Canon Sensors 5dII vs. 5dIII vs. 6d

<p>I want to replace my old 5d (I) and I`m not sure what camera i should buy.I shoot exclusively from tripod at iso 100. Since I use the most time tilt shift lenses without autofocus i also don`t care about autofocus speed. The only things that really matters to me is: Resolution, Dynamic Range, Colors. Is there any difference between those three cameras? </p>

<p>The 6D isn't available for testing, so nobody can say for sure.</p>

<p>I've used the 5D1 and 5D3. Based on testing I've seen, the 5D3 and 5D2 have very similar image quality. They both have Live View which should help a lot with focusing tilt-shift lenses. I'd suggest you go with a 5D2, which is really a bargain right now; or wait for the 6D to be available.</p>

<p>We'll see.... There is no real difference between the 5D2 and 5D3 (except for a single megapixel, and a smidge better ultra high ISO noise) sensors, but it's worth hoping that the 6D will see some tangible improvement in DR... afterall, Nikon (or Sony anyway) did it ;-)... last I checked though, all three use the same 3 colors...</p>

<p>Seriously though, if your ultimate goal revolves around DR, and absolute resolution, the D800 is the best game in town. I guess a decision like that should wait until somebody (other than Canon) can get the grubby hands on a 6D to see if there is any significant improvement in DR, but realistically, I wouldn't be expecting huge leaps, like would be necessary to bring it into the realm of the D800's DR (not to mention the resolution ;-) ).</p>

<p>Obviously, mixing up the glass so you can jump ship isn't an easy decision (if you were to do so), and many would decry such a decision, but reality sometimes sucks, and Canon is likely to be far behind for at least the near future. After the 6D comes out, I doubt we'll see anything new for awhile (at least FF), this has already been a gangbuster year for new releases.</p>

 

<p>yes, the d800 would be the perfect camera for me, unfortunately the awesome canon 17mm & 24mm tilt shift lenses doesn`t work on nikon...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There is no real difference between the 5D2 and 5D3 (except for a single megapixel, and a smidge better ultra high ISO noise) sensor"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Don't agree: the Mk III sensor is <em>much, much </em>less likely to band at high ISOs, and - despite what certain equipment testing websites and "expert" reviewers have to say about it - in my testing of Mk III files I found it really easy to recover tons of clean detail from the shadows at low ISO, which - as we all know - is the only thing that matters, all of a sudden...</p>

<p>Tripod shooter using TS lenses at low ISO. Hmm, I'd say buy a 5D2 and save a mitt full of benjamins over the other two cameras. There won't be any significant difference in IQ. However, if you start liking LV the newer LCD will be a notch better. The 5D2 LCD is head and shoulders above the 5D but even my 60D and 7D LCD are better than the 5D2.</p>

<p>You can use special focusing screen with 5dII, not with 5dIII, don't know for 6D.<br>

But, I do a lot of manual focus and having a focusing screen with split focusing and grid line is a real nice, and you can use Magic Lantern (http://www.magiclantern.fm/) with 5dII, you don't for now with 5dIII and I suppose it'll take some time to use it with 6d.<br>

So, for me, I don't see anything worth 2 cents more on the 5dIII over 5dII.</p>

<p>Yes, they don't offer anything that includes that level of awesome.</p>

<p>Some of it is pretty good, but probably not worth the switch. The best news about the D800's capabilities is that it likely will lead to better Canon sensors w/n a few years...</p>

Mark I use my 5DII in a similar way to you a lot of the time (although I don't always shoot from tripods and sometime go

up to 3200 ISO). I tested the 5DIII and it is a good camera - the AF and fps make it viable for sports, it is also perhaps

1EV better at high ISO. That said I have two other bodies for sports so I decided to wait in the hope that Canon matches

the D800E ( as I Leica shooter I think the filter makes a difference!). If you need a body now I suggest either a 5DII or

perhaps the 6D. There is a big jump in IQ between the mkI and MkII versions of the 5D. The mark III to me is a small IQ

increase but a big jump in AF and fps (and slightly better build). I am hoping / assuming that Canon will bring out

something to match the D800 in the next year or so.

<p>I went from a 5D to a 1Ds II to a 5D3. Big improvement with the 5D3.</p>

<p>If you are not going to print poster size images, and you will be shooting on a tripod at low ISO's, then just keep your 5D. What are you really going to get for it on the used market? $500 maximum?</p>

<p>I went from 5D to 5D Mk II and now 5D Mk III. The Mk III is by far the best camera I ever had. I see a clear difference in image quality between the Mk II and the Mk III. But this might have to do with the phenomenal AF which is by far more exact than all what was before. For me the clear winner is the Mk III. The Mk II is resting as a backup body.<br>

Nice regards<br>

Peter</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But this might have to do with the phenomenal AF which is by far more exact than all what was before.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1. My 5D3 can autofocus in moonlight (albiet it will take a couple of seconds) where the 5D and 1Ds2 will hunt forever. But, keep your attention focused on newer Canon EOS M's to come in the next few years where mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras may dominate.</p>

<p>For your usage you've already done the most important thing with your lens choices.</p>

<p>I owned the 5D MkII and now own the 5D MkIII and there's absolutely no difference in IQ at ISO 100. The advantage doesn't really start until ISO 1600. The main advantage of the MkIII vs. the MkII is the faster, more precise and more flexible AF system. If you don't shoot wildlife or sports, that'll be of little use.</p>

<p>I doubt that the 6D will have a superior sensor, but you might wait to see.</p>

<p>I too, would suggest you get the 5D Mark II. I played with a 5D (original) a few years ago, and was actually all set to buy it then....they announced the Mark II. A few months into the production cycle, I finally got a chance to try one out. Compared to the (admittedly very capable) 5D, the Mark II blew it away in every respect, IMO.</p>

<p>For your particular style of shooting, the Mark II would be a better investment, with its live view, lens microadjustment, etc. The 21MPs definitely come in handy if you need to capture good detail or need to crop an image.<br>

You can save a chunk of change on one right now, with them going for a relative bargain. </p>

Since you rely on live view it is worth pointing out that the LCD is of much higher quality and pixel density than the 5D Mk

II. Am also in agreement about image quality improvements in the 5D Mk III.

<p>The Raw files from the MkII and the MkIII are almost identical at ISOs below 1600. I'd like to see a demonstration of the difference from anyone that reports seeing a difference.</p>