EOS 5 Mk3 or Mk 2 for deepsky ?

[skysurfer]

With the newly released Mk3 with alleged 2 stops advance over the Mk2 (i.e. a 12500 iso photo has the same grain as an Mk2 3200 iso photo with same aperture, exposure, same subject) I am tempted to upgrade from the eos 40 to the 5 Mk3.
But the 5Mk2 is still 2 stops ahead of the 40. And is $1500 cheaper.

Here in NL the 5d3 is offered for $3500 body only and the 5d2 PLUS 24-105 f/4L for $2500.
Or wait for the 70d with a crop sensor but with DIGIC 5 and I can keep two of my lenses (which are APS-C and thus useless on the 5d) ?

Better ISO performance will shorten exposure times by at least a factor of four, reducing tracking errors greatly.

[Octane (Humayun)]

If you can afford the newer system, go for it.

Also, all lenses are compatible with the full frame Canon series, except for the cheapie plastic EF-S lenses. They extend too far back into the body of the camera.

H

[luigi]

There are too many missconceptions about ISO and noise out there.

As a basic fact most high ISO settings are only useful if you shoot JPG. For astro Work you use RAW and then it hardly makes sense with ANY DSLR to go beyond ISO1600.

If you take a shot at ISO6400 for a given aperture and exposure and the same shot at ISO1600 and then push the exposure up 2 stops in post the result is exactly the same. Furthermore using the higher ISOs you are losing dynamic range.

We'll have to test if this holds or not for the 5DIII, if there is a visible difference between a ISO3200 shot and a ISO1600 shot pushed 1 stop then it might be worth the upgrade. If the ISO1600 noise is better than the ISO1600 noise in the MKII then it will also be worth the upgrade.

We are seeing a lot of JPG examples where the high ISOs make sense and where the noise reduction applied by the DIGIC processor is heavy, all this stuff is totally irrelevant for astro work.

So I would say you should wait.

Unfortunately for all of us shooting Canon the logical evolution of the 5DII was made by Nikon.

[gregbradley]

Dynamic Range for the 5D mark iii as posted on another forum is the same or slightly less than the mark ii. Noise performance is better in jpegs for sure but as mentioned that is from aggressive NR in part.

How it performs in RAW is still a question mark. Unless you really need the better autofocus and the other improvements it basically seems to be much the same camera as the 5D mark ii. In the Canon forums there was initially a lot of enthusiasm for the camera but now some tests are flowing in it seems to be turning to upset over the lack of sesnor progress and the high cost. However it does seem Canon has improved the banding issue in its noise pattern. That may be worthwhile to some astrophotographers. As Luigi pointed out most Astrophotographers shoot in RAW and that's where the improvement is not as great as Canon lead people to believe. Read the fine print - they said 2 stops improvement in jpeg. I am sure there is an improvement in RAW as well but early indications are nowhere near 2 stops and that possibly much the same as the Nikon D800 which has a 60% larger number of pixels.

Nikon has the Sony Exmor processor which appears to be the one with the better performance. Better dynamic range by one stop than the 5D mark iii, noise performance is also very good plus of course its 36mp so resolution is superb.Its also about $600-700 cheaper here.

I'd stick with mark ii for astro or go D800 if you want a noticeable upgrade. If you already have a lot of Canon glass then the change may not be worthwhile.

There are rumours of a Canon to come soon that may be large megapixels and possibly 4K video. Now that would be the Canon to have not the 5D mark iii which seems to be an evolutionary upgrade over the mark ii for a large increase in price. Lets face it Canon has been trumped by Nikon badly and the sales at Amazon are proof of that (D800 #23 5D Mark ii #80 or so). Canon execs no doubt are sweating as the market share they so cleverly gained will be slipping away and hard to get back.

Sorry Canon lovers but thats the way its rolling. I would have happily bought either not being in either camp and only simply want the better camera. Or pick up a mark ii for much the same money.

If you really want a Canon and are patient I'd wait for this next rumoured release which is supposed to be at Photokina (not exactly sure of the date but I think its in the next 1-2 monts).

Greg.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Greg,

The 5D Mark III is trumping the D800 sales, on Amazon, last time I checked.

H

[gregbradley]

Not that its really important but I was merely using this as a source:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=40880526

Also another post in the Canon forum of DPReview had a link to Amazon and it showed D800 as #1 and 5D mark iii as #2. These sorts of sales figures I imagine shift around. Also the D800 was announced earlier as well so that would play some part in it.

Not that its that important. What matters is getting the right camera for your needs. If you are wedding photographer with lots of Canon glass the new 5D mark iii would be an excellent choice.

But the post was about whether 5d mark iii makes sense for astrophotography and that's a different scenario.

As Fred pointed out if you are doing time lapse and want to use bulb ramping (gradually shifting exposure times to handle the change of light from day to night smoothly) then Canon is the way to go. If that is not important (and looking at Alex's time lapses for me I would think that is a minor detail) then D800 would be great.

As far as 36mp goes for time lapse I am of the opinion it would not benefit as you use wide field lenses anyway and the final image is downsized so much. A fast lens is more important than which camera.

As far as long exposure deep sky object astrophotography goes both will be great but you'd have to be pretty interested in the possibilities of a 36mp camera on a short focal length scope. Although at the end of the day it would need to be modified to be really good.

It'd be great if the top DSLR manufacturers made a camera with a detachable UV/IR filter and detachable low pass filter. I believe there is a lesser camera maker that already does that.

Both 5D mark iii and D800 are going to be super cameras. Objectively you have to admit Nikon has really taken a huge leap here and is the more revolutionary camera for now.

Greg.

[Octane (Humayun)]

You're right, not that it really matters.

And, I guess, is Amazon a true indicator? Or, would B&H figures make more sense?

Also, back on topic, Canon has greater software support in terms of astrophotography applications.

To the OP, buy the newer camera. Go on; you know you want to.

H

[gregbradley]

5D mark iii low noise jpegs are still relevant. I shoot most of my terrestial in jpeg. I suppose I should use RAW more often. But jpeg is very convenient. For time lapse I wonder how needed RAW is. It must use huge memory.

Greg.

[Phil Hart]

Originally Posted by skysurfer

With the newly released Mk3 with alleged 2 stops advance over the Mk2 (i.e. a 12500 iso photo has the same grain as an Mk2 3200 iso photo with same aperture, exposure, same subject) I am tempted to upgrade from the eos 40 to the 5 Mk3.
But the 5Mk2 is still 2 stops ahead of the 40. And is $1500 cheaper.

Here in NL the 5d3 is offered for $3500 body only and the 5d2 PLUS 24-105 f/4L for $2500.
Or wait for the 70d with a crop sensor but with DIGIC 5 and I can keep two of my lenses (which are APS-C and thus useless on the 5d) ?

Better ISO performance will shorten exposure times by at least a factor of four, reducing tracking errors greatly.

I'm with Luigi on the RAW/ISO comments. Little value to ISO above 1600 in RAW.

You might like to check out this thread.. we've already had this discussion: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=87407