Part 2 --- the images.
Here are my images with little commentary. First, all were processed in ACR at the same settings except where indicated, the lens used was the 200 L.
For reference, here are the full shots. I used "as shot" WB on both. Interestingly the 5D Reg was 5500 +7 while the 5D Hot Rod was 5450 -5 --- This is very close on base color temp at only 50 degrees apart, but significantly different on tint at 12 points different. (Note: Don't pay too much attention to the sky as there were fewer background clouds when we shot the Hot Rod.) The exposure was 1/2000 @ f5.6, ISO 200 for both cameras:
5D Reg:
5D HR:
Here are the first two crops. The first is the 5D reg and second is the 5D HR which received identical post processing of just light sharpening to extract detail. Note the difference in interpixel contrast and color saturation. Then I added some post to the 5D Reg crop to add some interpixel contrast which also added a bit of saturation to make it look more like the Hot Rod. The two files now look pretty close, except you can still see more detail in the Hot Rod crop. I have circled the light artifacting I mentioned earlier in the Hot Rod crop (which I feel is of zero consequence).
Reg:
Hot Rod:
Reg, additional post:
Lastly, here are a pair of crops from the top of the image, again these were identically processed with WB "as shot". I include this to show the difference in red and blue hues. IMO removing the AA filter seems to generate better color, at least to my eye. The added clarity of the Hot Rod can be seen in the stucco, in the roof tiles and along the high-contrast edges of the peeling paint:
5D Reg:
5D Hot Rod:
~~~
Now for the true test, a print --- but keep in mind this is purely subjective and I have no way to "show" these subtleties online...
I printed the crop ares out on glossy paper for direct side-by-side comparisons at both 360 PPI and 240 PPI. My assumption was the Hot Rod might show better at 240 than the Regular due to no AA filter and corresponding cleaner pixel edges. The bottom line is that even when viewing the prints under a loupe, the detail differences seen at 100% above are essentially undetectable in a print at EITHER resolution. I say essentially because in the high contrast paint chips, I see what may be the impression of crisper edges, but it is not definitive. IOW they all look pretty identical from a resolution standpoint. Also, as expected, the slight artifacting in the Hot Rod file is undetectable.
However, color is a different story --- and a minor surprise as well. In the prints, the most accurate looking file as processed (and to my eye) was the regular 5D with my added post processing, followed by the regular 5D's. For whatever reason, there was a slight --- and I mean slight --- muddiness in the colors of the Hot Rod file, even though they look better in the online sRGB crops (again, at least to my eye). Please note the difference I'm describing here are *very* slight and I only mention them because I noted them when viewing the print. Moreover, I am confident a more selective raw white balance accompanied by a simple print output curve tailored to the hot rod would alleviate this minor difference.
~~~
Conclusion for me: If the 5D were my only camera AND if I was going to be posting/presenting jpegs, I would do the conversion. However, for my uses
and the way I process files for print output, I don't see enough added benefit to warrant the conversion.
As always, this is my opinion only and YMMV