High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800

[V8Beast]

does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be incapable of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at more than acceptable quality?

That's a great point, and the obvious answer is of course not. Nine times out of 10, the limiting factor with either body is going to be the skill of the photographer.

Even so, I'm looking at this more as a long-term investment. I'm already invested in the Canon system, but the competition has been making incredible strides the last 3-4 years. Back when I started shooting digital in the early '00s, if you showed up with Nikon gear at a gig, all the Canon-toting photogs laughed their asses off at you. Nikon was that bad, and lost a TON of market share from loyal Nikon photogs switching over the Canon. No working pro in their right mind shot with anything other than Canon, and the day that Nikon would catch up, let alone surpass Canon, was inconceivable. The catchphrase "Digital revolutionized photography, Canon revolutionized digital" was 100% fact and 0% marketing BS.

These days, for a Canon shooter, the marginal improvements the company has made in its crop and full-frame models the last 1-2 generations might make you think that you're backing the wrong horse.  Don't get me wrong. Canon still makes a great product, and I think it still has a better overall system than Nikon. The question is whether Nikon is going to continue pulling away, or if Canon is going to reclaim its digital supremacy.

[V8Beast]

you could just use both, I used both Nikon and canon for ages then just got sick of different batteries , doubling up on alot of gear so sold off all my nikon gear mainly because I was so heavily invested in canon too and the 5Dmk2s give great IQ also the whole D800 being continually delayed annoyed the hell out of me . I'll be interested to hear your take when you get them both though, I am sure both will be great

I've considered this option as well, but I don't make enough moolah with my gear to warrant having two systems, and redundancy in lenses and accessories between them. I was hoping there would be a big enough difference between the 5DIII and D800 that I could just outright cancel one of my pre-orders, but I think I'm going to have to try them both out side-by-side. If that happens and the 5DIII comes out on top, I'll post my impressions here. If the D800 comes out on top, I'll have to PM or e-mail  you my impressions or else I'll get flamed into oblivion 

[poker_jake85]

5d mk III is going to be a beast, it is better than the d800.

You really should change your name to Joker_Jake85. Apart from faster FPS and rate button, the 5D3 really doesn't have anything on the D800.

And no, I am not a Nikon fanboy. I am invested into Canon and I'm really sad to say that the 5D3 will be outperformed by the competition.

lol, sure sound like a fanboy. To me the extra FPS, AF system, and better ISO performance, plus canon lenses are cheaper and better than Nikon, this camera is most definitely worth the $3500. Already sold my mk ii and keeping my 7d as a backup. This is what I wanted in a FF camera and thank you canon for delivering.

[briansquibb]

you could just use both, I used both Nikon and canon for ages then just got sick of different batteries , doubling up on alot of gear so sold off all my nikon gear mainly because I was so heavily invested in canon too and the 5Dmk2s give great IQ also the whole D800 being continually delayed annoyed the hell out of me . I'll be interested to hear your take when you get them both though, I am sure both will be great

I've considered this option as well, but I don't make enough moolah with my gear to warrant having two systems, and redundancy in lenses and accessories between them. I was hoping there would be a big enough difference between the 5DIII and D800 that I could just outright cancel one of my pre-orders, but I think I'm going to have to try them both out side-by-side. If that happens and the 5DIII comes out on top, I'll post my impressions here. If the D800 comes out on top, I'll have to PM or e-mail  you my impressions or else I'll get flamed into oblivion 

I believe the IQ of the two will be very simillar such that it will impossible to tell the difference on a 20" x 16" print

Anyone who expects high IQ at more than iso 800 is going to beunlucky because that is about the point where the DR takes a nose dive. There may be little noise but it will be flat as a pancake - so all the wonderful talk about high iso means low DR and a horrible picture

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO

Well we still don't know this for sure

Oh yes "we" do.

I've done many tests on the low ISO RAW files from D800 and the 5D3, and I've seen that the D800 (and especially the D800E) completely smokes the 5D3, when it comes to low ISO IQ and dynamic range.

It is the new king of dynamic range and landscape photography for sure.

There are still thousands of nay-sayers at the Canon side, but everyone will know the truth by next month.

What, exactly, is the definition of "completely smokes"? (A NON-SUBJECTIVE definition fitting for the context is obviously preferable, I'd rather not have to debate the subjective nature of your definition, and the subjective nature of the definitions definition, etc. etc. ad inf.)

But seriously, where does that kind of crazy talk come from? Unless you have a critical need to photograph the sun itself while concurrently demonstrating that the vastness of space is black, lightless and lifeless, or are photographing frogs in the dead of night illuminated with nothing but starlight, the capabilities of neither of these cameras is actually "needed". And if you do have an ever-present critical need to do one of the above two tasks, your probably a scientist of some kind...and as a scientist, you'll probably find that using a scientific device that is properly designed to meet your specific and rather niche needs will do the job far better than either the D800 or 5D III (or any other DSLR camera on the market as of today.)

Excluding the excessive probing and augmentation of the bottom 3 bits of dynamic range from modern cameras that multiplies them 64 times beyond their normal state, does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be incapable of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at more than acceptable quality? (Acceptable, not "perfect"...were not looking for heart-attack inducing perfection here...and if you are...you probably need to multiply your budget by an order of magnitude and look elsewhere.) Does anyone REALLY think you couldn't print the same photo from both cameras at a standard print size? (Lets use 8x10 or 8.5x11, since thats about good enough for a magazine centerfold or the average photographic portfolio, a happy medium between your run of the mill 4x6 and a wall-hanging size of say 13x19/A3 or 17x22/A2.) On a normalized basis, for the very, very vast majority of photographers, these two cameras are so much more than anyone actually needs its kind of humorous. Were not all shooting this:

https://vimeo.com/32001208
^-- Shot with a D3s or D3X, forget which

(Bummer, this forum needs support for embedding Vimeo videos)

So a few days ago when you thought Canon would improve DR a lot and make it the same as Exmore or close then you cared a lot of about DR and now that it seems VERY likely that it hasn't improved at all and it will be behind the D800 by a noticeable margin, now suddenly high DR is suddenly a pretty useless feature for a camera to have? And you blasted me for being a troll for days?
 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be incapable of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at more than acceptable quality?

That's a great point, and the obvious answer is of course not. Nine times out of 10, the limiting factor with either body is going to be the skill of the photographer.

Even so, I'm looking at this more as a long-term investment. I'm already invested in the Canon system, but the competition has been making incredible strides the last 3-4 years. Back when I started shooting digital in the early '00s, if you showed up with Nikon gear at a gig, all the Canon-toting photogs laughed their asses off at you. Nikon was that bad, and lost a TON of market share from loyal Nikon photogs switching over the Canon. No working pro in their right mind shot with anything other than Canon, and the day that Nikon would catch up, let alone surpass Canon, was inconceivable. The catchphrase "Digital revolutionized photography, Canon revolutionized digital" was 100% fact and 0% marketing BS.

These days, for a Canon shooter, the marginal improvements the company has made in its crop and full-frame models the last 1-2 generations might make you think that you're backing the wrong horse.  Don't get me wrong. Canon still makes a great product, and I think it still has a better overall system than Nikon. The question is whether Nikon is going to continue pulling away, or if Canon is going to reclaim its digital supremacy.

+1

Back in 2004 if you asked people on the sidelines what to get, they'd say Canon. When to the local newspaper, Canon. Talked to people in the PJ department, Canon. I once ran into a Getty photographer in Best Buy and when he heard that  was shooting Canon he had a sad and wistful look in his eye and said how lucky I was and that he was really thinking it was time to finally just give up an switch to Canon. etc.

Now, you do not by any means here the advice to pick Canon over Nikon 98% of the time any more.

I can't help but think back to the interview with some European Canon exec where he was more or less laughing at how pathetic Nikon was and how they were hopelessly behind and would take years upon years upon years to ever catch up in FF and how when asked what Canon needed to do next he more or less went on along the lines of we are kings and can sit and rest on our high perch and if we ever should actually need to respond we have so much stuff ready we can instantly respond and beat them at anything. I had a really bad feeling when I saw that interview, it spelled trouble in my mind. Can't imagine him getting away with talk like that now, just a very, very few years later. It seems to me that they became a little bit too slow and too full of their superiority and too much what can we hold back and how can we milk this more and too protective and too reactive instead of being the old Canon that would be bold and leap forward all cannons blazing. They were sooooo far head of Nikon but just sat around thinking they didn't need to go all out.

I mean it's hardly disaster now, the 5D3 should be comparable at high isos and in terms of response and AF to any of the Nikons and hopefully the video will be better, but it is also $500 more than the most direct D800 competition and offers worse metering and it seems very likely that it will quite clearly lose for lower ISO image quality by pretty much any marker you can think of, sometimes by a good deal, and they certainly appear to be clearly behind in sensor tech now and even charging more for arguably less or the same.

EDIT: although to be fair you do need to add $$ to the D800 to get it to 6fps, so that suddenly brings the price even

[justsomedude]

Found these new d800 shots on a Polish website about some Nikon "roadshow". 

http://www.arekgmurczyk.pl/zdjecia-z-nikona-d800-i-d800e-na-iso-50-iso-25-600-roadshow-w-warszawie/

May be worthwhile shots for doing some comparos.  I grabbed the ISO 50 and ISO 100 shots from the RAR.  They are pretty impressive.  Tried uploading the 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 shots, but MediaFire kept giving me upload failures...

http://www.mediafire.com/?joc2owtmuztmmt9
http://www.mediafire.com/?lwx0m62f5n4z1ml

Problem noise starts creeping in a little earlier than I would've guessed based on other samples.  The 1600 is rough, while 3200 is definitely noisy (the areas outside the DOF seem even mushier).

However, on the flip side, the incredible detail of the low ISO shots is mind blowing.  I've never seen this kind of detail from a FF dSLR.  Heck, you can even clearly make out the ridges in the "Canon" logo up to 3200.

:-/

[V8Beast]

I believe the IQ of the two will be very simillar such that it will impossible to tell the difference on a 20" x 16" print

Anyone who expects high IQ at more than iso 800 is going to beunlucky because that is about the point where the DR takes a nose dive. There may be little noise but it will be flat as a pancake - so all the wonderful talk about high iso means low DR and a horrible picture

That's a good point. Fortunately, the images that I take for editorial clients that are printed the largest are almost always at low ISO, which is why my main concern when comparing the two bodies in question is DR.

Editorial work is funny, because on one hand, there are only a couple of two-page spreads that are printed per story, and most the other images end up being printed rather small. On the other hand, editors and art directors critique each of your images based on what they see on a nice 27-inch Apple Cinema display, so ISO performance, DR performance, and overall IQ are critical in all your shots regardless of  how big or small they are printed. Considering they determine who to hire and who not to hire based on how well your images stand out on a big fancy monitor, you can't put anything less than 110 percent into each shot regardless of how it will be used in print.   

[jrista]

So a few days ago when you thought Canon would improve DR a lot and make it the same as Exmore or close then you cared a lot of about DR and now that it seems VERY likely that it hasn't improved at all and it will be behind the D800 by a noticeable margin, now suddenly high DR is suddenly a pretty useless feature for a camera to have? And you blasted me for being a troll for days?
 

I still care a lot about DR. The difference between you and I, however, is that I've not jumped to any conclusions about what DR the 5D III is capable of. I personally still think it will be demonstrably improved over the 5D II once some more scientific tests are done. Two reasons I believe that: One, Canon has explicitly claimed on several occasions that they made SENSOR-LEVEL improvements to SNR that lead to improved ISO, better noise at high ISO, AND wider dynamic range...for both the 1D X and 5D III. Second, it seems the base read level for the masked off areas in the 5D III is 2048 rather than 1024. No one really knows how those values are used, why there is a non-zero base, or how a higher base over the 5D II might affect DR in the 5D III (you certainly have more "negative" room...about twice as much.) As for comparison to Nikon...since switching to Sony sensors, they have always had the edge when it came to DR...by a stop or two. Unless Canon has made similar kinds of hardware-level read and ADC improvements to their sensors, its doubtful they will gain the full 2 - 2.5 stops of DR improvement. Realistically, figure 1-2 stops (more so for the 1D X than the 5D III, obviously.) Nothing really changes on the Canon vs. Nikon front there, so as far as I'm concerned its rather moot to worry about it.

I haven't preconcluded that the 5D III offers no image sensor improvement over the 5D II. Thats been my stance the entire time you and I have been arguing with you all over DR (and the reason I've argued in the first place.) You seem to think everyone is just going to go balls to the walls tears because a few tech heads on the net crack open the new CR2 files with open source and beta software, a thorough lack of understanding of how those files may need to be processed to extract the maximum amount of DR, make a few claims about how the 5D III is already a failure, and that tomorrow...oh, wait, sorry, on 12/12/21...the world ends. It MAY be true, just as much as it MAY NOT be true. Not all of us are as naive as to simply believe the tech heads, and we're quite happy to believe the improvements Canon claims (not to mention our own eyes) are real until official tests by DXO, DPR, and friends are done with a full and proper understanding. 



To play the devils advocate, lets say the absolute worst case so many of you seem to fear actually ends up being true: The D800 beats the 5D III in every single category by miles. Does that mean the 5D III can't take better photos than the 5D II, or the 1D IV, or the 7D, or the 1D/s III, or a whole bunch of prior Nikon and Sony cameras? The answer, as we all know, is Hell No! So what does it really matter...unless you literally have the funds to jump ship, dump your entire kit, and replace it with an entirely new Nikon kit?  Nothing.

[jrista]

Editorial work is funny, because on one hand, there are only a couple of two-page spreads that are printed per story, and most the other images end up being printed rather small. On the other hand, editors and art directors critique each of your images based on what they see on a nice 27-inch Apple Cinema display, so ISO performance, DR performance, and overall IQ are critical in all your shots regardless of  how big or small they are printed. Considering they determine who to hire and who not to hire based on how well your images stand out on a big fancy monitor, you can't put anything less than 110 percent into each shot regardless of how it will be used in print.

I would REALLY like to hear from a broad set of editors and art directors to know if that line has even a scrap of truth in it. I don't think DR or even noise are anywhere near the top things on an editors mind when they are critiquing photographs for publication. For one, no one can even gauge the dynamic range of a photo by eyeballing it, and even if they did measure it...what are they measuring? The DR capability of the camera you used to take the shot, or your fully post-processed image that has a myriad of exposure tweaks, curve adjustments, color tweaks, noise reduction, and sharpening applied? Assuming you actually did capture a photo with 14 stops of dynamic range, does that even matter a wit for the final presentation format...in this case print? Viewed on something like a LaCie 730 10-bpp RGB LED display that covers 123% of the AdobeRGB gamut (probably the best photographic editing screen on the planet), your instantly limited to viewing 10 stops of DR. Printed, you can't expect much more than 8 stops at most with the absolute best paper, inks and printers, and on average you might get 5-7 stops with even very good inks and papers (as ink density limits your black point and paper brightness limits your white point.) The offset lithography printing normally used for publications has greater color, resolution, and DR limitations than your average Epson or Canon 10 to 12-color ink jet (they are used because they are economical and offer good enough IQ), so your certainly not gaining anything there. If your photos are so noisy or have such atrocious DR that an editor dumps them, then the problem is far more likely that you aren't exposing or lighting your scene properly than the fact that the camera shows a minor amount of banding noise in the lower few bits of the 14 available. As for IQ...well, even the crummy samples Canon has offered demonstrate that the 5D III will take photos with stunning IQ when they are exposed properly (and that really is the goal).

There are SO many other things that make a photograph, and many more that make it art. Whether your camera is a stop or two less capable than the competitions is not going to cost you your job with that fancy magazine.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I still care a lot about DR. The difference between you and I, however, is that I've not jumped to any conclusions about what DR the 5D III is capable of. I personally still think it will be demonstrably improved over the 5D II once some more scientific tests are done. Two reasons I believe that: One, Canon has explicitly claimed on several occasions that they made SENSOR-LEVEL improvements to SNR that lead to improved ISO, better noise at high ISO, AND wider dynamic range...for both the 1D X and 5D III. Second, it seems the base read level for the masked off areas in the 5D III is 2048 rather than 1024. No one really knows how those values are used, why there is a non-zero base, or how a higher base over the 5D II might affect DR in the 5D III (you certainly have more "negative" room...about twice as much.)

If you check back in the thread where you suddenly disappeared from you will notice that black frames have been provided and lo and behold the results are basically the same as when using the masked area (other than being slightly WORSE, same as with the 7D). There is nothing weird about 2048 instead of 1024. The 7D also used 2048, unlike the older models.

As for comparison to Nikon...since switching to Sony sensors, they have always had the edge when it came to DR...by a stop or two. Unless Canon has made similar kinds of hardware-level read and ADC improvements to their sensors, its doubtful they will gain the full 2 - 2.5 stops of DR improvement. Realistically, figure 1-2 stops (more so for the 1D X than the 5D III, obviously.) Nothing really changes on the Canon vs. Nikon front there, so as far as I'm concerned its rather moot to worry about it.

Well that would have been awesome, but it has been tested on masked areas by many people and by black frames now too by a number of people and nobody has measured any improvement at all.

I haven't preconcluded that the 5D III offers no image sensor improvement over the 5D II. Thats been my stance the entire time you and I have been arguing with you all over DR (and the reason I've argued in the first place.) You seem to think everyone is just going to go balls to the walls tears because a few tech heads on the net crack open the new CR2 files with open source and beta software, a thorough lack of understanding of how those files may need to be processed to extract the maximum amount of DR, make a few claims about how the 5D III is already a failure, and that tomorrow...oh, wait, sorry, on 12/12/21...the world ends. It MAY be true, just as much as it MAY NOT be true. Not all of us are as naive as to simply believe the tech heads, and we're quite happy to believe the improvements Canon claims (not to mention our own eyes) are real until official tests by DXO, DPR, and friends are done with a full and proper understanding. 

Really and what gives them, especially DPR, such above and beyond understanding of the rest? Some of the people who have carried out the test so far I believe have rather more degrees than anyone at DPR has if that is the sort of thing you care about. People who have actually written RAW decoders, theoretical particle physics PhDs, astrophysics PhDs, people with degrees in engineering, etc. 

Any where is the logic in saying that you don't trust the findings of us tech heads because you only trust tech heads (DxO/DPR and friends with a full and proper tech head understanding)? 

To play the devils advocate, lets say the absolute worst case so many of you seem to fear actually ends up being true: The D800 beats the 5D III in every single category by miles. Does that mean the 5D III can't take better photos than the 5D II, or the 1D IV, or the 7D, or the 1D/s III, or a whole bunch of prior Nikon and Sony cameras? The answer, as we all know, is Hell No! So what does it really matter...unless you literally have the funds to jump ship, dump your entire kit, and replace it with an entirely new Nikon kit?  Nothing.

It's certainly not a total disaster or anything but it is kind of disappointing that after all of this time and all of Canon's braying about how they were the kings and Nikon was hopelessly far behind in FF technology that they seemingly can't deliver one single bit of improvement to Canon image sensor below ISO800 after 4.5 years. Sure many images fit into the DR it already delivers but there are golden moments where it simply falls flat and it would have been exciting to get a camera that allow more freedom to shoot what you want (and the higher density D800 and it's 6fps DX mode work better for wildlife shooting too).

Maybe they are cheaping out and didn't want to use the new process on it, maybe they didn't feel like paying for the DR improvement tech or maybe they are simply stuck behind Sony patents and none of the other stuff worked out or would have actually worked out, although that isn't so great looking to the future if it's that they are trying but are patent blocked and stuck and literally nothing else helps.

(the 7D will still deliver better images if you are reach limited, same goes for the 1D4, otherwise you are probably correct)

Anyway maybe the AF will be truly out of this world and the video will be better, at least.

[jrista]

Not all of us are as naive as to simply believe the tech heads, and we're quite happy to believe the improvements Canon claims

Ah, a model consumer, every company's dream 

Hey, hey, none of that!    I still WANT more!

I want lots and lots more. I just realize that I've already received a LOT with the 5D III, from what so far appears to be stunning ISO up to 25600, one of the best AF systems on the planet, and a thoroughly upgraded body with things like the 7D's transmissive LCD 100% VF, the 1D X menu system, etc. I certainly could complain about the noise characteristics in the bottom couple stops of DR, and how Canon has apparently already failed miserably because the D800 has uberpixels...but I'm HAPPY about what the 5D III already is. I'm GLAD that Canon focused on ISO and camera features rather than just pumping out more megapixels...even though I had hoped for around 28mp rather than 22mp, I'm satisfied.

Based on the tone of Canon forms over at DPR, you might think Canon had literally gone out of business because of how much of a blunder the 5D III supposedly is.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm GLAD that Canon focused on ISO and camera features rather than just pumping out more megapixels...even though I had hoped for around 28mp rather than 22mp, I'm satisfied.

Can you say they focused on ISO and AF rather than more MP when the D800 has more DR and perhaps quite similar ISO and also advanced AF (although perhaps the 5D3/1DX AF will prove better than the D4/D800 AF???)?

Based on the tone of Canon forms over at DPR, you might think Canon had literally gone out of business because of how much of a blunder the 5D III supposedly is.

I think people are freaked by having to deal with, for the first time, being more expensive than the comparable Nikon (at least at base price) and with a worse sensor and not having the most MP, but that said it should have rocking AF, decent fps, and do pretty well at mid to high ISO compared to anything else and perhaps have the best video (I just hope it's not as blurry as the few posted samples show, that might damper that, for now I assume it is just poor choice of in cam settings).

[jrista]

Really and what gives them, especially DPR, such above and beyond understanding of the rest? Some of the people who have carried out the test so far I believe have rather more degrees than anyone at DPR has if that is the sort of thing you care about. People who have actually written RAW decoders, theoretical particle physics PhDs, astrophysics PhDs, people with degrees in engineering, etc. 

Any where is the logic in saying that you don't trust the findings of us tech heads because you only trust tech heads (DxO/DPR and friends with a full and proper tech head understanding)? 

I trust them because they have solid track records about being accurate and meticulous about their camera testing. The only track record I have for most of the DPR tech heads is that they like to tear up Canon raw files and complain about them...A LOT. They could claim (or literally) have 10 Ph.D's...that wouldn't change their track record. They enjoy complaining about Canon DR, I won't fault them for doing what they enjoy...rather than getting out into the real world to enjoy photography...although I think they might be happier doing the latter.


Hmm. You still seem to be missing my point, so I'll state it clearly:

It's certainly not a total disaster or anything but it is kind of disappointing that after all of this time and all of Canon's braying about how they were the kings and Nikon was hopelessly far behind in FF technology that they seemingly can't deliver one single bit of improvement to Canon image sensor below ISO800 after 4.5 years.

That is pure assumption, and will be until the camera actually hits the streets and non-beta software is used to evaluate IQ.

Even testing with a pre-production sample and beta software, we do know that Canon HAS DELIVERED several improvements with their latest sensors: two stops better Native ISO for both the 1D X and 5D III; elimination of fixed pattern noise leaving behind more appealing random noise; higher readout rate, allowing 12-14fps on the 1D X (which is still higher resolution than the 1D IV, and thus definitely an improvement) and 6fps on the 5D III (almost double its predecessor WITH an increase in resolution, even though it was modest.) Saying Canon has not delivered even a "single" improvement over the last four years is just flat out wrong, even in the case of DR. Canon has consistently delivered improvements to DR and low ISO noise...they have just been smaller and smaller improvements as they have approached 12 stops.

Technically speaking, Sony hasn't really invented much in the way of new sensor tech in quite a number of years either...they have just been implementing it. They have sat on patents for their improvements for decades. Things like hardware-level fixed pattern noise reduction, hardware-level dark current noise reduction (a form of CDS, correlated double sampling...which is really an older concept first implemented for CCD's by other parties) date back to the early 2000's, backlit sensor design in CMOS sensors dates back to 2007 at least (I don't even think that was theirs, there are research papers dating back nearly a decade that cover that technology for scientific grade CCD's...Sony was the first to come up with a design for consumer-grade CMOS sensors), etc. Even Column-Parallel ADC is a patent that dates back to 2000.

[briansquibb]

To me the real objective is to raise the iso where:

- the sensor is noiseless (or as near as)
- DR is 10 stops or greater

Historically the move from 12bits to 14bits made a big difference, it would be a big improvement to move to 16bits

Ideally metering improvements would help push the envelope as it would become easier to achieve the optimum exposure (especially for snap photography such as photojournalism or street where there is little time). Just an improvement here would mean that non optimally metered images might get 10 stops DR.

To achieve this at iso 3200 would be a major benefit to all, so then we can concentrate on the content rather than the technicalities.

I bought my 5D2 in Sept 2010 and was somewhat impressed with the low light performance but not the quality. In spring 2011 the quality of my pictures took a leap forward, especially with the wedding photos. Analysis of this showed the reduction in iso as the light improved. I found that prior to the 5D2 I had been keeping the iso low (because of noise issues) whereas the 5D2 released me from those constraints and during the winter months I was happy to use iso 1600 and 3200 which were pretty much noiseless (3200 with care and using the slight over exposure method)

I have found the 'native' iso number to be rather meaningless as it indicates neither noisless nor good DR - however there seems to be a real focus on this headline figure. This number may be of interest to paps, PIs and some sports reporters but for the rest of us use of high iso is not the way to get a top IQ.

Ironically much of my recent photography has been for Victorian re-enactment groups where the image is 'aged'. Even here I have stuck to the principle of the best quality base image before pp. That way gives me the most flexibility  for example high contrast, low contrast, grain/nograin images are not constrained.

I feel the way ahead is to focus on DR and good metering. If I can get this in my next upgrade I will be pleased.  Mps, fps and native iso are secondary to me providing they do not go backwards.