5Diii Images

<p>Here they are...hopefully the links take you to full size pics...</p><div></div>

<p>Charles,</p>

<p>There is no reason to start an entirely new thread to attached photos. Just add a reply to your existing thread.</p>

If that's the result at ISO 12.800 I'm pretty impressed.

 

Now where to find a spare 3.500 to upgrade...?

<p>That's good but it's definitely not "two or maybe even three stops" better than the 5D2. Looks more like 1 stop to me. That pic is similar to what I get shooting at 6400 on my 5D2.</p>

<p>Charles:</p>

<p>Was that a RAW photo you converted or a JPEG from the camera?</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Difficult to draw a conclusion from as we don't know if this is an in camera Jpeg or processed from a RAW file, though it Looks like a Jpeg (note red and green blotching on the dogs face). If that is a camera generated Jpeg, the RAW files have potential. If it's RAW, which noise reduction program did you use?</p>

<p>In my neighbourhood, the 5D III is currently selling for $3800 CAN. The 5D II is selling for 2300 CAN. I just sold my 5D and BG-E4 for $900 CAN.</p>

<p>Based on your image and including the 100% crop in your next thread, it is not worth upgrading to the 5D III for it's price. In about 5 years, the 5D III will most likely depreciate to around $900. So, the best bang for my dollar today would be a new 5D II.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it is not worth upgrading to the 5D III for it's price</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say it's worth upgrading just for the new AF, myself...</p>

 

<p>My thought is just how spoiled we have gotten with regards to noise/grain. I mean these details are the equivalent of massive prints--probably 5-6 feet wide depending on your monitor resolution and that is nothing compared to what one would have seen with the finest grain films and a 35mm camera.</p>

<p>I am not drawing any comparisons between cameras or dissing anything, just making an observation as to how our expectations have grown with digital.</p>

<p><strong></strong>Matthijs,<br>

Yes, it is amazingly impressive. I was not expecting to buy this camera but saw a friend’s and realized the improvement is dramatic!<br>

Jamie,<br>

Having shot the 5dii for 3.5 years, and this camera for two days, it is easily two stops better. Plus the noise, even at 25,800, is more like course film grain. I topped out my 5Dii on commercial shoots at 3200. I’d easily shoot this camera at 12,400, and even 25,800 if needed, without fear of what I’d be delivering. <br>

I should say that one of my prime reasons for changing is I do a lot of existing light work for a hospital (see masonphotos.com). I often was working at 2.8, even at 3200 with my 5Dii. They then make banners from some of this work. If I can shoot at 5.6 instead, then the eyes of subjects, often caught on the fly, will be a lot sharper in these huge banners. So that single use alone is worth the upgrade. <br>

Eric,<br>

Yes, a RAW converted without any PS work up. I used RAW 6.7 to flip it.<br>

Randall and Eric,<br>

I did mention that this was a converted from RAW jpeg in my writing. No noise work has been applied. This is just out of the camera and then flipped to a jpeg. I was trying to show you a “straight” file. Noise reduction, of course, helps. I’ll try and post the camera generated jpeg too in a bit.<br>

Peter,<br>

Of course worth is what you make of it. The original 5D was a terrific camera. The 5Dii still is great, and in terms of megapixels it isn’t “worth” upgrading. But for high ISO and focus accuracy, there is no competition. The work I do with this camera pays well, so it is certainly worth it, to me, to do the upgrade. I just sold my 5diis, by the way, for $1,400 each.<br>

John A,<br>

You are right there. I was playing with the 5Diii in the dark, shooting pix by a weak flashlight, and thinking that in a way our film based sensitivity to a limit by light is simply not going to be a reality to future generations. If you can see it , you can record it and in high quality. Heck, it will pick up stuff I can’t even see in low light. Amazing times. And I still have students doing Collodion, too. Terrific times!<br>

So to reiterate. This camera, in spite of the “problems” I pointed out in my first thread, is in my opinion a game changer in the Canon line. Aside from the ISO, my lenses all seem to have gotten sharper overnight thanks to the new focus system. Either of these improvements is a huge difference from the 5Dii. Now it they’d just have left the image enlargement alone, and I can figure out the buffer size and review speed, I’d be completely happy! But you can’t have everything…</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jamie,<br />Having shot the 5dii for 3.5 years, and this camera for two days, it is easily two stops better.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't disagree. All am saying is that the image you posted looks like a 6400 ISO shot from my 5D2. Therefore = 1 stop better.</p>

<p>Charles:</p>

<p>Wow! I would have guessed some kind of NR was applied. That's pretty impressive!</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to share your results. Without people doing that, this would be a pretty boring place.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Charles-thanks for the update. No NR applied-I agree with Eric, that is quite a surprise. It's also nice to see Canon put their current top of the line AF in a non-1D series body, that alone should make the upgrade a serious consideration for wedding photographers.<br>

I agree, our expectations have grown considerably with recent technological developments- but then again, so have the demands of our clients-along with the cost of each upgrade cycle. I'm still amazed at just how effective these tools have become. </p>