Can I ask, in terms of RAW performance please, how much better is the 5D3's image quality over the 5D2's?
It seems to depend on what software you use for processing. For example, DPP 3.11.10 came with my 5D3 and when comparing the same scene with the 5D2 and 5D3 processed through this version I was actually preferring the older camera.
Once I upgraded to 3.11.26 things turned around. The low-mid ISOs look similar to me but once you get to higher ISOs like 3200+ the 5D3 files look better and exposures can be pushed more. LR4.1 RC2 also looks promising so far...seems to be the best bet for retaining maximum detail at high ISOs (at least vs. DPP).
That said, IMO the 5D2 already had great IQ and solid high ISO files...personally I didn't upgrade looking for better IQ. My primary reason was for the AF...and in that department they are worlds apart IMO.
garyvot wrote:
Actually, I am rather stunned by what Canon has accomplished with this camera. In fact, they built exactly the camera that many of us asked for.
I think Gary's posts sum things up very well...especially this part ^^. How many were hoping for a compact FF camera with a 5D2-like sensor and 7D or (old) 1-series like AF?
IMO Canon provided all of that and more with the 5D3.
DmitriM wrote:
A proper review would include pictures with the set of good and bad. This has none,despite the fact this camera has over 10 obvious issues.
Could you list the known deficiencies of the 5DIII as I'm not familiar with them.
I think this thread needs a bit of perspective. I've been testing this camera for a day, and I can already tell you it's the best camera I have used, Canon or Nikon.
The metering and autofocus accuracy is better than any camera I have tried to date, including the D3s and 1D IV. The shutter is very quiet and has very little mirror bounce or vibration; the silent shooting modes in particular are amazing: quietest SLR I've ever used. The camera feels far more responsive than previous 5-series models. JPEG file quality is astonishingly good (for the kinds of things I use JPEGs for).
The files are really nice too. Luminance and color noise levels are not radically different than the 5D2, but importantly there is NO pattern noise, and dynamic range and color accuracy is significantly improved at ISO speeds higher than 1600; I'd say there is a usable 1-1.5 stop improvement in RAW file quality at the high end of the ISO range.
Actually, I am rather stunned by what Canon has accomplished with this camera. In fact, they built exactly the camera that many of us asked for.
The sensor might not be as suitable as that in the D800 for landscape work or certain kinds of commercial photography at base ISO, but the 5D3 is still an amazing piece of kit that will make a lot of photographers a lot of money....Show more →
I am beyond serious. I have a list of issues that is over 20 now and growing on weekly basis. Most people don't use the camera enough(or in wider range conditions) to see them or notice them.
You've been "testing" your camera for a day....I've actually been shooting it since the day it came out and put in over 10,000 frames on both, in every situation imaginable.
Glenn NK wrote:
Could you list the known deficiencies of the 5DIII as I'm not familiar with them.
Thank you .
Glenn
I am testing all of them and I may post them in a few weeks. I want to make sure some of them are not glitches.
AF/viewfinder illumination are quite important though and there are about 5 issues there alone. Most of these can be found mentioned by others in this forum.
DmitriM wrote:
am beyond serious. I have a list of issues that is over 20 now and growing on weekly basis. Most people don't use the camera enough(or in wider range conditions) to see them or notice them.
You've been "testing" your camera for a day....I've actually been shooting it since the day it came out and put in over 10,000 frames on both, in every situation imaginable.
Fair enough. I won't claim to have put the most mileage on the camera yet, but it works great for my typical scenarios (which is what I test for).
I took a look at some of your recent comments on other posts. It seems you are disappointed with the way Canon designed the viewfinder and how the focusing points get displayed. A number of other folks feel the same way, so I'm not discounting the issue.
But I believe several well meaning photographers suggested different approaches or work-arounds to you. For example, how you can adjust how the AF point is displayed during focus, as well as the viewfinder illumination. You can also configure the camera so that the joystick can be used to select AF points without having to press any buttons first.
markymarc wrote:
And you can get the V8 option. Just make sure that grip is attached and splurge for the extra batteries.
D800 never shoots more than 4fps in FX mode, grip or not. It can only shoot 6fps in DX mode with the grip and 5(5.5) in 1.2x crop mode with the grip. So there is no V8 option for 36MP.
thedutt wrote:
DPReview is spot on in their conclusion below:
With a pixel count only modestly increased compared to its predecessor and few other 'headline' improvements it is easy to see why some people initially considered the Mark III to be a minor upgrade.
This first impression changes rapidly as soon as you actually hold the camera in your hands and start shooting.
I am not sure if I have seen any owner of 5DMKIII say that this is an inadequate tool, I for one think for a good reason :-)
The only minor update has been the sensor and IQ, everything is mostly a large upgrade and the AF is massive upgrade - from dunce to dux.
The D800 is even a smaller upgrade by that logic as it really only has a hugely upgraded sensor as it's headline act.
n0b0 wrote:
Guys... Olympics, one of the biggest sporting events in the world, is just around the corner. If you're a Canon boss, which one do you think is better for business, releasing a super high MP body with high DR or a high MP body with faster burst speed and highly accurate AF?
Canon can always announce another super high MP body with better dynamic range AFTER the Olympics. Maybe this is just a precursor to the 3D that you guys been asking for.
actually THIS is the 3D since the 3D was supposed to be an EOS, top AF, small, high fps (the 5D3 is only just short in fps by a frame)
RobDickinson wrote:
Makes me wonder what canon will do in competition with the d600.
The 5d was supposed to be a basic 20D with a FF sensor. Cheap entry level full frame body. it no longer is, its the mythical 3d.
Ain't competition grand?
Actually, the simplest thing to do would be to simply keep the 5D Mark II around at a reduced price, or perhaps release a minor refresh ('n' model) to buff a couple of features. In terms of IQ, it's still a great camera and could easiliy be an "entry level" full frame model.
Can I ask, in terms of RAW performance please, how much better is the 5D3's image quality over the 5D2's?
about 2/3rds of a stop better SNR across the board (going by actual sensitivity- it uses more gain at each ISO than the 5D2 did, comparing them at the same ISO number the SNR is definitely less than 2/3rd stop difference but that is not really fair)
dynamic range, shockingly, is actually a hair WORSE at ISO100-200, little different ISO400-1600 and a tiny bit better ISO3200 and up, maybe 1/3-1/2 stop or something
it has less horizontal banding at low ISO (none versus a fair amount) but since it still has just as much vertical banding it doesn't really help any since the eye gets caught up by the vertical banding anyway and it doesn't matter there is no cross-hatching too since the vertical alone looks bad
at high iso banding is way better though, even indoor shadows at ISO 25,600 don't really show much any banding while the 5D2 could get nasty looking in that case, in that sense, at ISO4000+ and especially over 6400 even though the noise may be only 2/3 stop better, if you have a scene that has tons of near black level areas, the usable ISO might be 2 stops better, it depends, many high iso scenes with 5D2 aren't destroyed by banding and then you do only 2/3rd stop better, but for ones where the banding makes a mess you might, in a sense, do maybe two stops better, the noise won't look that much better at all but it just that you have a very noisy if usable shot vs a very noisy but too nasty looking due to pattern noise and thus unusable shot sort of difference
the sensor was measured by DxO to be more color blind having one of the wost metamerism scores of any DSLR ever under daylight lighting (under indoor tungsten lighting i think it was about par for the course with the rest), the exact nature would require extensive and tricky testing to see what the real world differenes are and for what color shades and when it might look worse it also means that the color SNR might not be as improved as the luminance SNR, the latter is around 2/3rd of a stop, the former maybe only a marginal 1/3??
Pixel Perfect wrote:
D800 never shoots more than 4fps in FX mode, grip or not. It can only shoot 6fps in DX mode with the grip and 5(5.5) in 1.2x crop mode with the grip. So there is no V8 option for 36MP.
6fps in DX is a V8 for lots of wildlife shooting since you often can't frame tigher than DX anyway, in fact it saves useles file space, if anything
Pixel Perfect wrote:
D800 never shoots more than 4fps in FX mode, grip or not. It can only shoot 6fps in DX mode with the grip and 5(5.5) in 1.2x crop mode with the grip. So there is no V8 option for 36MP.
I worked hard all my life, retired and can now buy any camera I wish. I began my DSLR work with a pathetic D70 and a kit lens. I bought one of the first 5D MkIs for full list because Canon had the huge edge in a (barely) affordable FF DSLR with hi ISO ability.
I spent the next two years shooting primes with MF (my 35L, like so many others front focused) before I bought a MK III. But I was capturing candid images never before possible-dancers in performance with dim stage lighting. And, yes, I learned to, routinely, send my new Canon lenses into Irvine for "Calibration" while I never have had to adjust a Nikkor.
Now I have a large (but declining) Canon lens complement and a large (but expanding) Nikon lens collection. I still have the 1DsMkIII and 5D II. I waited 3 years for Canon to make a FF action camera then bought a D3/D3s/D4-in order. I am still waiting for the 1Dx to be shipped to see if has an advantage over the D4. What's that going on 4 years?
Canon crippled their 5DMk II's AF to support sales of their 1D series. Then Nikon introduced the D700 and Canon couldn't get away with primitive AF any more. They had a good shot at a new camera and, typically, feature rationed their answer to the D700. Similar Mp sensor, retained the banding issue added good AF and tweaked Video.
But Nikon was moving into the future and made the best camera they could for $3k. Now Nikon has the preeminent landscape DSLR with much better low ISO dynamic range and 36Mp. So lots of discussion if Canon guys will switch to Nikon's D800. Guess what? Not much discussion from the Nikon guys if they switch to a 5D MkIII!
Sure each brand has advantages for specialities. Look what Canon did to the BIF, wildlife and sport shooters! First they discontinued their pro crop sensor camera, then gelded their new action camera for F8 AF, introduced astronomically priced teles, flushed out their old product pipeline then delayed release of their "Flagship" until after the Olympics.
Fundamentally, Canon is just too little-way too late. I would rather wait for Nikon to expand their lens range than wonder what the marketing mavens at Canon will look to foist on me next. But one thing's for sure there's a lot of hair pulling over at Canon. Nikon is shipping their D800 for way less than 1/2 the MSRP Canon planned to charge for their replacement for the 1Ds MkIII. The 1D(?) is DOA and Canon has nowhere to go because they don't, yet, have the technology.
. Nothing to write home about but still an increase nonetheless.