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

[Dylan777]

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   .

The pic has been PP'ed. Resized etc.

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

[Bosman]

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

The 50 1.2 is too slow for the 1D IV, the 1.4 is faster, but it'll probably struggle.

On topic, not at all impressed. I think the really S___ty images probably have something to do with that.

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 doomed relationship    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.

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]

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   .

The pic has been PP'ed. Resized etc.

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

[JR]

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   .

The pic has been PP'ed. Resized etc.

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]

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

[KeithR]

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]

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   .

The pic has been PP'ed. Resized etc.

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.