5d3: Are you kidding me?!

I use my 5D3 at 12,800 often... Awesome performance.

25,600 is not shabby, either.

Just for comparison...

Nikon D800 @ 12800 all NR sliders to 0 in LR4:

The bickering over SOOC reminds me of UNIX/network guys I worked with 20 years ago . . . they would get so bogged down in arguing details that they never actually produced much work that was useful to the company. They were quite irritated that this snot-nosed girl went from new-hire to being their boss in a few short years, and even more irritated that I replaced them with people that were interested in producing work that was useful to the company.

If I post something and call it "SOOC" that means I shot it in RAW, pulled it into LR4 with no adjustments, then output it in a format that can be shared on the web, i.e. jpeg. Most of them can be found on Flickr in all sizes for your pixel-peeping joy.

Like it or not, that IS what the overwhelming majority of photographer mean, on all forums, when they say "SOOC". What they mean is, "I didn't tweak the exposure, or the color, or the whatever. I am sharing this version for you so that you can compare it to your own SOOC images, and can see that most RAW files will need some sort of PP - some more than others."

You want to see the RAW file? Really? If sharing it is of benefit to the shooter of the file, perhaps they will share. If sharing it is to the benefit of the recipient, and the recipient comes back with quibbling or nit-picking that isn't to the benefit of the shooter, than the recipient can expect to receive no more RAW files and can play with their own RAW files instead.

People share SOOC files for the benefit of others.

Back to the original INTENT of the OP:

The 5D3 has rock-star high-ISO handling. The OP is joyful of that. I am joyful of that. If anyone is considering upgrading to the 5D3 and wants excellent high-ISO handling, then the 5D3 is a worthy contender.

alintx wrote in post #15435112
The bickering over SOOC reminds me of UNIX/network guys I worked with 20 years ago . . . they would get so bogged down in arguing details that they never actually produced much work that was useful to the company. They were quite irritated that this snot-nosed girl went from new-hire to being their boss in a few short years, and even more irritated that I replaced them with people that were interested in producing work that was useful to the company.

If I post something and call it "SOOC" that means I shot it in RAW, pulled it into LR4 with no adjustments, then output it in a format that can be shared on the web, i.e. jpeg. Most of them can be found on Flickr in all sizes for your pixel-peeping joy.

Like it or not, that IS what the overwhelming majority of photographer mean, on all forums, when they say "SOOC". What they mean is, "I didn't tweak the exposure, or the color, or the whatever. I am sharing this version for you so that you can compare it to your own SOOC images, and can see that most RAW files will need some sort of PP - some more than others."

People share SOOC files for the benefit of others.

Back to the original INTENT of the OP:

The 5D3 has rock-star high-ISO handling. The OP is joyful of that. I am joyful of that. If anyone is considering upgrading to the 5D3 and wants excellent high-ISO handling, then the 5D3 is a worthy contender.

If you need technical details on "rock-star" ISO, along with samples to back up that nomenclature, I'm sure you can find much out there to keep you entertained.

/thread.

alintx wrote in post #15435112
The bickering over SOOC reminds me of UNIX/network guys I worked with 20 years ago . . . they would get so bogged down in arguing details that they never actually produced much work that was useful to the company. They were quite irritated that this snot-nosed girl went from new-hire to being their boss in a few short years, and even more irritated that I replaced them with people that were interested in producing work that was useful to the company.

If I post something and call it "SOOC" that means I shot it in RAW, pulled it into LR4 with no adjustments, then output it in a format that can be shared on the web, i.e. jpeg. Most of them can be found on Flickr in all sizes for your pixel-peeping joy.

Like it or not, that IS what the overwhelming majority of photographer mean, on all forums, when they say "SOOC". What they mean is, "I didn't tweak the exposure, or the color, or the whatever. I am sharing this version for you so that you can compare it to your own SOOC images, and can see that most RAW files will need some sort of PP - some more than others."

You want to see the RAW file? Really? If sharing it is of benefit to the shooter of the file, perhaps they will share. If sharing it is to the benefit of the recipient, and the recipient comes back with quibbling or nit-picking that isn't to the benefit of the shooter, than the recipient can expect to receive no more RAW files and can play with their own RAW files instead.

People share SOOC files for the benefit of others.

Back to the original INTENT of the OP:

The 5D3 has rock-star high-ISO handling. The OP is joyful of that. I am joyful of that. If anyone is considering upgrading to the 5D3 and wants excellent high-ISO handling, then the 5D3 is a worthy contender.

That's exactly what I mean. Some people get really uptight at minor things that has almost no relevance to the matter at hand.

alintx wrote in post #15435112
The bickering over SOOC reminds me of UNIX/network guys I worked with 20 years ago . . . they would get so bogged down in arguing details that they never actually produced much work that was useful to the company. They were quite irritated that this snot-nosed girl went from new-hire to being their boss in a few short years, and even more irritated that I replaced them with people that were interested in producing work that was useful to the company.

If I post something and call it "SOOC" that means I shot it in RAW, pulled it into LR4 with no adjustments, then output it in a format that can be shared on the web, i.e. jpeg. Most of them can be found on Flickr in all sizes for your pixel-peeping joy.

Like it or not, that IS what the overwhelming majority of photographer mean, on all forums, when they say "SOOC". What they mean is, "I didn't tweak the exposure, or the color, or the whatever. I am sharing this version for you so that you can compare it to your own SOOC images, and can see that most RAW files will need some sort of PP - some more than others."

You want to see the RAW file? Really? If sharing it is of benefit to the shooter of the file, perhaps they will share. If sharing it is to the benefit of the recipient, and the recipient comes back with quibbling or nit-picking that isn't to the benefit of the shooter, than the recipient can expect to receive no more RAW files and can play with their own RAW files instead.

People share SOOC files for the benefit of others.

Back to the original INTENT of the OP:

The 5D3 has rock-star high-ISO handling. The OP is joyful of that. I am joyful of that. If anyone is considering upgrading to the 5D3 and wants excellent high-ISO handling, then the 5D3 is a worthy contender.

AMEN. What always passes through my mind is what points of interest will they choose to deteriorate in the thread I'm reading. Perfect case in point. This thread was about the wonderful ISO perfomance of a photographers new Camera. I can't believe anyone over 45 would argue that point, or anyone who used to shoot film. See my original post in this thread.

5D3 the first day I got it, test shot SOOC and whatever Lightroom does on export, no light but Christmas Tree and garden, Av 4.0 (lens limit), Tv 1/125, ISO 12800, and I forgot to turn on IS. Pretty impressive, I think.

manderson wrote in post #15435331
5D3 the first day I got it, test shot SOOC, no light but Christmas Tree and garden, Av 4.0, Tv 1/125, ISO 12800, and I forgot to turn on IS. Pretty impressive, I think.

I think 1.4, 1/30, 12,800 would be impressive, thats 5 stops lower.

Hitthespot wrote in post #15435300
AMEN. What always passes through my mind is what points of interest will they choose to deteriorate in the thread I'm reading. Perfect case in point. This thread was about the wonderful ISO perfomance of a photographers new Camera. I can't believe anyone over 45 would argue that point, or anyone who used to shoot film. See my original post in this thread.

I don't know about you, but I don't think we have offended the OP in any way by taking this topic into a slightly different direction. The original post didn't position a specific discussion about the splendor of the 5D3. To me, the original post was merely an exclamation. If someone were to mention around a dinner table the same topic, it will inevitably spurn a related discussion.

This is a forum. Conversation is normal. I don't think this discussion has devolved any. There's only so much we can say to the original post to keep it "on topic" other than patting each other on the back. I think this was an open-ended topic to begin with.

Yes, this is a forum for discussion equipment, not a gallery forum. If people don't want their images to be discussed they shouldn't post them here.
The OP posted a great image and made a statement, we are discussing it. I don't think anyone has caused anyone else offence, but you know, there is a way to unsubscribe to threads that don't go your way.

Talley wrote in post #15434886
Unfortunately mine is not SOOC, I only processed with lightroom however I hate hate hate HATE how the NR slider in lightroom makes detail go away so with that said, on a 12,800 shot I think this image's NR value was set to 18 maybe 22. 22 is the max I will go to PERIOD. removes detail too much.

Also that guy that posted right above me "nicksan" I give him EVERY OUNCE OF CREDIT for how I process noise. Even though my slider is around 18ish what I do after that is I do an adjustment brush with a slight feather and flow to 100 and any area of the image that is OOF I apply 100% noise reduction. All it does is blur the background a little bit more but makes a substantial improvement in how the image "looks" ya there is still noise but only in areas where you want detail (faces etc). So in my shot I posted basically I went around all of the left top and right of my wife and son with the brush at 100% and a little between my sons arm and body that area had pretty bad noise.

Here read nicksan's tutorial (although I just do adjustment brush in lightroom... my workflow is quick and easy, I'm just doing family shots)
http://www.nicknphoto.​com/noise-control/

Thanks for that. And thanks Nicksan for what looks to be a great NR technique. I'll give it a try.

I will normally use ACR's NR to take the rough edges off noise and then in PS I'll dupe the layer and add a slight surface blur, then mask out the main subject to bring it back to sharpness. Sort of has the same effect as your adjustment brush technique. The background gets blurred more and hides the noise. Still, I've never been able to use anything above 6400 ISO from my 7D. Your method seems to be effective for sure.

manderson wrote in post #15435331
5D3 the first day I got it, test shot SOOC and whatever Lightroom does on export, no light but Christmas Tree and garden, Av 4.0 (lens limit), Tv 1/125, ISO 12800, and I forgot to turn on IS. Pretty impressive, I think.

Hosted photo: posted by manderson in
./showthread.php?p=154​35331&i=i244203545
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Isn't it cool how the high-ISO handling means you start to look at everything in a new light (pun intended)? Something like your photo of the tree and mini figures - once upon a time it was skip it or light it and if you didn't have your flash handy, then it would get skipped.

The RAW processing thread has taken on a new life with the arrival of LR4. So, take the 5D3, and LR4 and all sorts of images can be made or salvaged that a few years ago would have been on the cutting room floor. YAY!

Hitthespot wrote in post #15432347
It makes me laugh when I hear people complain about ISO performance. I remember shooting ASA 800 film (many years ago) and being extremely disapointed in the noise and pictures, and lets not even discuss the first offerings of 1600. Digital is such an amazing advancement in photography with ISO performance being one example. I can remember reading articles about how digital was ruining the art of photography. It has made it so much more enjoyable for me.

Nice Photo.

Bill

^^^That. I 100% understand and agree with these statements. The only thing I miss about film is the look.

I laugh when people use legacy methods and techniques and material to try to mock what others are discussing in relation to current era processes.

I personally could care less how bad or how good film ASA/ISO performance was, because that doesn't do anything for furthering my own needs for greater ISO performance.

Film is going the way of vinyl LPs, sure there is still a market or public desire for that type of medium however large or small, but we are well into the digital era, and we discuss all the technical leaps or hops or slight steps forward that it entails, thus the title of this particular board.

I think many people probably do the same eye roll they do when they hear "back in the day, I had to walk uphill 5 miles to school, both ways..."

joema2 wrote in post #15434777
If you don't need high performance AF, and will never shoot low light video and don't need a high frame rate and don't need a quiet shutter, nor robust weather sealing, then a 5D2 is fine. If you mainly use controlled lighting with stationary subjects, the 5D2 is probably OK and will save some money.

Reading this, it sounds like the 5D2 is now a much worse camera than it was 3 years ago.