New Canon 5D mark III raws

[Astro]

yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4.  The D4 will be impossible to beat.

yep.. i have too keep that in mind.

[Canon-F1]

yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4.  The D4 will be impossible to beat.  I doubt we'll even see the Mark III competing with the D3S.  Those camera's are low light beasts. 

well i have to admit the D4 examples look good.

you don´t have to go high as ISO 6400 even ISO 800 shows more details in the D4 pictures then in the 5D MK3 pictures.... at least in the reds... they are smeared into oblivion.

im really curious to see what the 1D X and D800 can achive.

[altenae]

i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.

but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.



of course they are different beast... im just saying im suprised.
i seldom go above iso 3200.

It's only the red.
The green looks the same in detail.

Different lighting, etc. , etc. can cause this.

[Fleetie]

yeah i wouldn't expect the Mark III to get anywhere close to the D4.  The D4 will be impossible to beat.

yep.. i have too keep that in mind.

Hmm, I just compared them both (D4 vs. 5D3) at ISO12800 using the colourful still-life scene.

The 5D3 appears slightly less noisy than the D4, and thanks to its higher resolution, you can read then writing at the centre of the white "wheel calculator" easily with the 5D3, but not with the D4.

Have I compared the wrong things?

In SOME parts of the scene, the 5D3 image looks as though more NR has been applied than in the D4 image, but ultimately, the 5D3 image does show more fine detail IMHO.

[Canon-F1]

Different lighting, etc. , etc. can cause this.

don´t they keep lighting constant?
i mean... what sense would the test make if not?

[Canon-F1]

In SOME parts of the scene, the 5D3 image looks as though more NR has been applied than in the D4 image, but ultimately, the 5D3 image does show more fine detail IMHO.

yep it´s the red parts that made me wonder.

otherwise it is ok ...i say... 

[altenae]

Different lighting, etc. , etc. can cause this.

don´t they keep lighting constant?
i mean... what sense would the test make if not?

Yes they try.
But on other places I see more detail in de 5d mk iii samples.
Maybe the red was aligned slightly different ?

Why has the green more detail as the red ??

[Canon-F1]

Why has the green more detail as the red ??

i think that´s no wonder.
it is because of the bayern pattern. it has 2x more green sensitiv photosites then blue and red.

[callaesthetics]

Maybe it's just my eyes, but the 5D3 images seems cleaner than then D3s and D4. It looks even better when i resized the 5D3 down to the D4's. When converting the RAW file from the 5D3, i get much sharper results and very high ISO's have nice grains.

[justsomedude]

i have only looked at the 6400 isos yet.
compared to the 5D MK2 it looks good.

but im suprised how much more detail the nikon D4 shows especially in the red parts of the image at iso 6400.

of course they are different beast... im just saying im suprised.
i seldom go above iso 3200.

Surprised that a $6000 camera beats a $3500 camera at ISO 6400 - and not even by that much?   

I think that's a damn impressive comparo, given the price points.

[V8Beast]

Super clean at high ISO speeds and tack sharp to boot. Considering the disparity between the jpeg and raw sample images, maybe the in-camera noise reduction and sharpening is to blame for the underwhelming jpegs. Hopefully all the people that were freaking out can relax a bit now 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I looked at the images and camera settings in the exif, and was disappointed.

The sample images are really not what should be used to see low light high iso performance.  They are taken in bright light, which will reduce the noise level and give overly optomistic results, assuming that you really want low light usage.  The lighting varies, but is close to ev 10.

DPR seems to be the only one who uses low light for their high iso test
They have only shown jpeg images, but the results at least are not more realistic. The DPR lighting is about ev 3.

[te4o]

Relax is the right word, we are still far away from the final comparison.
I saw a thread @ DPR : side-to-side RAW  5D2vs3: facit : about 2/3 stops better than the old model:these are still early days, folks. Fun to discover it all though. But I am not expecting heaven-on-earth.

At least the issue with the sharpness is gone. The AA is NOT the softener. Good news, ay?
 

[risc32]

To me it looks like it there isn't much in it between the d3s and 5dmk3 at iso 3200 or 6400. other than the 5dmk3 showing much more detail. Sure the reds hold up better with the d3s, but many of the other colors look better on the 5dmk3. i didn't look at anything faster, only out of laziness, and that since i've never had the need or ability to shoot at anything faster...

[Fleetie]

Drifting slightly off-topic, I have spent many interested hours this evening on that "Comparometer".

Two more interesting comparisons vs. the 5D3:

1) Pentax 645D : It only goes up to ISO1600, and at that setting it is WAY more noisy than the 5D3. On the other hand, of course, the Pentax destroys the 5D3 for resolution. (Captain Obvious!) At ISO100, the Pentax is stunning, as you'd expect.

2) Leica M9 : Perhaps not a fair comparison, since the M9 is a few years old now. It is destroyed by the 5D3 at low and high ISO. Even at ISO200, the Leica looks way noisier than the 5D3 and the Leica's reds are even more deficient than those of the Canon. Greens seem about the same; perhaps Leica wins in the blues. But it's very subjective, I suspect.

I could spend hours on that site! (Oh, I just have!)