Canon 5dII vs 5dIII

Mommajojo

I have saved up enough for the 5dII but now I am not sure if I should hold out and save more more the 5dIII I am a natural light portrait photographer. I photograph 80 percent outdoors. Any advice would be great. THANK YOU!!!

ziggy53

The Canon 5D MKIII provides a number of advantages over the 5D MKII, but the greatest advantage is in the AF section, IMO. If rapid and accurate autofocus is one of your criteria for purchase then the 5D MKIII might be advantageous.

I still use a 5D MKII for wedding formals and portraiture, and I don't really feel a pressing need to upgrade. (It would be nice but not necessary.)

Regardless of which you purchase I still highly recommend some sort of device with a focus assist lamp. Both bodies benefit from a focus assist lamp, the 5D MKII moreso. The AF-Assist of the 580EX speedlite is wonderful in that it is bright and provides a pattern that lenses find easily.

If you give the 5D MKII a good lens and good light it can do amazing things for you:

Matthew Saville

The question is, what types of subjects do you photograph? The 5D mk2 is perfectly adequate for most anything that holds still, from landscapes to portraits, as long as you shoot at regular apertures and don't try and push the envelope too far in the direction of shallow DOF and moving subjects. That is where the mk2 fails miserably, to be honest. The 5D mk3 is an incredible leap forward with regard to focus tracking, at any aperture and in any light, even the off-center focus points are usable now.

If you like to shoot at f/1.4 or f/2 or even f/2.8, and if your subjects are even slightly active, I'd save up for the mk3. You won't regret it. But if you're a landscape photographer or the type of portrait / fashion / commercial photographer who can get their subjects to hold relatively still, then the mk2 is an absolute steal these days.

To qualify- I shoot full-time and have shot extensively with all of the pro cameras used by wedding, portrait, landscape, etc. photographers. I own and prefer Nikon, but I work with lots of 5D mk3 and 5D mk2 shooters and have shot plenty of jobs on those cameras. I really, really prefer the 5D mk3 and if I were going to buy any Canon camera, that would be it. If I didn't prefer my Nikon buttons and customizations so much... :-)

Take care,
=Matt=

Mommajojo

THANK YOU!!! I think I will hold out for the MKIII. I take a lot of childrens portraits and events like sweet 16's. I currently use a 7d but was anxious to go full frame I guess I will hold out for the III. I was thinking of getting it with the 24-105 lens. Is that a good lens?? Or when I do save up should I just go for the body...

THANK YOU!!!

ziggy53

Mommajojo wrote: »

... I was thinking of getting it with the 24-105 lens. Is that a good lens?? Or when I do save up should I just go for the body...

...

For portraiture on a Canon FF body my recommendations are:

EF 50mm, f1.4 USM for 3/4 length and full-length.
EF 135mm, f2L USM for head shots and head-and-shoulders. EF 85mm, f1.8 USM for these indoors. F1.2L as a better, but expensive, option.
EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM for groups and social events. Older EF 28-70mm, f2.8L or even EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L are also usable.
EF 17-40mm, f4L USM or 16-35mm, f2.8L USM super-wide for large groups in tight places, and some environmental portraits. Also usable for vista landscapes.

---

The EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM is a very nice travel and walk-a-round lens, but the smaller aperture is not as useful for portraiture. I greatly prefer the above large aperture primes for 1-2 people because of the great control over bokeh and background.

You can use the 24-105mmF4L for portraiture in an outdoor setting if you are very careful to use distant backgrounds, or backgrounds that frame the subject, but large aperture primes work better in more situations.

The short end of the 24-105mmF4L also has lots of curvilinear distortion (especially visible on a FF body), limiting portrait applications at those focal lengths. (Distortion is greater than 4 percent barrel distortion at 24mm, one of the worst showings in the entire Canon lens line.)

Vignetting is also a problem with this lens and at 24mm it shows vignetting of ~2.5EV at f4. Vignetting can be somewhat mitigated in software (to a point where much of time it's not a problem.)

Still, center sharpness is excellent pretty much through the range and edge/corner sharpness is very good too. The lens enjoys a fairly broad popularity, but, again, I cannot recommend it for general portraiture.

---

For event work I do prefer the combination of a crop 1.6x body and a pair of lenses:

EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. A nearly perfect standard zoom for Canon crop bodies.
EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with or without IS). For handling larger venues when you cannot be everyplace at once. Can also be used for some portraiture on a FF body and at the longer focal lengths.

The 5D MKIII would also be a very nice, but a little heavy, event body, with the following lenses:

EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM.
EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with or without IS).

kdog

I'm not seeing anyone mention anything about any advantages of the MKIII over the MKII for high ISO. The few shootouts I've seen around the net don't really show that much of an improvement. Not that the 5DMKII is bad, it's quite good. But every little bits helps when shooting events I'm discovering.

I'm actually looking for an excuse to upgrade, but the new AF alone isn't cutting it for me yet. So I'm curious if anyone has any high-ISO comparison data between the two models to sway me. Thanks.

Matthew Saville

kdog wrote: »

I'm not seeing anyone mention anything about any advantages of the MKIII over the MKII for high ISO. The few shootouts I've seen around the net don't really show that much of an improvement. Not that the 5DMKII is bad, it's quite good. But every little bits helps when shooting events I'm discovering.

I'm actually looking for an excuse to upgrade, but the new AF alone isn't cutting it for me yet. So I'm curious if anyone has any high-ISO comparison data between the two models to sway me. Thanks.

The Canon mk2 and mk3 sensors are both awesome at ISO 3200, and the mk3 is a little bit more usable at ISO 6400. I know that all kinds of photographers are claiming they can use all kinds of ISO's, from 1600 to 12800, but my experience lies in shooting and processing thousands of images at these ISO's, professionally, and selling prints / making albums. Just in case you're wondering what I base my advice on.

Honestly, I'm flat-out not happy with the shadow noise on the mk2 / mk3 at ANY ISO. A couple of the guys at our studio got D800's, on the other hand, and WOW the shadow noise is just, well, ...not there! On the 5D mk2, I have seen terrible issues with shadow banding at any ISO over 1600, especially if you're using radio signal wireless flashes, and ESPECIALLY at intermediate ISO's such as 2000. DO NOT USE ISO 2000!!! ...On the 5D mk3, I haven't seen any banding yet, but more of a "plaid" pattern starts to show up in shadow noise, at every ISO, and the shadows go stark-green in most lighting conditions.

All in all, I would say that yes, the 5D mk3 is an improvement in low-light shooting; of course a dramatic improvement in low-light focusing, but also a decent and worthwhile improvement in image quality. Just don't expect a whopping extra 1-2 stops like people were claiming to be possible. That will only be the case if you have moderately low standards and are printing small / medium size prints.

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

kdog wrote: »

I'm not seeing anyone mention anything about any advantages of the MKIII over the MKII for high ISO. The few shootouts I've seen around the net don't really show that much of an improvement. Not that the 5DMKII is bad, it's quite good. But every little bits helps when shooting events I'm discovering.

I'm actually looking for an excuse to upgrade, but the new AF alone isn't cutting it for me yet. So I'm curious if anyone has any high-ISO comparison data between the two models to sway me. Thanks.

Here is a test I did.

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Other/5DII-vs-5DIII-ISO

People have called it invalid because I converted the RAWs to JPG using Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and not their beloved Lightroom, and because I used default noise reduction levels. They dismiss it because my results don't jive with what they think they "know". I am seeing at least a full stop improvement in my 5D3 over my old 5D2 at high ISO. Both in this test and in practical use.

Here is a worse-than-real-life example of the 5D3 at ISO 6400, at my daughter's play in a horribly lit church, where lighting was a complete non-thought:



Look at all that shadow noise, this shot is ruined. (sarcasm)

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Here is a test I did.

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Other/5DII-vs-5DIII-ISO

People have called it invalid because I converted the RAWs to JPG using Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and not their beloved Lightroom, and because I used default noise reduction levels. They dismiss it because my results don't jive with what they think they "know". I am seeing at least a full stop improvement in my 5D3 over my old 5D2 at high ISO. Both in this test and in practical use.

Here is a worse-than-real-life example of the 5D3 at ISO 6400, at my daughter's play in a horribly lit church, where lighting was a complete non-thought:

Look at all that shadow noise, this shot is ruined. (sarcasm)

I don't see a clear 1-stop difference, at least not at the 2-3 ISO's that matter to me. 6400 from the mk3 doesn't look *exactly* like ISO 3200 from the mk2, it has as much detail but is more noisy. The difference between 12800 on the mk3 and 6400 on the mk2 is even worse.

Anyways, I'm not here to argue, I still believe that the mk3 has better image quality. I just haven't found it to be more than 1 extra stop worth of usability. All I know is that I shoot and edit thousands of images every week, most of them at ISO 3200 in fact. ISO 3200 was "totally good enough and usable" on the mk2, and ISO 6400 is "barely usable if there is no other option" on the mk3. It has less to do with the image detail, and more to do with the green shadow noise and other weird color shifts that happen in low-kelvin lighting conditions. (2-3k)

=Matt=

jgoetz4

Canon 5dII vs 5dIII
Good Afternoon Folks,
Here's a shot of my daughter taken with my 5D2 and 70-200 4.0 at 6400. Yeah, that high iso noise is just terrible rofl
Have a good day
Jim...

Brett1000

jgoetz4 wrote: »

Good Afternoon Folks,
Here's a shot of my daughter taken with my 5D2 and 70-200 4.0 at 6400. Yeah, that high iso noise is just terrible rofl
Have a good day
Jim...

ISO 6400 looks pretty good

chrisliehmann

I am a wedding photographer and can't wait to get my hands on the 5d mk III. If you shoot professionally, this is pretty close to a must have in my opinion. I am constantly working at low apertures and need a 580 to assist with focus regularly. Even then, the outer focal points on my mk II aren't usable which leads to me needing to adjust composition in post - time is money!

jhefti

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I don't see a clear 1-stop difference, at least not at the 2-3 ISO's that matter to me. 6400 from the mk3 doesn't look *exactly* like ISO 3200 from the mk2, it has as much detail but is more noisy. The difference between 12800 on the mk3 and 6400 on the mk2 is even worse.

Anyways, I'm not here to argue, I still believe that the mk3 has better image quality. I just haven't found it to be more than 1 extra stop worth of usability. All I know is that I shoot and edit thousands of images every week, most of them at ISO 3200 in fact. ISO 3200 was "totally good enough and usable" on the mk2, and ISO 6400 is "barely usable if there is no other option" on the mk3. It has less to do with the image detail, and more to do with the green shadow noise and other weird color shifts that happen in low-kelvin lighting conditions. (2-3k)

=Matt=

Ive seen similar things on my 5D2, though without the issues at ISO 2000 you mention. I suspect there is big difference between posting a jpeg here and creating a print that's wedding quality. I do use ISO 6400 occasionally, and it looks fine on online galleries so long as one does not look too closely. However, I can see the shadow noise, so I'm sure an eye as well developed as Matt's can definitely see these differences.

In any case, it's interesting that you note at best only a one stop improvement going from the mark II to the mark III. My 1D4 bodies go all the way up to ISO 102K, but things get a bit bumpy anywhere above 3200. In my limited experience, the high end ISO claims made by manufacturers are meaningless.

Matthew Saville

jhefti wrote: »

Ive seen similar things on my 5D2, though without the issues at ISO 2000 you mention. I suspect there is big difference between posting a jpeg here and creating a print that's wedding quality. I do use ISO 6400 occasionally, and it looks fine on online galleries so long as one does not look too closely. However, I can see the shadow noise, so I'm sure an eye as well developed as Matt's can definitely see these differences.

In any case, it's interesting that you note at best only a one stop improvement going from the mark II to the mark III. My 1D4 bodies go all the way up to ISO 102K, but things get a bit bumpy anywhere above 3200. In my limited experience, the high end ISO claims made by manufacturers are meaningless.

I've never met a "HI" ISO rating that was professionally usable, at least not for my line of work and post-production standards. And I have pretty lax standards, I just don't like that "glossy" NR look.

So yeah, the bottom line for me is this- Unless you have a 1DX, D3s or D4, ...ISO 3200 is still just about as high as I like to normally go. From ANY current-generation full-frame camera, not just the absolute newest ones...

=Matt=