User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: mk3 vs mk2

  1. #1
    Shore Crawler Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    mk3 vs mk2

    I set up two tripods this morning
    5dmk3 + 16-35mm
    5dmk2 +17-40
    F8 iso1600 25 seconds

    Which image do you think comes from which camera?
    They look suprisingly similar to me - strange , but I would have thought that based on the mk3's wedding performance, I'd get superior night images!
    (these are exported from LR with sharpening for screen - not the best compos , just in a rush to get the test done before doing some 'real' shots)

    1
    comparison-1.jpg
    2
    comparison-2.jpg
    Call me Dylan! www.everlookphotography.com | www.everlookphotography.wordpress.com | www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh
    Canon EOS 5dmk3 : 17-40 F4 L, 70-200F2.8 canon L, 24-70mm canon L, Gitzo Safari +1178 ballhead. |Canon 5dmkII, 16-35mmF2.8 II L, Gitzo 2541 )
    Singh Ray/Hitech/Lee assorted filters, Z pro modified system Cokin holder
    Post : Lightroom 3.6 catalogue -> Export as 16bit TIFF, Edited CS5 -> resized for web.

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At that size, and with the Canon EOS 5D series being known for good low-light performance, you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart without pixel-peeping at high magnification.

    What's most noticable is the difference in white balance.

    I gather no noise-reduction settings were applied in camera or during raw conversion.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Apr 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No.1 5D MKiii?

  4. #4
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    John, no noise reduction from LR - I just ran a generic action (WB made the same on both, vibrance +10, clarity +10, fill light 5, contrast +35) - everything else was default - in camera settings did not have noise reduction
    even pixel peeping it was hard to tell (I tried to get Marianne to pick it and she had a hard time until she cheated and saw that one was a converted DNG file!)
    5dmk3 is #1 - curious as to what made you come to that conclusion algy?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jul 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I picked the first one as a 5DIII simply because you said it was taken with the 16-35 whilst the second was taken with the 17-40. The first one appears to show more width of the hills (the lights on the right of centre of the horizon are closer to the middle of the image) thus suggesting it was taken with a lens with a wider wide-angle.

    Anakha

    Quote Originally Posted by dtoh View Post
    John, no noise reduction from LR - I just ran a generic action (WB made the same on both, vibrance +10, clarity +10, fill light 5, contrast +35) - everything else was default - in camera settings did not have noise reduction
    even pixel peeping it was hard to tell (I tried to get Marianne to pick it and she had a hard time until she cheated and saw that one was a converted DNG file!)
    5dmk3 is #1 - curious as to what made you come to that conclusion algy?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Apr 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dtoh
    5dmk3 is #1 - curious as to what made you come to that conclusion algy?
    I chose no 1 because it was a slightly wider angle than no 2 and judging by the lenses you specified for the mkiii I thought I was that one.

  7. #7
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lol, not based on picture quality then - perhaps I should do this test with the same lens and change camreas on the same tripod position
    I might try this again on a darker night with higher iso to see if there's much difference

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    08 May 2009
    Location
    Buninyong
    Posts
    1,235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Haven't looked at any of the others comments, but I think the second shot is the 5D3. To me the stars look a little more defined and the dynamic range seems to be larger.

    Edit: Well I was wrong! Maybe that first lens isn't as good!
    Last edited by etherial; 09-04-2012 at 10:41am.
    Mic

    Photography is the art of telling stories with light.

    www.michaelgoulding.com

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not sure how the lens gives any indication as to the camera used.

    Both are EF lenses and both are fully compatible with both cameras.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenedis View Post
    I'm not sure how the lens gives any indication as to the camera used.

    Both are EF lenses and both are fully compatible with both cameras.
    one can argue or state that both lenses offer a slight variation in colour and contrast, which is true - because they are totally different lenses. But as mentioned, you can tell which one is the 16-35 due to the slightly wider shot, but we could be wrong.

  11. #11
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    03 Mar 2010
    Location
    Townsville
    Posts
    889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wouldn't really expect to see any difference. Most images from both will be pretty much the same..... except in the higher ISO range. Most of the improvements in the mkiii are 'behind the scenes' so to speak, like the much better AF.

  12. #12
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    first image is the 5dmk3 , second is 5dmk2
    I've taken some images at a baby shoot today at 6400 and will let you know the result!

  13. #13
    Loves The Wildlife. Mary Anne's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane Southside.
    Posts
    36,092
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dont have to guess its on your Exif data Though I prefer #2 from the 5D Mk11

    I shoot with Canon And Olympus Cameras



  14. #14
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mary Anne - same here! it was a bit of a worry lol

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    17 Feb 2012
    Location
    Mooroolbark
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Both shots are fabulous. I take either camera...LOL

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    25 Mar 2011
    Location
    Launceston
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What software do you use to process your 5d Mk 3 images? I run CS5 and on downloading my 5D mk3 images the Camera Raw tells me that it does no recognise the camera.

  17. #17
    Shore Crawler
    Threadstarter
    Dylan & Marianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    8,506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    mors - I use LR 4.1 - it's just been released - I had that issue at the start and needed to find adobe DNG converter - if you don't have LR, that might be your best bet

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Apr 2008
    Location
    Bathurst
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I dont have the mk3, but you should be able to update adobe camera Raw to handle the files. It was the same issue when the MK2 was released.
    Cheers, Brad




  19. #19
    Member KeeFy's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Mar 2011
    Location
    Newtown
    Posts
    470
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mors View Post
    What software do you use to process your 5d Mk 3 images? I run CS5 and on downloading my 5D mk3 images the Camera Raw tells me that it does no recognise the camera.
    Update to camera raw 6.7.

    LR 4.1 RC was just released, i was using the 4.1 beta and it did the job as well.

    http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...form=Macintosh << mac
    http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...atform=Windows << Win.

    Don't download 7.1 as it's only for CS6.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •