6D & 5D3 Raw images @ 12,800

mgk2 wrote in post #16786089
I dunno about some of you guys, but how often do you shoot at ISO12800?

Even if you do, those will only ever gonna end up as snapshot or small print, does the lil difference in shadow which btw only visible when pixel peeping matters in reality?

Some people just love picking bones from an egg....

TeamSpeed for one shoots basketball games at high ISOs, 12,800 is regular, even 25,600. And he does that seriously, not for websized snapshots.

Am I correct TS?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16786283
I shoot at 12800 every single night at the NBA D League games. The images are clean enough to print as 20x30 posters.

Not fair, you posted before me

Wow, this thread is going quick overnight

I'm with David, I'm waiting for 5D4

gabebalazs wrote in post #16786299
Not fair, you posted before me

lol, just barely. Of course I shoot raw, and run my files through my actions, then resize up. We don't do too many 20x30s, mostly 13x19s, those are the right sizes for kids to walk up and have the players sign them.

mgk2 wrote in post #16786089
I dunno about some of you guys, but how often do you shoot at ISO12800?

Even if you do, those will only ever gonna end up as snapshot or small print, does the lil difference in shadow which btw only visible when pixel peeping matters in reality?

Some people just love picking bones from an egg....

And pulling shadows up 10 stops matters for more people?

I have plenty of shots at or above ISO12,800 and wouldn't hesitate to print any of them as a 20x30. For some people high ISO ability IS important, even if it isn't for you.

Here is a 5 min attempt to compare a jpeg produced from the DPReview RAW for the 5D3, with the 6D jpeg downloaded from the DPReview site (not the ACR jpeg).

On the top is the 5D3, per my action at 100% crop.

On the bottom is the 'stomping' 6D.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16786281
You are preaching to the converted I own a 6D...

When I said "little bit better", I purposefully avoided phrases like "stomps" or "the difference is staggering". I was simply covering my bases, which wise forum members should do if they want to avoid the avalanche of "polite" comments that usually follow

But regardless, when using the PRINT mode, and that's what everybody should use, especially when comparing a 36mp D800, I do believe that the 6D is ahead, it's clear, no doubt about it. But again, I wouldn't use "stomps" or "staggering" etc., but that's just me and how I phrase my posts here. But yes, the difference is certainly visible.

Yes, my diction in emphasizing the visual differences between the mentioned camera bodies, was a tad bold; and was heavily influenced by sierra Nevada pale ale. If I had posted my observations this morning, for the first time, I probably would have used, "profound" or "stunning difference" instead. Same meaning, just worded differently.

My point is still the same; when looking at the DR in the shadows, between these camera bodies, the 6D shines. The difference is not just at ISO 12,800, but still noticeable at 6400 as well as 3200.

The differences between these camera bodies is not as noticeable when shadows are either minimal or not present at all.

I notice the 5D3 is a tad sharper out of the box with a tad more color noise.

I do agree the 6D shines in the shadows and if you don't nail exposure good and have to increase in post the difference is there.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16786848
Here is a 5 min attempt to compare a jpeg produced from the DPReview RAW for the 5D3, with the 6D jpeg downloaded from the DPReview site (not the ACR jpeg).

On the top is the 5D3, per my action at 100% crop.

On the bottom is the 'stomping' 6D.

Hosted photo: posted by MakisM1 in
./showthread.php?p=167​86848&i=i204511124
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Admittedly, I allow a bit more noise than most on my 100% crop.

Which one would you prefer to have if it were your photo?

...and yes I can give the 6D the same treatment with very similar results, but I leave it as an excersise to the reader...

So you're sayin the 5D3 is superior regarding noise? Regarding high ISO handling?

MakisM1 wrote in post #16786848
Here is a 5 min attempt to compare a jpeg produced from the DPReview RAW for the 5D3, with the 6D jpeg downloaded from the DPReview site (not the ACR jpeg).

On the top is the 5D3, per my action at 100% crop.

On the bottom is the 'stomping' 6D.

Hosted photo: posted by MakisM1 in
./showthread.php?p=167​86848&i=i204511124
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Admittedly, I allow a bit more noise than most on my 100% crop.

Which one would you prefer to have if it were your photo?

...and yes I can give the 6D the same treatment with very similar results, but I leave it as an excersise to the reader...

Gerry, just like I explained it to Lukas in another thread, the camera that starts out with less noise will win even after processing both. Not that the difference in unprocessed RAW is huge between the two, but still, the end result will mirror the initial difference between the 2.

Both the 5DIII and the 6D use relatively heavy NR in their high ISO SOOC jpeg to achieve low noise. Consequently, some detail is lost in the process, that's true for both the 5DIII and the 6D.
But obviously most serious photographers shoot in RAW and process their files how they prefer tailoring them to their needs.

I mean, no offence, it's just I'm not sure if I understand the point of comparing your processed 5DIII RAW image to a SOOC 6D image. Smearing the detail in a high ISO jpeg is not a 6D specialty, all modern Canon camera's do it, from my 70D to your 5DIII. And I don't know what to do with asking me which one do I prefer. I mean one is a SOOC jpeg, the other is a processed RAW. If I saw two identically processed RAW files, one from the 6D and 1 from the 5DIII, then I would feel that there is a point to compare the two. It's just I'd never shoot jpeg at a serious photo shoot, so I don't know what to think of it when asked to compare it with a processed RAW.
I know, all this above sounds confusing

And you're right, I could do my own comparison by downloading the RAW files and processing them myself, maybe I'll do it tonight. I usually apply a different approach and use less sharpening and end up with less noise too, but we're all different, with different tastes.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16787599
...Not that the difference in unprocessed RAW is huge between the two, but still, the end result will mirror the initial difference between the 2.

Gabe, most of the people here are making all this pronouncements about 'so many f-stops better' based on SOOC jpeg comparisons.

I wanted to emphasize that the SOOC jpegs are not worth much if you are concerned in retaining detail.

Of course I have done my own NR tests using the RAWs straight out of DPReview.

Yes, the 6D has inherently slightly less noise. My point is that if retention of detail is your criterion, you discard the SOOC jpegs and work RAWs. The difference of the post processed RAWs is minute, because both start loosing detail at about the same level.

Unfortunately, the 70D is another story at 12800. There the difference in noise is obvious and it takes an extra step to bring it to the same level as the FFs. With a minor penalty in detail retention:

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …ison_zpsd12bf7f​e.jpg.html

MakisM1 wrote in post #16787644
Gabe, most of the people here are making all this pronouncements about 'so many f-stops better' based on SOOC jpeg comparisons.

I wanted to emphasize that the SOOC jpegs are not worth much if you are concerned in retaining detail.

Of course I have done my own NR tests using the RAWs straight out of DPReview.

Yes, the 6D has inherently slightly less noise. My point is that if retention of detail is your criterion, you discard the SOOC jpegs and work RAWs. The difference of the post processed RAWs is minute, because both start loosing detail at about the same level.

Unfortunately, the 70D is another story at 12800. There the difference in noise is obvious and it takes an extra step to bring it to the same level as the FFs. With a minor penalty in detail retention:

I agree with most of what you're saying.

However, I'm not sure if most people who use the 6D and/or 5DIII think about SOOC jpegs first when they talk about the noise difference between the 2. I think at this level (although merely buying gear does not make one a pro or expert), I'd expect that when people discuss noise levels, most of them mean noise in RAW and not SOOC jpegs.

Now, if it was a discussion between entry level Rebels (e.g. T3 vs T5, not even the "i" models) in another thread, perhaps SOOC jpeg noise levels would play a bigger role in the discussion about noise. (And I'm saying this with no offense to Rebel owners, I own and sometimes use 2 of them.)

gabebalazs wrote in post #16787727
I agree with most of what you're saying.

However, I'm not sure if most people who use the 6D and/or 5DIII think about SOOC jpegs first when they talk about the noise difference between the 2. I think at this level (although merely buying gear does not make one a pro or expert), I'd expect that when people discuss noise levels, most of them mean noise in RAW and not SOOC jpegs.

I disagree on this point. There is a lot of talk in these forums about the 'better IQ in high-ISO' regarding the 6D.

Anybody that has a fair ability for NR would know that there is a slight difference, not really worth considering as a criterion for differentiation.

I think the people that see the 'higher IQ' are merely looking at SOOC jpegs.

I think inadvertently you touched on this... People coming from a Rebel from the previous generation or a 60D and older, can look at a 6D jpeg SOOC at 6400 and will be absolutely floored at the IQ. (I was floored at the SOOC 6400 jpegs from the 60D coming from a P&S...).

UserM4 wrote in post #16785090
Everytime I have to reach down to the D-Pad or look at the screen to adjust FEC, I want to throw the thing off a cliff! I can't wait until the 5D4 comes out so that I can justify throwing the 6D off that cliff!

I have my "set" button programmed for FEC. Just push it and you can see where your settings are at through the viewfinder and adjust from there.

patrick023 wrote in post #16787940
I have my "set" button programmed for FEC. Just push it and you can see where your settings are at through the viewfinder and adjust from there.

My 6D is the same. It's tough though for my thumb to reach all the way down there with my eye to the viewfinder. I have to tilt my face away from the camera and stretch.

Joystick omg.... how long so I missed it.