Carnathan speaks:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15315
- A
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15315
- A
Mt Spokane Photography said:About what I expected, high per pixel noise at high ISO's. That is what Canon promised. Sure, like any camera, you can downsize the image so that noise does not look so bad, but then, why did you spend $$$$ on a 50MP camera, just to lose resolution by downsizing the image and getting almost the same noise as a much cheaper 5D MK III?
If I were to buy one, it would be because I needed high resolution, and I'd stick to ISO 400 or below. I bought a D800 and found the same thing.
meywd said:Mt Spokane Photography said:About what I expected, high per pixel noise at high ISO's. That is what Canon promised. Sure, like any camera, you can downsize the image so that noise does not look so bad, but then, why did you spend $$$$ on a 50MP camera, just to lose resolution by downsizing the image and getting almost the same noise as a much cheaper 5D MK III?
If I were to buy one, it would be because I needed high resolution, and I'd stick to ISO 400 or below. I bought a D800 and found the same thing.
I am sure you know that this can't change unless the sensor tech improves....significantly.
Mt Spokane Photography said:About what I expected, high per pixel noise at high ISO's. That is what Canon promised. Sure, like any camera, you can downsize the image so that noise does not look so bad, but then, why did you spend $$$$ on a 50MP camera, just to lose resolution by downsizing the image and getting almost the same noise as a much cheaper 5D MK III?
If I were to buy one, it would be because I needed high resolution, and I'd stick to ISO 400 or below. I bought a D800 and found the same thing.