Comparison photos of 5DIII to Rebel T2i

CoveShooter

While I know it isn't a fair fight, I'm sure there are a lot of Rebel shooters thinking about upgrading to a full frame camera and are curious about how their body would fare against the new 5D Mark III. I have been shooting a T2i and loving it and I had recently upgraded to some "L" lenses and wondered if the body would make that big a difference with the same high-quality glass. I did purchase the 5DIII last week so I did some testing today to compare. My primary interest was in lower light situations with ISO settings between 1600 and 6400 (the max for the T2i). So these are shot inside with very little outside light (shades over the windows) but with constant overhead recessed lighting.

Here is a link to a gallery I created with pairs of test shots with both bodies and a 70-200L 2.8IS lens. As I said, I kept the lighting lowish. All shots were done on a tripod. A caption describes the details of each shot. In each pair the 5DIII is first and then the T2i same shot. Because of the T2i crop sensor I set the zoom for about 120mm for the T2i and 200 mm for the 5DIII so they were about the same apparent zoom level.

At the end I also did a quick comparison between the 28-135 EF lens and the new 24-105L that came with my kit. These were done in brighter conditions.

Hope this might be of interest to those analytical types (like me):

http://danhall.smugmug.com/Other/Comparison-5DIII-to-T2i

insanefred

Honestly, I thought the difference would (should?) of been more dramatic.

ziggy53

CoveShooter wrote: »

... Hope this might be of interest to those analytical types (like me):

http://danhall.smugmug.com/Other/Comparison-5DIII-to-T2i

Thanks for doing this Dan. I realize how much time goes into these tests, and I appreciate you sharing.

Demian

insanefred wrote: »

Honestly, I thought the difference would (should?) of been more dramatic.

I think it's a significant difference. Look at the "Series 2006" in the mid-bottom of the dollar. It's totally illegible on the rebel at 1600 iso, but still readable up to 6400 on the mk3.

This test is relatively kind to the rebel since it features large contrasty objects. But on a finer, textured object (like hair) the noise on the rebel would make a significant difference.


Thanks for the sample shots, CoveShooter.

ThatCanonGuy

These are very interesting. Thanks!

CoveShooter

When I started this thread I intentionally did not voice my opinion on the comparison because I was curious to see what the groups response would be. I have to say that I really question whether for my needs (non-professional) the 5DIII is worth the extra $$. I could get a 7D to have similar body and controls (and more speed) or just stick with what I have. Considering the crop level of these images in poor lighting, I would have expected the difference to be greater to be honest. In standard or outside light, with the same glass, I would guess the difference is even smaller. I might be returning my 5DIII this week. My inclination all along was that the T2i had amazing IQ for the money and I'm just not sure that under normal croppling conditions (50%) that the difference is worth $3500. My test could also be flawed in that there could be other situations where the 5DIII really outshines the T2i and I didn't test for them. Does anyone feel colors will be much richer? Low light capability was really the reason I wanted it and color vibrance can so easily be tweaked in PP anyways. I expected this test to validate my purchase but it seems to have brought up even more questions. Thanks for all your feedback.

Moving Pictures

I've always been pleased with the IQ from the Rebel line ... I think for most folks, if it's a choice between a more pro-sumer camera (60d, 7d) and crappy glass, or a Rebel and at least something like a Sigma/Tamron lens of reasonable quality - go with glass.

This was reaffirmed when i took a few parting shots with my old 20d before giving it away ... hadn't touched the thing in years, and it produced darned good images. As it always did, when used with good glass.

Qarik

insanefred wrote: »

Honestly, I thought the difference would (should?) of been more dramatic.

Although the difference is significant in my eyes..you would see MUCH more difference if the subject matter had more dynamic range, color, etc. As of now the only real data you can tease out is mid tone noise performance really.

Brett1000

CoveShooter wrote: »

While I know it isn't a fair fight, I'm sure there are a lot of Rebel shooters thinking about upgrading to a full frame camera and are curious about how their body would fare against the new 5D Mark III. I have been shooting a T2i and loving it and I had recently upgraded to some "L" lenses and wondered if the body would make that big a difference with the same high-quality glass. I did purchase the 5DIII last week so I did some testing today to compare. My primary interest was in lower light situations with ISO settings between 1600 and 6400 (the max for the T2i). So these are shot inside with very little outside light (shades over the windows) but with constant overhead recessed lighting.

Here is a link to a gallery I created with pairs of test shots with both bodies and a 70-200L 2.8IS lens. As I said, I kept the lighting lowish. All shots were done on a tripod. A caption describes the details of each shot. In each pair the 5DIII is first and then the T2i same shot. Because of the T2i crop sensor I set the zoom for about 120mm for the T2i and 200 mm for the 5DIII so they were about the same apparent zoom level.

At the end I also did a quick comparison between the 28-135 EF lens and the new 24-105L that came with my kit. These were done in brighter conditions.

Hope this might be of interest to those analytical types (like me):

http://danhall.smugmug.com/Other/Comparison-5DIII-to-T2i

interesting comparison, if you shoot in good light the cheap T2i /550D is still good

jmphotocraft

I did a similar "studio" comparison between my 7D and 5D2, here. The difference was pretty minimal especially at ISO 800 and below. However in practice, I had to teach myself to only judge 7D files at 50% view, because looking at them at 100% view was rarely satisfying, and often disappointing next to the 5D2. 5D2 (and 3) files are usually good to pixel-peep. Sure, this is only meaningful when either printing large (like bigger than 16x20) or when cropping heavily, but still, it is telling of a difference in IQ.

Below ISO 800, the advantages of FF are more about lens compatibility, and the bigger viewfinder. The DOF issue I think is a bit overhyped, but some people live for it.