5D mkii vs. mkiii - High ISO Performance

Do we have enough reliable samples and information to draw any conclusions on this yet? Sorry for another thread, I just can't pour through hundreds of pages for this information. ISO performance would be my main reason for any potential upgrade, since I do most of my shooting of bands in dark bars.

I wasn't blown away from my upgrade from 5Dc to mk ii - I'm generally more comfortable shooting at 3200, but if i could jump from 3200 to 12800, that would be huge.

Thanks for any info!

Get a nikon D4. It's the best answer.

For myself, no - not enough samples/info out there to draw any conclusions.

form wrote in post #14014078
Get a nikon D4. It's the best answer.

$6000 USD?! this wasn't the sort of answer i was looking for.

Not enough samples yet for a conclusive comparison or answer. There are a few mediocrely-shot jpegs floating around, and a couple of videos that kind of show the mark III's ISO performance to be decently improved, but I'd wait.

In any case, it's not like your current gear is **** or anything. Just wait it out, and in the meanwhile keep shooting

Moooney wrote in post #14014182
$6000 USD?! this wasn't the sort of answer i was looking for.

Alright a 1DX

Moooney wrote in post #14014061
Do we have enough reliable samples and information to draw any conclusions on this yet? Sorry for another thread, I just can't pour through hundreds of pages for this information. ISO performance would be my main reason for any potential upgrade, since I do most of my shooting of bands in dark bars.

I wasn't blown away from my upgrade from 5Dc to mk ii - I'm generally more comfortable shooting at 3200, but if i could jump from 3200 to 12800, that would be huge.

Thanks for any info!

At this time there are no independent reviews working with the RAW files. All we have are the usual awful Canon sample images which are useless.

dpreview.com does have D4 RAW files available to compare with other cameras in their archive (D3s, 5D2, 1D4). But we'll have to wait probably another month or so (assuming 5D3 does make it on the shelves by the end of the month) before there will be production images.

The only comparison I have heard thus far is from Kai who had side by side images to compare from the Canon event, which he claimed that ISO 12,800 on the 5D3 looked like 6400 or even 3200 from the 5D2. So I would hope to expect a 1.5-2 stop improvement. Generally, I feel RAW headroom is even better then JPEG (my RAW's ALWAYS look better then my JPEGs at high ISO), so I believe it will be that even with RAW files.

darosk wrote in post #14014218
Not enough samples yet for a conclusive comparison or answer. There are a few mediocrely-shot jpegs floating around, and a couple of videos that kind of show the mark III's ISO performance to be decently improved, but I'd wait.

No kidding. Those NR abused jpegs almost made me jump ship to Nikon.

But now I've decided to wait for real reviews with raw files.

Kai (Digital Rev) posted some samples. Nothing groundbreaking and its such a small sample but so far 5DMIII's ISO looks really promising at 25,600.

You have 3 expensive peices of equipment.

Has it occurred to you to use a flash gun?

Most bars allow them if you are photographing FOR the band.

IE you know, are dating someone in, or are IN the band.


I know because I'm the one playing in those dark bars...

There's very little info yet, other than the specifications that let us know that the 5D Mark III can be set as high as ISO 102400 (up from 25600 on the Mark II, whether you think it's usable or not).

There are some high ISO samples on dpreview.com's hands-on preview of the Mark III... but only a few and not large enough to really give much comparison.

Canon doesn't claim high ISO improvements with RAW files, but does feel that Mark III JPEGs with in-camera processing are good for about 2 stops higher than the Mark II's JPEGs.

I've used 5DII as high as 6400 from time to time, shooting RAW and post-processing through LR3 and PSCS5. (It will probably be a while until Adobe has ACR updated to accomodate the Mark III.) I've used higher ISO with Mark II, but generally just for Internet resolution files with extra post-processing work... or for B&W conversions.

amfoto1 wrote in post #14014507
Canon doesn't claim high ISO improvements with RAW files, but does feel that Mark III JPEGs with in-camera processing are good for about 2 stops higher than the Mark II's JPEGs.

In other words: completely useless ISO improvements for professional photographers, since we always tend to shoot raw anyway.

Tonyz wrote in post #14014547
In other words: completely useless ISO improvements for professional photographers, since we always tend to shoot raw anyway.

Canon didn't claim a RAW improvement from the 1D Mark III to the 1D Mark IV either, but there definitely is one. I've used both cameras quite a bit in difficult low light and the 1D4 makes better prints with the same processing.

So while Canon does usually mean in-camera jpeg when they give their (typically very agressive) comments like "Two stop improvement in noise" this does not mean the RAW output will be the same.

I looked at the dpreview RAW samples, but I need direct comparisons to say for sure.

If the 5D3 RAW is even on par with the 1D4 coupled with the other fixed features of this camera, it will be a real winner.