5DIII - Performance at ISO3200 in very low light

Greenjacket6202 wrote in post #14486983
Thanks Scott.

That`s a big help to me. I have my daughter`s graduation ceremony in the near future and I was going to post the question here.

I have the 5D 3 and a 70-200 f4 is , along with a 24-105.

Do you feel flash is a option? or just go for the higher iso?

Terry.

I highly recommend avoiding flash. If you're going to be seated, the flash will be on camera and will make everything look flat and cast ugly shadows, probably red eye, too.

Crank up the ISO on the 5D3 and shoot away.

John E wrote in post #14486989
Exactly. Too many of us, myself included, are guilty of judging the quality of photos at 1:1 (100%) on Lightroom or Photoshop when in reality you will never see them that size in print or on screen.

agreed!

scobols wrote in post #14487001
I highly recommend avoiding flash. If you're going to be seated, the flash will be on camera and will make everything look flat and cast ugly shadows, probably red eye, too.

Crank up the ISO on the 5D3 and shoot away.

Much appreciated Scott!

That`s put my mind at rest!

Terry.

Eastport wrote in post #14485113
OK. I guess I will keep the rental plan for the 5DIII in place. Since everyone else is confident at 6400 and even higher I guess I'll get by with 3200 which will be great!

Thanks for all the advice. And the photos you all have supplied look like mine at 1600 on the 5D2 - so that's great.

Where do you find the 5D2 deficient at ISO 3200? Most likely if you find 3200 too noisy on the 5D2, I would have to make the assumption that the shots are underexposed and then pushed up during post. If that is the case, the 5D3 won't fare too much better doing the same activity.

Let me put some pictures to the question. Here is a VERY low light shot with the 5D classic at ISO 3200. Even in one shot with expansion, the 5D had a difficult time locking on. Here is what the scene looks like, however if I were to shoot at that exposure and bring up the picture, it would look very ugly.

Now here is where I expose properly, the shutter speed is so slow I cannot keep it steady even with IS turned on while hand holding braced on the stairs. First the image, and then 100% crop. Alot of people want to believe that the 5D3 just does 1-2 stops better than the 5D2, and after many high ISO comparisons over the years, I personally believe there isn't that much different at the raw level from one body to another when shot identically.

If you cannot get the 5D2 to do as good or better than this sample, I would love to see some examples so we can see if you just need to change settings, post processing etc.

BTW, there is no post processing on this 100% crop, it is a direct crop from the JPG that results from the raw out of DPP. Sure there is noise, but it is ISO 3200 (1600 pushed in camera) from the 5D classic.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14488457
Now here is where I expose properly, the shutter speed is so slow I cannot keep it steady even with IS turned on while hand holding braced on the stairs. First the image, and then 100% crop. Alot of people want to believe that the 5D3 just does 1-2 stops better than the 5D2, and after many high ISO comparisons over the years, I personally believe there isn't that much different at the raw level from one body to another when shot identically.

If you cannot get the 5D2 to do as good or better than this sample, I would love to see some examples so we can see if you just need to change settings, post processing etc.

BTW, there is no post processing on this 100% crop, it is a direct crop from the JPG that results from the raw out of DPP. Sure there is noise, but it is ISO 3200 (1600 pushed in camera) from the 5D classic.

This is a little misleading though. You said it yourself; the shutter speed was slow, etc., so the 5D3 does allow you to get these shots without having to resort to such things is the point people might be trying to make.

Agree with teamspeed. Did some quick shots with my 5dmk2 (ISO6400, 1/30sec, f2.0) and I was amazed at 100% crops. Maybe not as good as 5dmk3 but folks saying ISO3200 on 5dmk2 no good probably don't know how to use their camera. Wish they would post some shots before saying ISO3200 is no good and then show how good their ISO3200 is with their 5dmk3.

Now I am not saying 5dmk3 is not good, I am going to get one soon but for AF.

bobbyz wrote in post #14488479
Agree with teamspeed. Did some quick shots with my 5dmk2 (ISO6400, 1/30sec, f2.0) and I was amazed at 100% crops. Maybe not as good as 5dmk3 but folks saying ISO3200 on 5dmk2 no good probably don't know how to use their camera. Wish they would post some shots before saying ISO3200 is no good and then show how good their ISO3200 is with their 5dmk3.

Now I am not saying 5dmk3 is not good, I am going to get one soon but for AF.

There's one variable you've left out and it's totally subjective; what is acceptable to one person noise-wise or quality-wise, isn't necessarily acceptable to the next person. You don't have to immediately jump to saying that people don't know how to use their camera.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14488477
This is a little misleading though. You said it yourself; the shutter speed was slow, etc., so the 5D3 does allow you to get these shots without having to resort to such things is the point people might be trying to make.

The OP stated that ISO values > 1600 were not acceptable with the 5D and 5D2, and was asking about low light. My example shows a very low light situation, and what you can get if you expose properly. There is nothing misleading there.

I asked if we could see examples where 3200 were not acceptable on the 5D2. Were the shots on the 5D2 at ISO 3200 not acceptable due to motion blur in not getting the shutter speed needed, or was the shot simply "too noisy" to be acceptable? If the shot was noisy, perhaps it was due to underexposure where the shot was brought back up in post? Tough to say without examples. If the answer is yes, then the OP should really consider shooting the 5D2 at higher ISOs to get the needed shutter speed while not underexposing.

Below

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14488578
The OP stated that ISO values > 1600 were not acceptable with the 5D and 5D2, and was asking about low light. My example shows a very low light situation, and what you can get if you expose properly. There is nothing misleading there.

I asked if we could see examples where 3200 were not acceptable on the 5D2. Were the shots on the 5D2 at ISO 3200 not acceptable due to motion blur in not getting the shutter speed needed, or was the shot simply "too noisy" to be acceptable? If the shot was noisy, perhaps it was due to underexposure where the shot was brought back up in post? Tough to say without examples. If the answer is yes, then the OP should really consider shooting the 5D2 at higher ISOs to get the needed shutter speed while not underexposing.

If someone says that they find something personally unacceptable, who are you or anyone else to question what they find unacceptable? We've had this discussion over the 7D as well. What is acceptable is subjective. I find it interesting that your bottom line is to resort to telling people they don't know what they're doing. Not every situation is controlled, nor do you always have the time to sit around and hem an haw over the exact correct settings. I also don't really see the point of 100% crops, when are you ever going to look at a photo like that?

elrey2375 wrote in post #14488617
If someone says that they find something personally unacceptable, who are you or anyone else to question what they find unacceptable? We've had this discussion over the 7D as well. What is acceptable is subjective.

When somebody opens up for public debate on whether other bodies are better because they don't like those ISO values on other bodies, that opens up the questions of what they don't like about the ISO performance. No doubt what is acceptable is subjective, that is pretty darn obvious now isn't it? Why not give the OP the opportunity to answer without getting your own nose bent out of shape over the question?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14488637
When somebody opens up for public debate on whether other bodies are better because they don't like those ISO values on other bodies, that opens up the questions of what they don't like about the ISO performance. No doubt what is acceptable is subjective, that is pretty darn obvious now isn't it? Why not give the OP the opportunity to answer without getting your own nose bent out of shape over the question?

I'm not bent out of shape about anything. You get to give your opinion, I gave you mine, that's all.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14488514
There's one variable you've left out and it's totally subjective; what is acceptable to one person noise-wise or quality-wise, isn't necessarily acceptable to the next person. You don't have to immediately jump to saying that people don't know how to use their camera.

fair point but would be nice if these folks posted side by side examples showing the improvement they getting with their new camera. If someone else does for them then they say "noise is all personal thing". To me it is easily measureable thing and quite fixed from one camera model to the other. To me AF is more subjective thing and harder to measure.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14488665
I'm not bent out of shape about anything. You get to give your opinion, I gave you mine, that's all.

You gave no opinions, but instead jabbed at those asking more questions to the original poster to try to help him/her out with the issue at hand. In any case, great, you have had your say, now I turn back to the OP to await their reply.