Posted by Genny K. on September 22, 2017 at 12:25 PM
I am seriously trying to figure out if I want to buy a Canon 5D mk3 or mk6 or not. I have two 5D mk2s and really like them. I am really happy with the battery life in cool, and sometimes cold, temperatures, and with the performance of the cameras overall.
I AM interested in getting more low light performance if the mk3 or 4 has it significantly over the mk2.
I haven't posted on here lately, but you old-timers will remember that I pretty much stick to landscapes. (I do take some wildlife, but I don't go out specifically for that very much.) Low light is one of my main issues, and I really do get stuck between needing to use a tripod and there being too much movement in the trees, leaves, etc, to use a very long exposure. I would love to be able to have low-noise high ISO.
I have just looked at the reviews of the mk4, and they seem to say that it has a big advantage over the 3 in the ISO performance. Is this what people have seen?
I would sure like to hear from people who have worked their way through the 5d series, and have seen the differences while shooting outdoor type photography.
Posted by Keith Bauer on September 23, 2017 at 12:02 AM
Genny
I had the original 5D, skipped the mark II, had the mark iii for years and got the mark IV when it was released. ISO performance on the mark IV is better than the iii. Also able to lift shadow details much more. At this point in the lifecycle I would not get the iii. Just doesn't make sense. The IV is an excellent camera with nearly 50% more resolution than the iii.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 23, 2017 at 2:39 AM
Ditto, what Keith said. I've owned them all, 5D to 5D4. Image quality is worth every dollar for the 5D4, hands down, no contest. And if you dare to flick on that video button, AUTO-FOCUS. ;-)
I upgraded in July from 5D3 and now wondered what took me so long. The image data I can pull from raw files that initially look blown out or buried in shadows is pretty amazing.
Black Friday isn't all that far away...
Posted by Genny K. on September 23, 2017 at 3:59 PM
Thanks for the input, guys. That's exactly what I wanted was a direct comparison to the other 5d cameras!
Well, gee, I have to think real hhard about it now, don't I?
Thanks for helping me spend my money....
Posted by John Reed on September 23, 2017 at 4:07 PM
What they said! 5D4 high ISO low noise phenominal. Plus, if you care, amazing autofocus and ability to grab stills from video makes defacto fastest continuous drive mode ever. Buy the 4
Posted by Eva McDermott on September 23, 2017 at 6:38 PM
I have had the 5D2, 5D3, but now have the 5D4. Love it hands down over the 5D3.
Posted by Igor Doncov on September 23, 2017 at 7:05 PM
Posted by Genny K. on September 26, 2017 at 9:00 PM
Thanks for the comments, and the link, Igor. That is really interesting.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 30, 2017 at 1:57 AM
Wow, that shows the 5D3 and 5D2 almost identical quality-wise, no real improvement with the three, and that's what I found when I got the three. But what made it so awesome for event and non-landscape was the AF system, the 5D3 is quite amazing in that area. Moot point, you want all that, a bag of chips AND great image quality. And 30MP for bigger prints doesn't hurt either. Happy Black Friday! If I see a deal I'll respond, but let us know if you pull the trigger. ;-D
Discussion
8 repliesI AM interested in getting more low light performance if the mk3 or 4 has it significantly over the mk2.
I haven't posted on here lately, but you old-timers will remember that I pretty much stick to landscapes. (I do take some wildlife, but I don't go out specifically for that very much.) Low light is one of my main issues, and I really do get stuck between needing to use a tripod and there being too much movement in the trees, leaves, etc, to use a very long exposure. I would love to be able to have low-noise high ISO.
I have just looked at the reviews of the mk4, and they seem to say that it has a big advantage over the 3 in the ISO performance. Is this what people have seen?
I would sure like to hear from people who have worked their way through the 5d series, and have seen the differences while shooting outdoor type photography.
I had the original 5D, skipped the mark II, had the mark iii for years and got the mark IV when it was released. ISO performance on the mark IV is better than the iii. Also able to lift shadow details much more. At this point in the lifecycle I would not get the iii. Just doesn't make sense. The IV is an excellent camera with nearly 50% more resolution than the iii.
I upgraded in July from 5D3 and now wondered what took me so long. The image data I can pull from raw files that initially look blown out or buried in shadows is pretty amazing.
Black Friday isn't all that far away...
Well, gee, I have to think real hhard about it now, don't I?
Thanks for helping me spend my money....
https://www.dxomark.com/best-canon-cameras-under-45200-dollars