If this is the best the D800 can do...

[takoman46]

I just want a clean 6400. Anything more is gravy

That's true. I don't recall any scenario where I would have needed to exceed ISO 6400 to get adequate exposure with a decent shutter speed for hand held shooting. 6400 seems to be enough for most ambient light situations as well. Unfortunately ISO 6400 on my 5DmkII has been almost unusable and required intense post processing. The Nikon D800 sample photos don't seem much better if at all at ISO 6400. Is there hope for the 5DmkIII ISO 6400 performance? 

[GL]

I just want a clean 6400. Anything more is gravy

That's true. I don't recall any scenario where I would have needed to exceed ISO 6400 to get adequate exposure with a decent shutter speed for hand held shooting. 6400 seems to be enough for most ambient light situations as well. Unfortunately ISO 6400 on my 5DmkII has been almost unusable and required intense post processing. The Nikon D800 sample photos don't seem much better if at all at ISO 6400. Is there hope for the 5DmkIII ISO 6400 performance? 

That's what I'm hoping for. I started this thread when I saw the D800 ISO 6400 sample!

[moreorless]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

I have the 5D2 and I think this is about 1/2 to 2/3 stop better than the 5D2 can do.
Hopefully the 5D3 has improved to at least this level to. I don't really expect it to be better since we are closing up to what is physically possible to do.
(a 100% efficiency FF sensor would probably be about 1 stop better than D800 so there is not much room for improvement)

Not sure what's wrong with your 5D2 then, because mine is at least 1/2 stop better than this at 1600+. That said the D800 is 36MP, so 1/2 stop worse than 5D2 is still an incredible achievement for Nikon. Just don't expect the D800 to be a low-light superstar, which is what I *AM* expecting the 5D3 to be. That - and video - will be the 5D3's trump cards in my opinion. As a professional wedding filmmaker and photographer, I know for fact my colleagues and I are going to lap up the Mk III if it improves on the Mk II in these aspects. Anything else is gravy. Nikon just can't compete when it comes to pro video on an SLR, and the early reviews of the D800's video capabilities (and quality) seem to pan this out.

Since you are talking about the number of pixels as they should have anything to do with low light capability it is obvious that you don't have any competence whatsoever in what you are talking about.
My guess is that the statement of your 5D2 is at the same lack of knowledge level.
If the 5D3 will have better or worse low light capability than D800 we don't know. We can hope for better but there is not any room to be a lot better. 0.5 stop would be amazing.
The only thing we know is that so far the D800 after D3s and D4 has the lowest high iso noise.

You've posted this before but on a pixel by pixel basis it does seem pretty clear that more megapixels = worse ISO performance on sensors of the same size and technology.

I personally do not buy the arguement that downrezing will always give equal or better results either, I'v seen more than a few NEX vs NEX 7 comparisons recently and the NEX 7 has looked significantly worst at higher ISO's even downrezed to 16 megapixels.

[Viggo]

I hope my post didn't come across as critical of Nikon or the D800 - that's not what I meant. What I want from a camera upgrade is a stop or two better ISO than my 5D2, and from what I've seen the D800 is not it. If the Mk III doesn't improve on the Mk II's high-ISO noise then I won't be buying it either, but frankly, since it seems they're keeping the resolution about the same, I can only imagine they'll improve the quality of the sensor and photosites in this regard.

I hope so i would love the 12800 to be the new 3200

1d X

[KeithR]

You've posted this before but on a pixel by pixel basis it does seem pretty clear that more megapixels = worse ISO performance on sensors of the same size and technology.

Care to cite some proof of that? I can't find any...

[Martin]

If AF is only thing that will be improved in 5d3 there would be nothing keeping me in Canon. I expect a big step in DR, AF, ISO. I have already decided, that if that would not come, I end my relation with Canon. I was a Nikon user a year and ago, and switched to Canon, expecting next 5d3 will be outstanding, but so far it seems that my old friend Nikon made a camera that meet all my expectations, even a little bit too much (mpix). I am little bit upset about Canon, however we will see if there's a really a new nicely improved 5d3 coming or only an old one with a perfect marketing around and better AF. Hope the first option will be valid, because selling my Canon lens would be a financial loss for me. To be honest, after I had  bought a 5d2 a always waited for 5d3, i did not like the camera, I was being used to AF and other things in Nikon like WB, colors, configuration options, built quality, raw files. 5d2 images was better in terms of quality but i just hated capturing things with 5d2. People who own s Nikon know exactly what I am talking about.  Bought 5d2 it for Canon primes and other lenses. Right now a 5d3 will be a kind of decision maker for me. Stay or go away. I know, i know- i write it many times, but I am really frustrated with Canon and made a bad decision about year ago.

[V8Beast]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

Looks good to me. Can't wait for UPS to deliver mine 

what is your first lens gonna be? the 14-24? do yourself a favour and get the little 50mm f1.4G too

My first lens will be the 24-120, but I'm going to keep all my Canon glass and roll dual systems for a while. If I like the results from the D800, I'll follow that up with a 70-200 and a 16-35 or a 14-24, then sell off my Canon gear to complete the transition. If the D800 ends up being a complete POS, I'll order up a 5DIII and sell what few pieces of Nikon gear I will have acquired at that point.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but with a native ISO range up to 25,600, I'm expected great improvements in low-light and DR from the 5DIII. Hell, maybe I'll pre-order it too and compare it side-by-side to the D800 for a couple of shoots, then decide which system to keep from there. I'd really like to test out a new body ASAP for some gigs I've got coming up. It's only money, right  ?

[moreorless]

You've posted this before but on a pixel by pixel basis it does seem pretty clear that more megapixels = worse ISO performance on sensors of the same size and technology.

Care to cite some proof of that? I can't find any...

D3s vs D3X? obviously not idenetical techology but sensors the same size produced around the same time.

[thure1982]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

It's Swedish, it just explains how they took the shots, dubble ISO while halfing the exposure-time and no crop. But it's written really badly like it's auto-translated from some other side before this side.

[KeithR]

D3s vs D3X? obviously not identical techology but sensors the same size produced around the same time.

Actually, at the image level they're really pretty close - close enough for the differences to be accountable for by other variations in the tech (I have always been of the belief that there's some software NR going on in the D3S - I've read no plausible technical explanations for its noise performance improvements over the D3).

[Tuggem]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

I have the 5D2 and I think this is about 1/2 to 2/3 stop better than the 5D2 can do.
Hopefully the 5D3 has improved to at least this level to. I don't really expect it to be better since we are closing up to what is physically possible to do.
(a 100% efficiency FF sensor would probably be about 1 stop better than D800 so there is not much room for improvement)

Not sure what's wrong with your 5D2 then, because mine is at least 1/2 stop better than this at 1600+. That said the D800 is 36MP, so 1/2 stop worse than 5D2 is still an incredible achievement for Nikon. Just don't expect the D800 to be a low-light superstar, which is what I *AM* expecting the 5D3 to be. That - and video - will be the 5D3's trump cards in my opinion. As a professional wedding filmmaker and photographer, I know for fact my colleagues and I are going to lap up the Mk III if it improves on the Mk II in these aspects. Anything else is gravy. Nikon just can't compete when it comes to pro video on an SLR, and the early reviews of the D800's video capabilities (and quality) seem to pan this out.

Since you are talking about the number of pixels as they should have anything to do with low light capability it is obvious that you don't have any competence whatsoever in what you are talking about.
My guess is that the statement of your 5D2 is at the same lack of knowledge level.
If the 5D3 will have better or worse low light capability than D800 we don't know. We can hope for better but there is not any room to be a lot better. 0.5 stop would be amazing.
The only thing we know is that so far the D800 after D3s and D4 has the lowest high iso noise.

You've posted this before but on a pixel by pixel basis it does seem pretty clear that more megapixels = worse ISO performance on sensors of the same size and technology.

I personally do not buy the arguement that downrezing will always give equal or better results either, I'v seen more than a few NEX vs NEX 7 comparisons recently and the NEX 7 has looked significantly worst at higher ISO's even downrezed to 16 megapixels.

It would be interesting if you could provide links.
What I had found so far, dxo, dpreview, steve huff, and luminus landscape have all failed to show that NEX-5n would have less noise than NEX-7 at high iso.

I think you are right in your comment about downsizing. The result may vary somewhat depening on choosen method of downsampling.