6D high ISO performance in mRaw format compared to 5D, how much better is it?

I've been using 5D (the original 5D) for a few years and will upgrade to 6D soon.

6D mRaw 11mp, 5D raw 12mp, roughly the same number of pixels for me.

From my experience if the 5D pic exposure is sufficient , at ISO 1000 ~ 1250 it retains good detail and not much noise at pixel level. That's the maximum ISO limit for me personally. How much better or how many stops is 6D high ISO performance compared to 5D?

Thanks a lot!

I've only had my 6d a few days but I took some comparison shots in an office at work at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 and they are all very usable. Here's one shot at ISO 6400. File was shot in 20mp Raw mode and has had noise reduction added in Lightroom:

Thanks a lot! Can't wait to see the comparison shots.

Cheers!

Recently, I took an SD card to BestBuy and shot some high-ISO stuff with a 6D. I found the SOOC jpgs at 12,800 to be quite useful. At 25,600 I would shoot raw and process them. That really blows away my 60D. On that body I start shooting raw + processing at 3200. Same with the 5D, but it only goes to 3200.

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16165927
Recently, I took an SD card to BestBuy and shot some high-ISO stuff with a 6D. I found the SOOC jpgs at 12,800 to be quite useful. At 25,600 I would shoot raw and process them. That really blows away my 60D. On that body I start shooting raw + processing at 3200. Same with the 5D, but it only goes to 3200.

Come on, with all your testing and our discussions, we know the 6D is not 3 stops better than the 60D. And your 60D at ISO 3200 is already ahead of the 5Dc.

Now the 6D is probably quite close to being 3 stops better than the 5Dc at ISO 6400 and higher, and shooting at medium raw (effectively just resizing the images down to a smaller size) is really going to lock in a 3 stop difference I would think.

Going from a $500 5Dc to a $1600 6D is a huge improvement across the board, and well worth the $1100 difference, IMO. Menus, features, function and performance all will be better.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16166064
Come on, with all your testing and our discussions, we know the 6D is not 3 stops better than the 60D. And your 60D at ISO 3200 is already ahead of the 5Dc.

Now the 6D is probably quite close to being 3 stops better than the 5Dc at ISO 6400 and higher, and shooting at medium raw (effectively just resizing the images down to a smaller size) is really going to lock in a 3 stop difference I would think.

Going from a $500 5Dc to a $1600 6D is a huge improvement across the board, and well worth the $1100 difference, IMO. Menus, features, function and performance all will be better.

Yes. You are absolutely correct. Had I phrased it like you did I would have disagreed with myself. I did not go back to check the previous thread. Perhaps I am too-fondly remembering the 6D that I decided I could not afford.

Give it time, the 6D will eventually be very affordable from the CLP program, the price has to drop a bit, but I have a couple of SD100s that I have sitting around ready to be offloaded to CLP.

I have an A1100IS (a pink one) that doesn't focus anymore. CLP is the only reason I keep it.

Sorry I didn't get a chance to take any photos last night. I've got my 6d on me today so I've taken a few more. These look pretty noisy because I didn't shoot to the right, I just let the camera's evaluative meter decide the correct exposure. Pretty sure if I'd have changed the exposure by a stop then a lot of the noise would have gone. In my limited use of the camera I've found it tends to underexpose slightly at times.

The only thing I've done is added some noise reduction in Lightroom 4.4 to the photos (the luminance slider is set to 40 in each case).

The first is from sRaw mode:

Thanks a lot to Jo and everyone else for the test and information.

I also found this on a different forum
"If you use sRaw, you will have (almost) the same dynamic range control and WB control. You will lose debeyer control, the spatial decode of your image. Meaning, it will make noise reduction and sharpening work far more challenging. In particular, the debeyer step will be baked in the way that the camera was programmed to do it at the time of its manufacture. This means that that step (arguably the most important step of image decode) is stuck in time. If you take the same image and decode it using a state-of-the-art decoder in 2020, it will not bring you any benefit. In contrast, with "proper" raw, you would reap the benefits of advanced technology.

For wedding work you may not care. Personally, my 1DS (mk1) travel images from 2003 get a breath of new life every time a new decoder comes out.

Also note that if you get a 10MP file instead of 20, you won't save 50% of space. A true raw file has one channel per pixel; an sRaw file has all three channels per pixel. So you get about 3/4 the file size (a bit more compact due to the way the compressor works). The main speed benefit of sRaw is (1) the debeyer step is skipped since it's already baked in (and that happens to be the slowest part of the process), and (2) the image has a smaller memory footprint in your image processing app of choice. It has little to do with I/O, it has to do with the debeyer and then with CPU cache misses which is what is a good part of what's killing today's raw decoders.
"

It seems to me that the best way is to shoot standard RAW and in postprocessing I can always choose the output size.

Cheers!

genjurok wrote in post #16163121
I've been using 5D (the original 5D) for a few years and will upgrade to 6D soon.

6D mRaw 11mp, 5D raw 12mp, roughly the same number of pixels for me.

From my experience if the 5D pic exposure is sufficient , at ISO 1000 ~ 1250 it retains good detail and not much noise at pixel level. That's the maximum ISO limit for me personally. How much better or how many stops is 6D high ISO performance compared to 5D?

Thanks a lot!

Have both 5dc and 6d. 6d looks pretty good at ISO6400.