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

[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 ;D.

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.