Wanting to get a new camera... can you help me figure it out?

Gary Huff said:
Rhea Anna did a nice job on those first three spots. Helps that all the patterns that would cause an issue were kept out of focus (if there were no post fixes applied to fix image issues of course)...but therein lies the rub. What if you wanted to show some of those crazy patterns in focus? Out of focus can't save your butt every time. What if major post processing had to be done to fix image issues? Sometimes there's no money/time for that. And if I had a nickle for every person who showed up on a Canon DSLR shoot wearing something that was problematic after being giving explicit instructions on what to avoid...well, I'd have a darn lot of nickles!

No one has said that you can't shoot something nice with the 5D2...what you're saying is that it's "better" than the III, which is utter b.s. It may not resolve anymore, but it doesn't have the major issues that can kill your image and it responds better to post sharpening, in addition to a myriad of other features.

If you didn't feel that the 5D3 was worth the money, just say so, but don't come on here and try to put forth the argument that the 5D2 has a better image than the 5D3 because that's demonstrably false. At worst it's the same, and when the situation requires an object in focus that the Mark II would choke on, the Mark III can handle it.
Click to expand...

I agree, how one can insist the mk2 is better is simply beyond me. Sounds like someone's a little sore a new and better camera came out :)

Stephen Mick said:
In this scenario, I agree that the MK2 is the better choice.
Click to expand...
Stephen Mick said:
:D
Click to expand...

You had to, didn't you :)
 
dustylense said:
ANd they wouldn't be worse either. Might have been better if you wanted some slo-mo in there with 720/60p. It's subjective Chris. If I had neither of the cameras but have worked with each, I would pick the Mk3 from what I'm seeing with the camera. Rent the camera. Test it again. Load up magic lantern. apply a touch of post sharpen. SHoot some fine fabrics and wide shots of brick walls or shingled rooftops. Shoot some fuzzy eyebrows. Maybe a pasta strainer. Then come back and defend your thoughts.
Click to expand...


I've yet to see a comparison of the MKII and MKIII that illustrated anything like improved footage frames in the newer model. I'll be doing some testing with the MKII (with the anti-aliasing filter) and the MKIII.
 
kidwoo said:
Why is everyone ignoring the most important claim in this thread? :D


How did you get that price?
Click to expand...

What is the most important claim in the thread - the price? I got lucky on the price. B&H had that price for about a week then raised it a day or two ago.
 
Chris Santucci said:
I've yet to see a comparison of the MKII and MKIII that illustrated anything like improved footage frames in the newer model. I'll be doing some testing with the MKII (with the anti-aliasing filter) and the MKIII.
Click to expand...
Make sure to shoot some wides with your 16-35 and the VAF. Pasta strainer as well.
 
dustylense said:
Make sure to shoot some wides with your 16-35 and the VAF. Pasta strainer as well.
Click to expand...


I know the VAF-5D2 filter doesn't like the wide angle lenses but I may shoot samples stopped way down to get focus just to see what happens. My main area of focus will be in comparing general image quality, comparing aliasing, comparing noise levels up to 1600 ISO, and comparing dynamic range (with the MKII only with the VAF-5D2 installed).
 
Chris Santucci said:
I know the VAF-5D2 filter doesn't like the wide angle lenses but I may shoot samples stopped way down to get focus just to see what happens. My main area of focus will be in comparing general image quality, comparing aliasing, comparing noise levels up to 1600 ISO, and comparing dynamic range (with the MKII only with the VAF-5D2 installed).
Click to expand...
Shoot without the VAF as well. Then shoot some 720/60p on the Mk2. Oh wait, you can't. Shoot some lowlight footage at F8 as well using the 24-105 of both cameras both wide and long reach. My suggestion on the Mk3 is sharpen in camera 1 click from zero, but thats me. Sometimes I use 2 clicks from zero. Shoot a rez chart (fill the frame to the arrows please). Record some audio in camera between both for a scene. Then, on the stills side do some auto focus tests (the BIGGEST improvement of the Mk3 over the Mk2).
 
I too look forward to hearing the comparison! Thanks for the info everyone. The discussion is quite helpful. Please keep it coming if you think of anything.
 
I spent a fair amount of time doing a series of tests today with the Canon 5DMKII and 5DMKIII with the help of my AC, Shannon Madden. The MKIII was rented from Lensrentals and both cameras had ALL in-camera enhancements disabled as well as both matched identically in all pertinent settings, also with audio disabled in both.


I only tested the IPB mode of the MKIII and the MKII was mostly tested only with the VAF-5D2 filter installed (I have the aliasing test shirt shot without the filter in the MKII and it's a mess of moire, as expected). Both cameras were set at 1920x1080/24fps with the "Neutral" picture setting with contrast all the way down, saturation and color tone in the middle.


I used the same lens (Canon L series 70-200 II) on both cameras, the same setups with the same lighting with the same exposure settings and in the same time period. I deviated from exposure consistency only once with the highlight handling test.


In a nutshell, here are my findings:


Sharpness - It appears to me that the MKII (with VAF-5D2) will match the MKIII apparently with one step more of sharpness given to the MKII. With both cameras set to +3 sharpness, the MKIII appears to have an edge compared to the MKII sans VAF-5D2 filter (from looking at the resolution chart).


Noise - Confirming my findings back in March, the MKIII makes more ugly banded noise than the MKII in a specific tonal range (about 30-40 IRE as far as I can tell). The MKII has noise in this tonal range, but it's not "clumpy" and is less apparent.


Dynamic range - The MKII appears to have 1/2 to 1 stop more range than the MKIII.


Highlight handling - The MKIII appears to definitely not handle highlights as well as the MKII. This is also apparent in the dynamic range test with a more dramatic difference shown between the first two exposures made at the highlight end of that series.

Aliasing - With the VAF-5D2 in the MKII, aliasing seems to be essentially the same as in the MKIII.


Other discoveries:


The MKIII appears to be slightly more light sensitive than the MKII.


The framing on the MKIII is more inaccurate than the MKII on the Y axis. That is, the MKIII image displayed on the camera's LCD screen while in Liveview mode is more inaccurate compared to the MKII (hence the inaccurate framing of the resolution chart which I didn't feel like reshooting).


The MKII footage appears to be more neutral in color (at least with the daylight white balance preset).


5DMKII tests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QldjcMwbKQ

5DMKIII tests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QTpOtVRUgs

MKII Vs. MKIII resolution (no VAF-5D2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xykvGsSrdlA
 
Last edited:
My suggestion? Get the 1D X. Yes, much more expensive, but video, according to Phillip Bloom, is much better than the MKIII. And you get the best Photo Camera Canon makes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top