Vamp898: Lol Canon told something about 75% less noise? A bad joke
really guys, 3500 € for a "slightly improvement"? A slightly improvement is a free firmware upgrade but not a new camera for 3500 €
The Nikon noises the same, have 36MP and cost less xD that is just bad at all..
...read my posting one post up, there's more difference as it seems in this comparison.
Anyone saying there's not much difference between MK2 and MK3 using RAW, consider these two points:
- look at the RAW files in Adobe Lightroom (4.1 RC supports MK3) instead of the dpreview comparsion tool. Reset the development settings and set noise reduction to zero. I don't know why, but there's a much bigger difference there, to my eyes.
- all MK3 shots are taken with shorter exposure time than MK2 at the same ISO. That means a valid comparison would be e.g. MK2 ISO 3200 versus MK3 ISO 2500.
Add both points together and there's a good amount of more real-life difference between MK2 and MK3 RAWs than this comparison suggests.
jenbenn: The progess in the jpg engine is amazing. If you shoot jpg this definately is your camera. Whats disappointing is that the RAW files show very little to no improvement over 5d mark II. Hopefully shadow (banding) noise has been reducedin the Mark III though. But assessment of this has to wait until we get real life samples to push the shadows in ACR.
read my posting 12 posts up, it's not as bad as this comparison suggests.
Bohdan: Comparing the 5DII and 5DIII, there might be 1/4 stop better high ISO with the 5DIII. I would have expected more, considering a number of years have passed between the introduction of each camera and the similar number of pixels.
I am looking at the RAW samples since that is what I shoot 100%of the time. Has CMOS technology been maxed out ?
Quite disappointed. I won't be replacing any of my 5DII's.
read my posting six posts up, it's not as bad as this comparison suggests :)
Jean_Baptist_Emanuel_ZORG: as for photography this camera test is a bummer- really no real advantage in raw mode over my mk2? please don't point out certain objects in the sceene- on some mk2 looks better. i don't use autofocus as all of my lenses are manual focus thanx to terrible af performance by 5dmk2 so i don't care about AF improvements. ok- i love shooting vids of my kid and all with mk2 and here mk3 shows it's edge- that's a HUUUGE improvement from what i saw in the web. so that alone might be a justification to buy it. but shooting video is my hobby and while i love it i make a living from shooting stills and for stills i wouldn't buy mk3 EVER. of course if i was an AF user the story might have been different
see my posting to posts up, it's not as bad