# a digital photography noob has a question about image quality



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

hello,

i am new to this forum and digital photography.
i was using a canon film camera since the 1980s, until now.
never cared much for digital. 
for the few photos i took a year my film camera was good enough.

but im a pensioner now and will go on a 8 weeks trip to south africa this year.
so i decided to go digital. 

i bought a 5D Mark3 and a 650D at amazon.
now i have 24 days left to decide if i keep the 5D Mark3 or the 650D

what puzzles me is that the image quality is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same.
i bought a epson R3000 printer and when i print the files i can hardly see any difference.

i know why the 5D Mark3 is more expensive (better build, more functions, FF sensor etc.) but i thought there would be a visible difference in image quality?

sorry if this is a stupid question. as i wrote im totally new to digital cameras. 

i just wonder that i get the same image quality in a 700 euro camera and in a 2800 euro camera.
i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera.


----------



## Northstar (Jan 30, 2013)

When your subject is moving and/or there is poor available light, that's when you'll notice more of a difference...though, it still is just a small amount 

But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly. 

The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

Northstar said:


> But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.
> 
> The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.



i have the 70-200mm F4 IS.
that is the lens i made the testshots with.

i will buy 2 other lenses but of course that depends on what body i will keep.
one in the 24-70mm range and one around 14mm (EF 14mm f2.8 or the EF-S 10-22mm).


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> hello,
> 
> i am new to this forum and digital photography.
> i was using a canon film camera since the 1980s, until now.
> ...


Keep the 5D MKIII that camera is amazing you will have much more all around use with it. For instance better low performance leagues better than the 650D. This is a once in a limetime event and the 5D MKIII will deliver more keepers in a lot more different lighting situations if your technique is right. This all depends on well your pockets can handle keeping the 5D MKIII. Either way happy shooting.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 30, 2013)

Northstar said:


> When your subject is moving and/or there is poor available light, that's when you'll notice more of a difference...though, it still is just a small amount
> 
> But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.
> 
> The lens you use plays an important part in the equation...you didn't mention what lens you used.


+1


----------



## WSMyles (Jan 30, 2013)

In "film" parlance, the 5d3 will give you a finer, better quality "grain" as if from a top-quality negative film versus a cheap off-brand. It will hold up better in more challenging circumstances too. Less noise, more light collected. You are correct in that at 8x10 type print size, there won't be much difference in a well-exposed shot.

I have a 16x10 print from my old 30d that looks great, with less than half the resolution of a 650d.

However, take that shot wrong (over/underexposed in particular) and it'll be harder to fix. Crop into it and print or view that portion, and you'll start to see the difference. In theory at least, the FF sensor collects a stop and a half more light, so it's like using film at twice the ISO rating for the same 'grain' -- or that you can get away with half the light at the same ISO.

The quality of the lens in front of the camera is at least as important as the sensor behind that lens. It also matters whether you have the right lens(es) for the subject matter you are shooting. You may or may not have EF mount lenses (or L series within that) for your film bodies - but it sounds like you may get more 'mileage' from spending your money on suitable glass for the trip. 

There is nothing wrong with a 650D as a travel camera. I'd rather have one of those and the 'right' lenses than a more expensive body and only one lens of the 'wrong' focal length or a cheap zoom because that's all I could afford.

You are probably aware that the 650D has a different FoV due to the crop sensor, which changes the 'apparent' focal length.

If you can afford the 5D and have the glass already, go for it. When you sit down to post-process the images afterwards, you won't be sorry. I just bought a 5d Mark III myself, with a small collection of L lenses which are *specifically* what I need for my subject matter (24-105, 70-300L, 100L). They are a compromise, but cover my needs for much less than I would have paid (24-70 II, 70-200 II, 1.4x, 2.0x, 100L.)

For me, it was Hobson's Choice: I wanted a FF camera, didn't like the Nikons, and couldn't afford the 1DX by a long stretch. As soon as the 6D turned out to have an AF system that is useless for my needs, I jumped on the first decent offer for a 5d Mark III, and I'm delighted with the results.

Both cameras will provide "OK" results from basic EF lenses, and better results from better EF lenses. A dodgy lens will produce images that look blurry and smeared on both cameras when you zoom in to 1:1. I can even see that on the 8.5MP 30d. To really see the difference, try shooting in challenging light or with a really good quality lens. At least you don't have to deal with EF-S lenses coming from film! Your 70-200 f4 IS is a pretty good start.

Good luck and happy shooting. I dare say the 6d with 24-105L was MADE for you.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> hello,
> 
> i am new to this forum and digital photography.
> i was using a canon film camera since the 1980s, until now.
> ...



What was the size of the prints you made? If the prints were small (even 8x10) it is unlikely you will notice any substantial difference.


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

yes i know that lenses are important, that has not changed. 

the test photos i have taken are done under good light conditions.
well daylight so to speak.
and i was pretty conservative with the ISO and i did not go over ISO 800.

im not so much a image editing guy.
i know RAW is the way to go but i have so much new stuff to learn with digital, that i will start with JPG.

but you say im doing nothing wrong, when i see no image quality difference in prints?
i thought i may missed something or doing something wrong.


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

J.R. said:


> What was the size of the prints you made? If the prints were small (even 8x10) it is unlikely you will notice any substantial difference.



A3+ with small passepartout borders.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> the test photos i have taken are done under good light conditions.
> well daylight so to speak.
> and i was pretty conservative with the ISO and i did not go over ISO 800.



Ah... I see your problem. The biggest reason you didn't see any difference in IQ was because your test was very limited and you are not a pixel peeper . ISO 800 is the point after which the 5D3 begins to tear apart the competition. I'd suggest you do another test, this time shooting beyond ISO 800 - bump up the ISO right upto 6400 and you'll clearly see the difference - you will also be wowed with what the 5D3 can do. 



Jens Lange said:


> but you say im doing nothing wrong, when i see no image quality difference in prints?
> i thought i may missed something or doing something wrong.



That's right! you are doing nothing wrong. When you shoot in good light, low ISO and don't pixel peep, you are unlikely to realize the difference in the images. The only thing you are doing wrong is not testing enough to see where the boundaries of the 650D are.


----------



## WSMyles (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> yes i know that lenses are important, that has not changed.
> 
> the test photos i have taken are done under good light conditions. well daylight so to speak.
> and i was pretty conservative with the ISO and i did not go over ISO 800.


Yeah - try at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 near sunset, with shade - when you're out and about touring, you don't get to pick what time of day you take a photo. Look at the highlights and the shadows.

Try taking some shots inside the house without flash - you may not be allowed to use flash in some locations. It's good to know in advance what you can expect from your camera.



> im not so much a image editing guy.
> i know RAW is the way to go but i have so much new stuff to learn with digital, that i will start with JPG.



Maybe not now, but you will be when you get back. Even if it's just tweaking the exposure and cropping the image, you'll soon get the bug. With my 30d images in LR4 there are rarely less than five substantial tweaks to get the image looking right - but with the 5d it's pretty 'right' out of the camera. As soon as I zoom in to look at something in the background of an image from each camera, the difference is amazing. On the 30d, a background object that takes 3% of the frame is a blur, pretty much all the time. That same object with the 5d might or might not be - but it will be recognisable if it was in the focus plane 

You shot film, so you should be comfortable using Av/Tv/M or at least P mode. Set the camera to record Large/Fine + RAW. Save both files for later. If you do 'goof' the exposure, it's much easier to rescue a RAW image than a JPEG. Also, some years from now there may be an amazing new noise filter you can apply to your RAW image, with all its 14 bits per colour -- instead of the 8 bits per colour in JPEG.



> but you say im doing nothing wrong, when i see no image quality difference in prints?
> i thought i may missed something or doing something wrong.



Not when using the 'sweet spot', no. It's just a question of how big the sweet spot is 

Edit: Since you seem to be interested in WA and UWA lenses, you might try some other tests with high spatial frequencies, emulating a panoramic view at 'infinity.' In principle, you should get more from a FF than a crop. The 24-70 f2.8L II is a very capable lens in this regard. On a 650D, it would be more like a 38mm-110 and you'd need to consider the 10-22 (but will the distortion bother you?)


----------



## sanj (Jan 30, 2013)

Sir if money is of concern, I really recommend you return both and get 6d.


----------



## srh (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> i know RAW is the way to go but i have so much new stuff to learn with digital, that i will start with JPG.




Not sure about the 650d but the 5D will let you shoot both RAW and JPG. That might come in handy later if you get into editing.


----------



## smithy (Jan 30, 2013)

If you're happy with the 650D and you're happy with the lens solutions for crop bodies (EF-S, etc), then I'd say save your money and return the 5D3. I own (and love) the 5D3, and was using it on the weekend alongside a family member's 650D and the truth is, in _everyday_ shooting situations you can achieve pretty much the same results from either camera.

It's when you find yourself in more extreme shooting situations that the difference becomes apparent. Sports, low light, etc. Also DOF is more dramatic on a full frame camera compared with crop.

Having said that, if you're planning on going on safari while in Africa, you might appreciate the extra 'reach' you gain from your 70-200mm lens when using it with a crop body like the 650D. It effectively becomes a 320mm lens.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > But you're right, for the cost difference, you would think that the 5d3 images would be way better...but they aren't....just slightly.
> ...



EFS lenses won't work on the 5D3


----------



## WSMyles (Jan 30, 2013)

srh said:


> Not sure about the 650d but the 5D will let you shoot both RAW and JPG. That might come in handy later if you get into editing.



Both do


----------



## smithy (Jan 30, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Jens Lange said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...


The OP appears to be aware of that already.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 30, 2013)

smithy said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Jens Lange said:
> ...



I guess I stopped reading right where it said EF-S ... Thanks though!


----------



## Wilmark (Jan 30, 2013)

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!


----------



## robbymack (Jan 30, 2013)

Since you state the 650 met your expectations I'd go that route. At low iso there really is little to differentiate the iq of ff and crop. Now if you're going to shoot at iso 3200 and above there will be a marked difference. Also the wide and standard zoom options on crop are very good (Efs 10-22, Efs 17-55, Efs 15-85) and much cheaper when compared to their ff counterparts. There are also a number of third party crop lenses that are very good as well. I'd recommend buying used lenses if that's an option. May as well save as much cash as you can and use the rest for travel. Enjoy.


----------



## Txema (Jan 30, 2013)

Shoot Raw + Large fine jpeg. You'l have the jpeg files and raw to cover from exposure errors. Basic raw developing is really easy.
You'll see more the difference between the two cameras when developing raw.

Have a good one.


----------



## Meh (Jan 30, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!



Oh bollocks. Nobody is assuming anything rather expressing why he may not have seen much difference in image quality in his test shots and the comments are bang on. The OP said he's a pensioner but didn't get caught up in cost and, afterall, he is in a position to order two new bodies to try out and says he will buy more lenses. It seems perhaps that image quality is his primary concern rather than cost and in that context he should keep the 5D3 or as another comment suggested, return both and get a 6D.

There are many aspects to image quality and most are not about pixel peeping or editing. Noise is a biggie and in the well-lit daytime conditions that the OP did the test shots there will be very little noise in any image even from an iPhone. Images at dusk, dawn, night, or indoors will be a different story. Or images with deep shadow regions.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 30, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!



+1 

If he cannot see the difference then let him be... He is getting good pics with the 650, great. Let him spend the extra cash on some nice lens if he wants to.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Jan 30, 2013)

This is one of the best questions asked in a long time. I come from film myself and started out with a 30D (140 000 exposures taken), 70-200 /4 L IS and 17-40 /4 L. 

Now I have a 5D mkII and I am very happy with that camera. 
As you have noticed, at low ISOs cameras these days all look great. As has been said, IQ differences comes into play in more extreme situations. But there are other things that matters to your final image and that is how lenses behave on each camera. 

On a full frame camera the lenses behave as they used to do on film. That is, f/4 gives a rather short DoF (yes I know, focal length, subject/background distance). I think of it as f/4 on FF is approximately f/2.8 on crop. That means you get less DoF at the same apeture and framing. That also means that for portraits the FF has an advantage for bluring backgrounds, but APS-C has the upper hand on sharp landscape shots with everything in focus. You would think that you can stop the lenses down even on FF to get a large DoF and while you can do that, diffraction will set in earlier compared to APS-C (I think). You also get the greater compression of for instance the 85mm lens on FF compared to a 50mm lens on APS-C, giving more flattering portraits.

Also, the 650D has no AFMA so there is a chance of having to send camera and lenses to Canon to get them all adjusted for maximum sharpness. Sometimes that is important - the need for 100% focus is much greater whit the high resolutions we have today. It is much harder to get a 100% sharp photo with the 5D mkII compared to the 30D I think. 

There are great wide angle lenses for both formats, but to get greater reatch the tele lenses get more expensive if you are unwilling to crop in post. 

The autofocus of the 5D is more capable than the 650D making it more suitable for action.

To me another thing is important - larger and brighter viewfinder: this is a big plus to me! It´s easier to use and feels better after a long day of shooting. Also I like that I can use my 5D mkII with my mittens since I live in Sweden and I don´t stop photographing in the winter. I don´t want a smaller camera body.


So what do you need?
If you want to do portraits, extreme low light, more action, shallow DoF, adjust focus on your lenses? Keep the 5D.
If you want to do landscapes? Keep the 650D.
But yes, both cameras are capable and they both are great imagecreating mashines. The difference is in the format and how that affect the image, not really the image quality itself.

I hope this helps you.
And don´t forget how to use your tripod!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2013)

RickSpringfield said:


> You pose a great question OP. The fact is, its pretty easy to get caught up in this latest tech game ... and honestly, there is a bit of 'all the cool kids have ____ so therefore I need to get a ____ to be cool' in photography...



Excellent point.



Wilmark said:


> I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!



Another excellent post.

Now my two cents worth. The gulf between film and digital is immense. Even the most inexpensive digital cameras will give far greater image quality than what most of us long time film shooters ever saw with film. The differences between the two larger digital formats (APS-C and "full frame") is much smaller and really only apparent at the margins (shooting high ISO or extremely large prints, for example)

If you shoot at ISO 400 or below, you can easily print as large as A1 with no discernible loss of image quality using an APS-C camera.

I am going to suggest a third option for you: Consider the 7D, if you like the handling of the 5DIII but are satisfied with the APS-C image quality. Both use the same sensor, but the differences are in the build quality, handling, autofocus and frame rates. The 7D is relatively inexpensive right now, in anticipation that a replacement model will be announced in the coming year. But, it remains, in my opinion, the best crop-frame camera available.

Why the 7D? Because I assume that a trip to South Africa will involve some wildlife shooting and under those conditions the autofocus and higher frame rate will help you get shots that you might not otherwise get. 

In addition, I would suggest that if you return the 5DIII you look seriously at a longer telephoto lens. Again, assuming you are planning to shoot some wildlife, I think you will find the 70-200 zoom a little too short even on an APS-C body. The obvious options are the 70-300 "L" and the 100-400 "L" zooms. 

The 70-300 "L" is newer, a little lighter, maybe a tiny bit sharper, easier to carry in a camera bag and the autofocus is a bit more responsive. The 100-400 "L" gets you an extra 100 mm, which is no small consideration in shooting wildlife and remains a great lens at a reasonable price. 

Finally, I'd suggest you take a little time to learn RAW processing. I see no reason to shoot RAW + jpg, unless you need to immediately upload or print your images from the field. Even if you shoot in RAW and do nothing more than open the files and save it in Photoshop as a jpg, you will still have the RAW files later to work with.

Going from a film camera to a digital camera is amazing, but be prepared for something even amazing-er when going from processing and printing film-based images to processing and printing digital images using RAW. It simply offers options that could never be achieved with film – adjusting the color temperature of the image, tweaking the exposure over an almost infinite number of gradations, adjusting whites, shadows, blacks, contrast, highlights, etc. all independently. Creating smart objects that allow you to tweak one part of the image in one way, another part in a completely different way and a third, fourth, fifth, sixth part if you choose and then merge the various pieces in Photoshop. All with the ability to return to your original exposure at any time if the need arises.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 30, 2013)

Meh said:


> Wilmark said:
> 
> 
> > I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!
> ...



+1

The OP's question was only regarding the IQ and why he could not see a visible difference between the two cameras. . The majority of responses are addressed towards that. He has tested the cameras only upto ISO 800 so I guess he has not put the 5d3 through its paces.

To my understanding he never asked which camera he should keep. 

And everyone suggesting he keep the 650D, have you considered that he may find the high ISO performance of the 5d3 useful or do you think he will always shoot in good lighting at ISOs below 800


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 30, 2013)

The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs, larger prints, and in sharpness from FF. In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed. 

I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.


----------



## applecider (Jan 30, 2013)

Maybe for a further test try setting both on auto iso and try to get some late day or lower light shots. I assume you will do some wildlife shooting, so maybe head down to your local pond around sunset and try to get some twitty bird photos. This could test situations in which you will need a high shutter speed and still be shooting at higher iso. Let us now what you finally decide.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> i bought a 5D Mark3 and a 650D at amazon.
> now i have 24 days left to decide if i keep the 5D Mark3 or the 650D
> 
> what puzzles me is that the image quality is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same.
> i bought a epson R3000 printer and when i print the files i can hardly see any difference.



It's hard to express the joy I get out of a post like this ;D

The reason you can hardly see a difference is because contrary to the exaggerated claims of some FF fans, there is hardly a difference at low to mid ISO. Properly processed and printed, a shot from Canon's 18 MP crop sensor in that ISO range will be indistinguishable from a shot from any of Canon's FF sensors. This is true at 13x19, 16x24, 20x30...any size actually.

At high ISO Canon's FF sensors start to show their edge. If you're shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 and making larger prints, you will observe improved IQ with the FF sensor. At 6400 and above the difference will be large. That said, Canon's 18 MP crop sensor makes very good prints through ISO 3200 with a little NR.

As to what you should do: I'm leaning towards the recommendation that you keep the 5D3 because of your trip. That's a once in a lifetime experience and the 5D3's AF, high ISO, and weather sealing will not let you down. I would maybe suggest returning it for a 7D if you need additional lenses for that trip and if you can use the money saved for that purpose. I don't know your budget so I can't make that call. 

You mention wanting to buy a 24-70 zoom and a wider prime. What is your longest lens? If you are going to do any wildlife shooting on that trip, I would suggest budgeting for an additional telephoto. Canon's 300 f/4L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter (which could also be used with your 70-200), or a 100-400L.

If you can get the lenses you need and keep the 5D3, I would go that route. If you are going to be without a critical lens for the trip, consider the 7D plus the lens you need. Either way, try to keep the 650D for a backup. If you can't, take something as a backup, a P&S super zoom maybe. Again, it's a once in a lifetime event so make sure you're prepared.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 30, 2013)

If I was going to africa for 8 weeks, a once in a lifetime trip for me, build quality would be a major consideration....depending on how I was traveling, I would be very tempted to have two camera bodies just in case one failed. But this would have me leaning to a 7D at a minimum or keeping the 5DIII between the two options you give.

Regarding image quality under good lighting conditions, there is a very small difference, but it may not be discernable unless you are pixel peeping. Even then, it is tough. This is a comparison of both camera bodies with the same lens under the same conditions. The differences are there, but I can understand why you don't see a difference when printing on your printer: 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=792&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=808&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Honestly, I was surprised by how comparable those two images were (BTW, if not familiar, you toggle back in forth between images by moving the cursor onto the image and off the image). 

I don't know where you are going on your trip, but I think you should consider that in making this selection for two reasons: light and weather sealing. If you will always have good light, then there may not be much of an IQ difference. However, in the rain forests of Costa Rica, I needed ISO 6400. Amazingly little light makes it past canopies of rain forests/jungles. You will want the 5DIII or 6D if you need to shoot at greater than ISO 1600, definitely ISO 6400. If you will be in tough environmental situations, I can see wanting the weather sealing of a 7D or 5DIII.

So, build quality/ISO performance would be two critical factors to me in your decision making. The other would be reach. The 650 being a cropped sensor (same with 7D) will have 1.6x more reach. So, if you have a 200 mm lens, it will behave as a 320 mm lens would on the 5DIII. Of course, on the wide end, you would need a 15 mm lens to give you the same field of view as a 24 mm lens would on the 5DIII.

Once in a lifetime trip to Africa, money a slight factor (no big white lenses), I am probably taking a 5dIII, 24-105 f/4, 7D, 100-400 L and something like a 50 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4 for low light options. If I didn't already own the 100-400L, I would consider the 70-300L or maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 II with 1.4x and 2x extenders. Carry those around in a good backpack or something like a Storm 2500 pelican case. Also, I'd have a CPL, and some graduated ND filters.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs,



"Destroy" is an exaggeration, but it will certainly be better.



> larger prints, and in sharpness from FF.



At low to mid ISO there won't be an observable difference, as our friend discovered.



> In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.



Agreed.



> I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.



Given his trip, the Rebel makes a fine backup body on a budget.


----------



## mrzero (Jan 30, 2013)

I realize that we're getting pretty far off of the original question (relating to image quality), but I would suggest that you keep both cameras. I took a two week trip to Africa and I was swapping my lenses out more often that I preferred. If I could afford to, I'd keep both. 

On safari, put that 650D on your 70-200 (to take advantage of the crop factor) and your wildlife photos will have much better reach. In daylight, unless you are trying to track a moving cheetah or something, I think that combo will do great. Put the normal or wide angle lens on the 5DIII and get beautiful scenics, and you can swap the 5DIII onto the telephoto if the distance shortens, the light drops, or the action speeds up. Everywhere else, and for sunrise/sunset/evenings, take the 5DIII. You can hand off the 650D to your travelling companions (so you can be in some pictures) or just have it on hand as a spare.

You didn't really mention lenses or whether you bought these in kits, but you could also pick up a 650D body or a 600D body used or refurbished to do the same thing. Don't sacrifice your whole kit just to have the 5DIII, but if you can have good lenses, a tripod, a flash, and two bodies, I would do it. 

Most important, for an 8 week trip, you will need storage space (memory cards, laptop, and/or external hard drive). On my two week trip, I nearly filled all of my cards shooting JPG only. If you shoot RAW or RAW+JPG, you will fill them up very fast. Being gone that long, you will want to keep your files in at least two places. You can do lots of cards backed up to your laptop and not erased, or a few cards backed up to your laptop and an external hard drive before erasing the cards, or, with the 5DIII having dual card slots, you could backup one card to the other and rotate out your backup cards to the bag where you keep your dirty underwear, and nobody will steal them. Cards and hard drives are not too expensive any more, but I would rather haul a lot of SD and CF cards rather than a laptop, ipad, or hard drive.

Post more questions as you prepare. Some of us on here are living vicariously through your travels!


----------



## sdsr (Jan 30, 2013)

As others have said, you will notice differences as the light goes down and/or ISO goes up. If you don't expect to shoot at ISOs higher than c. 800, you will see few differences (aside from the obvious ones of crop magnification and depth of focus) if you start out with the correct exposure. If you need to tweak highlights or shadows, you can get more out of a RAW full-frame image. 

As for the superior features the 5DIII has compared to your 650D, how much do they matter to you? They don't much to me, which I why I decided to supplement my 5DII with a 6D rather than a 5DIII; and the 6D is even (albeit only marginally) better than the 5DIII in low light. Had you asked for such advice, if those features don't matter much to you either I would suggest returning the 5DIII in exchange for a 6D (I would probably want to keep the 650 D as a back-up for such an important trip; or, if this is affordable, a second FF camera such as a second-hand 5DII).


----------



## tomscott (Jan 30, 2013)

I found where it counts the 18mp on my 7D (same sensor) at ISO100-400 was really quite noisy, because of its high pixel density. Push the images a bit and it looks a lot noisier, I just wasn't satisfied even in the prints it was blatant. The 5DMKIII is a lot cleaner but you expect that also much better higher up. In perfect light it was great but how often do you get perfect light? 10-20% of the time. Just wasn't good enough for my commercial use.

Depends what you want, money clearly isnt an issue, with being able to buy these exotic cameras and this trip, so why not have the best?

The 5DMKIII has a better burst rate too which is helpful, apart from the 1DX it is the best camera canon makes.

You also have to remember the 650D is a crop camera so with all the EF lenses you have to multiply the focal length by 1.6. So getting wide angle is difficult. 24-70 is more like 38.4mm not exactly wide. With crop you would have to buy a 15-85, 17-55 or 10-22mm to get that wide. Non of these lenses offer weather sealing but offer high end IQ. Having owned the 10-22 and still own the 17-55mm they are fantastic lenses. 

But it works to your advantage with longer lenses, the 70-200mm you have is essentially 112-320mm. So you can get closer without spending a fortune on long glass.

Now I have a 5DMKIII would I go back to crop? No chance, there is something in the FF format that is more inherently film like, you also get thinner DOF like you would be used to with film. Especially that 18mp sensor, it was noisier than older canon cameras like the 40D where it counts, but obvs better higher up.

Depends what you want you could have gone between with the 7D, im not really sure why you bought the 650D and the 5DMKIII to compare, the 650D is really quite basic and the 5DMKIII much more complex.

The only reason I would keep the 650D is for weight saving, the 5D is a hefty camera in comparison. But its weather sealing is not advisable if you are in dusty situations. I took my 40D to north africa in 2006 and had it in a 4x4 and got it extremely dusty in the outback then it rained and it got wet before I had chance to clean the dust off and even with its weather sealing, dirt got into the shutter button and it stopped working. That was the end of it for that trip. Only way I got it working was when i got home was pouring alcohol down the battery compartment which was a last ditched attempt to fix it. Worked but taught me a lesson.


----------



## Sony (Jan 30, 2013)

As same as you, I was with film photography for years. I started jumping into digital photography with 500D kit (EF-S 15-55mm + 55-250mm), then 50D with 24-70mm MKI + 70-200mm MKI later. Today Im with 5D MKIII + 24-70mm MKII + 70-200mm MKII.
IMO, if you start with 650D, your skill will stop there or you will have to buy 5D MKiii later when your skill improves; if you start with 5D MKiii, you wont have to buy new gears later. I learned that. Of course it depends on your pocket and how much the love with photography you have. Cheers.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens,

If you're still hanging in there, the simple answer is that the 650D has excellent image quality and the 5DIII has superlative image quality. And, unless your printer is too big to fit on a desktop and takes ink by the gallon, you're not going to notice a difference in image quality between the two. In some circumstances you can get a slightly shallower depth of field from the 5DIII, but that's all you're likely to notice.

...in terms of image quality at the sizes you can print with a consumer printer.

Once your prints get into the 24" x 36" range and above, then, yes, the 5DIII produces visibly superior image quality -- but it's not like the 650D suddenly turns to shit. You can still make an excellent 24" x 36" print from a 650D; it's just that a similar print from a 5DIII will be not merely excellent but superlative.

Aside from image quality, the 5DIII is significantly superior in every way, particularly its autofocus performance. There's no competition there. But, if the 650D is good enough and you're happy with the prints you get from it, you've got nothing to gain from the 5DIII.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 30, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Jens Lange said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



i guess that is why he wrote it depends on the camera he keeps... :


as to the original question.

i think you should be happy with the 650D and it´s extra reach for a safari.
200mm is not very long. and in daylight, as you noticed, you will hardly see a difference.

thought if money does not matter buy a 5D MK3 and a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter.

or buy a 7D if the 650D feels a bit toyish.


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

oh so many replys.. 
i have to read them all but to the ones i have read:

my longest lens is the 70-200mm F4 IS and it is the only EF lens i own right now.
it was a present from my boss (my wife) on my last day at the job.
i knew i would definately want that lens. because it´s lightweight.
i also used to shoot a lot in that range with my trusted T90.

as much as i would love to have a 400mm lens with me, two things speak against it.
1) my wife. she said one camera and three lenses is the maximum.
2) has to do with 1. i don´t want to carry so much camera gear with me on the trip.
the EF 100-400mm would be a great choice maybe, but it´s to big and heavy.

i thought about the EF 24-105mm F4 IS (or EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS) and a ultra wideangle as second and third lens.
i also thought about buying a teleconverter. 
is the canon 1.4x really worth twice as much as a kenko 1.4x teleconverter?

i do see where the 5D Mark 3 is better.
i guess the info about the AF system takes more pages then the whole manual of my T90. 
the build and handling is fantastic, no question.

i just thought with all the stuff i read about FF vs. APS-C sensors that i would immediately see a difference in image quality.

keeping both cameras is not a bad idea.
i could give one to my wife. 
she bugs me with "hey look over there... hurry take a picture" anyway. 

thx for all your replys.
i hope you understand my english, im from germany, so please excuse that it is far from perfect.


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> I did not see where you said what kind of photos you are planning to take.



the usual when someone is going on a safari. 

wildlife and scenics both are equal important, i think.
it´s my first safari. ;D


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> At high ISO Canon's FF sensors start to show their edge. If you're shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 and making larger prints, you will observe improved IQ with the FF sensor. At 6400 and above the difference will be large. That said, Canon's 18 MP crop sensor makes very good prints through ISO 3200 with a little NR.



coming from film i am maybe overly conservative.
but yes when these cameras offer much higher ISO i should try them.


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 30, 2013)

The Bad Duck said:


> To me another thing is important - larger and brighter viewfinder: this is a big plus to me! It´s easier to use and feels better after a long day of shooting.



oh yeah definitely!!

compared to my analog canon the 650D viewfinder is like a tunnel.
the 5D Mark3 viewfinder is much better.

my post was just about the image quality difference.. or no difference.


----------



## c-law (Jan 30, 2013)

I have been to South Africa a couple of times before and will be there again in April.

I can tell you that a lot of Safari tours happen early in the morning to try and catch the animals and you will be glad of the better high ISOs from the 5DIII.

I found that while I was there I wanted to make the most of my days and was shooting early in the mornings through to late at night. The middle of the day usually didn't make much of a difference (unless I was shooting indoors in the villages - could get quite dark in there), but my 5DII made quite a difference for many of the shots I ended up loving from dawn or after twilight.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 30, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs,
> ...



1. A stop better ISO performance is DESTROYED in my book. The 5D3 is atleast 2 stops better.

2. haha, Thats a joke right? @ 100 ISO my 7D is like Iso 400-800 on my 5D3.


----------



## zim (Jan 30, 2013)

Hi Jens,

You do realise that there is a price to be paid for all this advice, when you get back you’ll have to show us all some photos! ;D

As for your original IQ test I think you just took two cars put them both into first gear and drove them both down a straight road. Ok maybe not the best analogy I’ll probably get burned for that 

I don’t have either of these camera’s but I do know which one I’d rather have on a trip like that, 5D3 hands down 
1. Weather sealing
2. High iso performance for real fast shutter speeds (doesn’t sound like you’ll be taking a tri-pod) mono-pod? 
3. AF for animal action
4. FPS as above

When you are using the above that’s when the 5D3’s IQ shows

You might also want to have a quick read of this
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/

PS Shoot RAW

Happy hunting 8)


----------



## smithy (Jan 30, 2013)

zim said:


> Hi Jens,
> 
> You do realise that there is a price to be paid for all this advice, when you get back you’ll have to show us all some photos! ;D


Hahah when I was growing up, we all used to groan when someone would get out a slide projector and have us sit through all of their travel photos. Now, thanks to the Internet, we can't seem to get enough of other people's travel photos.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 30, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me. We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!



+ 100


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> oh so many replys..
> i have to read them all but to the ones i have read:
> 
> my longest lens is the 70-200mm F4 IS and it is the only EF lens i own right now.
> ...



Hi, I have been to africa many times so have some experience here

1) 200mm will not be long enough (hell 400mm wont be long enough)! so get the 100-400 over the 70-200 trust me on this the 5Dmk3 can push its iso up to easily accomodate the extra stop loss of light you will thank me endlessly when you are looking at more great pictures because you can get the reach. (dont worry about the weight of the 100-400) you could consider the 70-300 as a bit of a midway compromise that is lighter and smaller too but in the game parks you will want that reach and range of zoom so if the 100-400 is really too heavy then seriously have a good long look at the 70-300 i think for your uses it will be the better choice

2) the 5Dmk3 will significantly out perform the 650D in every aspect, weather sealing is important, africa is a very dusty place especially in the game parks

3) you will realise the 4 stops better iso perfomance of the 5Dmk3 over the 650D is well worth it as soon as the light is not the best

4) the other 2 lenses i would take are the 16-35 f2.8L II and a canon 50mm f1.4
this gives you your 3 lenses and essentially coverage for everything


----------



## señor Steve (Jan 30, 2013)

This thread seems surreal. Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible? Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference. I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back. I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel. You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools. As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images. Best of luck on your trip!


----------



## Northstar (Jan 30, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > I did not see where you said what kind of photos you are planning to take.
> ...




Jens... You say you'll be shooting "wildlife and scenics"....I don't think that 200mm is long enough for wildlife. Get the 1.4 from Canon. If you see something really awesome/interesting in the bush that is more than 70-80 meters away...you'll be kicking yourself for not having more reach. Someone else suggested the 100-400mm...I agree, but I also understand the "wife/boss" dynamic involved if you went on the safari and didn't use the lens she just bought you.  ;D

Also...get a good photo editing/management tool like Lightroom or Aperture. The difference these programs can make in overall IQ is huge, and almost a necessity in today's world of digital photography.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2013)

Wickedwombat,

I'm glad someone else is focusing on the lenses. I would argue that may be more important than the body choice (but I won't because I don't want to start a whole new stream of flamers). I haven't been fortunate or financially able to go to Africa (yet!), but everything I've read has said to take at least a 400mm lens. 

I understand that the OP has a real dilemma here. His wife bought him a 70-200 and he doesn't want to appear to be an ungrateful lout by leaving it at home, but I would strongly suggest he try to finesse that one. (This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once.  )

I know I am repeating myself, but since it hasn't gotten much discussion I can only urge the OP, once again, to be sure and shoot RAW. Even if you aren't comfortable processing RAW today, you will eventually want to learn how to handle RAW files and you will always be able to go back and improve your original shots even 10 years from now if you've got them in RAW. If they are jpg, you will have limited yourself . Shots that you dismiss as mediocre, you may find with some RAW processing can be the best stuff you've done.


----------



## Northstar (Jan 30, 2013)

> I understand that the OP has a real dilemma here. His wife bought him a 70-200 and he doesn't want to appear to be an ungrateful lout by leaving it at home, but I would strongly suggest he try to finesse that one. (This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once.  )


unfocused....i acutally did LOL when I read this part...so funny.

by the way...I agree with ALL of your advice.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 30, 2013)

señor Steve said:


> This thread seems surreal. Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible? Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference. I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back. I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel. You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools. As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images. Best of luck on your trip!



and i bet you can´t say what is shoot with what camera when i show you prints.

a nice read for you:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 31, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> señor Steve said:
> 
> 
> > This thread seems surreal. Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible? Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference. I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back. I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel. You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools. As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images. Best of luck on your trip!
> ...



Maybe. But take the two cameras, no tripod, shoot 500 photos throughout a day with varied lighting and subjects, and I'll guarantee you most of the folks here can tell you which is which. 

As others have said, with good conditions, an iPhone can take pretty decent photos. So if you always have "good conditions" then use whatever the heck you like. If you face uncertainty and want a higher number of keepers, then it make s a huge difference.


----------



## señor Steve (Jan 31, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> señor Steve said:
> 
> 
> > This thread seems surreal. Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible? Call it microcontrast or pixel size, density, or whatever, there is a difference. I've not used the 650d, but regarding the rebels and 7d, I've been there, done that, and not going back. I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel. You can make truly great images with the xxxd, but not nearly as consistently as with the higher end tools. As far as extra reach, I'll happily crop the 5d images. Best of luck on your trip!
> ...



I saw that a while back. I am trying to reconcile that clearly well done example with my own experience. I suppose i so frequently shoot in marginal lower light situations with moving subjects that equipment has actually improved my results. I want my photos to be good because of me, but have to admit some of it is the camera in my case.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 31, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1. A stop better ISO performance is DESTROYED in my book. The 5D3 is atleast 2 stops better.



Most people would not agree with your definition of "destroyed." But exaggerate away if you must.



> 2. haha, Thats a joke right? @ 100 ISO my 7D is like Iso 400-800 on my 5D3.



Which is why OP found such a huge difference in his tests at low ISO.

Oh wait...he found none :


----------



## distant.star (Jan 31, 2013)

unfocused said:


> (This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once.  )



I tried that when I was married -- turned into a nightmare. I ended up having white lenses hidden all over the house. Half the time I went looking for a lens all I could find were whiskey bottles. It got very confusing. The day I found one of my lenses with a lens cap missing, I knew the jig was up. Fortunately, in the divorce settlement, she had no interest in white lenses. (She did get to keep the good whiskey though!)


----------



## Northstar (Jan 31, 2013)

distant.star said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > (This, by the way is why I advise everyone to admit to their spouse or significant other that they have at least one "white" lens. Once you admit to owning one, you can sneak in another couple lenses with the same white coating and most non-photographers will never notice the difference, as long as you don't ever let them see both lenses at once.  )
> ...


*

LOL again...you guys crack me up!!*


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 31, 2013)

señor Steve said:


> This thread seems surreal. Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?



Because we've taken a wide range of shots under a wide range of lighting conditions, and printed them to large sizes. And at ISO 100-800 the differences just aren't there.

Above 800? Absolutely. Though I would say the 18 MP sensor is good through 3200, the FF sensor shows a greater and greater advantage with each stop past 800. I consider the 5D3 probably the best low light DSLR made. (Haven't tried a 6D.) But if you're not shooting at those ISOs, it just doesn't show an IQ advantage over the many other sensors out there. (Canon's 18 MP APS-C; 5D2 sensor; several Nikon / Sony sensors).



> I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel.



He just told you he observed the opposite. Should he believe you, or his lying eyes?

Again I'll say that, given the trip, he should keep the 5D3 unless he is short a critical lens and trading the 5D3 for a 7D gets him the lens. It sounds like that's probably not the case, though his kit is weak on the telephoto end. At the bare minimum he's going to need a 1.4x for the 70-200. And I lean towards the comment that even that won't be enough, and a 100-400 will be the bare minimum for wildlife in this scenario.


----------



## robbymack (Jan 31, 2013)

200 even with a 1.4 will be woefully short on ff. on crop it is still short but getting closer. I have never shot in Africa but I do shoot at our local wildlife preserves and after the first visit with 200 max I knew I was severely outgunned. There is a reason wildlife pros use the big white primes. The wife bought you the 70-200 you're stuck taking it even if you don't use it. So rent a 100-400 and see what else you can sneak into the bag. Ideally you'd rent a 600ii but that probably won't fly with her (happy wife, happy life). I'd still lean toward the crop sensor for even more reach but at least with 400 on ff you will be able to pull out some decent shots and the 5diii files can take a pretty decent crop.


----------



## dbm (Jan 31, 2013)

My two cents: I recently used a trip to South Africa as an excuse to upgrade my rebel body to a 5diii (6d wasn't out yet so I didn't have to make that decision) and I got much better images than I had ever obtained previously
Improvement was more in the depth of field and color rendition than the resolution per se. For me enjoying the challenge of all the possibilities of the camera added a lot to my enjoyment and I have no regrets even though the camera is admittedly much better than I will ever be. If it animals you will be shooting keep in mind something that I had not considered, which is that they tend to hide in shadows and that you might be shooting a lot at dawn and dusk, so lighting conditions might not be as great as one might think, at least that was my experience. 
My suggestion for safari shooting might be to rent as long a lens as you are willing to carry, as even with a 70 - 200 with an extender I found myself cropping a lot (another advantage of the 5d)
Enjoy the trip


----------



## señor Steve (Jan 31, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> señor Steve said:
> 
> 
> > This thread seems surreal. Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?
> ...



A couple of days shooting who knows what (the house cat and such) does not constitute the real world to which I was referring. Especially not something as challenging and exciting as his upcoming trip. I agree on all other points, especially lenses.


----------



## jp121 (Jan 31, 2013)

The main reason I got the 5D3 was that my once in a lifetime trip to Cuba was ruined when my Rebel (550D) died. It couldn't handle the weather conditions. 

FYI: It was raining. The Rebel was in an optech plastic rain coat, under my rain coat and an umbrella. AND it still died!

So weather sealing is very very important and a back-up camera. I had to make do with my G12 on manual.

IQ wasn't part of the criteria for selecting a new camera. My presumption was that all new DSLRs would be an upgrade regarding IQ. A big successful business, such as Canon, would only release a DSLR with decent or better IQ with each new product.

My main criteria was weather sealing and robustness. So the choice came down to old 7D or new 5D3. New 5D3 won outright.

Some posters have suggested an extender to work with your 70-200 f/4. I seem to have read somewhere where that the 5D3 doesn't AF @ f/8. This supposed to change with an update coming out this year.


----------



## jp121 (Jan 31, 2013)

OP said 

"i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera."

In this statement, it seems that you are comparing film types. Ie different ISOs, film styles and processing quality. And in your original post, you are now comparing cameras. If you use the same film type in 2 different Canon cameras would you see much of a difference.

Please remember that with digital, both ISO & film style (jpg) are now adjustable in camera. Digital now gives you the choice to process your images to the nth degree before converting them to physical photographs.


----------



## Old Shooter (Jan 31, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> yes i know that lenses are important, that has not changed.
> 
> the test photos i have taken are done under good light conditions.
> well daylight so to speak.
> ...



Your path sounds like mine - a long-time film shooter who moved to digital... My first body was a 450D and then I moved to a 5DIII... First let me tell you, right off the bat, that 8 weeks in Africa sounds amazing!

I think the reason you are seeing very little difference is the test conditions - good lighting conditions with ISO at or below 800 - levels the playing field. Also, you are evaluating JPG's side-by-side - and with good light and reasonable ISO they look pretty darn good...

I would keep the 5DIII... You are going on an incredible trip - the additional card slot is worth the peace of mind! Silent shooting, great AF, 6 FPS (3 in silent), 3200-6400 useable ISO, that 22MP FF sensor, AFMA, etc... If you pick up a 2X TC to get some extra reach on that 70-200 - you will have an f/8 lens - and the higher ISO's will become very valuable...

I find the 5DIII battery life rather short - I would order an extra for the trip and have two at 100% every morning... Good quality CF and SD cards... I get better results when I double the shutter speed over the old 1/x rule...

I was leery of RAW at first - shot just JPG's - now I wish I had all those files in RAW to go back and rework... Me, personally, I would shoot everything in RAW+JPG - you can enjoy the JPG's right away and save the RAW files for potential PP later... Processing RAW files makes me feel like I am back in the darkroom again...


----------



## K3nt (Jan 31, 2013)

To everyone: AWESOME THREAD and POSTS! ;D Best, ever. 

To the original poster: RSA for 8 weeks! I wish I was going with you. As for your camera woes, do what you feel comfortable with. If the 5D3 feels overkill, it might just be. Someone else suggested the 7D as an alternative, I can definitely recommend that. The 7D with nice glass is an awesome device.
The 650D however, a good camera, but the sealing is not quite on par with the 7D or the 5D3, and where you're going I would say that should be part of your decision.
Also, another hint, whichever camera you do eventually stick with, get rid of the 'steal me!' Canon neck-strap. Plus the comfort factor using a Black Rapid RS-7 or Sunsniper shoulder strap cannot be underestimated when walking around with the camera for long periods of time.
Good luck with your trip and please, post some pics for us when you get back.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2013)

jp121 said:


> If you use the same film type in 2 different Canon cameras would you see much of a difference.



problem with your analogy is, the 5D MK3 and 650D don´t have the same sensor.



> OP said
> 
> "i see bigger differences when i change from one film type to another on my analog camera."
> 
> In this statement, it seems that you are comparing film types. Ie different ISOs, film styles and processing quality. And in your original post, you are now comparing cameras



it makes absolute sense to me what the OP says.

film in analog cameras = sensor in digital cameras.

if you buy a cheap film, the quality of the images will be worse then with expensive film.
the grain is bad, colors are worse, resolution is worse.

with all the talk about how great FF is, you could expect a big difference in image 
quality when going from APS-C to a FF sensor.
but that´s not the case. all you get is better quality when using high ISO.

and even this difference is only visible to pixelpeeper.
the normal customer, who prints 13x18cm, will not notice it.



> Some posters have suggested an extender to work with your 70-200 f/4. I seem to have read somewhere where that the 5D3 doesn't AF @ f/8. This supposed to change with an update coming out this year.



a 1.4x teleconverter will work fine (f4 + 1.4 extender = f5.6).

but yes for f8 you need the coming firmware upgrade expected for april.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 31, 2013)

Hi Jens, I think everything has been covered, but just wanted to weigh in with my 2c. First up, as a predominantly film shooter myself, I just wanted to say you're making the right decision to go digital for the trip. The freedom to take as many photos as you want without worrying about processing costs, xray machines, availability of film, ease of sharing photos etc can't be underestimated. Plus, you'll probably be surprised how good digital is compared with film these days. Its no longer a competition. However, as mentioned above, there are new challenges, including batteries, backup storage, security, should you take a laptop with you, raw vs jpeg...I'm sure you'll have fun figuring out your own solution. 

On to serious matters. You've inadvertantly stumbled onto the deep, dark secret of the camera industry. In well lit conditions, a camera phone can take a photo that is as captivating as a full frame camera. Canon and Nikon jointly fund a PR company to deal with problem people like yourself. I'd be expecting a knock on the door any moment from someone offering hush money.... So why go full frame with the 5Diii? Marginally more background blur. Better image quality at high ISO's (and if you look really closely, better at low ISO's too). A little bit less "noise" in dark parts of your photo. Comparing your two cameras, the 5D will have better autofocusing and subject tracking abilities (not that the 650D is "bad') and will be less likely to break if you get some rain on it (although, I'd be very surprised if the 650D couldn't withstand a few drops). The 5Diii is a better camera and at the extremes, you will be able to take photos with it that the 650D will struggle with. Do these differences matter to you and are they worth the price increase? Some people say yes. Many say no.

One of the earlier posters raised a very good point. If keeping the 5Diii impacts on your ability to fund lenses (or have an enjoyable trip), I know which way I'd lean. Also, I get the impression that you're a little older than the average Canon Rumors poster. If that's the case, I'd be really wary about weighing yourself down with a lot of camera gear unless that's the driving focus of the trip. Anyway, have fun!


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 31, 2013)

K3nt said:


> To everyone: AWESOME THREAD and POSTS! ;D Best, ever.
> 
> To the original poster: RSA for 8 weeks! I wish I was going with you. As for your camera woes, do what you feel comfortable with. If the 5D3 feels overkill, it might just be. Someone else suggested the 7D as an alternative, I can definitely recommend that. The 7D with nice glass is an awesome device.
> The 650D however, a good camera, but the sealing is not quite on par with the 7D or the 5D3, and where you're going I would say that should be part of your decision.
> ...


+1 Thank you for recommending the Black Rapid RS-7 strap. I learn something new here all the time. I currently have the Crumpler The Industry Disgrace on my 5D Mark II (I had to get rid of that dreaded Canon one) but will have the Black Rapid on my future 1 DX.


----------



## bycostello (Jan 31, 2013)

it isn't just IQ, construction, burst rates, iso performance etc etc.... but at the end of the day a camera is a camera, not a whole lot of difference....


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2013)

some people here should read the original posters message carefully.

his question was about IMAGE QUALITY not which camera he should keep.

i don´t think he needs help to see the differences in both cameras.
he already wrote the 5D MK3 handling and build is "fantastic" and he also noticed that the 5D MK3 offers more options.

so most of you guys bring owls to athen.... as they say.


i know this will sound arkward for some here....
but not all people like to carry a 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 around all day when they go on vacation. 

some are more interested in enjoying the trip while they are there, then making photos (that is something most japanese tourist do not understand ;D ). 

but i 100% understand why he wants to travel as light as possible.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> Also, I get the impression that you're a little older than the average Canon Rumors poster. If that's the case, I'd be really wary about weighing yourself down with a lot of camera gear unless that's the driving focus of the trip. Anyway, have fun!



+1

he is doing a trip with his wife.
he already wrote that he thought about the EF 100-400mm but thinks it´s too heavy.
yet some suggest to rent a even bigger and heavier lens. :

so i guess the photography part is .. well part of the trip but not the single purpose.

i would buy a 2x teleconverter if he goes on the vacation after april 2013.
canon will have released the firmware update for the 5D MK3 that allows focusing at f8. 

or as he wrote he could give the 650D to his wife. 
put the 1.4x teleconverter and the 70-200mm on it and it should be decent for wildlife.

the 5D MK3 could be used with the wideangle lens and a 24-70mm or 24-105mm.
less lenses switching is always good. 


by the way:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8065882473/gearing-up-for-an-african-safari


----------



## Sith Zombie (Jan 31, 2013)

Awwwwww now i'm confused?!? 
I'v heard in other posts and throughout the web that FF images have a 'magical' quality about them, now I hear you can't distinguish them from a rebel?! I was thinking of going FF for low iso studio and landscape stuff. Don't think I'll bother now. 
For the OP, I second a 7D. better af and build than the rebel, similar iq to 5dmkiii [apparently] at lower iso's, extra reach on lenses, less cost than 5dmkii.


----------



## smithy (Jan 31, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> some people here should read the original posters message carefully.
> 
> his question was about IMAGE QUALITY not which camera he should keep.
> 
> i don´t think he needs help to see the differences in both cameras.


Frankly I just think it's nice that the community here cares enough about the OP's situation to provide 5 pages of advice for him. Even if not everyone quite grasps the original query. That's something to think about.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2013)

smithy said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > some people here should read the original posters message carefully.
> ...




well it depends on if you need the advice or not...


----------



## Northstar (Jan 31, 2013)

Jens...as a couple other posters wrote, consider buying a black rapid strap.

The black rapid strap makes carrying a camera and lens much easier and it's more comfortable because the weight is placed on your shoulder instead of your neck.

Sorry to get off topic but I think this would really help you on your African safari trip


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 31, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Jens...as a couple other posters wrote, consider buying a black rapid strap.
> 
> The black rapid strap makes carrying a camera and lens much easier and it's more comfortable because the weight is placed on your shoulder instead of your neck.
> 
> Sorry to get off topic but I think this would really help you on your African safari trip



i will order one.

i just saw a video about them and im already convinced.


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 31, 2013)

something i could need help with is *image backup*.

i will not carry a laptop with me.
i only have a small netbook and i am not willing to do image editing during my vacation anyway. 

i am now convinced to shoot JPG and RAW.
but i don´t think i have time (or passion) for image editing on my vacation.

thought i like to have a backup of my SD/CF cards.
what is a good backup device?
something to put the SD/CF cards in and that copys all images onto a harddisk.

i heard there is a good solution from epson (P7000)?
but it´s no longer available.


oh and about the 1.4x teleconverter.
is the canon worth twice as much as a kenko teleconverter (MC PRO 300 DGX 1.4x).
is there a visible difference in image quality?
or anything that makes the kenko worse?


----------



## K-amps (Jan 31, 2013)

Buy a few 16-32 gb SD cards and no need to worry about back up devices. Having said that USB external harddrives are cheap and can connect to your notebook.

The kenko is pretty good... almost as good as the Canon. One advantage you get with the kenko is that it does not have a protruding element, so you could almost use it with any lens, whereas the Canon is limited on which lenses it can be used.


----------



## 21tones (Jan 31, 2013)

Jens
I know you originally asked about image quality and you have had lots of comments about that. I just wanted to add some things specific to the nature of your trip. These are about weight and lens choice.
I was fortunate enough to go on safari in Africa 20 odd years ago. I don't know if you are flying, but the small planes sometimes used to get from one place to another generally have baggage weight restricitions. You may be travelling everywhere by van. On my trip I used an A-1 and Ae-1, both with power winders, and Fujichrome 100 film. No luxury of changing ISO! I used a 35-210 zoom on one body for landscapes and anything that was near enough to the safari van. I used a 600mm mirror lens (often with a 1.5x converter) on the other camera.
I wasn't a wildlife shooter before I went on the trip, and haven't been since I came back. But I was absolutely enthralled by it, when placed in its natural environment. The 600mm was invaluable for photographing single animals. There is nothing more frustrating than a photo of a dot in the distance! I don't know how mirror lenses work on digital cameras. I used it in stop-down mode for exposure. If you have been used to focusing manually it won't be a problem. Changing lenses in the dusty bush environment, especially when the van is churning up dust, is best avoided if possible.
My 3 lens choice on FF would be 24-105, 70-200 ( you have) and a mirror lens.
On APS-C it would be 15-85, 70-200 plus as long as you can. I don't know whether mirror lenses fit APS-C.
In the bush you are not walking anywhere much unless they have specific walking safaris. 
Have a great trip.


----------



## sanj (Jan 31, 2013)

If I were you I would shoot JPEG. 
Best wishes for your trip.
Where exactly are you going? I travel to Africa often. Inbox me if you need any info on Namibia, SA or Botswana.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 31, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> something i could need help with is *image backup*.
> 
> i will not carry a laptop with me.
> i only have a small netbook and i am not willing to do image editing during my vacation anyway.



If you have a netbook, I would just buy a small external USB drive. Use the netbook as a transfer device, copying the files from the camera to the external drive. (or you can use a three step process, copying the images to the netbook and then moving them from the netbook to the external drive). 

There are two schools of thought on memory cards. Some people buy the biggest cards they can find, so they seldom have to change them and they are sure never to run out of space. Others recommend buying more cards with less capacity, so that if one card goes bad or gets lost, you haven't lost the entire trip's pictures. I lean toward the second category.


----------



## BagJunkie (Jan 31, 2013)

Hi Jens,

like you, I am new to this forum. A long time reader, first post.

I will not go into details about the differences between those cameras, there's a lot of people here who know them way better than me 

I have the 5DIII + 60D (same sensor as 650D). But, I do see a lot of difference in my pictures. Maybe not in well lit daylight pictures. Even compact cameras handle those situations quite well, that's why the companies sell tons of them.

But, here is my theory on why you don't see "any" differences in your pictures; when you open the box & power up the camera & start taking pictures, none of the cameras are set to "neutral" (in lack of better word). 
When you hit the shutter, light reaches the sensors. Then the cameras not just records that light (like your analog film would do), but to a large degree "adds a little of this, and maybe even removes a little of that" (this would be the film processing you are used to) when creating the .jpg you ended up printing. It is a bit like not knowing what film you put inside, nor where it was processed & developed. 
- I am not saying those images are not worth keeping because of that in camera processing, but it is just not what you (or the camera) saw. It is what the camera ended up with as a final processed image, a lot of times those pictures look great. Sometimes greater then what was actually seen, ie. because of added colours etc..

If you take both cameras, and set them to "neutral" (ie; picture style, auto optimizing, noise reduction ... more?), then take a picture. You will "see more of the sensors" and less of the software inside the camera. 
- I don't mean you should turn all of these functions off just to try to create images that are worse than they could be, but a lot of us like to process the images "ourselves" (on the computer at home) instead of in-camera. 

I think you'll be happy with either one of the cameras, but for very different reasons. 
The cameras you've bought are very capable of creating images, most of todays cameras are 


And in the end, maybe it all boils down to interest + time available + what will YOUR actual focus be on the Africa journey? Exploring your surroundings & beeing present with your wife vs creating memories or maybe even art?


----------



## Jens Lange (Jan 31, 2013)

i think i will keep both cameras.
will give the 650D too my wife. 

im not really happy with the 650D viewfinder.
the 5D Mark 3 is much closer to my analog camera in this regard.

i also like the joystick on the 5D Mark 3.

i can shot JPG to one card and RAW to the other. that way i have some kind of backup. 
the burst rate will be reduced but that does not bother me.

i also think that later, when i buy more lenses, i may need AFMA.
when im back from the trip i want a fast 85mm lens.
the 70-200mm works perfect but that does not mean other lenses will and AFMA is great.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 1, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> i think i will keep both cameras.
> will give the 650D too my wife.
> 
> im not really happy with the 650D viewfinder.
> ...



Very nice! Good for you and have fun on that trip!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 1, 2013)

Jens Lange said:


> something i could need help with is *image backup*.
> 
> i will not carry a laptop with me.
> i only have a small netbook and i am not willing to do image editing during my vacation anyway.
> ...



An android tablet with and On the go cable (OTG cable) a compact card reader / usb hub will let you backup cards to USB drives (You cannot do this on the ipads!)


----------



## K3nt (Feb 1, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Jens Lange said:
> 
> 
> > something i could need help with is *image backup*.
> ...



Not quite correct. The Camera Connection kit for the iPad + HyperDrive's drive for iPad will do just what you want. There's always a way.


----------

