# Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?



## jhpeterson (Jun 29, 2014)

I have a 6D, which I've been using in low light situations. In recent months I've found myself frequently exploring the limits I can go and still come up with what I consider successful photos. I've very happy with the results I've been getting up to ISO6400 or so. Even what I've shot at 12800 pleasantly surprises me. 
But, I got talking with a couple people who suggested I might be better off with a 5D Mk III. I'm not so concerned about its performance at lower ISOs, as I've got three 1DS Mk III bodies that I use in most all situations, but I want to get the best results when I shoot in "available darkness".
What would you suggest I do?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 29, 2014)

With larger pixel and less MP, 1DX is your next choice if you want to go higher than 6400ISO. 5D III will not be your answer.

@ 12800ISO, I'm very happy with my X.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 29, 2014)

Canon 6D has better high ISO image. If you use only the central point of focus, AF 6D also have more reliable in darkness.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 29, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> With larger pixel and less MP, 1DX is your next choice if you want to go higher than 6400ISO. 5D III will not be your answer.
> 
> @ 12800ISO, I'm very happy with my X.


I've used the 1DX and absolutely love it. When I replace my 1DS III bodies, I plan to go with these. That is, unless the next generation is out by then.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 29, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Canon 6D has better high ISO image. If you use only the central point of focus, AF 6D also have more reliable in darkness.



Specifically, the 6D has less fixed-pattern noise than the 5Dmk3.


----------



## fotonunta (Jul 7, 2014)

I own Canon Eos 6D - in my opinion is over Canon 5D mark III- regarding low light situations - this the most imporant thing for me.


_______________________________________________
Foto Nunta Brasov | Fotograf Nunta | Foto video nunta


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 7, 2014)

The 6D has better high-ISO image quality. Having shot thousands of images with both cameras and from the info I've gathered online this is how I would rate the performance of the sensors of Canon's current-generation full frame offerings at various ISO settings.


----------



## l_d_allan (Jul 7, 2014)

Based on RAW charts from DPR, the 6d does seem objectively better than the 5d3 in high ISO. The 6d was a near match for the Nikon D4, which was a pleasant surprise. The numbers for the 1Dx aren't available from DPR ... drat.

However, DxoMark specs showed the 6d and 5d3 very close (~2300), the 1Dx significantly better (~2800), and the older 5d2 (~1800) lagging the 6d and 5d3 in what they term "Sports (low light ISO)". For reference, the Nikon D4 was about 2950.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 7, 2014)

l_d_allan said:


> The numbers for the 1Dx aren't available from DPR ... drat.


Good 'ol DPReview - they have a D4S preview the day it's announced but two years later, still no 1D X review. Reminds me of how they handled the last generation of CaNikon pro bodies... Yes, I know Phil Askey isn't biased towards Nikon, at least that's what what they say. It's a great site in all other regards.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Jul 8, 2014)

I also (only) have the Eos6D and I have regularly shot images at iso 25000 and printed them large. What I have found is that different software gives diffirent results. At the moment I am experimenting with Nik, Topaz, DXO and LR. They all work well in reducing noise and some images work better with some software than others. Personally I think that perhaps the difference between these cameras at the limit might just be too small to make a real difference and maybe software is a less expensive alternative...


----------



## tomscott (Jul 8, 2014)

The difference between the files are so minimal that I would call it a dead heat with the 6d just ever so slight advantage but would you notice in the real world.. don't think so.

The fact is you can get cracking results out of both cameras up to 6400ISO where i feel commercially you can push to. 12800 and 25600 can be used but only when needs must and you wouldn't get the shot otherwise.

Heres a few images shot at 12800 on the 5DMKIII and the 100mm L as a test to see what it could do!



BMW F30 3 Series interior, iDrive screen by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



BMW F30 3 Series interior, multifunction steering wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



BMW F30 3 Series interior, centre console climate control by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



BMW F30 3 Series interior, light console by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The main positive about the 6D is the centre point is rated to -3ev whereas the 5DMKIII is -2EV.

But at the same time if your shooting in low light with large aperture glass you will be centring your image to keep focus, focus recompose with anything under F4 on a full frame camera and missing focus is very easy to do.

On the 5DMKIII you have 5 -2ev points which makes creative composition easier.


----------



## Badger (Jul 8, 2014)

Isn't it awesome that we can actually be having this discussion?! Usable iso 6400 pictures? I remember the first time I heard of iso 1000 film


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2014)

Virtually the same IQ. Slight edge to the 6D for having newer tech. I personally found ISO 12k my limit for color and 25k limit for B&W on the 5d3. The 1dx is the only significant upgrade to either camera.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 8, 2014)

I have both. I haven't ever done any side-by-side comparisons, but my impression is that the 6D is probably slightly better overall, but probably not noticeably so unless you're specifically looking for/at noise, and that the 6D is noticeably better (esp. less banding) if you try to lighten shadows. So I wouldn't recommend that you add a 5DIII for high ISO purposes. It's possible, of course, that the 5DIII will provide better AF performance, thereby resulting in better image quality for *that* reason, but - perhaps because I don't photograph the sorts of things where this would matter - I've not noticed that, at least with still objects, aside from the obvious advantage of having more focus points to choose from.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The main positive about the 6D is the centre point is rated to -3ev whereas the 5DMKIII is -2EV.



It seems that many people claim this as an advantage for the 6D, without thinking about what it actually means. To put it in context relative your sample shots, consider f/2.8 (max for your 100L) and 1/15 s (1/FL with ~4 stops IS, although effectiveness decreases at close focus, and if there are people in the image they'd be blurred from subject motion). At those settings, the difference between -2 and -3 EV would be ISO 51200 vs. ISO 102400 – both of which fall clearly outside the noise range you'd find acceptable even 'at need'. 

Although 6D fans claim the extra stop of AF sensitivity is useful, in reality it's generally useful only in situations that would produce _unusable_ images. If it's that dark, most likely one would be using a flash (with AF assist), or on a tripod (with longer shutter speeds and live view exposure simulation to brighten the image for focusing), to keep the ISO at an acceptable level.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 8, 2014)

Thats an interesting comment Neuro didn't really think of it like that.

Isn't the noise reduction algorithm different in the 6D, slightly more NR in the standard config than the 5DMKIII giving images slightly less noise?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Isn't the noise reduction algorithm different in the 6D, slightly more NR in the standard config than the 5DMKIII giving images slightly less noise?



Perhaps. Canon likes to tout lower noise with new releases...but they're referring only to SOOC JPG shooting. Shooting RAW and applying NR in post would yield better results either way.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The difference between the files are so minimal that I would call it a dead heat with the 6d just ever so slight advantage but would you notice in the real world.. don't think so.
> 
> The fact is you can get cracking results out of both cameras up to 6400ISO where i feel commercially you can push to. 12800 and 25600 can be used but only when needs must and you wouldn't get the shot otherwise.
> 
> ...



My 5D III focus just fine, even below -3EV (f1.4, 1.3sec, 1000ISO)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 9, 2014)

I do not hesitate to use my 5D MK III at ISO 25600 if I have no choice. The 6D should be similar, and the 1D X somewhat better. I also used my 1D MK IV at ISO 12800 when needed.
Generally, the noise is not much of a issue for ordinary sized prints, but, some view images at 1:1 ant when they see the noise, it bothers them.
The greatly reduced DR at extreme high ISO levels does make it difficult.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> My 5D III focus just fine, even below -3EV (f1.4, 1.3sec, 1000ISO)



That's something of a confound. Even though a whole scene may meter at -3 EV or lower, often we're focusing on a portion of the scene that's much brighter that the average (or evaluated) metering for the entire scene – the bright ornaments in your case, tomscott's lit buttons on the dash, in my case a firelit face in a -3 EV scene. I suspect spot metering over the selected focal point would yield a substantially brighter exposure for that region (rendering the rest of the scene underexposed).


----------



## ewg963 (Jul 9, 2014)

Badger said:


> Isn't it awesome that we can actually be having this discussion?! Usable iso 6400 pictures? I remember the first time I heard of iso 1000 film


+10000000000000000


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2014)

From my observations, the 6D is about 1/3rd of a stop better in it's iso handling. The 1DX is about a 1/3rd of a stop better than the 6D or 2/3rds of a stop better than the 5DIII. Not killer but noticable on a like for like basis. But all three camera's tend to meter scenes slightly differently, so the results will be obviscated by the different metering and rendering values. But in an identially lit scene and all three cams on a tripod, set to M and manually dialled in settings, my above results will be apparent.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

jhpeterson said:


> I have a 6D, which I've been using in low light situations. In recent months I've found myself frequently exploring the limits I can go and still come up with what I consider successful photos. I've very happy with the results I've been getting up to ISO6400 or so.



After downsizing 22mp 5d3 -> 20mp 6d and adjusting for slight sharpness differences it's a wash, this is the same sensor generation. However the 6d has significantly less banding, i.e. higher dynamic range which *does* make a difference if your shots require it - it even tops 1dx on low iso. You can boost the dr on 6d even higher with Magic Lantern, nearly up to 15ev.

Having said that, no nice noise performance makes up for dodgy metering or getting out of focus shots with the ancient 6d af unless you're mf'ing (like with ML's focus peaking).



jhpeterson said:


> Even what I've shot at 12800 pleasantly surprises me.



ISO 12800 is just a digital push (on 6d, actually even 6400 is) - no need to use it unless you shoot jpeg or do video, otherwise underexpose a lower iso and keep the higher dynamic range of the lower setting.



tomscott said:


> The main positive about the 6D is the centre point is rated to -3ev whereas the 5DMKIII is -2EV.



Well, yes, it's "nice to have" esp. with slower lenses like f4+. *But* af'ing @-3lv is so slow that you could also just switch to live view and contrast af or mf with a boosted lv (ML again) which works far below -3lv.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jhpeterson said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 6D, which I've been using in low light situations. In recent months I've found myself frequently exploring the limits I can go and still come up with what I consider successful photos. I've very happy with the results I've been getting up to ISO6400 or so.
> ...



Which is why I prefer fast primes over f4 or f2.8 zooms. I gain a far lower iso value or a higher shutter speed. 
If I gain 2 stops advantage, I can double my shutter speed and halve my iso value. If I dump my entire advantage into the iso value, it will fall by a factor of 4. That's a big difference and far more than any camera can provide regardless of how good the iso handling or on chip noise reduction is.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Which is why I prefer fast primes over f4 or f2.8 zooms. I gain a far lower iso value or a higher shutter speed.



Well, but lower than "100" is "screw on nd filter" and the iq of 1600 on the 6d is so good I seldom feel the necessity for a really fast prime. You can post-process push a bad exposure, but cropping from 20mp (too wide prime) is tricky, and adding image data in post (too long prime) is impossible. 

And I already raved about how damn difficult it is to af with the 6d in enough threads, and even with a better af system the dof of f4 on longer focal lengths is already very thin @100% crop. Not that I'd dismiss fast primes as you get thin dof @small export/print sizes, but I guess I'm the "zoom flexibility" type of photog.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why I prefer fast primes over f4 or f2.8 zooms. I gain a far lower iso value or a higher shutter speed.
> ...



Yep, I got by with my 5D and then 5DII for many years using fast primes. It was hard, but I used the single centre point and recompose technique and One shot setting. But I fitted a Eg-s fine focus screen so I could see if my 85 f1.2 IIL was in focus. I was a tricky technique but once mastered, I could shoot weddings all day at f1.2 as close to MFD as i liked and get sharp in focus image.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jul 10, 2014)

jhpeterson said:


> I have a 6D, which I've been using in low light situations. In recent months I've found myself frequently exploring the limits I can go and still come up with what I consider successful photos. I've very happy with the results I've been getting up to ISO6400 or so. Even what I've shot at 12800 pleasantly surprises me.
> But, I got talking with a couple people who suggested I might be better off with a 5D Mk III. I'm not so concerned about its performance at lower ISOs, as I've got three 1DS Mk III bodies that I use in most all situations, but I want to get the best results when I shoot in "available darkness".
> What would you suggest I do?



Depends on what you are shooting I suppose. But if the question is purely centered on which one produces cleaner images at higher ISOs, the answer is the 6D. 

I had the 5D3 for a year and a half and decided to go with the 6D to pocket some cash as I didn't need the additional features of the former. 

An unforeseen benefit of the swap was in fact cleaner images at varying ISOs. The difference is not significant enough for you to notice in all situations. But the 6D is better in some instances and definitely at least equal to the 5D3 in all others. So if your concern is simply noise when moving into higher ISO ranges, you already have the better body.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 10, 2014)

jhpeterson said:


> I have a 6D, which I've been using in low light situations. In recent months I've found myself frequently exploring the limits I can go and still come up with what I consider successful photos. I've very happy with the results I've been getting up to ISO6400 or so. Even what I've shot at 12800 pleasantly surprises me.
> But, I got talking with a couple people who suggested I might be better off with a 5D Mk III. I'm not so concerned about its performance at lower ISOs, as I've got three 1DS Mk III bodies that I use in most all situations, but I want to get the best results when I shoot in "available darkness".
> What would you suggest I do?



weird advice
The 6D is as good a sensor as Canon makes across all ISOs for both SNR and DR.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jul 10, 2014)

The difference between the 6D and 5DIII in long exposure high ISO is enormous.

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/13/canon-6d-and-5dmk3-noise-comparison-for-high-iso-long-exposures/


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 10, 2014)

l_d_allan said:


> However, DxoMark specs showed the 6d and 5d3 very close (~2300), the 1Dx significantly better (~2800), and the older 5d2 (~1800) lagging the 6d and 5d3 in what they term "Sports (low light ISO)". For reference, the Nikon D4 was about 2950.



Looking at the plots the SNR between the three (1DX, 5D3, 6D) is really close. DR better at high ISO for 6D and 1DX and at low ISO for 6D.


----------

