Best low ISO Canon DSLR?

Hey guys,

Just wanted to get more informed on other Canon DSLR options available out there. I currently shoot with a 5D2 and my main focus is automotive works. I am very demanding on my raw files and like to pull out as much detail as I can, rather it be sharpness, shadow details, colors etc.

Im not 100% with the 5D2s low ISO, as even when I shoot down low, there is still a lot of grain and noise (a little). Maybe I am asking too much, but I was wondering what Canon DSLR does the best in low ISO? I was looking at the 1Ds Mark III.

Any insights?

Based on what I've seen...

1Dx > 6D > 5D3 > 5D2

Seriously switch to Nikon.

The difference in DR and shadow noise at low ISO are worthy enough to ditch Canon imo.

From your signature you don't have that many lenses, the transition should be very easy and smooth.

mclaren777 wrote in post #15876851
Based on what I've seen...

1Dx > 6D > 5D3 > 5D2

Difference between all of them are hardly noticeable.

Nikon D600 owns 1DX in terms of shadow recovery and DR @ base ISO for a quarter of the price.

kin2son wrote in post #15876890
Seriously switch to Nikon.

The difference in DR and shadow noise at low ISO are worthy enough to ditch Canon imo.

From your signature you don't have that many lenses, the transition should be very easy and smooth.

kin2son wrote in post #15876902
Difference between all of them are hardly noticeable.

Nikon D600 owns 1DX in terms of shadow recovery and DR @ base ISO for a quarter of the price.

Man, I have always had an eye on the Nikon system, I hate the way it feels in the hands and the buttons, but the pure IQ makes it really hard to not think about. I have always wanted a D800E...

kin2son wrote in post #15876902
Difference between all of them are hardly noticeable.

Nikon D600 owns 1DX in terms of shadow recovery and DR @ base ISO for a quarter of the price.

I agree, but I wasn't sure if Tony_Stark was willing to make the switch.

Yes, Nikon D800 does better with dynamic range at 50 to 800 ISO (Around 2 stops, and less, the higher you go), but after 800 ISO, the 1dx kicks Nikons butt all the way to the end.

So, if you're someone shooting higher ISO's, Canon's the way to go. Even the 5d3 performs better than the D800 at higher ISO's.

davidc502 wrote in post #15876929
Yes, Nikon D800 does better with dynamic range at 50 to 800 ISO (Around 2 stops, and less, the higher you go), but after 800 ISO, the 1dx kicks Nikons butt all the way to the end.

So, if you're someone shooting higher ISO's, Canon's the way to go. Even the 5d3 performs better than the D800 at higher ISO's.

But, given that the OP asked about low iso noise, none of that matters.

I used to shoot at crazy high ISOs all the time, but seeing as now my camera comes out only when I have to do a shoot, and then Im using my tripod, so I find I never go over ISO 800, but Im not 100% satisfied with the files coming out of my 5D2 in the low ISO range.

Im been doing a little research, and the D600 is certainly looking much better than the D800 in the low ISOs. Cleaner files, and more crisp sharpness also.

Jump ship Tony

DR is amazing on the D600, and you can pull shadow easily without any ugly noise like any Canon DSLR.

This is from a -5 image of an HDR set with a D800, pushed 5 stops it looks kinda like an iso 1600 file from a 5D2:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

One other thought, if you're shooting off of a tripod and not using lights, have you considered doing HDR? The ability to work with 32bit tiff files in Lr changes the HDR game completely.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15877036
One other thought, if you're shooting off of a tripod and not using lights, have you considered doing HDR? The ability to work with 32bit tiff files in Lr changes the HDR game completely.

I do shoot with off camera speedlights when I need to. My main problem is I find my files more grainy than I would like, even for ISO 100. I just want cleaner files to begin with that wont degrade when I push them. The 5D2 is fine for the most part, but I want to know what other options I have out there that are even better in the low ISO department. One of the biggest weak points in the 5D2 for me is the crazy shadow noise/patterns.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15877059
One of the biggest weak points in the 5D2 for me is the crazy shadow noise/patterns.

All Canon DSLR (1DX included) has crazy shadow noise. Nikon is the only way to go to see significant improvement.

Seriously even a $600 NEX 6 owns the 1DX in terms of DR @ low ISO...it's not funny how big the gap is between Sony vs Canon sensor atm.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15877016
This is from a -5 image of an HDR set with a D800, pushed 5 stops it looks kinda like an iso 1600 file from a 5D2:

All I can say is; after playing with a few sets of raw files from the D800 I've put all my Canon gear purchases on hold. If Canon can't come out with something soon I think I'm gonna be liquidating a lot of gear.

Playing with D800 files is nothing short of depressing if you're someone who consistently shoots scenes with challenging dynamic range. At low ISO, the files are simply as pliable in ACR as you want them to be. Push the exposure, fill light, both... it's challenging to find anything that brings out significant noise in the shadows.

I just upgraded from crop to a 6D, and I'm still a bit uneasy about my decision. The D600 is much better suited to my needs (landscapes, frequently using a tripod, usually low ISO) on paper. The problem for enthusiasts who aren't loaded is the Nikkor lens lineup. There's simply no affordable f/4 equivalent to the 17-40L, 70-200 f/4L, etc. If you shoot landscapes and other challenging scenes a lot and you're willing to invest $1500+ in each lens (e.g., the 14-24 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, etc.), then the D600/D800 is a no-brainer right now.