1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
I have the 50D, and i am going to upgrade it with one of these bodies.
I want the best image quality, which the best is the 5D2 as i read until now, but, 1D3 has an advantage which i like, the 1,3x factor. Because i shoot wildlife, i need this extra reach.
Because i know that 5D2 is better in high ISO, when shooting with ISO 400, these 2 bodies have noticeable difference? Because with my recent 50D i can't shoot with ISO > 400, and even with lower ISO the 50D still shows noise.
Please, people who have both bodies, i would like to know which is the ISO limit of the 2 models, which the 5D2 gets better?? I mean at ISO 800 the 2 models have difference??
1D3 is considered a camera with good ISO performance, but can you rate the 2 models for me please with scale top limit 10? You can include in the scale the 50D, which is a medium quality camera for me.
Don't speak about fps and other stuff, only about the image quality, although the great pixel difference makes me think about 5D2 even more, although i don't want to think about resolution so much.
Almost a year ago, i was thinking about which camera should i get, and i was among 50D and 1D3. I choose 50D because of the 5 more Mp, and because it was a more recent model, but i think my choise was not so good, because if i was bying the 1D3 i would get images with less noise and sharper, but i thought the 1D3 was really overpriced and that i was paying the weather sealing and these stuff, but i was wrong i suppose...
Anyone who can help me decide is welcome, and also, does anyone knows when 1D4 will be in the market finally??
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Spiridakis
I want the best image quality, which the best is the 5D2 as i read until now, but, 1D3 has an advantage which i like, the 1,3x factor. Because i shoot wildlife, i need this extra reach.
Care to explain why you prefer the 1D3? Stick an XYZ lens on a tripod, take the shot with each camera aimed at the same point, and crop away the portion of the 5D2's frame and you'll still have more pixels than the 1D3 image. A lot of prominent folks (who didn't need the extra 5fps) seemed to switch to the 1Ds3 from the 1D3, and the 5D2 seems to have extended that trend.
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
The 5D II has a smaller pixel density than the 1D III. You will have more reach with the 5D II.
John.
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
<div>
True what John and Peety3 say.
The 'extra reach' of a crop frame camera can be a bit of a fallacy. It's called a 'crop frame', I prefer to think of it as just that; a camera that pre-crops your images giving you the illusion of more reach. This is particularly true when comparing a camera like the 1D MkIII (x1.3, ~10MP) and the 5D MkII (x1, ~21MP). In the case of cameras with comparable image resolution, say a 40D (x1.6, ~10MP) and a 5D MkI (x1, ~12.8MP) it may certainly appear like more added reach, but you have to keep in mind pixel density and the impact that it has upon image quality.
When comparing cameras, you have to keep in mind 'different tools for different jobs'. Its' not necessarily a simple comparison of which is better; you have to have some context to ask, "which is better for 'X'?".
The 1D MkIV is scheduled to be shipped to retailers sometime this month (at least that's supposed to be the case in the US, but I've heard that it may not be until January here in Canada). If you're not already on a waiting list or have pre-ordered, good luck getting your hands on one before February or March.
</div>
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
We had a similar thread recently:
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/2547.aspx
Others have already addressed the "reach" issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Spiridakis
Because i know that 5D2 is better in high ISO, when shooting with ISO 400, these 2 bodies have noticeable difference?
If you frame them for the same angle of view, the 5D2 will be noticeably superior. If you crop it to the same angle of view, the noise will be about the same, but the additional resolution of the 5D2 will make people like it better. It depends on what the white balance and processing settings are. The more you use "typical" settings, the better the 5D2 will be. If you stray into the more advanced post processing areas, the advantages of the 1D3 (higher dynamic range) show better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Spiridakis
would like to know which is the ISO limit of the 2 models, which the 5D2 gets better?? I mean at ISO 800 the 2 models have difference??
It depends on a lot of factors, such as the the angle of view and cropping. (sometimes you can get the same AOV, other times you can't.)
Have you considered the 7D? When it comes to wildlife, it blows the pants off the 5D2 and 1D3.
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Have you considered the 7D? When it comes to wildlife, it blows the pants off the 5D2 and 1D3.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
That thing looks amazing, I agree, but he said he needs high iso capability, which is its only 'drawback' (as opposed to trade-off) from which it suffers.
What I actually wanted to add in here is a comment on weight. I'm a 5dII owner. I don't own the 1DIII, but I've held it and this thing is a BEAST. Let me say that again, it is a mammoth. A behemoth. It's a joy to click with (from the few test shots I took), but I wouldn't buy something that large even if I could afford it. It's massively heavy, and would simply not work at all with how I shoot. You shoot wildlife, odds are you're gonna have this problem worse than me.
As to the original question?
Check out the reviews on the main page. The ISO comparisons speak for themselves. I don't want to bias you, but I don't think there will be much question left after you have a look.
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodai
That thing looks amazing, I agree, but he said he needs high iso capability, which is its only 'drawback' (as opposed to trade-off) from which it suffers.
But high ISO capability is precisely where the 7D shines! If you shoot wildlife with all three cameras, the same lens, and from the same position, you'll find that the 7D and 5D2 have the exact same noise level at every ISO. The only difference is that the 7D will have almost three times more resolution!
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodai
Check out the reviews on the main page. The ISO comparisons speak for themselves. I don't want to bias you, but I don't think there will be much question left after you have a look.
The ISO comparisons on this site do *NOT* reflect a wildlife situation where you are limited by focal length. They reflect all the other, more common situations where you can get as close as you want or just use a longer lens. For that the 5D2 image would need to be scaled down by 48%, after which you will find that the noise is in fact the same as the 7D.
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodai
That thing looks amazing, I agree, but he said he needs high iso capability, which is its only 'drawback' (as opposed to trade-off) from which it suffers.
But high ISO capability is precisely where the 7D shines! If you shoot wildlife with all three cameras, the same lens, and from the same position, you'll find that the 7D and 5D2 have the exact same noise level at every ISO. The only difference is that the 7D will have almost three times more resolution!
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodai
Check out the reviews on the main page. The ISO comparisons speak for themselves. I don't want to bias you, but I don't think there will be much question left after you have a look.
The ISO comparisons on this site do *NOT* reflect a wildlife situation where you are limited by focal length. They reflect all the other, more common situations where you can get as close as you want or just use a longer lens. For that the 5D2 image would need to be scaled down by 48%, after which you will find that the noise is in fact the same as the 7D.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Point. That's not a situation I am often in. I mean, I'd like to see a comparison like that, but I can buy it as possible, anyway.
Oh, and as to my saying "The ISO comparisons speak for themselves.", I meant the 1d3 v the 5d the OP was asking about, not the 7D, which I haven't examined quite as closely.
*appended*
Wait, would it be 48%?
I just did out some of the math, but it's getting boring. Link me to where it's worked out?
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodai
Wait, would it be 48%?
I just did out some of the math, but it's getting boring. Link me to where it's worked out?
48% comes from 6.4 microns divided by 4.3 microns, but that's not really the right number. There are two issues involved: difference in sensor size and difference in pixel size. Here's the math:
We'll compare 5D2, 1D3, and 7D. First, crop all the sensors to the same angle of view:
5D2 21.1 MP / 1.6^2 = 8.2 MP
1D3 10.1 MP / 1.26^2 = 6.4 MP
7D 18.0 MP / 1.00 = 18.0 MP
Right away you can see that the 7D has a huge advantage in resolution for focal-length limited situations. But for noise comparison, if you look at 100% crops, you may be misled to think it is noisier, so you need to downsample them to the same resolution, such as 6.4 MP:
5D2 8.2 MP crop / 1.13^2 = 6.4 MP
1D3 10.1 MP / 1.00 = 6.4 MP
7D 18.0 MP / 1.68^2 = 6.4 MP
Now you can take a 100% crop from each of the resulting images and compare for noise. You will find that the 5D2 and 7D are exactly the same, while the 1D3 trails more and more at higher ISO.
Re: 1D Mark 3 vs 5D mark 2 about image quality
Ahh, cool. I worked through the first half of that, and no 48%'s were popping out at me, so I figured there was more to deriving the number than that.
I'd still like to see it, but that shouldn't suggest that I'm overly skeptical. The high-res crop factor is a good design, I had just assumed that it still trailed a bit on noise.
