Submariner wrote in post #16958147
I think I better give up this photography lark!
I wouldn't dream of shooting at ISO 12,800 let alone above. The image quality just is horrible in my opinion on any camera.
6,400 is just about useable and for me its time to get the old flash out. Appreciate some of you have more demanding shot you need to take, but I am just not into that kind of resolution.
All ai can say is its really nice have all those AF points on the 5D3, and to me I really appreciate being to trust them.
Focusing and recomposing can have its downside at say F2.8.
Please dont get me wrong I think the 6D is terrific value for money, but its not in the same league in real world usage for my kind of stuff.
Not being a 5D3 fanboy either.
I am disappointed it doesnt have spot metering on any selected AF point. Yes I can work around it with the AE lock star button but its a pain. And I think it should have the dual pixel thing for automatic autofocusing in Video ... For the retail price.
Look at Mornnb's examples, I have numerous examples just like it. I truly feel sorry for people who think it's better to just put the camera away rather than work around difficult lighting with the tools at their disposal which for me in many cases is high ISO.
As for the 6D, adding those features would've hiked the cost. I too would love to have spot metering for each point, but in reality it's really easy to walk around it by using AE-lock as you mentioned. As for the dual pixel AF... that wasn't introduced until the 70D, over a year after the release of the 6D, it couldn't come with technology that didn't yet exist.
davesrose wrote in post #16958231
Looking at all the posted samples on this thread, the "discussion" between you and Mornnb seems to be which noisy picture looks best. Not actual IQ/feature comparisons of the 6D vs 5DmkIII. I consider my lighting conditions and try to compensate enough to not rely on extreme ISOs or post processing (I can't say I've ever tried pushing ISO to 12800 on a shoot).
The lowest light I've shot so far is auditoriums and single low light indoors. I have found I get enough speed and DOF using a fast lens, and vary rarely need to go past 1600 (I think the furthest I've comfortably gone to on a shoot is 3200).
Then you're not shooting in "difficult" lighting. Just because you haven't encountered the need for it doesn't mean we haven't, I use my camera above those ISO's all the time even with f/1.4 lenses and at 1/60s, here's a few examples.IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nxrMdR IMG_8858.jpg
f/2, 1/60s ISO16,000
, on Flickr
f/2.8, 1/50s ISO25,600IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/f8hYy2 Independence Day 2013-24
, on Flickr
f/2, 1/60s ISO12,800IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ejXDd7 Pam, Silks-33
, on Flickr
None of these examples have much NR btw.
Better yet, go look at member NCHANT's starscapes and tell me how "horrible" high ISO shots are.
Next time you want to make elitist remarks please consider that not everyone's needs reflect your own and that you're not the end-all-be-all of photographers. There's a reason high ISO performance is so often discussed, it's needed
by lots of shooters.