Home Donate New Search Gallery Reviews How-To Books Links Workshops About Contact
Canon 5D Mark III vs. SL1
Resolution and High ISO Comparison
© 2013 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.
September 2013 Canon Reviews Canon Lenses All Reviews
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II review
Resolution Comparison
Just because I can, let's compare the sharpness, resolution and high-ISO performance of the world's best DSLR, the Canon 5D Mark III ($3,500) using the world's sharpest midrange zoom, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II lens ($2,300, or $5,800 total) to Canon's cheapest: the Canon Rebel SL1 ($600) and 18-55mm STM kit lens ($249, or $699 total as a kit with the SL1).
These images below are but tiny crops from the centers of each image. If these are about 6" (15 cm) wide on your screen, the complete prints from each camera would be 52 x 35" (4.3 x 3 feet or 1.3 x 1.0 meters) at this same magnification:
Roll mouse over to compare. For you without mice, here's the other image:
Adorama pays top dollar for your used gear.
|
Summary and Analysis top
As far as I'm concerned, I see no significant difference between the two. Remember, these are extreme blow-ups from prints many feet wide. If I showed the complete, uncroppped images (which I don't here) or showed them at a more reasonable size more like the sizes at which people actually print, they would be completely identical.
Therefore as I always say, the more expensive camera only costs more and weighs you down more. Sure, I can force differences under unreasonable circumstances for the sake of spicing up my reviews, but for actual shooting, it doesn't matter what camera you use.
Technik top
I shot these each in my usual settings: 6 sharpening, +4 saturation, and NORMAL LARGE JPG, program auto exposure and Auto ISO and Auto white balance. Each camera chose f/8 at 1/200 at ISO 100.
I set each zoom for the same angle-of-view to take the same picture, about 35mm for the full-frame 5D Mark III and about 22mm for the SL1. I downsized the 5D Mark III image by about 10% to compensate for the slightly different image sizes (5,760 vs. 5,184 pixels wide) so the two images match for comparison. This shows exactly what you'll see with each image printed about 52 x 35" (4.3 x 3 feet or 1.3 x 1.0 meters) of the same subject.
If you don't understand the need to keep the images the same size to make a valid comparison, you're welcome to redo this test yourself and use Canon's 1D X instead of the 5D Mark III. The $6,800 1D X has exactly the same resolution as the $599 SL1: 5,184 x 3,456 pixels, so no resampling would be needed, and each would be identical.
Since the exposure and internal camera processing vary a little from model to model, I had to lighten the 5D Mark III image a bit, and added a tiny bit of sharpening (50% at 0.2 pixel radius smart basic more accurate) to the SL1 image to create the same texture. Regardless of how much sharpening is added, you never can extract detail that isn't there; this was done to keep the texture and contrast of each image close so you could compare them better.
High ISO
Let's see how they look at ISO 6,400:
I see that the 5D Mark III has a little less noise, but is it really worth the effort to haul the 5D Mark III and its larger lenses all day just for the one or two shots you might have to make in the dark? Heck, the SL1 has a flash and the 5D Mark III doesn't, so where is this going anyway?
Let's crop-in to the same crazy resolution as the top and see what sharpness difference there is at ISO 6,400:
Aha! Here we see the only real difference. If you're going to shoot in the dark and then print 5 five feet wide and then look at it from this close, yes, the 5D Mark III is a bit sharper.
This is because the smaller sensor of the SL1 demands more noise reduction to control the noise, and this noise reduction robs some sharpness.
ISO 6,400 is insane anyway. At ISO 6,400 I can shoot the stars in the sky or under moonlight, hand held, so I wouldn't worry about it — unless you really want to buy the 5D Mark III, which is a wonderful camera.
At ISO 6,400 in room light indoors where I shot these, I shot at f/8 and 1/2,000 second! ISO 6,400 clearly isn't needed; ISO 100 would have been plenty to shoot at f/4 and 1/125.
Help me help you top
If you've found all the time, effort and expense I put into researching and sharing all this for free, this website's biggest source of support is when you use these links when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live. Thanks!
I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem.
The biggest help is when you use any of these links when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live. It costs you nothing, and is this site's, and thus my family's, biggest source of support. These places have the best prices and service, which is why I've used them since before this website existed. I recommend them all personally.
If you find this page as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a workshop you may have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.
If you've gotten your gear through one of my links or helped otherwise, you're family. It's great people like you who allow me to keep adding to this site full-time. Thanks!
If you haven't helped yet, please do, and consider helping me with a gift of $5.00.
As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!
Thanks for reading!
Mr. & Mrs. Ken Rockwell, Ryan and Katie.
Home Donate New Search Gallery Reviews How-To Books Links Workshops About Contact