mk3 vs mk2

[Dylan & Marianne]

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

[Xenedis]

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.

[algywt]

No.1 5D MKiii?

[Dylan & Marianne]

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?

[anakha]

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

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?

[algywt]

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.

[Dylan & Marianne]

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

[etherial]

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!

[Xenedis]

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.

[JM Tran]

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.

[Art Vandelay]

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.

[Dylan & Marianne]

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!

[Mary Anne]

Dont have to guess its on your Exif data Though I prefer #2 from the 5D Mk11

[Dylan & Marianne]

Mary Anne - same here! it was a bit of a worry lol

[bouwy]

Both shots are fabulous. I take either camera...LOL

[mors]

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.

[Dylan & Marianne]

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

[mercho]

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.

[KeeFy]

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.