Canon 5D MKII vs Canon 5DMKIII -2 stills see for yourself

C-Mac

C-Mac

Well-known member
Hey Guys,

This is a very very very quick test I did this morning shooting a close up of my dog with the 5DMKII & 5DMKIII with my 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens. All factors are the same, shutter (50), iso (320), same color balance (5900k), save maybe a shift on the f-stop, sorry about that... same lens was used for both... I disabled the high iso NR, and peripheral illum on both cameras and the chromatic aberration on the 5DMK3.

I shot neutral picture on both 5DMK3 at 2 for sharpness 0 for contrast, saturation, color tone. 5DMK2 at 3 for sharpness 0 for contrast, saturation, color tone.

This was a 5 minute test and it's not perfect or very scientifically driven, but one that I wanted to see. I know the sharpness is 1 up in the setting on the 5DMKII and the f-stop may be a little more open on the 5DMKIII. I am sorry it's not perfect, but thought people might like to see it anyway, before I get back to work.

Processing:

I set up a drop conversion in Compressor to Apple Pro Res 422. All clips where converted same way... 5DMK3 was shot All-I.

Zero Color Correction on these stills.


http://www.pulsecinema.com/5DMKellastills/5DMK2stillella.jpg

http://www.pulsecinema.com/5DMKellastills/5DMK3stillella.jpg

Best Regards,

Chris McGuinness

www.chrismcguinnessdp.com
www.pulsecinema.com
 
Last edited:
Wow the 5D3 is way softer ... or is that your sharpness settings on the 5D2 ? Or is it the F stop on the 5D3 ?
 
F-stop can't be way off if it is, because their is no color correction here and and shutter & ISO are the same. I also don't think 2 vs 3 on the sharpening will make a huge difference, but could be wrong... looks softer to me. Shot some video of my daughter today, once I raised contrast I thought the 5DMK3 looked great, sharp enough for me.

chris
 
Two things...

1- The F-stop must be different, as what's in focus between both shots is not the same.

2- The 5D MK3 has a couple more stops of dynamic range over the 5D MK2 ( if the ISO rating is low enough ), which is going to make the image less contrasty, which gives the impression of less sharpness.
 
why don't you point them at a dollar bill or something static but detailed ?

Ps if the 3 is softer makes sense - they softened out the artefacts

S
 
TheDingo said:
Two things...

1- The F-stop must be different, as what's in focus between both shots is not the same.

2- The 5D MK3 has a couple more stops of dynamic range over the 5D MK2 ( if the ISO rating is low enough ), which is going to make the image less contrasty, which gives the impression of less sharpness.
Click to expand...

Yes, I had originally meant to hit the same f-stop but the LCD looked so much different that I just naturally shifted the f stop... it's one of those moments where you are trying to test something, but you really should just wait till you have time... still I think what's in focus does not look as sharp as the 5D MK II.

Number 2 makes a lot of sense and I had not considered this...

When it comes down to it, I think I prefer the 5DMK3 footage, but time will tell.

I'll see if I can do a more accurate test this weekend with a dollar bill.

chris
 
Yeah but look all the moire and aliasing with the MK2 image. Just kidding, the MK2 still rocks.
The main reason I'd pay the price for an MK3 is better low light capability, but I shoot 95% of my work in daylight or with lighting anyway. Sharpness is by far the biggest factor for shooting FF in the first place so if the MK2 is as sharp it will get the job done. For price of an MK3, I can get an MK2 with a Canon 24mm 1.4L.
 
Last edited:
maltess2 said:
How would you compare video of the MKIII with MKII?
Click to expand...

Just have not had the time to use it much, but so far I like the image, I like the camera, not a big leap for video... The fact that aliasing/moire have been improved will help me breath easy when I am shooting small TV commercials or promo spots. I have not had big problems with aliasing/moire on the 5D mark II, but I'm always worried that it might rear it's ugly head when I can least afford it. Final Cut Pro 7 did not recognize either video compressions for import so I had to convert them with compressor before usage... after convert did not see any notable quality difference in the compressions, but that may change as I see more footage. I had ordered 2-5DMKIIIs but have canceled 1 as I think I can use the one as the A cam and have B & C 5DMKIIs. I had planned on selling the 5DMKIIs but would like to hold off and possibly pick up a C300 if I can swing it this year.

Chris McGuinness
www.pulsecinema.com
www.chrismcguinnessdp.com
 
the hell are the complainers talking about? the 5D mk3 looks so much better! look at those aliasing from the mk2! hideous! now mk3 is more useable. pricey & low res, but useable! its like an HVX200 but with extreme DOF!
 
OK so there's no bump in resolution, it wasn't even on my wish list. Everything else that was on my list has been addressed/fixed so I'm going to make a film with it. So it's not brilliant at wide shots, have a cry and get over it. If you wanna shoot a spaghetti western there are other options like ahh film!
 
dcloud said:
the hell are the complainers talking about? the 5D mk3 looks so much better! look at those aliasing from the mk2! hideous! now mk3 is more useable. pricey & low res, but useable! its like an HVX200 but with extreme DOF!
Click to expand...

And greater DR, cleaner, for sure. But, HVX/HPX looking footage is what I concluded as well.
 
MkII looks sharper because of all the aliasing and sharp edges from them. The resolution itself is about the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top