Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ajax_andy

Quick road test of 5D MK III's ISO performance

Recommended Posts

Shot this at ISO 25600 without flash.

 

Only adjustments were - slight colour correction, slight boost of contrast and slight midtone boost in levels (no noise reduction carried out):

8433794474_c5832138e7_z.jpg

 

And then same pic with a tiny bit of noise reduction carried out:

 

8433823846_419e3022b7_z.jpg

 

 

Honestly can't believe how good the ISO performance is! Basically with my 7D I wouldn't even have been able to take this pic it'd have been so under exposed, yet on the new camera I can not only take it, but at the max true aperture get a very usable and fairly clean image!

 

I am blown away tbh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks lush. :up:

 

Yeah it's going to be amazing shooting weddings in dark churches at ISO 3200 and above and not in the back of my mind crying at how noisey the pics are going to be!

 

Feel really pleased I stumped up the cash for it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the light levels like in the room? Pretty impressive.

 

Terrible mate... There's a 60 watt bulb about 5 stairs down and around the corner, and then if you went up the stairs (about 12 or so) there's another 60 watt bulb around the corner. No natural light as was shot at about 7:30pm.

 

On our stairs this is the darkest part pretty much... this was shot at ISO 25600. F/2.8 and 1/40 shutter speed. So basically it's pretty damn rubbish light wise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing really...but then it does have a big f*ck-off sensor in it!

 

I remember arguing with a lad at work who was talking about some Nokia smart phone with a 43MP camera built in. He was adamant that 43MP meant that it was better than anything with a smaller number of pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent that like for indoors. I should stick my D7000 up for comparison to show what a difference it can make. My first body was a D3000 (now the D3100) and above 800 it struggled. Now I can go to 2-3000 happily. But 26000! fuck me :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing really...but then it does have a big f*ck-off sensor in it!

 

I remember arguing with a lad at work who was talking about some Nokia smart phone with a 43MP camera built in. He was adamant that 43MP meant that it was better than anything with a smaller number of pixels.

 

Haha what a tool! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still can't quite comprehend a 25600 ISO setting. My 400D starts to struggle above about 800...

 

I used to have the 450D and the ISO performance was equally as appauling. Remember showing someone with a 7D my ISO 800 shots on it and he laughed at them.

 

He still owns a 7D so who's laughing now fucker!!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent that like for indoors. I should stick my D7000 up for comparison to show what a difference it can make. My first body was a D3000 (now the D3100) and above 800 it struggled. Now I can go to 2-3000 happily. But 26000! fuck me :lol:

 

Aye it's mad isn't it! Still can't quite get over it tbh. Will be interesting to test it in the exact same place under the exact same lighting but with my wife instead of the dog and see how the skin tones and shadows on it look at that high an ISO... probably won't look quite as good but still pretty decent i'd imagine. Might have to rope the missus in to testing it out to see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye it's mad isn't it! Still can't quite get over it tbh. Will be interesting to test it in the exact same place under the exact same lighting but with my wife instead of the dog and see how the skin tones and shadows on it look at that high an ISO... probably won't look quite as good but still pretty decent i'd imagine. Might have to rope the missus in to testing it out to see

 

What also would be good would to take a picture(s) that give some sort of reference to how dark it is, and perhaps some pictures at other iso's - then we'll all be totally blown away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What also would be good would to take a picture(s) that give some sort of reference to how dark it is, and perhaps some pictures at other iso's - then we'll all be totally blown away.

 

Haha I'm not bloody spending the next week testing the camera out for you all ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I'm not bloody spending the next week testing the camera out for you all ;)

 

Anyway - i think from this morning a test won't show anything, if going on what you said then that camera seems great.

 

Reasoning is this morning i took a picture in a semi naturally lit room at ISO 100 and it took 5 secs to take, i moved to iso 1600 (highest on my 400d) and the picture was exactly the same (when viewed thru the monitor) but only to .6 of a second to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At ISO 1600 on the 400d I'd imagine it looked pretty snowy!

 

That's what I'd think - but only looked at on the lcd screen - will have to upload and see if there is any difference - will also have to use a stand as the camera shake is madly bad at ISO 100.

Edited by south_cheshire_toon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'd think - but only looked at on the lcd screen - will have to upload and see if there is any difference - will also have to use a stand as the camera shake is madly bad at ISO 100.

 

Ahh the old 'it looks fine on the LCD screen' moment... had that many a time and once on a 24 inch monitor in high res realised not to trust the LCD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At ISO 1600 on the 400d I'd imagine it looked pretty snowy!

 

Now, this is what I can't understand.

 

There are four links below, to two pictures, only difference is that on eis shot at iso 100 and the other at 1600.

 

At 100,

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7058.jpg

 

At 1600.

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7059.jpg

 

 

Now to my eye there appears to be no difference - this is perhaps to the lighting in the room.

 

 

But when zoomed in on the football man, At 100,

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7061.jpg

 

At 1600.

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7062.jpg

 

 

Now Andy you stated it would look snowy at 1600, but to me it looks worse at 100 ?!? Confused.

Edited by south_cheshire_toon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, this is what I can't understand.

 

There are four links below, to two pictures, only difference is that on eis shot at iso 100 and the other at 1600.

 

At 100,

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7058.jpg

 

At 1600.

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7059.jpg

 

 

Now to my eye there appears to be no difference - this is perhaps to the lighting in the room.

 

 

But when zoomed in on the football man, At 100,

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7061.jpg

 

At 1600.

http://i997.photobuc...80/IMG_7062.jpg

 

 

Now Andy you stated it would look snowy at 1600, but to me it looks worse at 100 ?!? Confused.

 

Yeah that's really odd!

 

Not 100% sure why tbh... I know this kind of test is never the best as you have a well lit room so there's no need for a high ISO. The noise will largely hide in the shadows, so take a dark room and use flash you'll see the area's not lit by the flash producing loads of noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate pixel peepers. ;)

 

Seriously, I can understand peeps like Andy doing weddings but theres a load of noise reduction software progs out there for the average user. Noise really isn't that bad when you can get rid of in PP. I still use Noiseware even at ISO100 on the MKII. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate pixel peepers. ;)

 

Seriously, I can understand peeps like Andy doing weddings but theres a load of noise reduction software progs out there for the average user. Noise really isn't that bad when you can get rid of in PP. I still use Noiseware even at ISO100 on the MKII. :P

 

I've never used the NR programs before, or even done it in Lightroom... always us an inverted high pass layer with an inverted layer mask in photoshop. Don't know why I always do things the complicated way lol

 

You're right though... for me the noisy high iso's and also huge drop in IQ at those levels really takes a big shit on an otherwise nice photo of a wedding in a dark church... however to most people ISO 800 is something they hardly will ever need to use so it's not a big deal IMO. They should stop pixel peeping and save themselves a whole lot of annoyance :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×