# 5D mk III: ISO 25600...Stunning!!!!!



## etto72 (Mar 19, 2012)

Have look

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=40957841


----------



## JR (Mar 19, 2012)

WOW! I must admit, even if the files were processed and have some noise reduction applied to them (which is what we would do anyway to these type of pictures), it is quite impressive.

Very usable! I have very few pictures taken at 6400 with my 5DmkII that look that good from a noise perspective...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 19, 2012)

Very nice... to think this time last week everyone was groaning about "soft" and "over processed" sample images from the pre-production samples...


----------



## JR (Mar 19, 2012)

Yeah...these certainly dont look too soft to my eye anyway...


----------



## AnselA (Mar 19, 2012)

very nice indeed


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm sure the ISO 100 images will be even crisper but damn, for 25600 it definitely is usable... Noise is fine enough it may or may not even show up in print, especially printed big on canvas.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 19, 2012)

Gapless microlenses and some decent algorithm at work... Impressive!

Out of curiousity, has anyone used Nikon D3s? Is mk3 taking its low light crown until 1DX is in the market?


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 19, 2012)

Awesome....can't wait to attach 50mm f1.4 to this camera....IQ should be great if bring it down to f2 to 2.8


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 19, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Awesome....can't wait to attach 50mm f1.4 to this camera....IQ should be great if bring it down to f2 to 2.8



Me too but I hope the 50 1.4 AF motor is strong enough to keep up with the 5d3 AF system... I've had lenses struggle to keep up with the 7D and this is supposed to be better/faster... whoa nelly


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm looking forward to using the 24 f/1.4L II on this. I live for the dark...


----------



## Sinsear (Mar 19, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> I'm looking forward to using the 24 f/1.4L II on this. I live for the dark...



Same here. I look forward to using that combo for some sick astro timelapses here in Colorado at 13,000 ft. on the Continental Divide.


----------



## Sinsear (Mar 19, 2012)

Here are the raws: http://www.kleptography.com/dl/5diii/raw/


----------



## pedro (Mar 19, 2012)

I just saw them over @DPR. Wow. Have a 50 1.4 myself. Combined with a 85 1.8 and 28 2.8 I am looking forward to do this type of photography. Waiting with my purchase while saving up for a 17-40 4.0. But with these photographs there is a lot of joy in the waiting! Was worth all the wait, I even guess we gonna get some very usable 51k b/w photographs under these same conditions... 8) Cheers, Pedro


----------



## aZhu (Mar 19, 2012)

*WOW!!!!*

*jawdrop emoticon here*


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 19, 2012)

I cant wait to get my sigma 85 f1.4 on it and test it out,
Is it just me or is this week going extremely slow!


----------



## JR (Mar 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I cant wait to get my sigma 85 f1.4 on it and test it out,
> Is it just me or is this week going extremely slow!



It is slow...and for me I feel like the next month will be soooooooooooooooooo long to wait for the 1DX when I see how the 5DmkIII promises to be!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2012)

JR said:


> and for me I feel like the next month will be soooooooooooooooooo long to wait for the 1DX when I see how the 5DmkIII promises to be!



True...but I console myself with Chuck Westfall's comment that the 5DIII will have the best high ISO performance of any Canon camera to date..._except the 1D X_. So if the 5DIII is a measurable improvement over the 5DII, and the 1D X is better than that...it'll be worth our wait!


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 19, 2012)

Hi guys,

Below link is in Norwegian and contains mk 2 vs mk 3 image comparisons with EF 85mm f/1.2L II. To see the images, click on the respective grey line. First appearing image will be mk 3, if you point on the image, corresponding mk 2 image shows... 

http://www.akam.no/artikler/sjekk-bildekvaliteten-pa-5d-mark-iii/107530


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 19, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Below link is in Norwegian and contains mk 2 vs mk 3 image comparisons with EF 85mm f/1.2L II. To see the images, click on the respective grey line. First appearing image will be mk 3, if you point on the image, corresponding mk 2 image shows...
> 
> http://www.akam.no/artikler/sjekk-bildekvaliteten-pa-5d-mark-iii/107530



Can that dynamic range test possibly be right? Worse than the mk2 and 7d?


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 19, 2012)

My Norwegian is very limited but it looks like that is what the reviewer is suggesting... 

Also, it seems to be a pre-production model used for the test...


----------



## zackck (Mar 20, 2012)

I really can't believe someone would call this "stunning". The colors look horrible! 

There are no shades of black; everything turned magenta as the 5D Mark II used to do. 

I'm attaching a photo taken with the Mark II at ISO 25600. 
It's as sharp as the Mark III, and the colors look as bad. 
I don't see any improvement.

Just some details: Canon 5D Mark II + EF 50mm 1.2 L USM @ f/16 1/45s ISO25600


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > and for me I feel like the next month will be soooooooooooooooooo long to wait for the 1DX when I see how the 5DmkIII promises to be!
> ...



Hey neuroanatomist.... You know I just sold my 5D II, so don't make me sell my 5d III and buy 1D x now.


----------



## nikkito (Mar 20, 2012)

Norwegian looks like a difficult language


----------



## JR (Mar 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > and for me I feel like the next month will be soooooooooooooooooo long to wait for the 1DX when I see how the 5DmkIII promises to be!
> ...



Really did he really say that? The ..._except the 1D X_... part? I guess I missed that. That would be worth the wait indeed!


----------



## zackck (Mar 20, 2012)

Just so we make it fair, I downloaded the .CR2 file of one of the pictures from the first dpreview link. The picture of the two ladies, the last one on that topic.

I opened both (my cat picture and dpreview's ladies) side by side on Photoshop at 100% with nothing applied at the RAW conversion. 
They are attached to this post. The ladies picture on the left and my cat on the right.

Can someone please explain to me how we can call the Mark III raw files "stunning"?
To me they look essentially the same: lots of noise; blacks turned magenta; no fine detail at all.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not complaining about the Mark III.
But I just don't see the reason to upgrade IQ wise...

BTW: I love my Mark II and pre-ordered the 1D-X. It's time to go PRO! 
BTW2: I have a similar comparison between the 5D Mark II and my 20D at ISO1600: virtually the same!


----------



## JR (Mar 20, 2012)

I think what makes these type of comparison so difficult is that different lighting situation will create different result in terms of noise (I am referring to past real life tries here), so until we see some studio test for example from dpReview and being to compare those to the same studio test for the 5DmkII it is difficult. I always felt noise on an animal (like the cat) shows up less then on human skins...

I am not dismissing your point zackck, just that personally I was never able to take such clean picture at ISO 25k with my 5DmkII and likely we should wait for the real test before saying the improvements are not there.

P.S.: I decided to go pro as well with the 1DX!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2012)

JR said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



Rob Galbraith indicated that Westfall stated that.


----------



## JR (Mar 20, 2012)

Cool then! DPReview just posted the ISO sample for the D800. Does not look that great to me. Think the 5DmkII is better in that front...


----------



## steven63 (Mar 20, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Below link is in Norwegian and contains mk 2 vs mk 3 image comparisons with EF 85mm f/1.2L II. To see the images, click on the respective grey line. First appearing image will be mk 3, if you point on the image, corresponding mk 2 image shows...
> 
> http://www.akam.no/artikler/sjekk-bildekvaliteten-pa-5d-mark-iii/107530




...and here is their conclusion at the end of that article (from google translate):

conclusion

As for picture quality, it is to launch a successor to the 5D Mark II in many ways to jump after Wirkola. Just picture quality was 5D Mark II's strongest field, and it is the age, despite still some of the sharp one in the market when it comes to this. When Canon still managed to give the 5D Mark II one of the most noticeably improved image quality, it is somewhat impressive, although we still are a bit between satisfaction. For although the increase is there, it is less than we wish. When Canon has chosen to barely increase the resolution, one should be allowed to have aspirations for a greater increase in overall image quality than this. Detail reproduction is good, and good noise level, while the noise is very very smooth. The noise level could, however, with advantage have been even lower, and this would also done wonders for dynamic range, which ends up being disappointing stuff.

All in all, we are cautiously conclude that although the image quality is improved in most areas, this is not in itself a good enough reason to replace the Mark II to buy the Mark III. There are all the other improvements in speed, auto focus, control, build quality and features and capabilities, which should be the decisive factor for it. If not, keep your beloved 5D Mark II a few years.

If this holds water when it finished the camera, fully supported by various software, comes on the market, we will of course come back to a full test.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 20, 2012)

I would be more confident of this test if the images lined up properly. 

Comparing the 5DmII versus 5DmIII shots, it looks like the images are at different distances and focuses. They are just way too different imho for a lab result.

And of course this is a pre-production model.

But I am watching for results.


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 20, 2012)

I can totally understand what Canon have done with the 5d III from a business perspective. However, for many landscape/portrait/architecture 'togs - it will be difficult to justify choosing the 5dIII over the II while both are available.

For me, shooting at no more than ISO800 (most often in controlled lighting) and not needing more than one (central, excellent) AF point, the 5d III isn't worth the plunge. I was seriously thinking about crossing over to the 'dark side'. But, I just can't ;-)

So.......I'm getting a 5dII and some very serious glass. I'll be hoping that Canon's Studio Monster comes out by Photokina time ;-)


----------



## RedEye (Mar 20, 2012)

From a quick monitor by monitor analysis of two photos, it appears that 25K ISO on the 5DIII matches 6400ISO on the T2i, and so this is a very exciting move for a lot of crop photographers who were waiting for a new full frame.


----------



## HughHowey (Mar 20, 2012)

RedEye said:


> From a quick monitor by monitor analysis of two photos, it appears that 25K ISO on the 5DIII matches 6400ISO on the T2i, and so this is a very exciting move for a lot of crop photographers who were waiting for a new full frame.



You're describing me. And I'm not excited.

Are all my photos going to require WB adjustment in RAW like with my T2i? Because it looks like Canon still makes everything look too warm. Are the blacks going to be washed out like with my T2i? Shadow detail smudged to oblivion?

Nothing I've seen makes me want to plunk down $3,500.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 20, 2012)

These are some of the cleanest ISO 25000 shots I've ever seen from any camera. I first shot at ISO 25000 back in 1990, pushing T-Max p3200. Trust me; they looked nowhere near this good.

Tough crowd. Some people have no idea how far we've come.


----------



## swampler (Mar 20, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> These are some of the cleanest ISO 25000 shots I've ever seen from any camera. I first shot at ISO 25000 back in 1990, pushing T-Max p3200. Trust me; they looked nowhere near this good.
> 
> Tough crowd. Some people have no idea how far we've come.


I agree. Much better than my 50D's 12800 or even 6400.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 20, 2012)

swampler said:


> Stephen Melvin said:
> 
> 
> > These are some of the cleanest ISO 25000 shots I've ever seen from any camera. I first shot at ISO 25000 back in 1990, pushing T-Max p3200. Trust me; they looked nowhere near this good.
> ...



I shot my 50D tonight at 3200, ouch. Nevermind 6.4 or 12.8.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 20, 2012)

zackck said:


> I really can't believe someone would call this "stunning". The colors look horrible!
> 
> There are no shades of black; everything turned magenta as the 5D Mark II used to do.
> 
> ...



I believe the mark 3 if the white balance is set correctly will look pretty good. The earlier samples looked good to me they just had the crappy lighting thing going on indoors which always happens...when not using a flash the white balance must be adjusted unless there are colors in the room that ad to the atmosphere of the shot.
I cant prove my statement with my own samples at this point yet. But some i have seen so far and from CPN Pros like Brent Striton I take him very serious. I quote "“When I take a picture I ask ‘Is this a realistic skin tone?’ as skin tone matters a great deal to me. The skin tone quality I’m getting out of the [5D] Mark III is by far the most realistic that I’ve ever had. It produces better skin tone than any other camera I’ve ever used. When I was photographing the Radball players I was astonished at the lack of [colour] cast across different conditions, different lighting etc. It was very consistent and very accurate colour reproduction. This is great for me because it means less work in post [production].
The other revelation about the sensor is the ability to truly work in low light. This isn’t some hype; this isn’t a case of setting up a camera and a tripod in a studio under perfect conditions and shooting an image at [ISO] 1600 and saying ‘look how good it is’. That’s just not the ‘real world’ for me. The real world is being able to go into some dark basement in some dark place, covering a difficult issue, and being able to make a picture that I previously could not have made because the sensor capabilities just didn’t make it possible. Previously, if I shot this [type of picture] it would be noisy and there would be all sorts of problems with the file."
read up for yourself here:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/brent_stirton_shooting_eos_5d_mark_iii.do


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 20, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The other revelation about the sensor is the ability to truly work in low light. This isn’t some hype; this isn’t a case of setting up a camera and a tripod in a studio under perfect conditions and shooting an image at [ISO] 1600 and saying ‘look how good it is’. That’s just not the ‘real world’ for me. The real world is being able to go into some dark basement in some dark place, covering a difficult issue, and being able to make a picture that I previously could not have made because the sensor capabilities just didn’t make it possible. Previously, if I shot this [type of picture] it would be noisy and there would be all sorts of problems with the file."



Thank-you. 

You said more than Canon's lost marketing department could say throughout this launch.

To introduce this camera, you do not shoot nicely lit studio stuff and hope to showcase that against the megapixel-hungry competition at 100 ISO. You show a dark candle-lit scene; or a stormy cloud landscape; or a night sports shot or whatever you do to showcase stuff not possible before. Yes, some of Canon's Masters have done that (the Formula One stuff for example) - but the launch, the samples, wtf! 

It wasnt for lack of headline. Marketing had their headline and they just blew it off with poor messaging. But has that not been the way for the past year - with the lack of any transparency in what is a professional tool? 

Personally I am going to enjoy capturing all those images with the 5DmIII. And enjoy not looking at a noise circus at the 100% pixel level. It will be a cool camera with the headroom to be truly creative.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 20, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> These look great, and I would consider buying a 5DIII if it had at least 23 megapixels and cost $3,498. At 22 megapixels and $3,499, it's just not the camera for me




;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 20, 2012)

I will be interested to see how the DR stands up at high iso - images look clean but lacking in DR which is what happens to all sensors at high iso.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 20, 2012)

RuneL said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



The 50 f/1.4 keeps up with the 1D4 so I doubt whether the 5DIII will test it. It is worth remembering that the 5D3 has the same fps as the 40/50D.


----------



## Orion (Mar 20, 2012)

TAR said:


> wow...most of them are soft . unbelievable ..*not a single one of them is tack sharp*



. . . when you say "tack sharp," which photos are you referring to!? The 25600ISO or the images from the Canon webpage by Stirton? Either way, you need to seriously stop mimicking vocabulary to sound like a photographer.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 20, 2012)

The serious wedding and landscape users will be maxing out at iso800, probably 100/200 most of the time so iso 25600 is only really for some sports snappers


----------



## piotr.c (Mar 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The serious *wedding* and landscape users will be maxing out at iso800, probably 100/200 most of the time so iso 25600 is only really for some sports snappers





you got be kidding ;D ;D ;D have you ever been in really dark church or wedding hall? sometimes lowest possible ISO to use is 3200 @ f1.4 ...


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 20, 2012)

piotr.c said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The serious *wedding* and landscape users will be maxing out at iso800, probably 100/200 most of the time so iso 25600 is only really for some sports snappers
> ...



You mean you dont use flash?????


----------



## ew20 (Mar 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> piotr.c said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Using flash in a church is a great way to get kicked out 

It's forbidden in almost every church I've ever shot in. I rarely go _below_ ISO 800 when shooting indoors, and that's only in the brightest buildings. I'm routinely 1600-3200 ISO.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The serious wedding and landscape users will be maxing out at iso800, probably 100/200 most of the time so iso 25600 is only really for some sports snappers


Serious Wedding photographers maxing out at iso 800, you have got to be kidding me. The ambience of a low light shot is way more valuable to me than if there is some noise. 
If you think I am a nobody then at least read what Jeff Ascough wrote in Feb 2010. I quote Jeff Ascough "I’ve been shooting with the EOS-1D Mark IV for about three months now. This is the time of year when there are quite a few candlelit wedding ceremonies and receptions, so I’m often shooting events that are taking place in near darkness…

The camera’s performance is really quite staggering at higher ISOs, especially 6400 and 12,800, as the image quality is just gorgeous. There is little noise, no banding and, for a crop sensor camera, the resolution is very good. I have to admit that I probably wouldn’t use the H1 setting (12,800) on the 5D Mark II but I’d happily use 12,800 on the 1D Mark IV all day long."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/jeff_ascough_blog.do
or Brent Stirton
"I shot this Canon [EOS 5D Mark III] up to [ISO] 25,600 and it was, to my mind, at least as good as the file coming out of the EOS 5D Mark II at 1200 to 1600. So that’s a huge leap forward for me.”
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/brent_stirton_shooting_eos_5d_mark_iii.do


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> piotr.c said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



At the wedding I shot on Saturday, I never went below ISO 800. Most shots were at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400, and this was actually a relatively bright venue. I use a ton of bounce flash, which becomes a lot more viable when you have ISO 6400 sensitivity. The overall balance of the shots is much nicer than if I'd shot at, say, ISO 400 with direct flash.

I shot most of the wedding with my 24-105 f/4L IS USM. 

The capabilities of the new camera look to only open up more options for me.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 20, 2012)

I guess it must be a UK thing then. I always shoot in church - never an issue. Just cant do it during the service. As soon as they say I do we get the pose and flash away. Of course this is arranged before hand with the officials.

Just a gentle pop with big brellas means they get top IQ pictures at ISO 800. 

When the bride and groom come down the isle I have 2 helpers with two stands (small umbrellas) as I walk backwards getting the pictures.

I have even set up two continuous lights to spotlight the bride and groom taking the vows (in the days of film)

The options are simple - good lights, good pictures or bad light, bad pictures. They have always gone for the good picture option.

I then have two more stands set up in the registry - while I am in there the helper collects the other stands ready for the group pictures. I have had to take the bride and groom on the lawn in the pitch dark - took 4 580's to get the good pictures

I guess we all have our own ways of doing things. I use light to get top IQ, guaranteed.


----------



## JR (Mar 20, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> At the wedding I shot on Saturday, I never went below ISO 800. Most shots were at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400, and this was actually a relatively bright venue. I use a ton of bounce flash, which becomes a lot more viable when you have ISO 6400 sensitivity. The overall balance of the shots is much nicer than if I'd shot at, say, ISO 400 with direct flash.
> 
> I shot most of the wedding with my 24-105 f/4L IS USM.
> 
> The capabilities of the new camera look to only open up more options for me.



Hey Stephen, thanks for sharing this. It is very insightful for me because I would not have thought to use "light filler" and use higher ISO instead of the "direct light" approach with lower ISO even for my type of personal shooting. I did find though from adhoc shooting that my high ISO picture always look better when I have some form of complementary light in sufficient form as opposed to very very low light. I will keep your approach in mind next time I need more flexibility with high ISO shooting!

Jacques


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 20, 2012)

RuneL said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I've had the 50 1.2 struggle to keep up with my 7D (rented it, one of the lenses that doesn't work well with it)... I have the 50 1.4 and it's faster but even at that, I have to almost remind myself to not over do the lens and let it catch up at times... The 1.2 would give false focus confirmations so it would say it was in focus when it wasn't... I have no patience with that... the 5d3 and 50 1.2 may be a ******* relationship 8) The sample images are across the board... Some better than others, but the objective ones show the technical quality (sharpness in raw files, color, etc) the rest you kinda have to take with a grain of salt for now I suppose.


----------



## zackck (Mar 20, 2012)

Bosman said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The serious wedding and landscape users will be maxing out at iso800, probably 100/200 most of the time so iso 25600 is only really for some sports snappers
> ...



Do you really believe that a Canon Ambassador would say ANYTHING DIFFERENT than that?
Of course he is going to tell you that the Mark III is better than the Mark II.
Canon is not producing cameras because it's "fun", they want to SELL them to you!

I really encourage you to shoot with the EOS 5D Mark II at ISO 25600.
See for yourself that the results are very similar to the Mark III. 
They are "usable" if you want all the noise and fix the colors in post.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 20, 2012)

looks very good, but how hard of a hit do we take in dynamic range? the higher the ISO, the more the DR nosedives. having said that, the most I've shot at is ISO1600 to 3200 and anything higher never seen to be needed. Have we reached a point where the ISO values are just meaningless marketing items like a car's top speeds when in fact you don't them that fast in the real world?


----------



## scottk (Mar 20, 2012)

psolberg said:


> looks very good, but how hard of a hit do we take in dynamic range? the higher the ISO, the more the DR nosedives. having said that, the most I've shot at is ISO1600 to 3200 and anything higher never seen to be needed. Have we reached a point where the ISO values are just meaningless marketing items like a car's top speeds when in fact you don't them that fast in the real world?



If I have to shoot at ISO 25600 to capture a moment during a wedding, dynamic range is the least of my concerns


----------



## K-amps (Mar 20, 2012)

my first test shots...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,4541.0.html


----------



## piotr.c (Mar 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> piotr.c said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



in church? no. at wedding hall? bearly - it depends if there's low celling

http://www.piotrczechowski.pl


----------



## Bosman (Mar 21, 2012)

zackck said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


I guess i can swallow the fact that a pro is a pro regardless of his camera setup. I dont think these guys have scripted responses for the cameras they try out. I think they are like us, excited to discover new possibilities. If they are lying their rep will be damaged. I don't have the same view as yourself. I flog the H out of my EOS cameras and respect those who do too.


----------



## pedro (Mar 21, 2012)

@Bosman: So will I do. Still saving up for the WA lens (17-40) but I will flog the H as well. Looking forward to do candlelightish lowlight photography at 51k for conversions into B/W. Maybe I even dare to do this at 102 k 8)


----------



## K-amps (Mar 21, 2012)

I have shot the 5d3 in ISO 25,600 and while the jpeg is very useable, I *cannot* get the same level of clarity from the RAW using Adobe CR noise reduction. I can dial up the NR more, but then the image gets much softer than the jpeg.... OTOH, if I apply slight amounts of NR to the jpeg, it gets very clean and clear as well...

Kind of a mixed result since I love the flexibility of exposure control in RAW...

Disclaimer: I have not tried CS5, Topaz & NIK NR on the RAW's yet... Just LR4


----------



## ew20 (Mar 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I have shot the 5d3 in ISO 25,600 and while the jpeg is very useable, I *cannot* get the same level of clarity from the RAW using LR4 noise reduction. I can dial up the NR more, but then the image gets much softer than the jpeg.... OTOH, if I apply slight amounts of NR to the jpeg, it gets very clean and clear as well...
> 
> Kind of a mixed result since I love the flexibility of exposure control in RAW...
> 
> Disclaimer: I have not tried CS5, Topaz & NIK NR on the RAW's yet... Just LR4



This is peculiar. The opposite would be expected, of course. 

I wonder if it has to do with the RAW conversion into LR4? I've been impressed with the sharpening/NR since it was added in LR3, it's all I use right now as I almost always get better results than Dfine.


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Disclaimer: I have not tried CS5, Topaz & NIK NR on the RAW's yet... Just LR4


Does LR4 already support the 5D3 files? I just checked my copy of LR3 and there is no update for the 5D3 yet and I have heard there will not be one forthcoming.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 21, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer: I have not tried CS5, Topaz & NIK NR on the RAW's yet... Just LR4
> ...



My mistake. I used CS5/ ACR to render the RAW and apply NR, not LR4. I did not use CS5's NR in PP but only while opening the Adobe camera RAW.

Did jpegs only in LR, it did not recognize RAW's. I did the RAW test in CS5 which uses similar NR engine, it was able to pull the CR2 files, and I have not yet loaded the software that came with the 5D3 yet. Hope it helps.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 21, 2012)

ew20 said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > I have shot the 5d3 in ISO 25,600 and while the jpeg is very useable, I *cannot* get the same level of clarity from the RAW using LR4 noise reduction. I can dial up the NR more, but then the image gets much softer than the jpeg.... OTOH, if I apply slight amounts of NR to the jpeg, it gets very clean and clear as well...
> ...



My mistake. I used CS5/ ACR to render the RAW and apply NR, not LR4. Once image opened in CS5, no further (PS) NR was applied.


But yes, I did find it peculier that the jpeg was cleaner at first pass.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 21, 2012)

Could it be that the ACR is still a beta and not a full version release? Perhaps it's not fully ready to handle the high ISO NR? How does it look in DPP as that is the only official software out at this time that is full release to handle 5d3 files? This morning I had an update for PS5 to "upgrade" to ACR 6.6 but since the 5d3 beta is 6.7, I didn't update it. Perhaps when the full 6.7 comes out it will be better?


----------



## NutsAndBolts (Mar 21, 2012)

Here are some sample shots from my 5D3 with 24-105mm f4.0 L

ISO-20000




ISO-20k


----------



## NutsAndBolts (Mar 21, 2012)

And at ISO 25600, both shot handheld, with little lighting in the room (a single CFL ligth): 




ISO-25600


----------



## NutsAndBolts (Mar 21, 2012)

This one was shot with a flash (430 EX), ISO 100:




ISO-100


----------



## JR (Mar 21, 2012)

Not bad indeed!


----------



## K-amps (Mar 21, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Could it be that the ACR is still a beta and not a full version release? Perhaps it's not fully ready to handle the high ISO NR? How does it look in DPP as that is the only official software out at this time that is full release to handle 5d3 files? This morning I had an update for PS5 to "upgrade" to ACR 6.6 but since the 5d3 beta is 6.7, I didn't update it. Perhaps when the full 6.7 comes out it will be better?



I think I have ACR 6.6. Have never used or installed DPP. Can't say.

EDIT: Just checked, I have infact 6.7 . So it all makes sense now.


----------



## JR (Mar 21, 2012)

From what I was able to try, LR4 which has the latest version of ACR has much better NR then LR3 for details...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be that the ACR is still a beta and not a full version release? Perhaps it's not fully ready to handle the high ISO NR? How does it look in DPP as that is the only official software out at this time that is full release to handle 5d3 files? This morning I had an update for PS5 to "upgrade" to ACR 6.6 but since the 5d3 beta is 6.7, I didn't update it. Perhaps when the full 6.7 comes out it will be better?
> ...



ACR 6.6 isn't currently supporting Canon 5d 3 files... Ironically is supports Nikons D800, but for what it's worth... The 6.7 beta (you would have to go to adobe labs website and download the beta... isn't the full version but allows you to play with the 5d3 in photoshop. Still needs some work but not bad. I would install DPP and give it a try because until adobe releases ACR to officially support the 5d 3 in a full release, you may get funky results in 6.6


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be that the ACR is still a beta and not a full version release? Perhaps it's not fully ready to handle the high ISO NR? How does it look in DPP as that is the only official software out at this time that is full release to handle 5d3 files? This morning I had an update for PS5 to "upgrade" to ACR 6.6 but since the 5d3 beta is 6.7, I didn't update it. Perhaps when the full 6.7 comes out it will be better?
> ...



In order to have gotten ACR 6.7 you would have gone to http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-7/?tabID=details#tabTop This is the one, while a beta, "supports" the 5d3 and 1dx


----------



## K-amps (Mar 21, 2012)

Couple of shots at *25600*. First jpg with zero NR (except camera NR). Second is RAW that was processed in ACR 6.7 with Luminosiy NR = 47. 

100% crop. No resizing

Judge for yourself how good the jpeg is on the noise.

The color seems a bit off on the RAW, could be a color profile or 6.7 beta issue... can't say nor have I researched this more.


----------



## JR (Mar 21, 2012)

Wow! I am impressed man! Both the jpg and the RAW are very good (except for the color of the raw of course...)

Wow...


----------



## K-amps (Mar 22, 2012)

JR said:


> Wow! I am impressed man! Both the jpg and the RAW are very good (except for the color of the raw of course...)
> 
> Wow...



I was at my daughter's musical an hour ago... tooks some snaps at various ISO's with 70-200 mk.II with a 2x iii @ 400mm 

unfortunatly ISO *"only" 12800* when I checked ;D.

The pic has been PP'ed. Resized etc.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 22, 2012)

K-amps said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! I am impressed man! Both the jpg and the RAW are very good (except for the color of the raw of course...)
> ...



Looks good K-AMP....can't wait for mine to be here tomorrow


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...


I do not recommend using the F1.2/1.4 lenses in ai servo they hunt alot. Change it to single shot and it locks on pretty fast. These high speed glass lenses are super refined with the smallest movement meaning they are out of focus so yes the focus systems are slower as a result but the images, god the images are amazing. I had an 85 1.2 version I and sold it but man i wish i had a version 2. I had a 35 f1.4 and sold that because i didn't use it enough to justify having it. One piece of glass i know id use a lot is a 24 1.4 II. That will be the next lens for me. I have the 50 1.2 and it is incredible. As i said these specialty lenses never use in servo mode. Try it you will see what i am talking about. Stick to single shot.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

K-amps said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! I am impressed man! Both the jpg and the RAW are very good (except for the color of the raw of course...)
> ...


Beautiful shot. If i had a child id be shooting constantly


----------



## JR (Mar 22, 2012)

K-amps said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! I am impressed man! Both the jpg and the RAW are very good (except for the color of the raw of course...)
> ...



Well I must say WOW again K-Amps! Was that a JPG out of the camera or a RAW file out of the camera? I am sure re-assured that you seem to be getting great result while others (see other thread on 5diii seem to struggle with image quality). This is one hell 12800 image for sure! I am sold!


----------



## rhommel (Mar 22, 2012)

the photos look good k-amps! can't wait to get mine today.. this waiting game is killing me!


----------



## KeithR (Mar 22, 2012)

JR said:


> I am sure re-assured that you seem to be getting great result while others (see other thread on 5diii seem to struggle with image quality). This is one hell 12800 image for sure!



Yeah, you see a lot of that - but even a 7D will do this at 12800 ISO if you know what you're about:







The 5D Mk III looks like it's shaping up into a real gem, though - it's the first FF camera I've really had any interest in owning.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 22, 2012)

JR said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



That was from jpeg . I did not shoot RAW during that sequence... I was trying all sorts of things. Normally I do RAW + Large Jpeg time time only jpeg.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 22, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Beautiful shot. If i had a child id be shooting constantly



Thanks Bosman, FYI that's my daughter's classmate. My daughter's pics were mostly 200-400 ISO since she was in a brighter area. I wanted to share a high ISO pic.


----------



## WilliamG (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm definitely not as impressed by these high ISO shots as some other people. They look waxy, smeary, NR-ed to all heck if you ask me. The one shot a page back with the books was a prime example. At 25,600 it's clear all the detail of the ripped black book has been lost. And the daughter's classmate shot shows the same issue. All skin detail etc is lost. 

*sigh* I really hope the ISO improvements over the MK II aren't all smoke and mirrors. I've not seen that many high-ISO shots that are that good, sadly.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 22, 2012)

WilliamG said:


> I'm definitely not as impressed by these high ISO shots as some other people. They look waxy, smeary, NR-ed to all heck if you ask me. The one shot a page back with the books was a prime example. At 25,600 it's clear all the detail of the ripped black book has been lost. And the daughter's classmate shot shows the same issue. All skin detail etc is lost.
> 
> *sigh* I really hope the ISO improvements over the MK II aren't all smoke and mirrors. I've not seen that many high-ISO shots that are that good, sadly.



I understand where you are coming from. The difference is not huge compared to 5d2. On the little girl's pic, her face was outside the dof (taken at f/5.6 @ 400mm); here hair however were within the DOF. The 5d3 sensor is an evolutiontionary change, not a radical one. The tech is basically the same with some tweaks. In terms of performance, the 5d3 IMHO should have been priced perhaps $700 ove rthe 5d2, not $1500. I think they are price skimming and when the "gotta have the new camera" crowd is sold, then perhaps we see some competative pricing.


----------

