# 5d Mark III - DPreview Comparometer....



## Tim Larsen (Mar 28, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare

Looks like the Mark III is about one stop better noise-wise than the Mark II max.

I already have the Mark III as the AF improvement and dual card slots are enough of an improvement for me to justify the upgrade.


----------



## candyman (Mar 28, 2012)

Not bad at all!


And no need to compare it to Nikon D800. I am a Canon user. And it clearly shows improvement over the previous 5D version


----------



## outsider (Mar 28, 2012)

Not quite one stop better in the RAW files. I'd say about 1/2 stop better then the Mark II.


----------



## candyman (Mar 28, 2012)

I would say that depends on what ISO level you are looking at. But at 12800 I would say one stop


----------



## mrmarks (Mar 28, 2012)

It's not just about the s/n improvement, but the noise have a more pleasant film grain appearance with no banding


----------



## steven63 (Mar 28, 2012)

Yup. Jpeg is definitely better but RAW comparisons are only about 1 stop. 

Glad I held off on buying. I'm excited about the much improved AF system but IQ doesn't look much different than the 5dmII and with ISO improvments of one stop aren't that exciting to me. 

I'll wait for the final DPreview results but right now It's looking more and more that I will focus on the 1dX as an upgrade.


----------



## bdeutsch (Mar 28, 2012)

I agree. JPEGs are way better, but it's tough to see big improvements in RAW. Decisions, decisions....


Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photos


----------



## JR (Mar 28, 2012)

Thanks for posting. I missed that this morning. I find the result varies depending on the ISO you are comparing. The mkIII seem 1 to 1.5 stop better then the mkII on RAW and this varies with the ISO you check. The mkIII seem to have the edge over the D800 but was expecting the delta to be bigger.

Also checked with the D4 out of curiousity and the D4 seem to be at least 1 stop better then the mkIII. Maybe the 1DX will match the D4 then!


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 28, 2012)

JR said:


> The mkIII seem 1 to 1.5 stop better then the mkII on RAW and this varies with the ISO you check. The mkIII seem to have the edge over the D800 but was expecting the delta to be bigger.



+ 1 to that. So far, mk 3 is just not impressing me enough to justify an upgrade at that price. I will probably wait to see what more Canon has in store for us this year...


----------



## markd61 (Mar 28, 2012)

It seems the greatest improvement is in Canon's margin of profit.

I am sure it is a fabulous camera but so are my MKIIs.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 28, 2012)

skipping the jpgs because they are meaningless, I must say it is looking very good with the RAWs, but it isn't anything mindblowing like the first reports claimed it was. Clearly, it ain't a D4 or presumably, 1DX. But it is a nice balanced camera, that although rarely scores first in any given category, it places decently in most. 

For my own purposes and quality standards, I find ISO12800 to the limit I'd use it since things just degrade horribly beyond that, and surely the dynamic range well on its noisedive down trajectory that is typical of high ISOs.

on a side note, the D800 is REALLY holding up well far beyond what I expected. No small feat for a 36MP monster that was supposed to be terrible. I'm actually surprised the 5DIII didn't beat it by a wider margin since it has such commanding advantage with the larger pixel pitch. Nikon/Sony really pulled a fast one with that sensor  Still, it is no question the the 5DIII is very good at ridiculous ISOs, but I'm going to look at how downsizing to 36MP->22MP assists it in closing the gap. 

It is going to be a tough one for the 5DmkII studio/landscape guys. I don't see any mindblowing differences. Certainly none to justfy the price. And if you prefer good soft controlled killer light to crappy low light, then it is an even harder choice.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 28, 2012)

All I hear is excuses for Canon, and fair enough, I have done that since I spent my savings on the mkIII. I stuck with Canon since I first bought a new 350d back in the day. But now I'm seriously confused. How come Nikon can add 36 mp and get 14,4 EV DR and only a stop worse noiselevels or on par with the 5d2 which has been very good. 

The D800 is cheaper, same style AF, HUGE leap in DR compared to previous (and current competition) quite a bit higher res.

Do those who get the 5d3 with all it's first-batch issues from pink images to faulty shutters, and just plain non-working Canon software and reports of "almost as sharp images as the 5d2" pay what they pay only for AF? I mean, I'm the biggest fan of proper AF on the planet, but the 5d have always been a about IQ, now nothing is improved??

If this is the same story for my 1d X, please explain how they can defend the product and the price of it. And yes I know every creek and corner of the Canon bodies except the 1d x and the 5d3. Initial reports are underwhelming to say the least. 

What the hell happened?


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 28, 2012)

Competition happened. Nikon were in the shitter more or less up until now. They needed to respond with a huge product and they did. Both feature wise and price wise. And the fact that Sony is also desperate to grab more foothold in the market only helps. Canon probably didn't take this into consideration and they simply gave us, Canon shooters, more or less what we asked for these past year.

But whatever Nikon or Sony did, if we calm our spec sheet peeping fetish for a bit, it is plain to see that the 5D3 is in fact a wonderful camera in itself that improves on most aspects of the 5D2. I am very happy with mine.


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

I will say though Canon's in-camera JPEG processing is stellar. I might use the SD card to stream JPEGs onto without apology.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 28, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Competition happened. Nikon were in the S___ter more or less up until now. They needed to respond with a huge product and they did. Both feature wise and price wise. And the fact that Sony is also desperate to grab more foothold in the market only helps. Canon probably didn't take this into consideration and they simply gave us, Canon shooters, more or less what we asked for these past year.
> 
> But whatever Nikon or Sony did, if we calm our spec sheet peeping fetish for a bit, it is plain to see that the 5D3 is in fact a wonderful camera in itself that improves on most aspects of the 5D2. I am very happy with mine.



Indeed competition happened. Don't get me wrong, I love the 5d2 for pure IQ, but there are a lot of things I miss about my mk4, I'm hoping I get 5d2 IQ and 1d everything else in the 1d X. If they make it as good as they claim and the AF is on par with the D4 (which is 100% accuracy, insane) I'm a happy camper. I'm just a little thrown that Nikon blasted forward and Canon made the 5d3 A LOT better (af for one important aspect) but failed to increase DR and reduce noise at any level....

I hope that the 1d X will be at least 13,5 stops of DR and two stops better at 1600 and above compared to the mk4 and the superclean lower iso's of the 5d2. And that the tracking blows the mk4 completely off the planet, and it HAS to to match the D4.


----------

