Reading mode: Light Dark

Amazed by 5D MKIII

Go to last post
R

robd1438

Active member
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I upgraded to the MKIII from a 7D and after a week am still amazed by the difference FF makes, particularly with noise. I thought the 7D was pretty good, but took this shot today of my son on a playscape (focused on right eye) and it's probably better then ISO800 on the 7D. This is JPEG straight from the camera, 100% crop from PSE.



 
I made the same jump a month ago. No turning back now, as the Mark III blows the 7D away. Focus, exposure, white balance, quality in every respect.
 
Same experience here. My 7D has been gathering dust since spring.
 
I came from a 400D to a 40D with a 17-55 f2/8 IS then to a 7D with the same 17-55 -- image quality SEEMED to be better as I upgraded but there were many times that I struggled to really notice IQ improvements between my 40D and 7D pics. Now that I have a new 5D3 with a kit 24-105 L, I am floored by the leap in image quality AND noise control not to mention the Af and exposure reliability! This camera is awesome!
 
Sort of comparing apples and pears really. I'd be interested to see how you'd compare the image quality between the 7D & the 5D using the same lens...specifically the 24-105.
jayelae said:
I came from a 400D to a 40D with a 17-55 f2/8 IS then to a 7D with the same 17-55 -- image quality SEEMED to be better as I upgraded but there were many times that I struggled to really notice IQ improvements between my 40D and 7D pics. Now that I have a new 5D3 with a kit 24-105 L, I am floored by the leap in image quality AND noise control not to mention the Af and exposure reliability! This camera is awesome!
Click to expand...
--
i like people
 
Great to hear. I don't take DXOMark as the last word but what you're seeing (ISO800 7D compared to ISO 4000 5D3) is right on the mark with their sensor performance results. I too have a 7D (and 50D) and have been hesitating to order the 5D3 due to most of my shooting being FL limited but threads like this will probably push me over the edge. I'm most interested in how the 5D3/17-40 compares to the 7D/10-22. The 10-22 is an excellent lens and the 17-40 has its share of critics but my guess is the less demanding pixel density of the 5D3 may give the 17-40 the edge even in the corners. If I do get the 5D3 the 7D will still get a lot of use as I don't see me laying out $10,500 for a 500f4LISII for a hobby.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
I don't have the 5D3 but I have the 5D2 which has near enough the same sensor. The 17-40 f4L is my favourite lens on the 5D2; I love its superb colour and microcontrast. I find the sensor in the 5D2 rather contrasty and when it's combined with a very contrasty lens such as the 35 f1.4L produces very 'gritty' images - great for PJ work and low light, but the 17-40 is a better all-round fit with the 5D2, even if it's soft in the corners at wide apertures from 17-20mm.

Michael
 
5d2 and 5d3 has very different sensors, the new one is superior in many ways, only resolution is the same
--
Håkan
 
Welcome to the club, it makes the two of us. I upgraded from T2i, I'm also amazed how much FF makes a difference. It's hard to put it in words, I think everyone considering both cameras should try them out.
robd1438 said:
I upgraded to the MKIII from a 7D and after a week am still amazed by the difference FF makes, particularly with noise. I thought the 7D was pretty good, but took this shot today of my son on a playscape (focused on right eye) and it's probably better then ISO800 on the 7D. This is JPEG straight from the camera, 100% crop from PSE.



Click to expand...
 
You should really change your heading to "Amazed by Full Frame Canon".

Your pics is nice but it could have been achieved with a 5d2.
 
the right eye might have been in focus or not

Having upgraded to the 5d3 from the 5d2 the focus is much more consistent on the 5d3. This is especially true with the 85 1.2 and the 50 1.2 where any focus errors in a thin DOF photo are easy to spot.

This is not just my subjective impression either. The FoCal focus calibration software guy uses his software (pro version) to measure focus consistency and found a vast difference between the 5d2 and 5d3 and wrote about it.

Yes, in terms of IQ the OP could say Canon FF. But the 5d3 in focus, wb, metering, and noise (slight improvement but big improvement in the noise pattern = large improvement in PP).
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
 
Thanks,

Do you have any experience with the 10-22 on a crop body? If so, how does it compare with the 17-40 on the 5D2?

Bob
HarryLally said:
I don't have the 5D3 but I have the 5D2 which has near enough the same sensor. The 17-40 f4L is my favourite lens on the 5D2; I love its superb colour and microcontrast. I find the sensor in the 5D2 rather contrasty and when it's combined with a very contrasty lens such as the 35 f1.4L produces very 'gritty' images - great for PJ work and low light, but the 17-40 is a better all-round fit with the 5D2, even if it's soft in the corners at wide apertures from 17-20mm.

Michael
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
jennajenna said:
You should really change your heading to "Amazed by Full Frame Canon".

Your pics is nice but it could have been achieved with a 5d2.
Click to expand...
This is getting tiresome..

"You could get that shot with camera x" is just plain annoying. He has a 5d3, is happy with it, and wants to tell people about it.

It is almost like saying, "my kid could do that", which may be true... but irrelevant.
 
Thanks everyone. For those with "other" comments, I do understand that alot of what I am seeing is related from jumping from crop to full frame, but I am extremely impressed with how the MKIII focuses, exposes and handles noise. Could a MKII do it, maybe, but I don't have that and haven't. For those who think my title was inaccurate, my apologies; but I"m still super impressed with the MKIII and it was worth the money in my mind.
 
Afraid not. While I do have a 40D, I've never used the 10-22. I do have a couple of well-regarded non-L lenses including the 85 f1.8 and find that, although they're very sharp, the colours are slightly weaker, not as rich and deep. The 17-40L is particularly good in this regard.

Michael
 
HarryLally said:
Afraid not. While I do have a 40D, I've never used the 10-22. I do have a couple of well-regarded non-L lenses including the 85 f1.8 and find that, although they're very sharp, the colours are slightly weaker, not as rich and deep. The 17-40L is particularly good in this regard.
Click to expand...
Thanks and I've heard others praise the color rendering of the 17-40 on FF. If (when ;)) I get my 5D3 I'll do a detailed controlled comparison of the 5D3/17-40 against the 7D/10-22 and post the results.

Bob
-- http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

3Percent
Canon EOS 5D Mark III: Quiet and Excellent at High ISO
Replies
10
Views
10K
2ndact scene1
2
RichDitch
Cameras seen at No Kings rally
Replies
2
Views
2K
Paul Pasco
Paul Pasco
D
Godwit test shot with Canon R1
Replies
2
Views
563
TareqPhoto
T
Maoby
The famous Canon EOS-5D
Replies
17
Views
370
Maoby
Maoby
L
Canon 5d mark iii - time to upgrade?
Replies
4
Views
1K
MJ_Photo38
MJ_Photo38

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top