5D comparisons

Sangoma

Sangoma

Messages
2,160
Name
Steve, Coventry, England
Edit My Images
Yes
The three images are a crop of the downloaded RAW files at 6400 ISO from DP review.
All processed in Affinity with exactly the same settings

One is from a 5D2, one a 5D3 and the other a 5D4

I'm mainly looking at noise and detail in the various colours, the text on the colour wheel and patterns in the cards gives a fair idea of detail, and the colour wheel of noise in the various colours.

Anyone tell which picture belong to which camera?d.jpgb.jpga.jpg
 
No, but they seem to get progressively sharper.
 
To my eye the colour rendition of the first one is warmer than the second and third.
The edges of the cards in the first and third seem similar in that the edges/ angles and curves have a finer pixelated steps, looking at the edge of the card between the queen and the jack you can see this as well as the colour wheel. One and three has smaller more saw tooth steps whereas two has shallower wider steps to the angles. Not sure if I am explaining what I see clearly.

As to which is which I've no clue.
 
Looking at them (on a phone) I would say no 2 is 5Div the other two no idea.
 
Ok Im interested to know which is which. I can hardly tell any differance (ok its on a phone) but having just bought a 5D2 and having wondered if I should have waited for a 3 (cant afford a 4) Im interested to know how much real world difference there is. Yes the 5D2 dosent have all the new bells and whistles but coming from manual only with no internal light meter or any focus aid apart from a DOF scale on the lens of my early photography days
Nine focus points av tv and auto focus is like a form of black magic.
 
Plain Nev said:
No, but they seem to get progressively sharper.
Click to expand...
sharper is a strong word here when we are looking at severe digital upscaling with all attached artifacts.

I really don't get what is the point of this exercise? To convince yourself that typing in 400% in photoshop is going nowhere?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
sharper is a strong word here when we are looking at severe digital upscaling with all attached artifacts.

I really don't get what is the point of this exercise? To convince yourself that typing in 400% in photoshop is going nowhere?
Click to expand...

In all fairness that was viewed on my phone. :D
 
LongLensPhotography said:
sharper is a strong word here when we are looking at severe digital upscaling with all attached artifacts.

I really don't get what is the point of this exercise? To convince yourself that typing in 400% in photoshop is going nowhere?
Click to expand...

I'd presume that the exercise is to show that the sensors (21mp, 22mp and 30mp) show negligible difference.
 
1 5d4 2 5d3 3 5d2? I personally fancy my 5d3 is better than the 5d4 at high iso. but theres not a lot in it.
 
Michael Batten said:
I'd presume that the exercise is to show that the sensors (21mp, 22mp and 30mp) show negligible difference.
Click to expand...
At 400% digital zoom. Don't forget that part
 
swanseamale47 said:
1 5d4 2 5d3 3 5d2? I personally fancy my 5d3 is better than the 5d4 at high iso. but theres not a lot in it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree, and so does a friend who has been using them for years.
The 5dii is slightly better in mid tones, and the 5Div is slightly better in the dark areas, but as you say very little in it. This makes the 5Diii look a bit cleaner on things like skies and skin tomes at high ISO

It does show there is very little difference in general between the cameras, the actual order was 5Dii, 5Div and last the 5Diii
Certainly buying a 5Dii is not a mistake if that is what the budget is, and I chose to buy the 5Diii and not the 5Div.
If I use auto correct on the white balance on all three, they look even closer.

I don't know where the 400% on PS was sucked from, first I don't have PS, and wouldn't know where to click on, and the actual percentages were about 127% on two and 106% on the other (approximately, I wasn't using or noting the figure) and that was on Affinity.

It makes little difference to the comparison, I was looking at noise and detail as stated, and they were scaled to display the same size on the screen, ie as if the same thing was printed the same size (not the same size as the screen size) simply as it is very hard to compare different sizes of the same picture. We don't print photos in proportion to the DPI, we print to get the scene we want on the size paper we want.
 
RyanB said:
So you're guessing then, got it. With my 5d a 400% view looks a lot different with a lot more pixilation, the above might be over 100% but nowhere near 400%
Click to expand...
What difference does it make 400% or 386%, it is nowhere near 100% and that's that and the whole comparison is therefore utterly pointless.
 
For some strange reason I really fancy the 5D mk1 at the moment. I think the lower number of MP's are where I'm at presently. I'm quite interested in the output of the lower number of pixels on a full frame sensor. Good move, or am I wasting my time?
 
Plain Nev said:
For some strange reason I really fancy the 5D mk1 at the moment. I think the lower number of MP's are where I'm at presently. I'm quite interested in the output of the lower number of pixels on a full frame sensor. Good move, or am I wasting my time?
Click to expand...
No, they go for very attractive prices on ebay if you are patient, and there are some good lenses at very good prices.

Use the DPReview comparison, and try sections from the test chart that are similar in colour and texture to what you take, ans look at the results under the two lighting options and various ISO ratings you think you are likely to use. Because the 5D has a limited top ISO range, it compares well :)

Their methods may not be perfect, but they do give an accurate trend

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com


I chose the 5Diii for two main reasons, the apparent lower noise, and the fact that it has an SD slot, which to be honest was a big factor. (and I liked the colour :) )
 
Plain Nev said:
For some strange reason I really fancy the 5D mk1 at the moment. I think the lower number of MP's are where I'm at presently. I'm quite interested in the output of the lower number of pixels on a full frame sensor. Good move, or am I wasting my time?
Click to expand...
They are great cameras.
 
RyanB said:
To my eye the colour rendition of the first one is warmer than the second and third.
The edges of the cards in the first and third seem similar in that the edges/ angles and curves have a finer pixelated steps, looking at the edge of the card between the queen and the jack you can see this as well as the colour wheel. One and three has smaller more saw tooth steps whereas two has shallower wider steps to the angles. Not sure if I am explaining what I see clearly.

As to which is which I've no clue.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the fundamental color balance of the 5D (classic) was warm, compared to other dSLR from Canon.

This comparison done many years ago, comparing WB of Canon 40D vs. Canon 5D. In this particular comparison, WB was done on the 40D image, then identical settings applied to the 5D image, using Lightroom to process RAW files from both cameras.

WB compare.jpg

drive.google.com drive.google.com
 
Last edited:
Plain Nev said:
For some strange reason I really fancy the 5D mk1 at the moment. I think the lower number of MP's are where I'm at presently. I'm quite interested in the output of the lower number of pixels on a full frame sensor. Good move, or am I wasting my time?
Click to expand...
There is a mkii on ebay at the moment for just over £231, add it to your watch list and he will offer you a discount.
Shutter count around 40k, so not a bad buy.
 
I well remember going from 5D to 5DII and thinking "heck yeah" this is a real step up.

Last year I bought a 5DIII - don't want to spend on a 5DIV and honestly I find some of the ergonomics less satisfactory than the 5DII (I have both on battery grips and pretty much have always done so.), some of this might be down to several years of using the 5DII compared to learning the 5DIII but actually some of the controls just fit my hands better on the 5DII.

I find that the 5DIII is more battery sensitive - it'll tell me if it doesn't "recognise" a battery which has always worked well in the 5DII and the camera refuses to cooperate with some mount-adapted manual focus legacy lenses.

OTOH I feel that higher ISO performance is more satisfactory with the 5DIII.

The above 3 samples? All I'm prepared to say is that my personal preference is for the colour cast samples 2 and 3 over sample 1.
 
Sangoma said:
There is a mkii on ebay at the moment for just over £231, add it to your watch list and he will offer you a discount.
Shutter count around 40k, so not a bad buy.
Click to expand...

I might be watching it, I'm not sure. I've got my eye on a few. ;)
 
Plain Nev said:
For some strange reason I really fancy the 5D mk1 at the moment. I think the lower number of MP's are where I'm at presently. I'm quite interested in the output of the lower number of pixels on a full frame sensor. Good move, or am I wasting my time?
Click to expand...

When I had a 5D I thought I'd never need a better camera. My only complaints were bulk and weight and sensor contamination for which the 5D seemed to be known.

Good luck if you go for one but I think it's a camera which is long past its time. I'd pick my Sony A7 or any of my Panasonic MFT cameras over a 5D every single time. These days I see the limitations compared to more modern kit and I have no inclination what so ever to revisit the aging 5D. Even my MFT cameras give better image quality, they're smaller and lighter, they have the ability to focus anywhere in the frame with eye detect and they allow pictures to be taken in more varied lighting due to their much higher available ISO's. It's not just the original MKI 5D that I think is passed its time. I remember being shocked when processing our wedding pictures taken with a 5DII and thinking my MFT cameras gave better image quality.
 
"they allow pictures to be taken in more varied lighting due to their much higher available ISO's."
In fact the 5Diii goes up to ISO102400, and still takes reasonable pictures

The noise level on the m43s is visibly higher from ISO 800, and the higher the ISO the worse it becomes compared to the 5Diii


"I remember being shocked when processing our wedding pictures taken with a 5DII"
There is a huge difference between the 5Dii and the 5Diii in low light.

But there is obviously more to getting good pictures, and I agree I get better pictures with the G9 than with the 5Diii especially when I need a long lens.

But if it is close and not moving much, the 5Diii is better.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
What difference does it make 400% or 386%, it is nowhere near 100% and that's that and the whole comparison is therefore utterly pointless.
Click to expand...
Sangoma said:
Really? :)
Click to expand...

IDT it makes the comparison "pointless" necessarily, just that none of them look particularly good or sharp...

The middle image is just beginning to pixelate at this view; on my MBP with a high resolution monitor and using LR/PS that would be ~ 400% zoom. Or if the image is being viewed in low resolution mode (pixel doubling) as it is in a web browser, that is somewhere around 200% zoom. And the other two images are pixelating even moreso. That doesn't necessarily mean they were originally viewed at that magnification; resizing for upload could have an effect as well.

Still, trying to subjectively determine the differences between poor images of near equal quality is about as effective as trying to subjectively determine the differences between high quality images of near equal quality... which is simply to say that these types of tests/comparisons are (almost?) always flawed. One of the big flaws with the DPR test comparisons is that they don't actually change the light levels/intensity; and that will typically give an "ISO performance" at least one stop greater than in reality (compared to increasing ISO in order to maintain a minimum usable SS).

One thing that can certainly be shown with such comparisons is that if the intended use (situation/settings/output) doesn't make full use of a higher resolution sensor; then there is not a lot of point to using one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top