs resolution.

I love both cameras! They both serve different purposes in my bag. I still look to the mk3 to get that quick/important candid shot at every wedding. It's like a Ford vs a Ferrari with regard to responsiveness. It's also tough to beat the 5D mkII for formal shots.

keep in mind, you may have a pretty difficult time giving back the mk3!!!

i've tried the MK3 and gave it back .. i stuck it out with the 5Ds for the price and worth .. unless you have extra $$ burning a hole in your pocket, the 5D is more than enough to shoot weddings

5D MkII = Better Image Quality
1D MkIII = Better auto focus and build quality.

for still wedding shooting...
5D II has more megapixels, and you can get less DOF in your shots using the same lens compared to the 1D3. The viewfinder is a bit bigger. From what I've seen, both provide a very good ISO6400 but anything above that is more for marketing numbers than true usability.

1D3 kicks 5D2 ass in everything else.

I regularly make 24x36 prints from 1D3 files and it does a fine job. I'm not finding a HUGE difference in large prints between my 21MP and 10MP from the 1D3 or 40D. The difference is subtly there but if you didn't have a side-by-side comparison, 99% of people wouldn't complain. As a result, I'm actually finding I'm shooting much more with my 40D than my 21MP monster.

I just shot a wedding with my friend Josh Newton (awesome wedding photographer up in SB). He shoots with MKIII's. He says his files aren't as good as mine - and was quite serious about it.

I LOVED my 1 series when I had it. But once I went FF, that was it for me. Is AF a bazillion times better? You bet! But the 5D's have never cost me a photo that I would've gotten on a 1 series. Never.

Now, would I prefer a 5D with 1 series AF? Yep. But I don't need it.

Lloyd's right about the difference at 24x36 - but I think with more MP's - more clients are wanting massive canvases. Just sent off another order for a 40x60 stretched canvas. I've actually seen 8MP 40x60 images (DJ has one from an old 1DMKII file) and it shocked me how good it was. I assumed it to be all pixelated and it was just fine. Obviously, canvases are going to smooth those out, but still... However, I don't think I'd offer 40x60's without a large file like the 5DII. And one 40x60 canvas makes as much if not more than an album that takes much longer to design.

So it all comes down to whether or not you "feel" FF over the crops. If you don't really, like Lloyd, than the MKIII is the obvious winner. It has plenty of resolution (imo) and amazing response. If FF images just feel better for you like they do me, than the extra responsiveness isn't that big of a deal (unless you feel it hinders you).

I personally haven't found a combo that beats the 50L+5D (I OR II). That's why I stick with it

Since you're asking, my hunch is that you aren't committed big time to FF - and I'm sure you'll freaking LOVE the MKIII. It's a great camera.

Bobby

picturecrazy wrote in post #8462313
for still wedding shooting...
5D II has more megapixels, and you can get less DOF in your shots using the same lens compared to the 1D3. The viewfinder is a bit bigger. From what I've seen, both provide a very good ISO6400 but anything above that is more for marketing numbers than true usability.

1D3 kicks 5D2 ass in everything else.

How's the 1Ds III compared with the 5DII. Not that i'll ever get a 1DsIII, i'm just interested.

Oh wait, Lloyd got a 5DII?!?

This is not answering the OP's question directly, but it's relavant as I had the exact same experience, specifically comparing with the 70-200 2.8 IS on both the 50D and 5D2. Indeed, I even did the same license plate test. What I found was that the issue was really all about the crop factor and me not being diligent enough holding rock steady.

Now, I will put the 70-200 on the 50D on occassion and be real attentive to how I'm holding the camera. However, I mostly restrict that lens to my 5D2 where, without the 1.6 multiplier, I know the IS will do enough to compensate for my unsteady hands. For me, the 50D will typically receive only my 85 1.2 and sometimes my 24-70. I need to be attentive with the 85, given no IS, but because it's a little lighter and much stubbier, I find camera shake is not so much an issue for me. And with either of these lenses, I produce images that are wonderfully sharp on a 50D.

bnlearle wrote in post #8463177
Oh wait, Lloyd got a 5DII?!?

I thought Lloyd had one of every camera.