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

  • Thread starter Thread starter etto72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really can't believe someone would call this "stunning". The colors look horrible!

There are no shades of black; everything turned magenta as the 5D Mark II used to do.

I'm attaching a photo taken with the Mark II at ISO 25600.
It's as sharp as the Mark III, and the colors look as bad.
I don't see any improvement.

Just some details: Canon 5D Mark II + EF 50mm 1.2 L USM @ f/16 1/45s ISO25600
 

Attachments

  • 414533_271373412938966_267202473356060_641208_1287223396_o.jpg
    414533_271373412938966_267202473356060_641208_1287223396_o.jpg
    879.6 KB · Views: 2,497
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
JR said:
and for me I feel like the next month will be soooooooooooooooooo long to wait for the 1DX when I see how the 5DmkIII promises to be!

True...but I console myself with Chuck Westfall's comment that the 5DIII will have the best high ISO performance of any Canon camera to date...except the 1D X. So if the 5DIII is a measurable improvement over the 5DII, and the 1D X is better than that...it'll be worth our wait!

Hey neuroanatomist.... You know I just sold my 5D II, so don't make me sell my 5d III and buy 1D x now. >:( :) :)
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
JR said:
and for me I feel like the next month will be soooooooooooooooooo long to wait for the 1DX when I see how the 5DmkIII promises to be!

True...but I console myself with Chuck Westfall's comment that the 5DIII will have the best high ISO performance of any Canon camera to date...except the 1D X. So if the 5DIII is a measurable improvement over the 5DII, and the 1D X is better than that...it'll be worth our wait!

Really did he really say that? The ...except the 1D X... part? I guess I missed that. That would be worth the wait indeed!
 
Upvote 0
Just so we make it fair, I downloaded the .CR2 file of one of the pictures from the first dpreview link. The picture of the two ladies, the last one on that topic.

I opened both (my cat picture and dpreview's ladies) side by side on Photoshop at 100% with nothing applied at the RAW conversion.
They are attached to this post. The ladies picture on the left and my cat on the right.

Can someone please explain to me how we can call the Mark III raw files "stunning"?
To me they look essentially the same: lots of noise; blacks turned magenta; no fine detail at all.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not complaining about the Mark III.
But I just don't see the reason to upgrade IQ wise...

BTW: I love my Mark II and pre-ordered the 1D-X. It's time to go PRO! :-)
BTW2: I have a similar comparison between the 5D Mark II and my 20D at ISO1600: virtually the same!
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2012-03-19 at 9.21.15 PM (2).jpg
    Screen shot 2012-03-19 at 9.21.15 PM (2).jpg
    543 KB · Views: 2,069
Upvote 0
I think what makes these type of comparison so difficult is that different lighting situation will create different result in terms of noise (I am referring to past real life tries here), so until we see some studio test for example from dpReview and being to compare those to the same studio test for the 5DmkII it is difficult. I always felt noise on an animal (like the cat) shows up less then on human skins...

I am not dismissing your point zackck, just that personally I was never able to take such clean picture at ISO 25k with my 5DmkII and likely we should wait for the real test before saying the improvements are not there.

P.S.: I decided to go pro as well with the 1DX!
 
Upvote 0
JR said:
neuroanatomist said:
JR said:
and for me I feel like the next month will be soooooooooooooooooo long to wait for the 1DX when I see how the 5DmkIII promises to be!

True...but I console myself with Chuck Westfall's comment that the 5DIII will have the best high ISO performance of any Canon camera to date...except the 1D X. So if the 5DIII is a measurable improvement over the 5DII, and the 1D X is better than that...it'll be worth our wait!

Really did he really say that? The ...except the 1D X... part? I guess I missed that. That would be worth the wait indeed!

Rob Galbraith indicated that Westfall stated that.
 
Upvote 0
well_dunno said:
Hi guys,

Below link is in Norwegian and contains mk 2 vs mk 3 image comparisons with EF 85mm f/1.2L II. To see the images, click on the respective grey line. First appearing image will be mk 3, if you point on the image, corresponding mk 2 image shows...

http://www.akam.no/artikler/sjekk-bildekvaliteten-pa-5d-mark-iii/107530


...and here is their conclusion at the end of that article (from google translate):

conclusion

As for picture quality, it is to launch a successor to the 5D Mark II in many ways to jump after Wirkola. Just picture quality was 5D Mark II's strongest field, and it is the age, despite still some of the sharp one in the market when it comes to this. When Canon still managed to give the 5D Mark II one of the most noticeably improved image quality, it is somewhat impressive, although we still are a bit between satisfaction. For although the increase is there, it is less than we wish. When Canon has chosen to barely increase the resolution, one should be allowed to have aspirations for a greater increase in overall image quality than this. Detail reproduction is good, and good noise level, while the noise is very very smooth. The noise level could, however, with advantage have been even lower, and this would also done wonders for dynamic range, which ends up being disappointing stuff.

All in all, we are cautiously conclude that although the image quality is improved in most areas, this is not in itself a good enough reason to replace the Mark II to buy the Mark III. There are all the other improvements in speed, auto focus, control, build quality and features and capabilities, which should be the decisive factor for it. If not, keep your beloved 5D Mark II a few years.

If this holds water when it finished the camera, fully supported by various software, comes on the market, we will of course come back to a full test.
 
Upvote 0
I can totally understand what Canon have done with the 5d III from a business perspective. However, for many landscape/portrait/architecture 'togs - it will be difficult to justify choosing the 5dIII over the II while both are available.

For me, shooting at no more than ISO800 (most often in controlled lighting) and not needing more than one (central, excellent) AF point, the 5d III isn't worth the plunge. I was seriously thinking about crossing over to the 'dark side'. But, I just can't ;-)

So.......I'm getting a 5dII and some very serious glass. I'll be hoping that Canon's Studio Monster comes out by Photokina time ;-)
 
Upvote 0
From a quick monitor by monitor analysis of two photos, it appears that 25K ISO on the 5DIII matches 6400ISO on the T2i, and so this is a very exciting move for a lot of crop photographers who were waiting for a new full frame.
 
Upvote 0
RedEye said:
From a quick monitor by monitor analysis of two photos, it appears that 25K ISO on the 5DIII matches 6400ISO on the T2i, and so this is a very exciting move for a lot of crop photographers who were waiting for a new full frame.

You're describing me. And I'm not excited.

Are all my photos going to require WB adjustment in RAW like with my T2i? Because it looks like Canon still makes everything look too warm. Are the blacks going to be washed out like with my T2i? Shadow detail smudged to oblivion?

Nothing I've seen makes me want to plunk down $3,500.
 
Upvote 0
Stephen Melvin said:
These are some of the cleanest ISO 25000 shots I've ever seen from any camera. I first shot at ISO 25000 back in 1990, pushing T-Max p3200. Trust me; they looked nowhere near this good.

Tough crowd. Some people have no idea how far we've come.
I agree. Much better than my 50D's 12800 or even 6400.
 
Upvote 0
swampler said:
Stephen Melvin said:
These are some of the cleanest ISO 25000 shots I've ever seen from any camera. I first shot at ISO 25000 back in 1990, pushing T-Max p3200. Trust me; they looked nowhere near this good.

Tough crowd. Some people have no idea how far we've come.
I agree. Much better than my 50D's 12800 or even 6400.

I shot my 50D tonight at 3200, ouch. Nevermind 6.4 or 12.8.
 
Upvote 0
zackck said:
I really can't believe someone would call this "stunning". The colors look horrible!

There are no shades of black; everything turned magenta as the 5D Mark II used to do.

I'm attaching a photo taken with the Mark II at ISO 25600.
It's as sharp as the Mark III, and the colors look as bad.
I don't see any improvement.

Just some details: Canon 5D Mark II + EF 50mm 1.2 L USM @ f/16 1/45s ISO25600

I believe the mark 3 if the white balance is set correctly will look pretty good. The earlier samples looked good to me they just had the crappy lighting thing going on indoors which always happens...when not using a flash the white balance must be adjusted unless there are colors in the room that ad to the atmosphere of the shot.
I cant prove my statement with my own samples at this point yet. But some i have seen so far and from CPN Pros like Brent Striton I take him very serious. I quote "“When I take a picture I ask ‘Is this a realistic skin tone?’ as skin tone matters a great deal to me. The skin tone quality I’m getting out of the [5D] Mark III is by far the most realistic that I’ve ever had. It produces better skin tone than any other camera I’ve ever used. When I was photographing the Radball players I was astonished at the lack of [colour] cast across different conditions, different lighting etc. It was very consistent and very accurate colour reproduction. This is great for me because it means less work in post [production].
The other revelation about the sensor is the ability to truly work in low light. This isn’t some hype; this isn’t a case of setting up a camera and a tripod in a studio under perfect conditions and shooting an image at [ISO] 1600 and saying ‘look how good it is’. That’s just not the ‘real world’ for me. The real world is being able to go into some dark basement in some dark place, covering a difficult issue, and being able to make a picture that I previously could not have made because the sensor capabilities just didn’t make it possible. Previously, if I shot this [type of picture] it would be noisy and there would be all sorts of problems with the file."
read up for yourself here:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/brent_stirton_shooting_eos_5d_mark_iii.do
 
Upvote 0
Bosman said:
The other revelation about the sensor is the ability to truly work in low light. This isn’t some hype; this isn’t a case of setting up a camera and a tripod in a studio under perfect conditions and shooting an image at [ISO] 1600 and saying ‘look how good it is’. That’s just not the ‘real world’ for me. The real world is being able to go into some dark basement in some dark place, covering a difficult issue, and being able to make a picture that I previously could not have made because the sensor capabilities just didn’t make it possible. Previously, if I shot this [type of picture] it would be noisy and there would be all sorts of problems with the file."

Thank-you.

You said more than Canon's lost marketing department could say throughout this launch.

To introduce this camera, you do not shoot nicely lit studio stuff and hope to showcase that against the megapixel-hungry competition at 100 ISO. You show a dark candle-lit scene; or a stormy cloud landscape; or a night sports shot or whatever you do to showcase stuff not possible before. Yes, some of Canon's Masters have done that (the Formula One stuff for example) - but the launch, the samples, wtf!

It wasnt for lack of headline. Marketing had their headline and they just blew it off with poor messaging. But has that not been the way for the past year - with the lack of any transparency in what is a professional tool?

Personally I am going to enjoy capturing all those images with the 5DmIII. And enjoy not looking at a noise circus at the 100% pixel level. It will be a cool camera with the headroom to be truly creative.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.