Apr 10, 2012, 01:50
After shooting a 60gb wedding on the weekend (2300+ photos) with a 5D3 on one shoulder and 5D2 on the other... I'm very happy with the 5D3.
It fitted seamlessly into my workflow, felt completely natural to use and easy to take advantage of the new features. In fact it required *less* thought to operate than the 5D2 because it copes so well in low light and tricky AF situations. It handled everything I threw at it without breaking a sweat. The much-improved AF and low-light performance were an absolute godsend, allowing me to concentrate more on the bride and groom in the fading light instead of worrying about ISO and shutter speed.
Jules, regarding those 2 points you raise above, I don't really subscribe to either of them, but it was an interesting read thanks. :p
- I always shoot RAW regardless. It means I don't need to keep a very close eye on WB or blowing out highlights in the bridal gown because I can fix those things in PP, and I don't need to keep switching between RAW and JPG (and potentially forgetting). Memory cards are cheap. HDD space is cheap. RAWs can be converted to JPGs and then deleted later. It's cheap insurance IMHO, and allows more time to concentrate on the task at hand.
- With the 5D2, I feel comfortable only shooting up to 3200iso. I only go to 6400 if I get *really* desperate. But I feel quite comfortable shooting the 5D3 up to 12800iso, and would go to 25600 only if I had no other choice. In real-world usage (where NR and PP are applied as appropriate to get the best results for my taste), the 5D3 seems to have a solid 2-stop advantage in noise, and seems to keep more detail in the image while doing it.
I haven't done any prints from this camera at any iso yet, but I suspect 25600 will only be good for prints smaller than 8"x12" (for my taste). I think a well-exposed shot at 12800iso with some noise-reduction could look fantastic up to 16"x24" though. And it's rare that my photos need to be printed larger than that.
It fitted seamlessly into my workflow, felt completely natural to use and easy to take advantage of the new features. In fact it required *less* thought to operate than the 5D2 because it copes so well in low light and tricky AF situations. It handled everything I threw at it without breaking a sweat. The much-improved AF and low-light performance were an absolute godsend, allowing me to concentrate more on the bride and groom in the fading light instead of worrying about ISO and shutter speed.
Jules, regarding those 2 points you raise above, I don't really subscribe to either of them, but it was an interesting read thanks. :p
- I always shoot RAW regardless. It means I don't need to keep a very close eye on WB or blowing out highlights in the bridal gown because I can fix those things in PP, and I don't need to keep switching between RAW and JPG (and potentially forgetting). Memory cards are cheap. HDD space is cheap. RAWs can be converted to JPGs and then deleted later. It's cheap insurance IMHO, and allows more time to concentrate on the task at hand.
- With the 5D2, I feel comfortable only shooting up to 3200iso. I only go to 6400 if I get *really* desperate. But I feel quite comfortable shooting the 5D3 up to 12800iso, and would go to 25600 only if I had no other choice. In real-world usage (where NR and PP are applied as appropriate to get the best results for my taste), the 5D3 seems to have a solid 2-stop advantage in noise, and seems to keep more detail in the image while doing it.
I haven't done any prints from this camera at any iso yet, but I suspect 25600 will only be good for prints smaller than 8"x12" (for my taste). I think a well-exposed shot at 12800iso with some noise-reduction could look fantastic up to 16"x24" though. And it's rare that my photos need to be printed larger than that.
Adrian Broughton
My Website: www.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
My Blog: blog.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.