Canon 5D Mark III - ISO 3200 is the new ISO 100

[helpful]

The lower ends of ISO for the 5D3 are not necessarily spectacular improvements over low ISO from previous Canon cameras or versus the Nikon D800 (but very comparable). This is simply because low ISO performance has gotten as good as it can get already.

But the amazing thing about the 5D3 that doesn't show up in DxO-Mark style testing is how flat its image quality curve really is. Although it may reach SNR 85% at a somewhat lower value, its high image quality stays essentially the same for a range of several thousand ISO values.

Just to prove this, I am attaching an unedited ISO 3,200 100% crop from my 5D3. There has never been this little difference between ISO 3,200 and ISO 100 in any other camera. Period. Not even the D4.

As I have mentioned before, the 5D3 seems objectively better by three stops compared to the 7D, two stops better compared to the 5D2. At low ISO there is no point arguing, but the difference is obvious anywhere above ISO 800.

Canon has a winner on their hands. In my mind, the values of the 7D, 5D2, and all previous cameras have just dropped by about 90%. If you are trying to decide between a 7D, 5D2, or the 5D3, there is absolutely no comparison. Three stops means eight times better (and to me, worth eight times as much) as the 7D. Two stops means four times better (and to me, literally worth four times as much) as the 5D2.

And the improved autofocus and all that is the incredibly delicious icing on the cake. For those who don't rely heavily on autofocus systems, there is still reason enough to buy the 5D3. And for those whose jobs depend on taking rapid-fire sequences of randomly moving targets in perfect focus, the improved autofocus added to the image quality makes the 5D3 the perfect camera. That was something the 7D could do to some extent, and which the 5D2 could not do at all.

[briansquibb]

... and the reduction in dr is ......

[awinphoto]

... and the reduction in dr is ......

Haha. 

[Tcapp]

... and the reduction in dr is ......

I think what he is trying to say is that while noise might not be 2 stops better than the 5d2, the DR at higher ISO seems to be about 2 stops better than before.

I don't know if its really 2 stops, but to my eyes the color holds up much better than the 5d2, so it may very well be!

[briansquibb]

... and the reduction in dr is ......

I think what he is trying to say is that while noise might not be 2 stops better than the 5d2, the DR at higher ISO seems to be about 2 stops better than before.

I don't know if its really 2 stops, but to my eyes the color holds up much better than the 5d2, so it may very well be!

I appreciate what he is saying 

In other threads we are trying to maximinse dr and at the same time we are looking to reduce by dr 2(?) stops as a matter of course.

What I do like is that the 5DIII does hold up the dr at modest iso. However I do feel that we should still be focussed on taking the  picture at iso 50/100/200 as a matter of best practice

[Tcapp]

... and the reduction in dr is ......

I think what he is trying to say is that while noise might not be 2 stops better than the 5d2, the DR at higher ISO seems to be about 2 stops better than before.

I don't know if its really 2 stops, but to my eyes the color holds up much better than the 5d2, so it may very well be!

I appreciate what he is saying 

In other threads we are trying to maximinse dr and at the same time we are looking to reduce by dr 2(?) stops as a matter of course.

What I do like is that the 5DIII does hold up the dr at modest iso. However I do feel that we should still be focussed on taking the  picture at iso 50/100/200 as a matter of best practice

Depends on the situation. Good luck taking a sharp photo at 100 iso in a dark church when flash is not allowed during a wedding. Or balance your flash with ambient light at a dark reception without overpowering the image with the flash. But yea, if you can, obviously shoot as low iso as you can. Its not always an option. 70% of my work is over 400 ISO. 60% over 800. Maybe 40% at 3200. Usually not much higher than that. I live at 3200 at dark receptions.

And iso 50 is usually to be avoided, if we are going to try for the extremes of image quality. Get yourself a ND filter, or, as I prefer, circular polarizer

[briansquibb]

... and the reduction in dr is ......

I think what he is trying to say is that while noise might not be 2 stops better than the 5d2, the DR at higher ISO seems to be about 2 stops better than before.

I don't know if its really 2 stops, but to my eyes the color holds up much better than the 5d2, so it may very well be!

I appreciate what he is saying 

In other threads we are trying to maximinse dr and at the same time we are looking to reduce by dr 2(?) stops as a matter of course.

What I do like is that the 5DIII does hold up the dr at modest iso. However I do feel that we should still be focussed on taking the  picture at iso 50/100/200 as a matter of best practice

Depends on the situation. Good luck taking a sharp photo at 100 iso in a dark church when flash is not allowed during a wedding. Or balance your flash with ambient light at a dark reception without overpowering the image with the flash. But yea, if you can, obviously shoot as low iso as you can. Its not always an option. 70% of my work is over 400 ISO. 60% over 800. Maybe 40% at 3200. Usually not much higher than that. I live at 3200 at dark receptions.

And iso 50 is usually to be avoided, if we are going to try for the extremes of image quality. Get yourself a ND filter, or, as I prefer, circular polarizer

ISO 50 is better than iso100 +glass. Strange how all the tests give better dr and snr at iso 50.

My proposition is that iso should be kept as low as possible as a matter of best practice.

[helpful]

My proposition is that iso should be kept as low as possible as a matter of best practice.

Always. Absolutely always. That's the first thing that should always be taught in class. Camera ads, Kodak film ads (in the past), etc., made it sound like high ISO was somehow better. The best images and the best practice for taking images is always to shoot at the lowest possible ISO that can be used for the given subject and conditions.

Sometimes people mistake this for meaning "try to shoot volleyball at 1/125th to improve image quality." Sometimes the lowest possible ISO is extremely high for some subjects.

But that is the golden rule, briansquibb, and you couldn't have said it better.

[Tcapp]

My proposition is that iso should be kept as low as possible as a matter of best practice.

Always. Absolutely always. That's the first thing that should always be taught in class. Camera ads, Kodak film ads (in the past), etc., made it sound like high ISO was somehow better. The best images and the best practice for taking images is always to shoot at the lowest possible ISO that can be used for the given subject and conditions.

Sometimes people mistake this for meaning "try to shoot volleyball at 1/125th to improve image quality." Sometimes the lowest possible ISO is extremely high for some subjects.

But that is the golden rule, briansquibb, and you couldn't have said it better.

Of course! But you cant just dismiss improved image quality at high ISO's just because lower is better. If someday ISO 100 and ISO 12,800 is really identical, I'll still shoot at 100 when I can.

Higher ISO's can sometimes be better than low for other reasons besides IQ. If you are at an event, and you have to use on camera flash, even with decent lighting otherwise, sometime a higher iso is better simply to allow faster use of flash, as the flash can fire at a lower power and recycle faster. I go my entire weddings without ever having to change flash batteries. That is the often overlooked value of a higher ISO.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

While my 5D MK III definitely has better quality at high ISO, ISO 3200 is still not comparible to ISO 100 of my 5D MK II.
 
I used my MK II at ISO 3200 and 6400 frequently with good results, but only because I had no choice.  My MK III is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4-1 stop better at ISO 12800.  The nice thing is that the quality fall off at extreme high ISO like 25600 and higher is slower than the older models, so in a emergency, 25600 and higher can be used and prints fairly well at smaller print sizes.
 
I suppose a printed 4 X 6 at ISO 3200 would look like a ISO 100 print, merely because of the low resolution.