5D Mark III Nighttime ISO Comparisons

[aZhu]

Here are some more ISO comparisons for those that are interested. Both images are at 100% crop. One shot of the stop sign outdoors and another of the parking garage in my apartment complex.

Lens used was the kit 24-105mm f/4L IS USM at 24mm

[aZhu]

Here are the full sized comparisons scaled down so you can get an idea of the 100% crop images above

[tron]

Impressive results. 1600 ISO seems more like 100 ISO!  3200 is excellent and so is 6400 (if the shot is well exposed). 12800 is very good too. Were these jpgs directly from your camera ? And if so can you tell us the settings?

[JR]

Very good all the way to ISO 12800!.  What ISO are you second set of pictures (the full size one?)

[alfeel]

can i ask you at which iso the banding became visible? and how does the mark III behave bringing up the exposure in post (if u underexpose by mistake) does the image become noisy and banded? thanks for the samples btw, it looks very good!

[Invertalon]

Nice examples!

I will use ISO 100-25,600 with no problem what-so-ever... Perfectly usable. 51,200 I will use only if need be, it is my emergency ISO 

[aZhu]

Impressive results. 1600 ISO seems more like 100 ISO!  3200 is excellent and so is 6400 (if the shot is well exposed). 12800 is very good too. Were these jpgs directly from your camera ? And if so can you tell us the settings?

These were all RAW files converted from ACR 6.7 with default settings and only auto lens correction applied. The settings were mixed and that was my bad. It was taken in AV mode so the shutter speeds varied. I will try and test again perhaps tonight in M mode with more constant settings. Also, all the shots were taken hand-held! Amazing camera

[aZhu]

Very good all the way to ISO 12800!.  What ISO are you second set of pictures (the full size one?)

I believe that one was either 12800 or 25600. Scaled down from full res, you can't notice the noise as much. Images are very usable at these ISOs.

[Bob Howland]

Nice examples!

I will use ISO 100-25,600 with no problem what-so-ever... Perfectly usable. 51,200 I will use only if need be, it is my emergency ISO 

Uhm... Excuse me but, where exactly are you planning to use them?

If you're a photojournalist shooting in warzones, sure, nobody would care about the noise in your photos, it's my bad then...

Perhaps a better question is: how large is the display medium and how many pixels can it display? A relatively small display with relatively few pixels tolerates a lot of noise, regardless of subject matter.

[aZhu]

Here are some more comparisons taken tonight. This time the camera was mounted on a tripod and exposures were at a constant f/8 with varying ISOs being compensated by shutter speeds. Mirror lock-up w/ 2sec delay. Also included a scaled down of the uncropped full image.

Note: To the naked eye, the actual scene was way darker than what is portrayed in these images. The more I do these tests, the more I'm loving this low-light monster

[mrmarks]

Do you see any banding?

[aZhu]

Do you see any banding?

I haven't noticed any banding. I'm assuming you're referring to the flicker of florescent and other light sources? These night shots have longer shutter speeds so it's not noticeable. Or is there another form of banding I'm unaware of...

[mrmarks]

Banding is referring to noise pattern going in the horizontal or vertical direction

[prestonpalmer]

That will make for awesome wedding photos!

[EYEONE]

Are these non-NR'd conversions of RAWs?

If so, I'm very happy to see these. Thanks!