# 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII



## vittohh (Apr 14, 2012)

Tried both cameras at ISO 6400 and RAW files are virtually the same, (the 5DIII just shows a bit a front focusing with my copy of the 24-105).
JPGs are a complete different story, but I cannot see the high ISO performance improvement everybody is talking about.
Did anybody experienced the same?
I'm not saying that I'm disappointed with the camera, in my opinion AF and silent shooting are a great improvement for wedding photography, it's just that the sensor technology seems exactly the same.


----------



## victorwol (Apr 14, 2012)

Does not look the same to me... The photos at 6400 of the 5D MKII where most of the time unusable. With the MKIII in getting photos at 12800 that looks equally or better than the MKII at 3200. I'm using Lightroom 4 and RAW. Never tried JPG


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 14, 2012)

victorwol said:


> Does not look the same to me... The photos at 6400 of the 5D MKII where most of the time unusable. With the MKIII in getting photos at 12800 that looks equally or better than the MKII at 3200. I'm using Lightroom 4 and RAW. Never tried JPG



To me, its not all about the amount of noise. Its the quality of the noise, the color fidelity, and whats left of the dynamic range. If the 5d3 is wet clay in post, the 5d2 is silly putty that is just starting to dry out. 

Also, i have a feeling that the 5d3 is more sensitive to light at equal iso's as the 5d2 thanks to its improved photosites and gapless microlens's and whatnot. Maybe not by a lot, but i feel its there.


----------



## vittohh (Apr 14, 2012)

Now that's kind of weird, I also used Lightroom 4 (the 4.1 RC version) and no way the 12800 ISO of the 5d3 are better than the 6400ISO of the 5D2, I even used the exact same lens to keep the same settings.
And the noise pattern seems also to be the same, same color rendition etc... I checked the preview on DPReview and also there at 6400 ISO they get pretty similar results as mine, I really have problems seeing what the difference beetwen the 2 camera is, if anything the 5d3 is a little softer, but that could the AF calibration.
Does anybody has comparison shots of the 2 cameras with the same settings at high ISO?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 15, 2012)

vittohh said:


> Tried both cameras at ISO 6400 and RAW files are virtually the same, (the 5DIII just shows a bit a front focusing with my copy of the 24-105).
> JPGs are a complete different story, but I cannot see the high ISO performance improvement everybody is talking about.
> Did anybody experienced the same?
> I'm not saying that I'm disappointed with the camera, in my opinion AF and silent shooting are a great improvement for wedding photography, it's just that the sensor technology seems exactly the same.


 
My 5D MK III is obviously better than my MK II at ISO 12800 and up. I did not bother to compare at 6400 They are the same at ISO 100 as well unless you get in a difficult NR situation..

However, I do low light photography, and when a person is comparing them in a well lighted studio, the effects of noise will appear to be a lot less. 

At 12800 and higher ISO, the MK III pulls away. However, there is not going to be 2 stops difference in Raw, except maybe at ISO 58600 or higher.

I can use the MK III in the dark and as long as I print 8 X 10 or smaller, all the ISO settings look pretty good.

I took this image in near dark, about -1 lv, It was as low a light as my AF would focus and then, extremely slowly. There was a tiny bit of light from another room lighting it from the right side, but I could not read the test, it was too dark.

Its captured in raw, and has NR applied at ISO 51600 and it is noisy, but I can read the text when I pixel peep.


----------



## JR (Apr 15, 2012)

I had a mkiii for a week and shot my dauther birthday with it. Have lots of 6400 shots and they are definitively better than the mkii. Even the iso 3200 looks better. But like mt spokane mentionned, noise will appear differently in diferent lighting condition. For me the mkiii is shinning in iso performance category. You should not worry.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 15, 2012)

IMHO, a lot of it has to do with how you're performing these tests. I've always found tests performed in bright light, during the middle of the day, at extremely high ISOs to be rather silly, since you'd never crank the ISO up that high during normal shooting situations. The most practical tests would be in low-light environments that actually require high ISO shooting. 

I'm not curious enough about noise performance to setup some makeshift test, so I only push the ISO as the situations that requiring doing so present themselves during actual shoots. I only got the 5DIII up to ISO 3,200 thus far, and had no complaints with the results.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 15, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> IMHO, a lot of it has to do with how you're performing these tests. I've always found tests performed in bright light, during the middle of the day, at extremely high ISOs to be rather silly, since you'd never crank the ISO up that high during normal shooting situations. The most practical tests would be in low-light environments that actually require high ISO shooting.
> 
> I'm not curious enough about noise performance to setup some makeshift test, so I only push the ISO as the situations that requiring doing so present themselves during actual shoots. I only got the 5DIII up to ISO 3,200 thus far, and had no complaints with the results.


 
I have been using ISO 6400 on my 5D MK II in low light and getting motion blur from the slow shutter speeds, even at f/1.4, so I want to make sure I know what I can get away with before my next low light event.

However, to be fair, some will need fast shutter speeds when photographing indoor sports in what they call low light, and I think of as relatively good light, if thats how they will use the high ISO, its ok to check it out that way. Birders with 400mm f/5.6 lenses trying to capture images in the early evening will also need high ISO, even though we would not need it with our f/2.8 lenses.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> However, to be fair, some will need fast shutter speeds when photographing indoor sports in what they call low light, and I think of as relatively good light, if thats how they will use the high ISO, its ok to check it out that way. Birders with 400mm f/5.6 lenses trying to capture images in the early evening will also need high ISO, even though we would not need it with our f/2.8 lenses.



That makes sense, as situations that require very fast shutter speeds may require high ISO even though the same amount of light in a different scenario would allow using lower ISO. It's just that when test images are taken in situations where ISO 100 is sufficient, but then the ISO is cranked all the way up to 25,600 or more just for the sake testing noise, I don't find the results 100% conclusive. It makes sense from a testing standpoint, but it's not all that practical.


----------



## RileyJoseph (Apr 15, 2012)

I think it is pretty good.. this was taken at ISO 20,000.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 15, 2012)

There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 15, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.



I love it when people say "ONLY a stop better". 

Its TWICE as good. How is that "only"? If my paycheck was one stop improved id be pretty damn happy. If my car's gas mileage was one stop better i'd be jumping for joy. If I had an extra stop down below I'd scare some ladies away. 

Anyway, rant over. prestonpalmer, this rant was NOT directed at you, just at people in general who are so ungrateful for what amazing technology we have before us.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.
> ...



LOL. I agree completely. As a wedding photographer I am completely stoked about the improvement. If I can get away with using 6400 iso rather than the 3200 I don't exceed with my 5D2, I couldn't be happier! Especially with the new AF and Dual Card slot. Its a perfect wedding photography camera as far as I am concerned. And with regard to Mega Pixels. PLEASE no more than 22MP. That's PLENTY!


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 15, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > prestonpalmer said:
> ...



Dude. You are my long lost twin. I do weddings as well, and I never went above 3200 on the 5d2 either. Eventually, more MP will be good, when computer processors double in speed and hardrive price per TB is cut in half too. And maybe when blu-ray is as mainstream as DVD for delivery to clients.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



Pushing my 5D3 to 6400 still scares the crap out of me. I just need to post process a few more weddings with it to build my confidence  Oh, and LR 4.1 OFFICIAL release will be a big deciding factor as well. And as of this year, I am DONE with DVD's. Now Digital Negatives (if they buy them) are delivered on these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820235047

With custom labeling for the client. Auto slideshow built in as well. I hate DL DVD's with a passion!

As far as more MP. I don't see clients ordering anything much bigger than 20x30. So no real need for more MP unless you plan to do a lot of cropping. I would prefer Canon go to a SQUARE sensor next round with a slight MP increase. see this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 15, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > prestonpalmer said:
> ...



I don't know about square sensors... I like the 2:3 aspect ratio. 

I don't know if I would use flash drives for clients... cost is about 17x higher. And they are so small the client would lose it easily. Plus, the DVD has a larger area for custom printing/engraving. 

How/where do you do your custom labeling?


----------



## Blaze (Apr 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > Pushing my 5D3 to 6400 still scares the crap out of me. I just need to post process a few more weddings with it to build my confidence  Oh, and LR 4.1 OFFICIAL release will be a big deciding factor as well. And as of this year, I am DONE with DVD's. Now Digital Negatives (if they buy them) are delivered on these:
> ...



I think square sensors would be awesome. I'm a fan of the 4x5 aspect ratio.

Compared to the cost of a shoot, a USB drive really isn't that expensive and a lot of computers don't even have optical drives these days.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I don't know about square sensors... I like the 2:3 aspect ratio.
> 
> I don't know if I would use flash drives for clients... cost is about 17x higher. And they are so small the client would lose it easily. Plus, the DVD has a larger area for custom printing/engraving.
> 
> How/where do you do your custom labeling?



The idea behind square sensor is that we crop to 2:3 aspect after the fact. No need to decide landscape/portrait orientation when taking the photo. I think the idea is revolutionary. It would take a bit to get use to, but awesome after the fact. Especially if they had 2:3 crop lines in the viewfinder!!!

Ive found that the clients simply put the USB drive on their key-ring. And they lose the USB drive as often as they lose their car keys. DVD's have seen their day. And I really don't are about they cost when my clients pay an additional $1500 for image rights. And in the long run, its cheaper than the custom DVD cases... I have a custom box for delivery of the USB drive, and the quality blows the appearance and value of a DVD out of the water. (its apple like) Its all about image "perceived value" remember? Clients have been pre trained to think DVD's are worth between $15 and $20 as they buy them from the store all the time. They have never seen a USB disk laser etched with their name, delivered in a matte black box. The perceived value is incredible. I order the drives in 250qty bulk from China without the VERBATIM branding. Just strait black, then I have a trophy guy here in my home town, laser on the name of the bride and groom. Ive sold more image rights on these than you would believe... It looks REALLY sweet. Plus, its all about sales right? In my consultation meeting, imagine saying this to your clients...

"DVD's have seen their day. You don't want something that going to sit on you bookshelf and collect dust, do you? How about having your images on your key-ring, so they are with you wherever you go. When you run into your friends and family, you can show them a quick slideshow of your favorites right there on the spot. Plus, I guarantee it for life, if you breaks, or you lose it. Ill replace it for you, as long as you live."

Now you have just set expectations for that client. When they meet with other photographers in your city who show them DVD's they are going to think, "Those old things" Guess who gets the bookings... yup. me. They think they are getting one of those USB drives, but when it's delivered to their home, via a courier, who is also carrying a wood crated bottle of wine, and hands them the package. They find 3 of them inside. One in the custom box, and two more. One for each of their key rings. that way they put the "master awesome boxed one" into a safe place, generally next to some wedding photos or album. I train my clients that when they spend money with me, there is ALWAYS a positive outcome, more than they anticipated. EVERY TIME. I train them to want to spend money. This is just one of the ways I do that... 

There is a method to my madness in order to bring in the $250K/yr I do in weddings 

ok, long rant. Im finished!

Woa, you better not live in MPLS! DOH! 

Take a look at this...
http://www.brovadoweddings.com/blog/photography-apprentice/


----------



## davidbellissima (Apr 15, 2012)

I think the Mk iii is definitely better. I did a test comparing the Mk ii to the Mk iii a day or two after receiving it last month. The files were processed in DPP which doesn't handle the Mk iii files well at all (softens the images at ALL ISOs). Far better results can be achieved in ACR. I need to update the post, but here it is for what it's worth:

http://www.bellissimaphoto.co.uk/photographers/canon-5d-mkiii-review-vs-5d-mkii-high-iso-test.html


----------



## Bart van Dieken (Apr 15, 2012)

Check out: 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## Viggo (Apr 15, 2012)

I would never use 6400 and 12800 on the 5d2, but with Lr 4.1 and the 5d3 I have used 12800 in required situations (f1,4 1/200s @ 12800) with HIGHLY useable results. I'm not afraid to use 12800 after seeing the results, but below 1600 I don't see much difference between the 5d2 and 5d3. I'm actually willing to claim iso 200 looked cleaner on the 5d2, based only on what it looks like, and what I'm used to.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 15, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about square sensors... I like the 2:3 aspect ratio.
> ...



You are a smart man. Tell me where you order the flashdrives in bulk!


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> You are a smart man. Tell me where you order the flashdrives in bulk!



Direct from china. Before you do that, prove to yourself the concept works. Just buy a dozen of them from newegg and see if you like it!


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 17, 2012)

Square Sensor? Most of my clients are moving to digital delivery now and I only expect this to increase over time. Virtually ever laptop, desktop monitor, tv, projector, and tablet (other than the ipad which is 4x3) is 16x9 and now that resolutions are increasing, many are using them to display photos and photos on high res screens look great. And while i'm not a fan of the aspect ratio for photos, it is what it is and it won't be changing. If anything, they will be going wider. I sell portrait oriented photos for prints frequently, but for digital delivery, most want pictures oriented in landscape. 

As for noise, I have to agree with my fellow wedding photographers that .5-1 stop improvement is a big freaking deal (even if I secretly wish it was 2). You will get .5 stops at lease because of the gapless sensor design. I'll take whatever I can take. I'm almost always forced to shoot at higher ISO than I would like, at slower shutter speeds than I would like, and wide open at 2.8 when the shot would look better (and the lens sharper) at f/4. Not to mention, shooting at 2.8 or wider with the 5d mark II's focusing system is risky. The new focusing system allows me to shoot wider since I can nail focus at f/2.8 and wider much more often than before.


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 17, 2012)

Im 100% sure if we would get a square sensor soon that u can choose aspect ratio settings in the camera.

If your earning ur living by photography it shouldnt matter what shape the sensor has cuz u post process all images anyway for ur customers. Just crop to 3:2 if necessary.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 17, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Im 100% sure if we would get a square sensor soon that u can choose aspect ratio settings in the camera.
> 
> If your earning ur living by photography it shouldnt matter what shape the sensor has cuz u post process all images anyway for ur customers. Just crop to 3:2 if necessary.



The EOS IX APS film camera gave you a choice of aspect ratios. 

The real beauty about a square sensor is that the camera doesn't have to be turned between landscape and portrait - so the series 1 body would not be needed


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 18, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> Square Sensor? Most of my clients are moving to digital delivery now and I only expect this to increase over time. Virtually ever laptop, desktop monitor, tv, projector, and tablet (other than the ipad which is 4x3) is 16x9 and now that resolutions are increasing, many are using them to display photos and photos on high res screens look great. And while i'm not a fan of the aspect ratio for photos, it is what it is and it won't be changing. If anything, they will be going wider. I sell portrait oriented photos for prints frequently, but for digital delivery, most want pictures oriented in landscape.
> 
> As for noise, I have to agree with my fellow wedding photographers that .5-1 stop improvement is a big freaking deal (even if I secretly wish it was 2). You will get .5 stops at lease because of the gapless sensor design. I'll take whatever I can take. I'm almost always forced to shoot at higher ISO than I would like, at slower shutter speeds than I would like, and wide open at 2.8 when the shot would look better (and the lens sharper) at f/4. Not to mention, shooting at 2.8 or wider with the 5d mark II's focusing system is risky. The new focusing system allows me to shoot wider since I can nail focus at f/2.8 and wider much more often than before.



Yep


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Now Digital Negatives (if they buy them) are delivered on these:
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820235047
> 
> I agree the Tuff-N-Tiny is awesome!


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > Im 100% sure if we would get a square sensor soon that u can choose aspect ratio settings in the camera.
> ...



You'd still need a taller body to fit that sensor in though... so a similar to 1 series body would still be used?


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 19, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > sandymandy said:
> ...



I like the bigger bodies.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 19, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> You'd still need a taller body to fit that sensor in though... so a similar to 1 series body would still be used?



Nope, no change to the body is required to accommodate a 1x1 sensor. We can have the 1D camera in a smaller, lighter package. No need to flip the camera back and forth. Crop lines would exist in the viewfinder. I am totally for it!


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 19, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I like the bigger bodies.



I always carry 2 bodies, so I am a huge fan of the 5D size and weight. Carrying 2x 1D's is heavy and cumbersome.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 19, 2012)

The problem with a square sensor is that it won't be 36mm x 36mm as some people assume. If my calculations are correct, Ef lenses cover a circle with a diameter of ±43mm which means the biggest square sensor that could be made without vignetting is ±30.5mm x 30.5mm. That means it will roughly have a bit better than APS-H maximal FOV.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 19, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> without vignetting is ±30.5mm x 30.5mm.



Why do we care about vignetting at capture? Why not have a 43mm square sensor, and just accept major vignetting at capture, but you've got the *entire *image circle. You can then decide how to crop in post. You'd never need to rotate your camera, and so no need for vertical grip. Yes, it would be a bit of a waste of silicon, but so what? There could also be camera settings to pre-select format: 3:2, 2:3, 1:1, 4:3, 16:9, etc. If Canon (or Nikon, or whoever) want to stretch their lens lineup for pros, that's how to do it.

** Note: I've made this suggestion several times; some have noted that there might be problems with mirror clearance. I accept that as a legitimate question, but still consider it worth consideration, especially when (not if) we get to the point of mirrorless pro-level bodies.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 19, 2012)

Not that sure what the advantages of a square sensor are. You don't have to turn your camera 90 degrees, but you then have to choose orientation in post? Sounds like a PITA to me. I like the fact that the camera knows which way it's tilted, so when I shoot portrait, I get portrait. One less step to deal with, it's a supremely intuitive system already. 

Am I missing something?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 19, 2012)

unkbob said:


> Not that sure what the advantages of a square sensor are. You don't have to turn your camera 90 degrees, but you then have to choose orientation in post? Sounds like a PITA to me. I like the fact that the camera knows which way it's tilted, so when I shoot portrait, I get portrait. One less step to deal with, it's a supremely intuitive system already.
> 
> Am I missing something?



One less opportunity to get it wrong when shooting in the heat of the action, one less image missed


----------



## unkbob (Apr 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > Not that sure what the advantages of a square sensor are. You don't have to turn your camera 90 degrees, but you then have to choose orientation in post? Sounds like a PITA to me. I like the fact that the camera knows which way it's tilted, so when I shoot portrait, I get portrait. One less step to deal with, it's a supremely intuitive system already.
> ...



I'm not convinced. If I screw up in the heat of the moment, it's not going to be because I chose the wrong aspect ratio. I know what I'm trying to shoot before I lift my camera. I might have the wrong lens, might have camera shake, might screw up the ISO or exposure, might forget to put the flash on HSS, I can screw up magnificently in any number of ways, but not knowing if a shot should be wide or tall just isn't in my list of worries. Maybe that's just me. If this was really a concern I would just shoot wider all the time and crop into every frame, but it's not so I don't.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 19, 2012)

unkbob said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > unkbob said:
> ...


----------



## unkbob (Apr 19, 2012)

Haha, the quote format is bonkers at this point, I was quite confused by who was quoting who 

Yes, I can see that as one advantage, having the flash fixed. I use a bracket and it's cumbersome.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 19, 2012)

unkbob said:


> Haha, the quote format is bonkers at this point, I was quite confused by who was quoting who
> 
> Yes, I can see that as one advantage, having the flash fixed. I use a bracket and it's cumbersome.



Sorry - too early in the morning


----------



## bycostello (Apr 19, 2012)

people i know who have the 5d3 say it is a stop better....


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

Not really the place for it (other than the fact it would result in greatly improved ISO performance), but I think 362 would be lovely. That said, I would much prefer 6x6 or 6x7 medium format, but neither will probably spawn from the Canon stable. 

It would be nice to use all my Noritar lenses on digital though, even just to see how they'd perform - would require a customised breech-lock adapter though.....


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 19, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Why not have a 43mm square sensor, and just accept major vignetting at capture, but you've got the *entire *image circle. You can then decide how to crop in post. You'd never need to rotate your camera, and so no need for vertical grip. Yes, it would be a bit of a waste of silicon, but so what?



You dismiss the silicon waste too easily. A 43mm square sensor will have an area slightly larger than a P45+ digital back and be considerably more expensive to produce compared to a FF sensor.


----------



## rhommel (Apr 19, 2012)

in terms of high ISO performance, I can definitely say that 5D3 outperforms 5D2!







Natural Light
Canon EOS 5D MK III + 70-200 F2.8 L II IS
ISO 12,800
1/800
F2.8

there's no way my 5D2 could've taken that shot with less noise


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 23, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > without vignetting is ±30.5mm x 30.5mm.
> ...



If the viewfinder doesnt become square too it can get really annoying to "fix" ur composition of every photo by cropping. Plus i personally dont wanna crop every photo post.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 25, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > prestonpalmer said:
> ...



Ditto although the more i shoot with it the more confident i am getting up to 12800.

I also just grabbed a pile of sandisk 16GB usb2 drives for delivery for $9.50 each!
sooooo much easier than dealing with DVDs


----------

