5DIII - Performance at ISO3200 in very low light

Much lower than that and good luck freezing dancers in mid air without a whole lot more noise.

I was also under exposing a bit on purpose. That pic had it's brightness raised by .67 in DPP.

I posted this over in the 5d3 pictures thread and then saw this one....I went to my daughters graduation. It was in a church with some ok lighting. I tried using the 580II flash I have( like it less than my 430II) and had to get the ISO up to 2500 to get shutter speed needed with aperture around 4... Should I just forego a flash in a scenario I was in and go with higher iso? I swear s e of my test shots were cleaner looking in camera without the flash.

5d3 with 70-200 2.8 is II with 580 EXII 45 degree with reflector. I am seeing all these straight of camera shots with this thing at higher isos and I want to know if this is what I should expect from this

The full size pic is on my flickr with a click….like I said, straight out of camera, converted DNG in LR4, exported with standard screen sharpening to JPEG, uploaded to Flickr.

Lowdown is
Exposure 0.006 sec (1/180)
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 2500
Exposure Bias -1/2 EV
Flash On, Fired

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lawdog2k/730554​3670/

arentol wrote in post #14490344
It's because Chroma Noise is only one part of the picture when it comes to sensor performance at high ISOs. Color accuracy and depth, dynamic range, tonal range, etc. are just as important as noise handling itself. The 5d3 is better at high ISO's in every possible way, and in total it makes considerably more than a 1/2 stop difference in the final images.

this is very true...i find myself making a lot less white balance (or even none!) adjustments w/ the 5D3.

Great shots lawdog2 and kechar.

I will be trying out the 5DIII Sunday and next week. Will report back here re the very low light venue I will be shooting in next week.

Thank you, sir.

lawdog2k wrote in post #14509599
I posted this over in the 5d3 pictures thread and then saw this one....I went to my daughters graduation. It was in a church with some ok lighting. I tried using the 580II flash I have( like it less than my 430II) and had to get the ISO up to 2500 to get shutter speed needed with aperture around 4... Should I just forego a flash in a scenario I was in and go with higher iso? I swear s e of my test shots were cleaner looking in camera without the flash.

5d3 with 70-200 2.8 is II with 580 EXII 45 degree with reflector. I am seeing all these straight of camera shots with this thing at higher isos and I want to know if this is what I should expect from this

The full size pic is on my flickr with a click….like I said, straight out of camera, converted DNG in LR4, exported with standard screen sharpening to JPEG, uploaded to Flickr.

Lowdown is
Exposure 0.006 sec (1/180)
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 2500
Exposure Bias -1/2 EV
Flash On, Fired

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lawdog2k/730554​3670/
ISO Test by ronnieyeates2, on Flickr

the reason why the image looks dull is because the light is powered mostly by your flash. With such a fast shutter speed of 1/180, ambient light was being supplied via the iso sensitivity boost. If you were using the 70-200 is, you would have been able to shoot at 1/80 since graduation shots are not as fast paced as dancing shots.

Thanks, C. I have not done any adjustment to this image. It is a straight RAW to JPEG. I was zoomed to 200, so I sped up the shudder to keep hand shake down.

I will be the first to say i need flash technique work.

What I was wondering was is the iso noise normal for these settings for this shot. A full size image is available for real study by clicking on the original pic posted.

Since editing is ok, I took the liberty to crank up saturation, tint, contrast and Gamma by small amounts.

What do you think?

Dull?

^^

Gerry nice job!

Ive read through this entire thread and it's funny that most people who critize or downplay the 5D III, don't actually own it. (and some who don't even own the 5D II)

Then when actual owners chime in and give it high praise, we get responses like "we are trying to justify our purchase". That cracks me up every-time.

I didn't come from a 5D II so I would never even try to make comparisons. It would be foolish of me. And for all the Internet sites/opinions, that say 1/2 stop better, I've seen just as many say it's more than that.

I don't think there is an issue with high ISO performance of 5dmk3. It is when folks say ISO3200 is junk on 5dmk2.

Nice edit, Gerry.

Bobby, I know there is not an issue with the mkIII or with the mkII. Both are fantastic cameras in their own right. I am just curious if the image I posted is what I should expect from it at the ISO it was shot. I never really mess that much with ISO, because I shoot static objects and when it get a little darker, I just use longer exposures....I shoot vehicles primarily, so I dont usually use flashes indoor for that. I may bump up if using a CPL to get my aperture where I want with the shutter m shooting.

It is nice to have a camera where I may not have to use the flash as a crutch to get the shot on something Im not to familiar with. I just shot my nieces graduation form high school and I was a bit away with the 5dIII and the 70-200 on a 1.4 teleconvertor. Still had to do some decent cropping to get a right sized image. They clean up fairly nice, but combining the maxed out zoom on a TC, with 4.0 or higher with bumped ISO, not the best....but theyre usable.

Told the mrs., may be getting 100-400 for my birthday....

Buylongterm wrote in post #14521956
I didn't come from a 5D II so I would never even try to make comparisons. It would be foolish of me. And for all the Internet sites/opinions, that say 1/2 stop better, I've seen just as many say it's more than that.

Depends on what the people are comparing. Even Westfall was dodgy in his replies about how much better the 5D3 was over the 5D2, and with good reason. Canon improved their software, so that JPG output is 1-2 stops better than the 5D2 output, but the raw improvement is not even remotely that much better. Any raw to raw comparison I have seen using these 2 side by side at the same settings on the same material shows under 1 stop improvement.

I don't trust any other comparison except when the two are compared side by side, like what DPReview does, and others here on the boards. Gut feel of how much better the 5D3 is from an owner from a prior 5D2 is just that, a subjective feeling.

Buylongterm wrote in post #14521956
^^

Gerry nice job!

Ive read through this entire thread and it's funny that most people who critize or downplay the 5D III, don't actually own it. (and some who don't even own the 5D II)

Then when actual owners chime in and give it high praise, we get responses like "we are trying to justify our purchase". That cracks me up every-time.

I didn't come from a 5D II so I would never even try to make comparisons. It would be foolish of me. And for all the Internet sites/opinions, that say 1/2 stop better, I've seen just as many say it's more than that.

Reminds me of my attitude towards some films/movies - 'it was crap and I'm glad I never saw it'.

As promised, I am back with my report on using the 5D III in low light at high ISOs.

I shot the low light dance rehearsals and recitals with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, the 135 f/2 and the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

I was using my 5d2 and 5Dc as well.

As I was advised above, the 5D3 really did work well in higher ISOs. I was using mostly 6400, occasionally down to 5000 and here and there all the way up to 25600 when nothing else would get the shot (near darkness). I was very impressed.

The shots I got tho' (and this really has nothing to do with the camera) were much less elegant than I previously got with the 5D2 and 5dc in prior years at this same event. The reason? Because I could shoot at higher shutter speeds and narrower apertures, the bokeh result (no surprise of course) was non-existent. And, while it was my point (I wanted to get more dancers in focus in more shots), I should have used 2.8 here and there.

I found the menu choices way too numerous and complicated for a rental. I would have needed a week beforehand to get familiar with all the possibilities and I failed to read the manual online before renting this camera. Word to the wise. The 5D3 is much much more complicated than the 5D2 - a huge difference over the transition from the 5Dc to the 5D2.

The focus system was actually much more difficult for me to adapt to. Obviously it's hugely better. But takes some getting used to. Instead of seeing one red dot in the viewfinder which is easy to spot and place on the subject's eyes - the much larger and more complicated system on the 5D3 (and the 7D, yes I know) is just very different.

BTW, I did take alot of shots with the 5D2 at 3200. And yes they were fine. Not any higher tho.

I may post a separate item re the Tamron lens but it was a disappointment for sure. And my use of it was probably quite different than what others may choose so maybe my comments will be not very significant. But, the direction the zoom turns is not workable for me. As I was constantly switching cameras that had nothing but Canon lenses on them, this was a real pain in the neck. Two, the AF/MF button is a complete joke. The lens should come with an anvil and a hammer. I was switching back and forth from using it as a video lens (for which the focus was, well, quite a bit more challenging than my 24-105) and using it for still shots. So, i was often switching to MF. Yikes, forget about it. Third, there will be no lens creep with this lens - regardless of whether you put the lens lock on (also requiring hammer and anvil). Way, way too stiff. And that combined with the annoying reverse direction, again forget about it. I used it mostly for very wide shots - around 24-40. Very poor results. Happier with my 24-105. And, as stated above, turns out I hardly opened up to f/2.8 so it was a bad choice to begin with. Also, this lens is a monster. I mean heavy and huge. And I'm used to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and I have used the heavier Canon 24-70 in the past. But, something about this beast that just seemed bigger, bulkier and heavier than the Canon 24-70. Glad I did not buy it. But, my uses were probably different than most. It's probably a great lens for indoor, low light closeups. Just not for me.