fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 11

13 14 15 end

Archive 2013 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #1 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

With regard to AF even that is not a clear cut example. With the 100-400 lens only the center block of 21 focus points are cross type. That is quite a few points, but they are not spread widely. I don't have the experience with my 5D3 yet to know if the out linear points work any better than my 5D2 outer points. I have been very happy with my 5D2 center point which has worked both accurately and reliably in my use. I've found it works better than my 7D center point. The 7D, however, has outer cross type points that may well work with the 100-400 better than the 5D3 outer points. The 5D3 is a clear winner with f8 auto focus - center point only.

So, again, it depends on your needs. Using the 5D3 outer points with f4 and faster lenses seems to work great when I remember to move the point. But then I have to remember to move it back.

Edit: Sorry, 12 pages

May 24, 2013 at 05:40 PM

Don Clary
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #2 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

I'll expand of Jeff's comment above:

Below is a specialized application of 5D3, not only over 5D2 and also over ALL 1D series before 1Dx. I would bet that 90% of FMers would never have thought of this. Why? Because most own f2.8 or more open lenses, which let the 1D series scream with their many cross sensors.

Cross sensors and lens aperture

The 1D4 has 39 cross sensors. 38 only function at f2.8 or more open; the central cross sensor can focus at f4. This means when you mount the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6L IS on your 1D4, you have the use of zero cross sensors! If you mount it on 5D2, you have the use of the single central cross sensor

If you mount the 100-400 on 5D3, you can use the central 21 cross sensors, all of which function at f5.6.

If you add a f4 safari lens (300 f4L IS, 400DO, or 500 f4L IS) you can use the single central cross sensor on your 5D2 or 1D4. If you add these lenses to the 5DIII, you have the use of 21 central cross sensors, plus 20 more cross sensors (10 more farther from the center on each side), for a total of 41 cross sensors.

This is a HUGE advantage for people considering an African safari, and using the very likely choice of the 100-400 lens.

May 24, 2013 at 06:25 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #3 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

StillFingerz wrote:
Wow, 11 pages...

I'll add a bit, just because...with regards to video, there are issues/limitations with DSLRs that are unavoidable, and if someone is looking to create 'quality' projects you are simply better off with a camcorder; 'rolling shutter' is one big issue, aliasing/moire some others.

However, the DSLR for video has huge pluses as well, work around the above issues and you have a low cost, quite versatile solution for video purposes. Several professionals are using the 5D2 and 5D3 for video projects and it's crystal clear the 5D3 offers many features that better the 5D2.

Aliasing/moire are managed much better with...Show more →

Yes and don't under-estimate the part I put in "****" it pulls the 5D3 radically ahead for video. The other bodies can't write to cards fast enough, especially not the SD-based bodies such as the 6D and recent rebels, so they can't fully pull it off even if you do buy a video AA filter (which also makes it a royal pain if you want to keep switching between stills and video shooting as well and forget that in a dusty environment).

May 24, 2013 at 08:02 PM

aladyforty
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #4 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

anyone who does not like their 5D3 can send it my way

until then i will make do with my 5DII, seems a year back it was the most used camera in the best photos taken around the world press wise

May 24, 2013 at 11:42 PM

dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #5 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

StarNut wrote:
With respect, you're projecting your needs/wants/budget onto others. The 5d2 was a bit frustrating for wildlife, especially birds in flight. The autofocus, combined with the slow burst rate, was just a struggle.

The 5D2 was (obviously) the successor to the 5D and neither of those cameras were ever really marketed as 'fast moving subject' cameras. It's never really been what they were about, even if some great action shots have been taken with them.

The 5D3 is really a different beast from that point of view.

May 25, 2013 at 12:09 AM

Kathy White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #6 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

Robin Smith wrote:
My main beef about these kind of discussions is the use of such phrases as "night and day difference" and "blows x out of the water", when in most cases these statements are hyperbolic nonsense, and in all cases, they are sickening cliches. Please use new wording if you want to be hyperbolic!

My personal opinion is that the 5dIII is better than the 5dII, but not it is not worth it for me to pay the difference for the slight improvement in IQ at very high ISOs. I would like one, but really only because of the built...Show more →

I shoot alot of sports. I started shooting them AFTER getting a 5DII. I added a 7D but for me the IQ was hard to accept after being accustomed to the 5DII IQ. But in focus was better than not in focus for sure, so for sports I shot the 7D. After getting the 5DIII, I get the action shots, with the IQ I had come to love. IT IS NIGHT AND DAY, AF wise, what this camera will do compared to the 5DII. Action shots with the 5DII for me were maybe 10% in focus. Action shots with the 5DIII for me are about 95% in focus. And when they are not in focus, the problem is me getting something else in focus accidentally. I can usually locate what it grabbed. When I go thru my shots, I don't have to pick thru the shoots first looking for the few infocus ones to pick from. They are all in focus. So IMHO for action, the 5DIII is "night and day" better than the 5DII and it "blows it out of the water". I had to learn to use the AF system, just as I did with the 7D. I did not learn it the first day or two or even the first week or two. I read everything on line I could find, came on here asking for advice and finally, saw the results and they are consistent.
For me it is wonderful to have one camera that will shoot anything I want to shoot. Sports, portraits, events with poor light etc. And, for me, it was more than worth the upgrade and the cost difference. It is the camera I wanted all along and I just need to decide whether to go for another one to replace the 7D as my backup camera or not. And, BTW the 8f focusing, silent mode, dual cards, and a few other features not found on the 5DII, are pretty nice too.
I realize the 5DII was not intended as an action camera, but occasionally, mine missed focus unless the light was great, even on stationary subjects. If I did not need a camera with the ability to shoot moving subjects, and still had the 5DII, I would have upgraded to the 6D.

May 26, 2013 at 01:22 AM

Don Clary
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #7 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

For me it is wonderful to have one camera that will shoot anything I want to shoot.

Yes, yes, YES!!! If you read the equipment lists of some FMers, they own up to 8 Canon digital bodies! It's like a dead car graveyard! I don't want to HAVE to own one body for focal length limited, another for high frame rate, and a third for landscape image quality. I want ONE body that does everything reasonably well, not perfectly. And that one modern body ties up a lot less money than 8 often older bodies.

May 26, 2013 at 10:17 AM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #8 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

Don Clary wrote:
Yes, yes, YES!!! If you read the equipment lists of some FMers, they own up to 8 Canon digital bodies! It's like a dead car graveyard! I don't want to HAVE to own one body for focal length limited, another for high frame rate, and a third for landscape image quality. I want ONE body that does everything reasonably well, not perfectly. And that one modern body ties up a lot less money than 8 often older bodies.

That's right, too many damn camera collectors and hoarders on this board.

If I didn't have 1DX, then 5DMkIII would be the only camera I'd need.

May 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

saneproduction
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #9 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

The 5DIII is a great camera for those of us that don't need 1DX frame rate, spot metering per AF point or 1 series build but want almost everything else and for half the cost. It is a really great body for $3k. Yes I would love a 1DX someday, but my "mini 1 series" is really great.

May 26, 2013 at 12:30 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #10 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

Don Clary wrote:
I want ONE body that does everything reasonably well, not perfectly. And that one modern body ties up a lot less money than 8 often older bodies.

It would be nice, but I think there is no such thing given the lack of a 1D-Xs or D4X body class.

EBH

May 26, 2013 at 01:33 PM

David Baldwin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #11 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

The 5D3 is clearly the most rounded and comprehensive DSLR Canon make. No doubt.

The issue is though, if you already had a 5D2, and don't need the best AF or video capability then the 5D3 release was a bit disappointing. If the 5D3 had increased its resolution over the 5D2 we would not be having this thread.

For some of you I fully appreciate the 5D3 was a major upgrade, but by the same token, for many of us it seems hardly an upgrade at all. Thats really what we are talking about.

Speaking entirely personally I would prefer a 6D to a 5D3 due to the formers better high ISO performance, but thats just me.

Edited on May 26, 2013 at 02:01 PM · View previous versions

May 26, 2013 at 02:00 PM

jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #12 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

For me, the difference between the 5DII, which I have used, very, very much and the 5DIII, for me, is day and night. The image quality I get is different, and for me better, and the focus and number of focus points is a huge plus.

May 26, 2013 at 02:01 PM

David Baldwin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #13 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

"The image quality I get is different"

Leaving aside AF performance how is the 5D3s IQ better please?

May 26, 2013 at 02:02 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #14 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

David Baldwin wrote:
"The image quality I get is different"

Leaving aside AF performance how is the 5D3s IQ better please?

nearing 2/3rds of a stop better SNR and at high isos it has less pattern banding and the deep shadows and dark parts look less junky, if most of the high iso scene isn't very dark then the difference is not so big at all, if large parts of the high iso shot are very dark then the extra stop or more of DR can help a lot, really tough shots with some parts bright and much of the scene dark, at the very high isos, can be effectively 1.5-2 stops more usable even though the basic SNR is only 2/3rds stop better at best. It depends shot to shot whether the difference is only just a tiny bit noticeable or quite noticeable.

5D3 did nothing at all to improve low ISO DR though, in fact, believe it or not, they even made it fractionally worse by maybe 1/4 stop or so (not anything you'd ever notice).

For video, the image quality is much better since it has all but no moire and much less aliasing and it's uniformly nearing 2 stops better across the range and the RAW hack runs at full resolution on the 5D3.

May 26, 2013 at 04:55 PM

form
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #15 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

skibum5 wrote:
nearing 2/3rds of a stop better SNR and at high isos it has less pattern banding and the deep shadows and dark parts look less junky, if most of the high iso scene isn't very dark then the difference is not so big at all, if large parts of the high iso shot are very dark then the extra stop or more of DR can help a lot, really tough shots with some parts bright and much of the scene dark, at the very high isos, can be effectively 1.5-2 stops more usable even though the basic SNR is only...Show more →

Have noticed somewhat less pattern noise in shadows, but possibly more actual noise overall. Have noticed that the DR seems a little narrower. I noticed these things...

May 26, 2013 at 05:38 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #16 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

form wrote:
Have noticed somewhat less pattern noise in shadows, but possibly more actual noise overall. Have noticed that the DR seems a little narrower. I noticed both things...

What a low ISO or at high ISO?

I had a shot I processed the other night of a heron and I was at first a bit disappointed with the bit of noise and I thought it was from boosting shadows as it was a a little backlit. I assumed the shot was ISO 800 or so since there was still good detail but more noise than I thought. However, when I went and checked it was ISO 6400, so I was actually very impressed at what the 5D III is capable of.

May 26, 2013 at 05:46 PM

form
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #17 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

Shots ranging from ISO100-12800 so far are my comparisons. Less pattern noise at lower ISOs but less DR flexibility in shadows due to overall noise and possibly less tolerant highlights. The DR is possibly a little better at ISO6400-12800 but still lots of noise. This is after post in LR.

May 26, 2013 at 05:56 PM

saneproduction
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #18 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

skibum5 wrote:
nearing 2/3rds of a stop better SNR and at high isos it has less pattern banding and the deep shadows and dark parts look less junky, if most of the high iso scene isn't very dark then the difference is not so big at all, if large parts of the high iso shot are very dark then the extra stop or more of DR can help a lot, really tough shots with some parts bright and much of the scene dark, at the very high isos, can be effectively 1.5-2 stops more usable even though the basic SNR is only...Show more →
Ask someone who uses high ISO quite a bit, I 100% agree.

May 26, 2013 at 06:02 PM

form
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #19 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

ISO3200 from last wedding, not a scientific test but a rough comparison:

http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/5d2vs5d3-3200.jpg
In this, the 5d3 looks better for DR but maybe only slightly better for actual noise quantity. It's also possible part of the DR difference is because the 5d2 image is slightly brighter at base.

May 26, 2013 at 06:19 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #20 · 5d3...not much better than 5d2.

As one who spends very little time pixel-peeping, I find no discernible difference in IQ between my old 5d2 and my 5d3. There may be a slight DR advantage to the 5d3, but nothing to rejoice at, IMO; similarly for high ISO performance.

This is only for my needs and wants, which do not include blowing up a single image to 30" x 45". For things that I might want to blow up large, stitching solves all problems (unless you're trying to stitch surf, which can cause problems).

Compared to the differences between the 5d2 and, say, the Nikon F with the best film and processing available at the time, the difference between the 5d2 and the 5d3, for IQ, isn't much worth thinking about, IMO. And it's worth noting that some pretty spectacular shots were managed with the Nikon F.

How people can get so worked up over minute (if at alll) differences is a mystery to me.

May 26, 2013 at 06:42 PM

1 2 3 … 11 12 13 14 15 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 11 12 13 14 15 end