1D Mark III - ISO 6400 are you #%*@ing me?

ID Mark III shot with the 70-300 DO stealth telezoom bomber @ ISO 6400 in a rather dark church this morning ---- man this camera really sucks!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'm confused...

Who knows...but with my 200L, I would have been on ISO800.

nicksan wrote in post #7850260
Who knows...but with my 200L, I would have been on ISO800.

Too big to conspicuous. Had to nestle into the corner with the 70-300 DO. Now I guess I could have used my 200 mm f/1.8, now that would have been subtle.

BTW my are you kidding me comments in the OP were tongue in cheek. The camera is outstanding at ISO 6400, can't wait to try it out with a really good lens, or a really really really fast one, like my 50 f/1.0, now that will be really fun, available darkness, imagine the possibilities.

Yes, it can be a wee bit disappointing, not sure what it is, I suspect it's the WB setting, for some reason I see huge differences when using the ISO H extension.

Sometimes it's pretty good and other times it's like what you've posted, a tighter zoom or moving closer should improve things, but I'd still not call what you've got bad.

I also couldn't tell if you were serious or not. For a full resolution shot, resized for web viewing I would have expected better. Noise should be nearly gone when resized that small. This shot doesn't have too much noticeable noise, but also doesn't look all that sharp (for a web sized image). Without a 100% crop it's hard to tell anything.

dfindr wrote in post #7850284
Too big to conspicuous. Had to nestle into the corner with the 70-300 DO. Now I guess I could have used my 200 mm f/1.8, now that would have been subtle.

BTW my are you kidding me comments in the OP were tongue in cheek. The camera is outstanding at ISO 6400, can't wait to try it out with a really good lens, or a really really really fast one, like my 50 f/1.0, now that will be really fun, available darkness, imagine the possibilities.

You know you could just talk to the staff beforehand and then you could probably get away with a 400f2.8 (or if you want monstrous, 150 f.75 or 200-500 f2.8).

Me thinks its the 70-300 DO lens. Not the sharpest tool in the shed at 300 mm.

BenJohnson wrote in post #7850657
I also couldn't tell if you were serious or not. For a full resolution shot, resized for web viewing I would have expected better. Noise should be nearly gone when resized that small. This shot doesn't have too much noticeable noise, but also doesn't look all that sharp (for a web sized image). Without a 100% crop it's hard to tell anything.

BenJohnson wrote in post #7850657
I also couldn't tell if you were serious or not. For a full resolution shot, resized for web viewing I would have expected better. Noise should be nearly gone when resized that small. This shot doesn't have too much noticeable noise, but also doesn't look all that sharp (for a web sized image). Without a 100% crop it's hard to tell anything.

It's been compressed to 80kb, that's why. A 1024px image will always look like ass when it's compressed that much. Artifacts & such.

Has this shot had any kind of post-processing noise reduction? It would be nice to see the full sized version too (or least larger).

You're shooting at f/5.6 in a dark location at 300mm and the camera sucks?

Granted, I've never shot at ISO 6400, so maybe the shutter speed is fast enough. And I'm assuming that IS was turned on.

Foul language in the title and you post a picture from church.

Ok Ok the camera doesn't suck. I was being very sarcastic. The camera is outstanding.

hbdragon88 wrote in post #7850914
You're shooting at f/5.6 in a dark location at 300mm and the camera sucks?

Granted, I've never shot at ISO 6400, so maybe the shutter speed is fast enough. And I'm assuming that IS was turned on.

Well it depends on how you interpret #%*@ing.

nontetheredbrain wrote in post #7850966
Foul language in the title and you post a picture from church.