# Noise in 5D III - Concern or my fault?



## colin.davis (Sep 28, 2014)

Hey Team,

So after all your help and advice, I went out last week and bought a 5D III and a Tamron 24-70 2.8 
This was to replace my 600D with a 15-85

My first event was big fireworks and something has gone wrong.

I have just uploaded to lightroom and I am concerned with my 5D images. They have soo much noise. To the point where 100 luminance is required to remove it from the sky!!

My question is have I don't something wrong or is there something wrong. I'll admit there are a lot more menu settings on my 5D than I expected and I tried to tinker pre fireworks. 

The only two that may affect it possibly? - I adjusted long exp noise reduction to put it ON and I enabled 'highlight tone priority' Is this why

How I took the photos
- Pre focused on the bridge, then changed focusing to manual and turned off image stabiliser
- 5D on a tripod
- 600D on a gorilla pod wrapped around a fence (so yes this should have been the dodgy one)

Details for photos

5D: Manual: F11, Iso 250, 10 seconds, 
600D: Manual, F10, Iso 200, 10 seconds

These photos are essentially unedited. I uploaded them to lightroom then saved them without changing anything. They have been downsized to work here but they give the same effect.

first up the 5D


----------



## colin.davis (Sep 28, 2014)

Here are the 600D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 28, 2014)

Canon has poor low ISO read noise and banding for this day and age.

However, in this case, there is nothing to look at in black sky anyway, so all you need to do is push the dark shadows down a bit and raise the black clip point up a bit and you get rid of the noise and maintain 100% detail in all the areas that have detail and the problem is solved pretty much perfectly.


----------



## tolusina (Sep 28, 2014)

colin.davis said:


>


Looks like camera shake. I cannot find any sharp detail in this photo anywhere.


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 28, 2014)

You have shake in there somewhere. Look at the purple bridge lights, none of them are sharp on the 5d and looks like a shift where the other seems tight. 

Any wind. I find when I do these shots if the tripod is not weighted down, especially longer exposures, the wind can sneak in... where are a Gorilla pod on a fence actually may stand up better.


----------



## colin.davis (Sep 28, 2014)

There was likely some shake yes. That is something that couldn't be helped on the night
And yes you can edit it out, but that's not really point is it. 

I am trying to work out, is there some fundamental flaw in either my settings or the camera/lens?

Would that shake account for the noise in the sky? Its on ALL the 5D photos. I upgraded from the 600D to improve the noise, but to me it looks worse...

You have to look at the full images to appreciate it.


----------



## weixing (Sep 28, 2014)

Hi,
I suspect it's might be the "highlight tone priority" as this feature actually shoot in lower ISO and apply a tone curve which will preserves more highlight, but at the expense of increasing shadow noise.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 28, 2014)

colin.davis said:


> To the point where 100 luminance is required to remove it from the sky!!



Try using the tune curve or local editing with the brush to either darken these areas or selectively apply more noise reduction.



colin.davis said:


> My question is have I don't something wrong or is there something wrong. I'll admit there are a lot more menu settings on my 5D than I expected and I tried to tinker pre fireworks.



Shooting fireworks with good results requires either preparation and settings from other users, or a lot of trial & error until you've got it working. It's unlikely you'd succeed with point and shoot.



colin.davis said:


> The only two that may affect it possibly? - I adjusted long exp noise reduction to put it ON and I enabled 'highlight tone priority' Is this why



In part, yes, do read up on what these settings actually do - long time noise reduction is for reeeeeeallly long astro shots, and htp doesn't make any sense when shooting raw.

Yes, I know, it's complicated and confusing when you start off, the 5d3 is no beginner's camera but semi-pro. And it isn't designed for high-dynamic range firework shots, even the 6d would work better in this case. Hint: If you get more advanced, use Magic Lantern, it boosts your dynamic range from 11ev to 14.5ev+



colin.davis said:


> 5D: Manual: F11, Iso 250, 10 seconds



Bad choice, only use full iso stops (100/200/400/...) or you lose image quality.



colin.davis said:


> These photos are essentially unedited. I uploaded them to lightroom then saved them without changing anything. They have been downsized to work here but they give the same effect.



For real debugging, please do take the pain and upload a raw file to an image hoster, then post the link - judging from downsampled jpeg doesn't make much sense. You can get good help on CR, but you need to provide some data to work with.


----------



## colin.davis (Sep 28, 2014)

Thanks Marsu42 for the help. Really appreciate it

Why I started this was essentially this question: Was it just me screwing up or is there camera/lens involvement? I had just bought the camera 3 days ago and got a bit concerned with the images when they were suboptimal compared to my 600D. I panicked and just wanted to see if I needed to return/exchange it. You read forums about getting a 'bad egg' and you panic 

I will search the forums for "How to check your new camera/lens is a 'dud / suboptimal'

- Stating needing 100 luminance was merely to emphasize the noise - I wouldn't actually do that 
- I've shot fireworks before with my 600D with quite good results, so I was trying to use similar settings, but I guess got caught up in the moment of a new camera with lots of new buttons (plus they have ALL moved) . 
- Thanks for the help re the 2 settings I changed. Again had 3 hrs pre fireworks which with new camera means tinker and adjust. should not have done this  I will read up on these. You learn heaps from forums like this about settings, etc but I have never once seen/read a topic on ideal menu settings. Another thing to add to my list of learning.
- Did not know that about full iso stops. thanks! (600D only has full stops). 

I know its a steep curve. I went from a P&S to the 600D and that has been a good few years before I feel I know it back to front. I will now have to do the same with this one 5DIII.

Thanks for the help guys. I'll put this one down to a learning experience. Try again next year


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Bad choice, only use full iso stops (100/200/400/...) or you lose image quality.



I am fairly certain that is an urban legend with no basis in reality.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Oct 14, 2014)

MrFotoFool said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Bad choice, only use full iso stops (100/200/400/...) or you lose image quality.
> ...



I'd be quite interested in hearing the opinions of a few of the forum's gurus on this topic.

Paging Doctor Neuro... Paging Doctor Neuro...


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 14, 2014)

MrFotoFool said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Bad choice, only use full iso stops (100/200/400/...) or you lose image quality.
> ...



Well, I'm not one of the CR heavyweights, but in this point I'm positive: The Magic Lantern guys have tested the iso steps a lot, and you simply need to look at the dr values of intermediate iso stops: When shooting raw anything except full iso stops just nudges the data left or right, so you gain nothing, but lose dynamic range.

Edit: Due to Canon's read noise problem, iso160 can have an itsy-bitsy-tiny amount of more dynamic range than iso200, but nothing to write home about. Imho it doesn't justify getting confused about the iso settings, if you need more dr just use Magic Lantern's dual_iso (at low iso) and/or wait for their upcoming mini_iso module providing +1/3-1/2ev more dr for free with no hassle attached.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 14, 2014)

Forget where I read it, but I try and use ISO 100, 160, 320, 640

You can use the standard ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, but the 160 is really ISO 200 that is 1/3rd under exposed and seems to come out less noise. You can see some tests out there where 160 appears to be less noisy than 100 even. 

My understanding is for some of the "expansion" of the ISO, the lower is pushed and the upper is pulled, and the pulled ones, because under exposed, are cleaner. You are losing some DR, but you gt less noise, so if that is your concern, 160 will produce less noise than 100 or 200.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 14, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> My understanding is for some of the "expansion" of the ISO, the lower is pushed and the upper is pulled, and the pulled ones, because under exposed, are cleaner. You are losing some DR, but you gt less noise, so if that is your concern, 160 will produce less noise than 100 or 200.



Generally, "pulling" means just digitally(!) moving the data to the left side of the histogram, the "analog" sensor setting is exactly the same as in the base iso it's "pulled" from. It's all bout Canon's very high read noise that drowns dynamic range on lower iso (hence the flat nearly flag dr curve at the start != Nikon exmor). But "160 better than 100" is an urban legend, at least with the camera models I have (60d 18mp sensor & 6d). 

Read this where I've asked the Magic Lantern people about this, and their answers are in-depth: *"Do have iso160-multiples have more dr & less noise?" http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9867.0*


----------



## lycan (Oct 14, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> I suspect it's might be the "highlight tone priority" as this feature actually shoot in lower ISO and apply a tone curve which will preserves more highlight, but at the expense of increasing shadow noise.
> 
> Have a nice day.



I think this is the right reason/answer to your problem


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding is for some of the "expansion" of the ISO, the lower is pushed and the upper is pulled, and the pulled ones, because under exposed, are cleaner. You are losing some DR, but you gt less noise, so if that is your concern, 160 will produce less noise than 100 or 200.
> ...



Part of my argument is made in there. See the following graph:






The graph shows at least for the 5D MK III and the 7D:
ISO 160 < 1SO 100 < ISO 125
ISO 320 < 1SO 200 < ISO 250
ISO 640 < 1SO 400 < ISO 500

I read the thread, and there seems to be mixed confusion. 

It is fairly easy to test. Do same shooting for a longer exposure with lens cap on, and increase ISO and compare image noise seen:

I think this may have been the link I have originally found:

http://indigoverse.com/the-truth-about-native-iso-for-canon-dslrs/


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 14, 2014)

Maybe I'm going blind but it looks more of a camera shake problem than an noise problem.
I have a gorilla pod and have never been impressed with its stability.
It never grips something perfectly stable (at least the biggest version one of them doesn't).
Still from the distance the photos don't look so bad. The two shots are reasonably good fireworks shots.
Since the vast majority of photos go no further than Facebook or Flickr I wouldn't be too worried.
If you want good fireworks shot the most essential item is a sturdy tripod not a more expensive camera.
The 5D III isn't a miracle worker but it's a good solid and consistent camera.
Noise control is good enough. I've taken alot of night shots at reasonably high ISO's and been very happy with the results. I pixel peep too and would love better noise control and dynamic range but really its a crutch. What I need to do is improve my composition and find better locations. That would be a major improvement well beyond what a new camera could provide.
I think your 5D III is fine and you will grow to love it.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 14, 2014)

I realize this is heresy, but you could always use film for night shots!


----------



## e17paul (Oct 14, 2014)

Have you checked that long exposure noise reduction is switched on (separate to high ISO noise reduction)?


----------

