Does anyone have any thoughts or personal experience on how the overall IQ of the original 5D and the 1D Mark III compare? I'm very interested in the 5DmkII, but I don't need the 21MP files and I don't (think) I need the movie capability. I'm also concerned that they might be pushing the pixel-density barriers a bit, and I'm not going to be surprised to hear complaints about noise. If this proves not to be true, this camera comes back into consideration for me.
I'd love to gain the speed and AF of the 1DIII, but how do the final images out-of-camera compare to the 5D? How about low light (not what the dials say, what real world shooting allows)
5d has the advantage in price and in being FF.
Mark III has the advantage in FPS, AF (for about $2K more).
Are the 5D's currently on retailers shelves the last of them?
Well, here is a review written by a pro wedding photographer who shoots exclusively with 5D's (about 50 weddings a year), and got to try a 1D3 for the weekend. Needless to say, he was blown away. (in fact, he almost refused to give back the 1D3 )
I hope this helps a bit. (the 5D is/was an amazing camera though, and the wedding photographer above much preferred it to the old 1D2N, which was relegated to keeping the camera bags warm after discovering the 5D).
both are great cameras and I am no expert so others will better answer your question.
I use the 1d3 and for low light photography it is excellent. the focus is remarkable compared to the 5d in low light situations. i shot a wedding in a poorly lit Catholic church and the 1d3 did a great job. Others can comment on IQ comparisons.
I have shot weddings (among many other things) with the 5D and 1D3 side by side. I owned the 5D for two years and the 1D3 for 18 months. To me the IQ of the files are very close. The 1D3 has noticeably less per pixel noise at ISO 3200 and 6400 (underexposing the 5D and then pushing) than the 5D. Furthermore the 1D3 has higher dynamic range at high ISOs and to my eye better colors at higher ISOs.
AF wise, its no comparison the 1D3 trumps the 5D. I can confidently use all of the 1D3's AF points even in low light, something I can't do with the 5D. For weddings, the 5D's AF is fine for outdoor ceremonies and for any other shooting where there is sufficient light. But its the dimly lit receptions where the 1D3 truly shines.
I like using both. The 1D3 isn't FF, the only thing I find lacking about the camera. The 5D however really delivers fantastic IQ for not much $$$.
One last thing, the AWB on the 1D3 is more accurate than the 5D. Not that big of a deal but it may make a difference to some. Also the 5D's viewfinder is quote noticeably yellower than the 1D3, its really noticeable when you shoot them side by side
I have both cameras ... I'm not a professional so the universe of pictures I take is relatively small, but for pictures with moving objects or people, the 1D3 is unbelieveably good in my opinion. 5d works best for landscapes. If I were to choose one, I would choose the 1D3. That being said, the 5D Mark II is looking pretty impressive.
I've owned both and have stayed with the 1D III specifically for the superior performance of the AF especially in low light. The IQ is close but I would have to give the edge to the 1D III there also.
Then there are other considerations like the build quality, battery life and feel of the camera, all in all, it wasn't a hard choice to sell the 5D's and keep the 1D III's.
Once I went with the 1DMKIII I never turned back. I loved my 5D but the 1D MKIII is in a different league in pretty much every regard.
I would say the 1DMKIII high ISO performance bests the 5D by about 3/4 to a full stop. The 1DMKIII competes extremely well in this department even with the more recent releases.
i have chances to play with 1d3 files for couple weeks - after monkey around with 5D and 1D3 files, i have to say 5D has an edge but not that much. I take 1D3 anytime - nothing is better than 1Dseries
I have used both. I prefer the 5D for IQ, the 1D3 for handling and shooting performance.
"IQ" means different things to different people. To me, the signature look of a full frame sensor, when used with fast primes, is impossible to replicate with the crop bodies, including the 1D3, and this factors into my preference. However, the 1D3 produces excellent files and great IQ by all technical factors.
Gary, can you elaborate on the "signature look of a full frame sensor"?
I've never understood the allure of full-frame. I would take FF or 1.6x or 1.5x crop any day for shallower DOF, but I actually prefer the 1.3x crop because you get almost the same DOF, and that extra reach that goes a long way. Then again, I shoot medium to tele lengths, not much ultra-wide.
I've done comparisons with a few FF cameras (5D, 1DS2, D700),and none seem to match the per-pixel IQ, sharpness, and detail of the 1D3 (I think that's something that Rob Galbraith has said too).
But, as you say "IQ" means different things to different people, so it's best to do your own comparisons if you can.
musclepics wrote:
Gary, can you elaborate on the "signature look of a full frame sensor"?
I've never understood the allure of full-frame. I would take FF or 1.6x or 1.5x crop any day for shallower DOF, but I actually prefer the 1.3x crop because you get almost the same DOF, and that extra reach that goes a long way. Then again, I shoot medium to tele lengths, not much ultra-wide.
I've done comparisons with a few FF cameras (5D, 1DS2, D700),and none seem to match the per-pixel IQ, sharpness, and detail of the 1D3 (I think that's something that Rob Galbraith has said too).
But, as you say "IQ" means different things to different people, so it's best to do your own comparisons if you can. ...Show more →
Yes, totally agree. You make valid points about why one might prefer this format.
In part I have a preference for full frame because I like to shoot primes at the 35, 50, and 85mm focal lengths. This lenses represents a sweet spot for me, and it's hard to precisely duplicate the look of these focal lengths on the 1D3 using primes. (The 28 1.8 can sub for the 35L, but at wide apretures the L is sharper and has smoother bokeh.)
For news, theatre, sports, fashion, etc. the 1D3 is easily the preferred camera. But I think the reason the 5D has been so popular with wedding and portrait photographers is because of the "look" that can be obtained from full frame using some of these lens combinations.
I would like to get more input regarding the same question.
In fact, i stand betwen the new 5D and the 1D mark III.
S Boerup is one of the photogs that i like to get some feedback, as i think he used both cameras!
I don't have to buy a new camera, because my 5D works just fine, but I want to replace my 5D because of low light performance and AF perfromance and I'm stuck too if I should buy a 5D II because of FULL frame and the AWESOME LCD screen or buy a 1D III and get awesome AF and ISO performance.
I have been using 5D's. Recently I bought a 1Ds III and a 1D III. Noise-wise, at high ISOs (I usually shoot at high ISO) the 1D III is visibly better. At lower ISOs I think that the image quality of the 5D would be better due to the slightly larger pixels and higher pixel count. BUT...image quality is not everything. The 1D is better in any aspect (except maybe for the weight and bulk) than the 5D (or for that matter, the 5D II).
To put it simply, I am a prime lens shooter and have just about all the wide to medium tele L primes. Using these, I was able to get settings like ISO 3200, f/1.4, 1/125. With these settings both the 5D and the 1D would get usable images (a bit better on the 1D). The big difference was the AF. In that light, the 5D could not focus at all with the outer points and the 1D locks on instanty. Even more so, the 1D locks on even at a half to a quarter of that light quantity. Not to mention that the 1D's outer AF points are all cross type and I did not really notice any performance difference between these and the center one. I can now actually get the (sharp) images the sensor and lens are allowing me.
After using the 1D cameras I can not even look back to other cameras for the type of work I do (available (low) light wedding photography). If you are a landscape guy, or you do studio work or any other kind of photography where speed and AF precision and speed are not important, 5D is a wise choice. But the 1D is a camera that can cover a much wider area of situations.
If you have the money, get the 1D III and don't look back.
Esanchez, I would not get a camera for the LCD over the AF. Your clients are not getting the LCD on the back of your camera, they get your pictures. The 5D II may not give you better images in challenging conditions (ie. low light). A 21mp soft image is worse than a 10mp sharp image. Get the 1D.
If you are not a pro and photography is a hobby, then maybe the 5D II is better (being cheaper and also smaller than the 1d). I am somehow missing the small form factor of the 5D when I have to carry around the 1D(s) for taking pictures for myself, the kids, etc.
I would have liked something like the D700 on Canon: 1D series AF into a 5D body with a 12mp full-frame sensor. But the Canon guys are not stupid, they practically force you to get the (overpriced) 1Ds if you need good AF and Full Frame.
hello,Adimage,I want to ask you about the very well known AF problems,do you have it?(I feel a little stupid asking you in english sice we are both from Romania.I want to buy 1DMK III but I'm a little scared and I think that maybe I should wait 'till march for 1D MK 4.
adimage wrote:
I have been using 5D's. Recently I bought a 1Ds III and a 1D III. Noise-wise, at high ISOs (I usually shoot at high ISO) the 1D III is visibly better. At lower ISOs I think that the image quality of the 5D would be better due to the slightly larger pixels and higher pixel count. BUT...image quality is not everything. The 1D is better in any aspect (except maybe for the weight and bulk) than the 5D (or for that matter, the 5D II).
To put it simply, I am a prime lens shooter and have just about all the wide to medium tele L primes. Using these, I was able to get settings like ISO 3200, f/1.4, 1/125. With these settings both the 5D and the 1D would get usable images (a bit better on the 1D). The big difference was the AF. In that light, the 5D could not focus at all with the outer points and the 1D locks on instanty. Even more so, the 1D locks on even at a half to a quarter of that light quantity. Not to mention that the 1D's outer AF points are all cross type and I did not really notice any performance difference between these and the center one. I can now actually get the (sharp) images the sensor and lens are allowing me.
After using the 1D cameras I can not even look back to other cameras for the type of work I do (available (low) light wedding photography). If you are a landscape guy, or you do studio work or any other kind of photography where speed and AF precision and speed are not important, 5D is a wise choice. But the 1D is a camera that can cover a much wider area of situations.
If you have the money, get the 1D III and don't look back. ...Show more →
I did the opposite - went from 1D III to 5D II and am glad I did. Better ISO performance, I haven't had a problem with focus even with the slow 85L, and I like the lighter weight and way more resolution that will retain more detail.
I can highly recommend the 5D. I've found it functions across the range with acceptable aplomb.
I'm not happy with my 1DMKIII but I think the IQ could be marginally better.
All round my 5D is outperforming my 1DMKIII and is my camera of choice. Naturally there are areas where the 5D cannot compete; inclement weather, sports, extreme low light, fast AF and AI Servo.
But I've had a more pleasant experience with my 5D and while the ultimate IQ lies with the 1DMKIII, FF and the 5D's own stunning IQ, sort of negates it.
)