5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII

[vittohh]

Tried both cameras at ISO 6400 and RAW files are virtually the same, (the 5DIII just shows a bit a front focusing with my copy of the 24-105).
JPGs are a complete different story, but I cannot see the high ISO performance improvement everybody is talking about.
Did anybody experienced the same?
I'm not saying that I'm disappointed with the camera, in my opinion AF and silent shooting are a great improvement  for wedding photography, it's just that the sensor technology seems exactly the same.

[victorwol]

Does not look the same to me... The photos at 6400 of the 5D MKII where most of the time unusable. With the MKIII in getting photos at 12800 that looks equally or better than the MKII at 3200. I'm using Lightroom 4 and RAW. Never tried JPG

[Tcapp]

Does not look the same to me... The photos at 6400 of the 5D MKII where most of the time unusable. With the MKIII in getting photos at 12800 that looks equally or better than the MKII at 3200. I'm using Lightroom 4 and RAW. Never tried JPG

To me, its not all about the amount of noise. Its the quality of the noise, the color fidelity, and whats left of the dynamic range. If the 5d3 is wet clay in post, the 5d2 is silly putty that is just starting to dry out.

Also, i have a feeling that the 5d3 is more sensitive to light at equal iso's as the 5d2 thanks to its improved photosites and gapless microlens's and whatnot. Maybe not by a lot, but i feel its there.

[vittohh]

Now that's kind of weird, I also used Lightroom 4 (the 4.1 RC version) and no way the 12800 ISO of the 5d3 are better than the 6400ISO of the 5D2, I even used the exact same lens to keep the same settings.
And the noise pattern seems also to be the same, same color rendition etc... I checked the preview on DPReview and also there at 6400 ISO they get pretty similar results as mine, I really have problems seeing what the difference beetwen the 2 camera is, if anything the 5d3 is a little softer, but that could the AF calibration.
Does anybody has comparison shots of the 2 cameras with the same settings at high ISO?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Tried both cameras at ISO 6400 and RAW files are virtually the same, (the 5DIII just shows a bit a front focusing with my copy of the 24-105).
JPGs are a complete different story, but I cannot see the high ISO performance improvement everybody is talking about.
Did anybody experienced the same?
I'm not saying that I'm disappointed with the camera, in my opinion AF and silent shooting are a great improvement  for wedding photography, it's just that the sensor technology seems exactly the same.

 
My 5D MK III is obviously better than my MK II at ISO 12800 and up.  I did not bother to compare at 6400  They are the same at ISO 100 as well unless you get in a difficult NR situation..
 
However, I do low light photography, and when a person is comparing them in a well lighted studio, the effects of noise will appear to be a lot less. 
 
At 12800 and higher ISO, the MK III pulls away.  However, there is not going to be 2 stops difference in Raw, except maybe at ISO 58600 or higher.
 
I can use the MK III in the dark and as long as I print 8 X 10 or smaller, all the ISO settings look pretty good.
 
I took this image in near dark, about -1 lv, It was as low a light as my AF would focus and then, extremely slowly.  There was a tiny bit of light from another room lighting it from the right side, but I could not read the test, it was too dark.
 
Its captured in raw, and has NR applied at ISO 51600 and it is noisy, but I can read the text when I pixel peep.
 

[JR]

I had a mkiii for a week and shot my dauther birthday with it.  Have lots of 6400 shots and they are definitively better than the mkii.  Even the iso 3200 looks better.  But like mt spokane mentionned, noise will appear differently in diferent lighting condition.  For me the mkiii is shinning in iso performance category.  You should not worry.

[V8Beast]

IMHO, a lot of it has to do with how you're performing these tests. I've always found tests performed in bright light, during the middle of the day, at extremely high ISOs to be rather silly, since you'd never crank the ISO up that high during normal shooting situations. The most practical tests would be in low-light environments that actually require high ISO shooting.

I'm not curious enough about noise performance to setup some makeshift test, so I only push the ISO as the situations that requiring doing so present themselves during actual shoots. I only got the 5DIII up to ISO 3,200 thus far, and had no complaints with the results. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

IMHO, a lot of it has to do with how you're performing these tests. I've always found tests performed in bright light, during the middle of the day, at extremely high ISOs to be rather silly, since you'd never crank the ISO up that high during normal shooting situations. The most practical tests would be in low-light environments that actually require high ISO shooting.

I'm not curious enough about noise performance to setup some makeshift test, so I only push the ISO as the situations that requiring doing so present themselves during actual shoots. I only got the 5DIII up to ISO 3,200 thus far, and had no complaints with the results.

I have been using ISO 6400 on my 5D MK II in low light and getting motion blur from the slow shutter speeds, even at f/1.4, so I want to make sure I know what I can get away with before my next low light event.
 
However, to be fair, some will need fast shutter speeds when photographing indoor sports in what they call low light, and I think of as relatively good light, if thats how they will use the high ISO, its ok to check it out that way.  Birders with 400mm f/5.6 lenses trying to capture images in the early evening will also need high ISO, even though we would not need it with our f/2.8 lenses.

[V8Beast]

However, to be fair, some will need fast shutter speeds when photographing indoor sports in what they call low light, and I think of as relatively good light, if thats how they will use the high ISO, its ok to check it out that way.  Birders with 400mm f/5.6 lenses trying to capture images in the early evening will also need high ISO, even though we would not need it with our f/2.8 lenses.

That makes sense, as situations that require very fast shutter speeds may require high ISO even though the same amount of light in a different scenario would allow using lower ISO. It's just that when test images are taken in situations where ISO 100 is sufficient, but then the ISO is cranked all the way up to 25,600 or more just for the sake testing noise, I don't find the results 100% conclusive. It makes sense from a testing standpoint, but it's not all that practical.

[RileyJoseph]

I think it is pretty good.. this was taken at ISO 20,000.

[prestonpalmer]

There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.

[Tcapp]

There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.

I love it when people say "ONLY a stop better".

Its TWICE as good. How is that "only"? If my paycheck was one stop improved id be pretty damn happy. If my car's gas mileage was one stop better i'd be jumping for joy. If I had an extra stop down below I'd scare some ladies away.

Anyway, rant over. prestonpalmer, this rant was NOT directed at you, just at people in general who are so ungrateful for what amazing technology we have before us.

[prestonpalmer]

There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.

I love it when people say "ONLY a stop better".

Its TWICE as good. How is that "only"? If my paycheck was one stop improved id be pretty damn happy. If my car's gas mileage was one stop better i'd be jumping for joy. If I had an extra stop down below I'd scare some ladies away.

Anyway, rant over. prestonpalmer, this rant was NOT directed at you, just at people in general who are so ungrateful for what amazing technology we have before us.

LOL.  I agree completely.  As a wedding photographer I am completely stoked about the improvement.  If I can get away with using 6400 iso rather than the 3200 I don't exceed with my 5D2, I couldn't be happier!  Especially with the new AF and Dual Card slot.  Its a perfect wedding photography camera as far as I am concerned.  And with regard to Mega Pixels.  PLEASE no more than 22MP.  That's PLENTY!

[Tcapp]

There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.

I love it when people say "ONLY a stop better".

Its TWICE as good. How is that "only"? If my paycheck was one stop improved id be pretty damn happy. If my car's gas mileage was one stop better i'd be jumping for joy. If I had an extra stop down below I'd scare some ladies away.

Anyway, rant over. prestonpalmer, this rant was NOT directed at you, just at people in general who are so ungrateful for what amazing technology we have before us.

LOL.  I agree completely.  As a wedding photographer I am completely stoked about the improvement.  If I can get away with using 6400 iso rather than the 3200 I don't exceed with my 5D2, I couldn't be happier!  Especially with the new AF and Dual Card slot.  Its a perfect wedding photography camera as far as I am concerned.  And with regard to Mega Pixels.  PLEASE no more than 22MP.  That's PLENTY!

Dude. You are my long lost twin.  I do weddings as well, and I never went above 3200 on the 5d2 either. Eventually, more MP will be good, when computer processors double in speed and hardrive price per TB is cut in half too. And maybe when blu-ray is as mainstream as DVD for delivery to clients.

[prestonpalmer]

There is only a .5 to 1 stop improvement over the 5D2.

I love it when people say "ONLY a stop better".

Its TWICE as good. How is that "only"? If my paycheck was one stop improved id be pretty damn happy. If my car's gas mileage was one stop better i'd be jumping for joy. If I had an extra stop down below I'd scare some ladies away.

Anyway, rant over. prestonpalmer, this rant was NOT directed at you, just at people in general who are so ungrateful for what amazing technology we have before us.

LOL.  I agree completely.  As a wedding photographer I am completely stoked about the improvement.  If I can get away with using 6400 iso rather than the 3200 I don't exceed with my 5D2, I couldn't be happier!  Especially with the new AF and Dual Card slot.  Its a perfect wedding photography camera as far as I am concerned.  And with regard to Mega Pixels.  PLEASE no more than 22MP.  That's PLENTY!

Dude. You are my long lost twin.  I do weddings as well, and I never went above 3200 on the 5d2 either. Eventually, more MP will be good, when computer processors double in speed and hardrive price per TB is cut in half too. And maybe when blu-ray is as mainstream as DVD for delivery to clients.

Pushing my 5D3 to 6400 still scares the crap out of me.  I just need to post process a few more weddings with it to build my confidence   Oh, and LR 4.1 OFFICIAL release will be a big deciding factor as well.  And as of this year, I am DONE with DVD's.  Now Digital Negatives (if they buy them) are delivered on these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820235047

With custom labeling for the client.  Auto slideshow built in as well.  I hate DL DVD's with a passion!

As far as more MP.  I don't see clients ordering anything much bigger than 20x30.  So no real need for more MP unless you plan to do a lot of cropping.  I would prefer Canon go to a SQUARE sensor next round with a slight MP increase. see this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/