Why is Canon losing at base ISO?

I'm curious about this. I like to shoot wildlife and landscapes in RAW. Obviously, low ISO simply gives better IQ. I have not been happy with the amount of noise in shadows at low ISO with Canon recently, and it seems this is sort of "blowing up".

This report by Fred Miranda with the 5D III versus the D800 is shocking:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html

I mean, this is not a small difference. The 5D III is simply getting blown out of the water.

Since the 7D, I've also noticed a sort of "waxy" look to the images, both on the 7D and 5D III. Has Canon really fallen this far behind?

I have to say, results like these makes one ponder their gear lineup.

It is al because of Sony's new Exmor sensors.

Like someone else said: Canon should do like Nikon and buy their sensors from Sony, at least until Canon finds a way to surpass them.

I have to say thats a very impressive sensor - were I not so heavily invested and also own the MP-E, to which I understand Nikon has no answer then I'd be thinking to moving over were I to get this league of camera.

its interesting...But....

I notice here that the iso from the D800 seems to be much brighter than the MkIII.

I would be really interested to see some full res samples of the same shot taken with the same Iso/aperture/shutter speed just to confirm that Nikon (or canon for that matter) are exposing the image close to the same, and to make sure there's not some highlight/shadow recovery going in in the background.

I suspect there is not , but I would still like to see if possible.

I completely agree. The push for ever higher ISO speeds should not be at the expense of the low speeds I certainly use all the time.

Traditionally Canon were slow at introducing new technology, instead they waited until research threw up something better. This used to mean that it was worth waiting for. Sadly they seem to have lost this thinking and want to chase Nikon, yapping at their heels almost and the product is suffering because of it.

Mind you, this Nikon/Canon competitiveness must be good for us in the long run.

Nikon is winning this round, only because of Sony's patented sensor technology. The exmor sensor is truly impressive, and I believe that it caught Canon completely off guard. At least it seems that way if you look at the huge gap in DR performance between the 5D3 and D800.

The real question is, How long will it take for Canon to trump the exmor sensors? One generation? Two generations?..

Am I the only one that doesn't really care about a 6" piece of tile in the shadow?

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #14324829
Am I the only one that doesn't really care about a 6" piece of tile in the shadow?

If you never shoot high contrast scenes, and if you don't care much about fine detail, your question is fully understandable.

For the rest of us, clean shadow recovery is priceless.

Ivann wrote in post #14324846
If you never shoot high contrast scenes, and if you don't care much about fine detail, your question is fully understandable.

For the rest of us, clean shadow recovery is priceless.

Come on, let's get real here.

Pulling up shadows from several stops underexposed image is a niche task. Shooting high ISO is not.

Having a higher dynamic range on low ISO is nice, but let's have things in perspective.

Ivann wrote in post #14324846
If you never shoot high contrast scenes, and if you don't care much about fine detail, your question is fully understandable.

For the rest of us, clean shadow recovery is priceless.

Funny, the fine details of my portraits are perfect. Same as the ones with the 5D2.

Maybe I'm just a noob, but I think if I'm worrying about the shadows I don't have my lighting/exposure correct.

I'm not trying to be an apologist, and would love to have as much detail (shadows included) as I can, but it seems a bit obscure.

I wonder if the Nikon boys and girls are over there complaining that "Why does Canon keep killing us in high ISO performance?" (Something I typically find more useful than a small square in an underexposed image)

Pekka wrote in post #14324870
Come on, let's get real here.

Pulling up shadows from several stops underexposed image is a niche task. Shooting high ISO is not.

Having a higher dynamic range on low ISO is nice, but let's have things in perspective.

For me the reality is in the price difference between these two cameras. I still think Nikon won that round for what is offered.

The nice thing is, you don't have to spend that much coin for either body to be able to not miss your exposure and have to have software bail you out...

Ricku wrote in post #14324792
Nikon is winning this round, only because of Sony's patented sensor technology.

You know, Nikon certainly seems to be winning this round... Let's see- a review- where it demonstrates that the Nikon has better "parts"( aka sensor), but if you read into the next page- the reviewer basically shelves the Nikon and uses the 5D Mark III for most of the trip. So, yes, I gotta agree- it seems like the Nikon was a top shelf camera- i.e. one that you leave on the shelf! Sorry, could not pass that one up.

What good is a tool if it does not get used Nope, never touched a D800- but from the reports of those that have- so far- opinions are similar- while it might be superior in one aspect- it's only one aspect! But you know, if you still think it's for you- go get one and be happy- up to the point where you might decide to shelve it yourself.

It's like a 10 pound sledge hammer.. Great for certain jobs.. So someone comes out with a 30 pound sledge hammer. Wow- that should make the job go faster! Oops- no one wants to carry around and use the 30 pound sledge hammer ? Who'd have thought that?

Maybe someday, I'll run into a D800- and I'll check it out then.. Till then...

Let's put a question a different way. If the 5D3 had the Exmor sensor vs the Nikon offerings, which would get the most market share? Canon has a great thing going regarding ergonomics, menu design, feature set, etc. and it is their sensor that is the only thing that hasn't really kept up the pace. I have stated this before that with all the head to head comparisons I have made, there really isn't any large improvement in sensor IQ over the past 2-3 generations when looking at raw, maybe 2 stops if that. If folks think there is a bigger improvement than that, it is really all software driven. Just my opinion, though, based on 40D, 50D, 7D, 1D3, 5D2, and 1D4 testing....

Pekka wrote in post #14324870
Come on, let's get real here.

Pulling up shadows from several stops underexposed image is a niche task. Shooting high ISO is not.

Having a higher dynamic range on low ISO is nice, but let's have things in perspective.

For my usage, that's high ISO shooting which is a niche. I really like long exposures, night or day with ND filter; what I need is a solid tripod, and ISO 100 optimal performances. 5D2's high iso performances is more than enough for me (6400 Iso usable). I don't really need 36 Megapixels, high definition video, incredible frame rate or a competition autofocus, just high image quality for still pictures. And an extended dynamic range is clearly a plus. So I hope Canon will treat that in the next DSLR generations. Sony has the technology, Fuji seems too. We can be optimistic...

Titi