Gear

Canon 1Ds Mark III v.s 5D Mark II: is there is any difference in image quality? In-studio test run.

A Better Camera? Please tell what is this…

I know this questions was raised millions times on many discussion boards, but because I couldn’t find a good image quality comparison results, I’ve decided to run few tests myself. Now, when I’ve got Canon 5D MkII as a secondary camera and looking to get MF digital back for my studio view camera, the answer to a question “can 5d Mk II replace 1Ds Mk III?” become very interesting for me.

Here is why:
Before I considered Medium format, having both, 1Ds and 5D was essential: backup camera is a must have for me. However, when I’ll have my big sensor as a primary shooter, there won’t be necessary to keep both anymore:  only one 35mm camera will be kept only for a mobility and backup.

So, which camera to keep? I already know that 5D Mark II is very close in image quality to it’s big brother, but have  not seen good enough tests to be convinced. I also know that 5Dmk2 has inherited retarded focus performance  (comparing to 1Ds), but this is not important to me: 99% of the time I shoot in manual focus and manual exposure. Pure image quality is the only critical criteria I was interesting to see.

So, I’ve run these simple tests:

Got this cute subject and setup lighting to have it partially overexposed but with some underexposed areas. The idea is to get as close as possible to a real shot conditions I deal with every day. Both cameras were mounted on a heavy studio stand, but due to a different body size I’d have to adjust camera position: 5D was raised to match 1ds height.
For ISO 100 test, image from both cameras was converted by Adobe RAW camera defaults (no sharpening) and then enlarged (Bi-cubic smoother interpolation method) to 11000 pixels on a bigger side. Enlargement was necessary to see the difference in image quality and details, as it become more clear as the such stretch.

Exposure/shot specification: Canon 180 mm F3.5 L Macro lens was used. Cameras was set to: 1/200 and 1/250 shutter speed for 5d and 1ds respectively, F14, custom WB 5600K, ISO 100/800.

1Ds MK III vs 5D MKII test results:

ISO 100, full image:

 

The first surprise was the difference in actual sensitivity: 5D Mk II appeared to be about one stop more sensitive than 1Ds mark III! Mouse over the image above to see how image looks like captured by  5D MkII.  With the same exposure, same lens and light power (I’ve checked twice: Einsteins were delivering the same amount of light for both cameras), 5D was producing overexposed photos. I’d have to adjust the lighting output to make it look the same as the 1Ds.
Interesting, and.. quite useful  feature for me, as in hi-speed action-freeze photography (talking about liquid splash) less strobe light output produces shorter flash duration. So, I am fine with 5D behavior,  if no quality will be suffering, of course.

Also, for some reason the color balance seems to be different, despite the fact that both cameras had the same color space (Adobe RGB) and RAW files were converted with exactly the same setting in ARC. Below you’ll see what was the reason. Now, lets look at enlarged images, 100% crops of the areas I was interested to see.

Details/resolution tests:

Red shadow detail. Mouseover to see 5D performance:

What do I see? Apparently, 1Ds Mk III had some issues with red color: red gets over-saturated, resulting some details loss in an underexposed shadow areas. 5D MkII delivers better color with less saturation. It is easier to add a good amount of saturation during raw conversion without sacrificing IQ, but much harder to recover over-saturated areas. 5D won.

Highlights and details, mouseover for 5D MkII:

I do not see any significant difference. Image from 5d mark 2 is less saturated, but there was lost focus on the pig’s nose. Not a big deal, considering that camera was positioned bit differently and had manual focus set on pig’s right eyelash.  Draw.

 

Colorless shadow detail, mouseover for 5D Mark II:

I do not see any difference in IQ. Different position gives slightly different reflections, but the “deep” areas almost identical. 1Ds mark III might have a little more contrast there, but its is too little to really affect anything. Draw.

 

Another area to check the details and sensor/cpu  resolution power. Mouseover for 5D :

I see more details delivered by 5D mark II. Maybe it happened due to slight focus difference, or may be it happened because feather is pink and 1Ds did not manage it well. Can’t say for sure, but 5D did not lose anything here for sure.

So, from what I see, 5D mark II has the same (if not better) quality than my old 1Ds MkIII. Which is really cool, as it means that I can keep 5d MK II for “small work” and invest 1Ds resale money towards a medium format back.
Few more things I’ve checked: highlights recovery and performance at iso 800, see below.

Highlights recovery test.

1. Original overexposed area:

5dmkII highlights recovery original

5dmkII highlights recovery original

I’ve used Adobe RAW converter: recovery (+60), some clarity and blacks to get bright areas corrected.

1ds mark III and 5d mark II (on mouseover.. you’ve got it, right? :-)

Same thing for both cameras.

And now, the last test: red shadows area at ISO 800. Unlike the previous tests, the original image was not enlarged:

The result was almost expected: younger and smaller brother did better job here. The overall performance was almost identical: older flagman still very strong ,even at ISO 800.

The conclusion: Both cameras delivered almost identical results in studio environment. Canon 5D mark 2 was better at capturing red colors and in underexposed areas.
There is no reason for me to keep Canon 1Ds MKIII when I’ll get MF digiback. I only can hope that Canon won’t release new 1Ds Mark IV for a few more month, as I need time to find a good deal on Leaf , PhaseOne or Hasselbpald (unfortunately, Sinar is not an option for me, as they do not support Windows… and I do  not support Apple:) backs before the price will drop on a current 1Ds.

It will be wise for me to keep 5D family (hope 5d Mark III will be released soon?), as I have tons of Canon equipment and for some tasks it will be the camera of choice.

At the end, I’ll show you the power of view camera multishot technique: 5D Mark II, 4 exposures resulted in 54 Megapixel image, captured by low-resolution (compared to Canon 180mm macro) Rodenstock enlargement lens and stitched into one file. All four exposures was captured with rear standard (where 5 D was attached to) lateral shift movements, with about 50% overlapping. The image  was enlarged to 11000 pixels on a largest side, same as for the previous tests. This is the quality! Imagine how it would look if I’d have 50 Mpx large sensor there!

View camera result. Scroll up to compare:

view camera 4 exposures multishot canon 5d mk II sample

Hope it was interesting. This week I’ll get some very cool new gear to play with, so.. stay tuned! Also, our first masterclass is coming, you still have time to join in.

P.S here is the RAW camera files, if you’d like to take a closer look to what I did: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27060805/1dsmkIII-vs-5dmkII-source.zip

Update: Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III On sale now!!! Hasselblad is coming:-)

~Alex

About The Author: Alex Koloskov

The lighting magician, owner of AKELstudio, Inc.


You may also like to read:

25 comments to Canon 1Ds Mark III v.s 5D Mark II: is there is any difference in image quality? In-studio test run.

  • Kong Chien

    Hi Alex, the javascript image slider is really cool, can you tell me how you build that? thanks very much

  • Hi Alex
    Love the review, I am an amateur looking for someone in UK to help teach me,? can you recommend anybody in UK ?
    Would love to come to your masterclass, alas your a tad to far

    regards

    paul

  • Arcatera

    hmm…. I totally disagree Alex , 1DS beats the 5D here in the way the colors have a harmony of going together , a nicer, warmer blending tone, and the colors are WAY superior . I am a fashion photographer and to me 1DS looks more film , the 5D looks more digital . Sure , cant beat the price of 5D for what it does , and I think that 1DS price is outrageous , but if you leave aside the price point , image quality is noticeably superior on 1DS.

  • Thanks for this, I got a 5DII and think it is one fine instrument! Works for me!

  • Alex, thanks for taking the time to do this. I have suspected as much about the quality of the 5D. I have been on the fence about this camera but you have helped me make up my mind about my next DSLR and also saved me a bunch of $$$.

  • uh,…yeah. what tom said,….. ;-P

    • Tom Bako

      @kerry pittenger, Quote from Mark Dubovoy

      If the photographers themselves do not improve their skills and their vision as fast as the tools are progressing, then the tools themselves will become useless.

      The biggest pressure point to grow, improve, excel and raise standards still lies with the photographer.

  • Thanks for you effort you put into this. I found it consise and useful. Well done!

  • Ooo man o man what a test! This is what we would like to hear or read on the end of every dslr test!, well done Alex. I am Nikon shooter and need high ISO but I love 5D MKII which my brother in law owns :]. I need to find soke more stuf about this MF digital back 35mm wht is is used for? Have a good one Alex!

    • @Peter Dudek, Well, MF cameras are normally used for high end projects/jobs – First off, they cost substantial amounts of money to own (a lens can typically cost $3k+, the digital backs are generally $25k+, and nevermind the camera itself). So to make money with this, you must be charging enough on your day rate. Now why is this camera system great? You have a much larger sensor, hence more photo-sites, which can then capture more detail in your image allow for lots of cropping without much loss of detail at magazine publication level. You also typically have more dynamic range vs the DSLR system (calculated in stops of light). Those 2 reasons alone are usually enough to justify why many high end jobs are shot using that system.

      You can print with a 5D Mark II a 6′ in-store backlight display, but you will have to upscale it rather substantially, hence losing quite a bit of detail when compared to say a 39MP digital back which natively needs less upsizing, while capturing more detail to begin with. But from what I’ve seen a 20MP digital back vs a 5D Mark II, there’s not enough difference to justify the $$$ spent. When entering LARGE digital backs, then yes, the difference is apparent.

  • @ Tom: I’ve been a Canon user my entire life (I’m 33, been using Canon since my point and shoot one back in my teenage years). I invested in lenses, and switching would not make much sense to me unless it would offer RADICAL differences. I used to do wildlife photography, and Canon was THE brand…. People still swear by it. The AF in question is the 5D Mark II – it has only 1 cross type sensor (central). This is the camera’s major handicap. The 7D, it’s cousin, lives with many more cross-type sensors. Nikon, luckily, doesn’t believe in crippling their prosumer cameras as much regarding AF. Quite honestly, both brands provide amazing images for their price points. Now… onto Alex :)

    @ Alex: I know, I know, MF trumps the 35mm format :) I’ve been doing jewellery photography for 6+ as many of you know already, and I’ve yet to have one complaint about my images being too small, or of too-low of a quality. The thing in my field, we retouch THE HELL OUT of images… some clients have me redraw most of the gold… so really… resolution is nearly pointless. I’ve received images from some 30+ MP backs from other jewellery photographers out there, and from what I’ve seen, their RAW images were quite horrible. I think technique is VERY important (Alex, Tom, you both know what I’m talking about). Lenses are just as important. I’m quite shocked when I get huge files from clients, complaining that their current photography is weak, and the EXIF data reveals awesome gear. With what Alex is looking at getting, a nice View Camera such as a P3, and a nice larger digital back, it will provide him with many tools to create stunning images – at least I’m not worried he will test, and play with the gear… unlike some other ppl, who appear to like to have toys, and not know much regarding their use.

    I’ve considered going MF at one point, but right now, as it stands, in my field, so far it appears to be more bragging rights than anything else. I prize retouching skills more to be honest. A great retoucher (as Alex and Genia know) can make UGLY USED products look new again, more MP and resolving power means more retouching :P hahahha.

    Anyways, we use whatever tools makes us, and our clients happy. The photographer makes a hell of a difference between a great job, and a good job (I’m not saying shooting with a crappy lens, with a noisy camera is okay… but you get my drift).

    Happy shooting everybody, and again, nice review Alex!

    • Tom Bako

      @Vadim Chiline, Right On! We live in the world of photoshopography. I actually preferred film and let the pre-press guys and retouchers and film strippers do all the dirty work. I was able to concentrate on producing high quality images through hard earned skill and knowledge by experience. Now any piece of crap can be photo-chopped and passed off as the art of photography.

      I do agree with you about ‘retouch THE HELL OUT of images’ because when you enter the world of micro photography you see the mass produced garbage we call high quality products. Without your particular skill set applied the cheapo manufacturer would not sell a single diamond ring methinks.

      Keep up the good work!

      @Alex, you too, keep shooting and build that SHU portfolio you will be happier in the end. You know what I mean eh!

  • Hey Alex, nice review. It’s sick to think of the price difference…. sure the 1Ds series has some nice features such as weather sealing, better AF….. but still….. for studio work, the 5D MII is great. The AF when doing model shots is miserable though. Resolution wise, no complaints.

    Vadim

    • Tom Bako

      @Vadim Chiline, If you really want image quality and focus accuracy nothing beats a Nikon sensor and lens combo they were tops way back then in film mode and they are the best bar non today especially the quality of their lenses that’s why they cost more. Canon jumped the gate on Nikon a long time ago but now they are having trouble keeping up. Best all around features, easy access menus and their best is yet to come. they do need to add more lenses though.

      The sb800 flash units are known industry wide for being the best in their class. I still love Canon because they gave me my start in digital photography so I owe them some allegiance for that. I know people will disagree with me but that’s par for the course. Love my Nikons. D3

      Old tests but worth reviewing unfortunately no Nikon http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

      Alex should run tests like the tests by the Luminous alumni. Unfortunately his testing procedure is a little flawed.

      • Tom,
        If you really want image quality you need to use MF digital backs. 35mm camera is more like a swiss army knifes; they can be used everywhere with good results. Medium format sensors is for ultimate quality.
        As for the tests, I’ve seen couple similar to luminous tests of the same subject, but it did not provide a real experience: highlights/shadows and some details in not flat areas. This is why I did real life tests, they give me more information i was looking for.

        BTW, tomorrow I’ll be testing PhaseOne IQ180 80 megapixel digital back… I’ll show you what image quality means:-))

        • Tom Bako

          @Alex Koloskov, Sorry Alex what is ultimate quality? Making a print the size of the empire state building. I think you completely missed my point. All images on a monitor are viewed at 72 to 90 ppi. Depending on whether you are Mac or PC. So all these tests are invalid when it comes to judging what you consider true IQ. At Luminous you can actually order the images on disc and view them at full rez, print them, do anything you want with them without having to rent or buy all that equipment. Images viewed on a monitor don’t tell the whole story. I was comparing apples to apples not apples to watermelons. Not DSLR to MF. Nikon to Canon – system for system. NIKON gets the check mark for superiority all the way around.

          Secondly I always shot in studio 4×5 and 8×10 Ektachrome transparency film even on location then it was off for processing and drum scanning to Colourgenics . The files would slam dunk any digital medium format system after the lab-meister did his work at the time MFD backs were released and later. If you read the whole Luminous article you would realize you are not dealing with schmucks These guys are intelligent, well versed, highly capable and highly technical. So credit where credit is due for the tests, time and available equipment.

          BTW the luminous tests were run a few years ago. Michael has already done tests with the production IQ180. Alpa STC & 120mm f/5.5 Schneider Apo Digitar with Phase One IQ180 back @ ISO 32 and will be posting his results soon, take it from the master who shoots landscapes to put the Q180 through real world rigorous testing in the field. MF digital backs shine in landscape photography for mural printing and also for copying museum and other works of art on location. MF is great but it’s just NOT a necessity to own or use to produce highly acceptable tack sharp images for the quality conscious in the Ad world. You can debate DR and noise but try shooting at high iso with MF – not. D3X has real usable DR at just over 10 stops. Phase One claims 12.5 stops on their 60MP back. All equipment has it’s limits but BEST OVERALL performance and dollar value (very important) is still in the hands of NIKON or CANON DSLR. Please re-read that last sentence. This is the pre-production IQ 80 link from January 2011.

          http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml

          I shoot for clients that reproduce my work in Brochures, Sell sheets, Ads for publications, any form of print, packaging and advertising material. The normal reproduction size is as small as a thumbnail and generally 8 1/2 x 11 to tabloid size – 11×17. The RGB image is converted to a CMYK file for printing halftone. The RGB color space is “outside” that of the CMYK space. Follow me? CMYK color gamut is in essence throwing color information away using it differently. So what happens to IQ? Take a printers loupe and look at the printed page, nothing but dots. Tiny little CMYK dots.

          If you were having MFD work printed by a high end photo-lab reproduced in continuous tone for landscape murals you would probably notice the difference between that and any Canon or Nikon DSLR. What’s the point if everything comes down to the small printed page. We shoot products for a living and the CODB is important. So, what if I have a 300 or 400mb image that’s super tack sharp. If you are printing for standard commercial print purposes in the sizes that I mentioned it’s a moot point, in other words having no practical significance. Museums and specialty clients may require huge megabyte files but other than that it all comes down to ego – my sensor is bigger than yours. Most clients, barring production guys in an ad agency or design studio really don’t know the difference between CMYK, RGB, LAB color 8bit, 32bit, files and a jelly donut and basically couldn’t give a rats behind.

          I don’t mean this in a derogatory way at all but you seem to be fixated on this sharpness thing as a barometer for IQ to the extreme, it won’t improve your photographic eye, the way you see, the lighting you use, composition, etc.,please correct me if I am wrong. Purity of color is subjective and usually the pressman is a good authority to get us through the proofing stage. I have patiently waited for press sheets to come rolling off the 8 color Heidleberg for client approval tweaking the ink spread and images just so they are as perfect can be, now that’s important. Bad printing can really screw you up.

          Take a Leaf digital back and a Phase one digital back and put it on a Sinar or Cambo with a Rodenstock lens and shoot an object, front and rear standard parallel to subject under identical Tungsten lighting conditions at F8 or F11, then shoot with a Canon best prime lens and Nikon best prime lens same subject, same lighting. All shots are full frame and final crop to same specs. Now, have pre-press convert your RGB file to CMYK so the playing field is level. Have them run press proofs and output all the files at 11×17 on 100lb glossy stock. If you can tell me which camera shot what then you will be doing something than I don’t think anybody else can. Show me ‘image quality’ in a meaningful way. Pixel peeping on a computer monitor does not cut it. Running tests like this willy nilly don’t either – not for real life practical applications.

          Most printers use the same CMYK ink model that printing presses use, the actual printouts are not identical, because each printer manufactures their inks a little differently. In addition, you cannot expect all computer monitors to display the completely same screen outputs. So, if we have difference on computer monitor outputs and different color display methods (RGB and CMYK) for both outputs, we cannot accept that customer’s output on their computer monitor as an accurate color guide or DR.

          O.K more fuel for the fire.

          • Tom,
            Luminous reviews are great, but useless for me: I do not shoot landscapes, and their other reviews does not give me information about the back I am looking for. Therefore I do my own tests: today we had leaf Aptus II 12 80 Mpx back tested the way I like , pushed to extremes.

            As for the IQ difference between 35 mm DSLR and Medium format backs, you absolutely right: money/IQ wise 35mm is the best choice. However, the world of a hi-end studio product and AD photography use exclusively MF cameras, and it must be a reason for this (I believe it is not necessary highest IQ). My place is there, so jumping to MF is a natural step on my way.

            Thank you!

        • Tom Bako

          @Alex Koloskov, Landscape or product photography and what equipment do you need is for another discussion.

          Back to MFD.

          The question I ask you ‘is it needs or wants’ that motivate your decision to buy. I think you are buying into a lot of hype and bent on buying into the MF hype. You seem to be expressing a certain insecurity about the size of your sensor and your ability to compete with other photographers who do own MF. It’s a tricky situation today because some out there feel this compulsive need to have the latest greatest toy and that’s a sad state of affairs. I say ‘BUYER BEWARE’. It’s like saying ‘Well Joe Blow has one, so I guess I have to have one.’

          Photography is not about the best equipment latest and greatest, the older you get the more you will realize what’s really important about being a great photographer. Nobody can teach this to you, you will have to learn by experience.

          This is regarding large sensor photography, the hasselblad system, kodak, phase one, leica. In my opinion – rational level headed thinking is required not a big bank loan, not going into debt for making dumb decisions. I know two photographers who did this to increase their awareness level with ad agencies and to impress the art directors so that they could get the big assignments. They were capable photographers in their field but one is now a part time courier (family to feed) and renting a studio to do part time shoots nights and weekends the other is on his way out the door. It did not improve their financial status as photographers it actually hurt them, because now they are in more debt than before the purchase and lease to own. They were competent photographers in their respective fields. I feel very bad for them because they are very good at what they do. Business side of photography is 100 times more important than the equipment side.

          I don’t want to harp anymore on the DSLR V.S. MFD but many of you bloggers need to know that what is really important is your skill level, talent and ability to problem solve for the client. The client needs to know that you are capable and can deliver on budget on time. Alex, the level at which you are shooting does not dictate the need for MF IMO, your photography is as good as any other pros out there shooting MF so you have nothing to prove. MF manufacturers want to create the mindset that MFD is a must to create fantastic images. IMO never has not and never will be. Hasselblad at one time was trying to push their system as MF-DSLR that is a joke. BTW Genia is becoming remarkable a retoucher and has a great future in this area. I would like to see what she can do with a camera. Maybe beat the pants off you, ha,ha.

          Something to think about!

          “The question anyone who is considering either the new 50MP or promised 60MP Hasselblad should be asking is whether the Hasselblad lenses they already own, or may purchase in the future, are optimized for the size and design of these new Kodak sensors. As in the film days, the resolution of the sensor isn’t the advantage point, but it’s larger format is. The size of the pixels in the 50MP Kodak sensor used in the H3DII are nearly the same as the size of the pixels in the Full Frame 21.1MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III or in the 24Mp Sony A900–so the Kodak sensor does not offer dramatic improvements in resolution (at the sensor), low light sensitivity or noise advantage based on the pixel size (as it generally the case when comparing large and small pixels).

          What you gain by shooting with a 50MP or 60MP medium format camera is either a cropping advantage, or an increase in maximum reproduction size–the same advantages offered by MF cameras in the film era. (Now, if you were able to pack 50MP into a 35mm full frame sensor, you would increase the resolution significantly compared to a 21MP sensor, but you would also decrease low light sensitivity as a result of using smaller pixels.) Granted, looking through the enormous optical viewfinder on the Hasselblad is a real treat, and carrying one around is a traffic stopper, but is the higher price for these medium format bodies and the larger, more expensive lenses it requires worth it when compared to existing 21 and 25MP full frame DSLRs from Canon, Sony, and Nikon? Not for me, or most other pro photographers who would rather have lighter, brighter, faster focusing, and image-stabilized lenses along with pro camera bodies that offer far more image quality and performance controls, greater durability, and speed compared to the Hasselblads or any other MF camera (although the 37.5MP Leica S2 may help change my mind).

          If your goal is to WOW! new clients with extraordinary image detail, you’ll be in line with the other photographers shooting with the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. You have to wonder how long Hasselblad or other MF manufacturers will be able to compete against the full frame 35mm DSLR crowd. MF companies did little to optimize their lenses for use with digital sensors. Instead, these companies relied on the MF size/magnification advantage that pushed them through the film camera years, and NOT superior lens technology.”

          MF lenses (even the best available at the time) were not as sharp as the top lenses being manufactured by 35mm SLR companies such as Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Konica Minolta, and Pentax. Despite this, those MF lenses still helped MF cameras deliver better image quality and detail. Why? When enlarging the captured film image to print or even projection size, the larger-sized film used in MF cameras did not have to undergo as great a magnification as 35mm film, and therefore could get by with slightly lower resolution at the lens.

          Roughly 12,000 medium format cameras were sold per year in US during their peak in the mid-to-late 90′s, which may be one reason why several MF manufacturers are no longer around.

          Repeat – looking through the enormous optical viewfinder on the Hasselblad is a real treat, and carrying one around is a traffic stopper, but is the higher price for these medium format bodies and the larger, more expensive lenses it requires worth it when compared to existing 21 and 25MP full frame DSLRs from Canon, Sony, and Nikon?

          Not for me, or most other pro photographers who would rather have lighter, brighter, faster focusing, and image-stabilized lenses along with pro camera bodies that offer far more image quality and performance controls, greater durability, and speed compared to the Hasselblads or any other MF camera although the new 37.5MP Leica S2 helps change my mind. If your goal is to WOW! new clients with extraordinary image detail, you’ll be in line with the other photographers shooting with the Canon 1Ds Mark III.

          Don’t make mistake by getting sucked in by hype. Remember you will be buying into a very expensive system and who knows what will be in two years. Maybe you would regret this move by then. Think about your decision very hard. Continue shooting and developing your own style of photography, don’t get caught up in sensor wars, DSLR technology and RD will continue to blow the doors off MF because they have millions of dollars for R&D. Go after more business and possibly get a rep in the Atlanta area.

          When all is said and done there is not enough difference to warrant MF for practical purposes, I repeat PRACTICAL PURPOSES.

          I wish you all the best, (I hope I don’t have to say I told you so), Tom

  • Simon

    Back in 2008 “Masaya Maeda” One of Canon Inc’s most high ranking executives Director and Chief Executive of Image Communication said “The 5D Mark II we’re positioning as the very highest product in our high-end enthusiast range. The EOS 1Ds Mark III, by comparison, offers robust durability and long shutter life as the most important features for use in harsh studio conditions, we believe. However when it comes to image quality itself; because of the constant digital technology developments in this industry, it’s always the latest camera that is best. So things like ISO expansion range and dynamic range are in a sense better in the 5D Mark II.”
    So this has been proven right :)

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>