Problem with 5DmkIII sensor at high ISO?

[Drewskers]

In the testing I'm currently doing I've seen this exact phenomenon in more than one Canon DSLR when the iso is cranked to the max.  It becomes more noticeable if you also push the exposure in post.

It also happens with Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus! 

[Stephen Melvin]

I see it, too. For what I tend to shoot, it's correctable in post. Doesn't bother me too much, because after all, it's amazing that the images look as good as they do. Actually, I think they look pretty awesome, all things considered.

[Tcapp]

Wow, the amount of pixel peep-age dork-age around here is unreal.  It's 100k ISO!?!  Who cares, why are you shooting that high?? Stop spending 10 hours a week trolling forums about your pixels and buy a 2.8 lens.

Buy a 1.4 lens! My good old 50 1.4 was my favorite.

[briansquibb]

Wow, the amount of pixel peep-age dork-age around here is unreal.  It's 100k ISO!?!  Who cares, why are you shooting that high?? Stop spending 10 hours a week trolling forums about your pixels and buy a 2.8 lens.

Buy a 1.4 lens! My good old 50 1.4 was my favorite.

Or even flash it at iso50 

[almograve]

Wow, the amount of pixel peep-age dork-age around here is unreal.  It's 100k ISO!?!  Who cares, why are you shooting that high?? Stop spending 10 hours a week trolling forums about your pixels and buy a 2.8 lens.

Buy a 1.4 lens! My good old 50 1.4 was my favorite.

Or even flash it at iso50 

I would turn on the light!

[TrumpetPower!]

So...how many 5DIII owners does it take to change a lightbulb, then? Or do we all just sit in the dark, crank the ISO, and complain about noise?

b&

[markIVantony]

So, for everybody else, like me, who has nothing better to do on a Thursday evening than to take out-of-focus high-ISO macro shots of the inside of your lens cap...

...turn high ISO noise reduction to ON, and compare a shot taken at 0"8 with one at 1". The former will have the magenta lower-right corner, but the latter will have more noise overall.

What will this demonstrate?

Why, of course, that you, like me, need to get a life. Or, at the very least, find (or make) some decent light to shoot in, and at least a marginally more interesting subject.
...

Maybe to you it demonstrates that you need to get a life.  But there's nothing wrong with the OP or the question.  And your sarcasm won't do anything except cause inflammatory feelings.  Maybe that's your intention?  If not, then why the sarcasm?  You won't change anything by telling people to get a life.  If posts or topics like this really bother you so much, then why do you continue reading it?

Hopefully CHPatent learned something from Drewskers' comments.

[markIVantony]

Wow, the amount of pixel peep-age dork-age around here is unreal.  It's 100k ISO!?!  Who cares, why are you shooting that high?? Stop spending 10 hours a week trolling forums about your pixels and buy a 2.8 lens.

Why does that bother you so much?

[neuroanatomist]

This is colloquially known as "amp glow".

Thanks for the detailed and logical explanation!

[Iahcon]

Hey Stephen, I really dig that second photo you posted!

[skitron]

This is colloquially known as "amp glow".
.
.
.
Those that have answered your post with the standard "pixel-peeping" and "measurebating" ridicule are demonstrating a high degree of intellectual immaturity (AKA ignorance).

Hey thanks for a very constructive response...on both fronts no less!

[Stephen Melvin]

Hey Stephen, I really dig that second photo you posted!

Thanks! That was taken in my pitch-black bathroom. Lighting was from a parking garage a full block away -- about 150 yards. I showed her the screen, and she was amazed, because the photo has more detail than we could make out with our eyes. The metering worked well, too. It was shot at 1/25 at f/1.4, which I guess makes this the absolute minimum amount of light I could shoot the camera hand held.

As for the other photo, well there's been a real shortage of cat pictures from the new camera.

[CHpatent]

This is colloquially known as "amp glow".

Drewskers- thank you for the very thoughtful explanation! That was extremely helpful and makes a lot of sense. It seems fairly clear to me that the effect is expected and apart from the fact that the message was delivered with varying degrees of snark here, I doubt it will be of any practical concern. I did laugh out loud at the " ISO elebenty brazilian" comment.

[TrumpetPower!]

I did laugh out loud at the " ISO elebenty brazilian" comment.

Well, at least someone gets my sense of humor....

b&

[Tcapp]

Hey Stephen, I really dig that second photo you posted!

Thanks! That was taken in my pitch-black bathroom. Lighting was from a parking garage a full block away -- about 150 yards. I showed her the screen, and she was amazed, because the photo has more detail than we could make out with our eyes. The metering worked well, too. It was shot at 1/25 at f/1.4, which I guess makes this the absolute minimum amount of light I could shoot the camera hand held.

As for the other photo, well there's been a real shortage of cat pictures from the new camera.

My first shots with the camera were of my new kitten... To be honest the kitty makes more noise then the camera. http://www.timothycapp.com/blog/new-kitten/