#5D MARK III VS 6D IMAGE QUALITY ISO#

If you don't shoot video at all (or you have another camera for that) the Canon 5D mark III is the best choice. If you don't need 4K and you shoot a lot of reports both in photos and videos, this is your ideal choice. On the other hand, the Canon 6D Mark II has an articulating screen which is definitely of use when you need to shoot images or videos from awkward angles. It lacks stars from the sky in terms of its parameters, but within the declared characteristics it works perfectly well. The Canon 5D Mark IV has a bigger LCD display (3,2 vs 3) and higher resolution (1.620k dots vs 1.040k dots), but its screen is fixed. This makes the Canon 6D Mark II an ergonomic and versatile camera for photos and videos. electronic video stabilization works very well, but results in a loss of sharpness due to crop.Tracking autofocus in video works well with USM lenses (in contrast to 800Dwhere it is better with STM).very good tracking autofocus in video mode (DualPixel), including with face tracking.the detail of FullHD video, although it has become better, does not reach the level of good mirrorless cameras.video noise is significantly less than on the old 5D Mark III.

#5D MARK III VS 6D IMAGE QUALITY ISO#

photos at high ISO are similar in noise on both cameras.raw files from Canon 6D Mark II are worse in processing, the picture decays more.in comparison with the 5D Mark III, the usability has increased due to the rotary touch screen.Overall, the Canon 5D Mark III did quite well in our Print Quality test, with all but the highest ISO setting able to produce a good quality print at sizes people commonly use (and some uncommonly large ones, too). ISO 102,400 shots were just a little too fuzzy in the shadows to be called usable at any size, and is best avoided altogether. ISO 51,200 shots were usable at 5 x 7, but really better at 4 x 6. For rendering of reds, we preferred the 8 x 10 inch print here. ISO 12,800 images had shadow noise that was reasonably controlled at this size, and fine detail was good. 16 x 20 inch prints are still usable, but we preferred 13 x 19 inch prints.

ISO 6,400 images lost more detail in the red swatch, and luminance noise got a little darker and more prominent. ISO 3,200 shots started to show a little more loss of detail in reds and other low-contrast elements, and shadows started to show a little more luminance noise at 20 x 30, but prints looked better at 16 x 20 inches. ISO 1,600 images were a little softer in the red leaf swatch, but other than that, these images still looked good at 20 x 30 inches. ISO 800 images started to show a very slight indication of softness due to noise suppression, but all major elements still looked quite good at 24 x 36 inches. ISO 400 shots look spectacular at 24 x 36 inches. 5D mk III vs 6D Image Quality Started Discussions thread Forum: Parent: First: Previous: Next: Flat view: JerryriggedTECH Contributing Member Posts: 886 Re: 5D mk III vs 6D Image Quality In reply. ISO 200 shots also looked great at 30 x 40 inches. ISO 100 images were incredible at 30 x 40 inches, with crisp detail and gorgeous color rendition.

Good quality 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200 ISO 3,200 shots still looked good at 16 x 20 and ISO 51,200 made a good 4 x 6. Even if they were playing a bit of catch-up, it seems we can say they've caught up quite well. It also shapes up well against Nikon's 24-megapixel D3X, an impressive feat. Unsurprisingly, the 5D Mark II trails in this group as it's also the oldest and lowest in resolution.Ĭanon's 5D Mark III indeed looks quite improved over the 5D Mark II, despite the slightly smaller pixel pitch. Lower contrast and color moiré from the Nikons hold them back a bit here, but their performance is still very good. The Canon 6D is a close second, as expected, with the Sony A99 pretty close behind. Thanks to higher levels of contrast as ISO increases, the Canon 5D Mark III does well compared to all other contenders, and does much better than its predecessor. High-contrast details are hold their sharpness more as ISO rises, so they're worth a look as well. Both struggle to maintain detail in the red leaf swatch, though.ĭetail: Canon 5D Mark III versus Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 6D, Nikon D800, Nikon D600, and Sony A99ĭetail comparison. The Canon 5D Mark III pulls ahead of the Sony A99 a bit more here, with noticeably cleaner, more contrasty images.

5d mark iii vs 6d image quality