Please explain this (5D III's so called high ISO performance)

[poias]

DxoMarks shows 5D mkIII's high iso is pretty low, much lower than its Nikon counterparts. And that is backed up by DPReview comparison tool. Have a look at this:

Absolutely no detail in 5DIII's high-iso JPG. It looks like the so-called high ISO improvement is in JPG, and only at the expense of the image quality and detail. So, please explain what is so amazing about 5DIII's high iso performance? Its RAW is same as D800's, albeit lower detail. JPG is just embarrassing.

I have Pentax has the reference. It shows what-should-have-been ideal.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DxoMarks shows 5D mkIII's high iso is pretty low, much lower than its Nikon counterparts. And that is backed up by DPReview comparison tool. Have a look at this:

Absolutely no detail in 5DIII's high-iso JPG. It looks like the so-called high ISO improvement is in JPG, and only at the expense of the image quality and detail. So, please explain what is so amazing about 5DIII's high iso performance? Its RAW is same as D800's, albeit lower detail. JPG is just embarrassing.

I have Pentax has the reference. It shows what-should-have-been ideal.

???

Anwyay DxO mark doesnt say 5D3 has much worse high, it says it has the same, tied for best of all, SNR. The overall low iso score is a bit lower because they did things with the color filter and it is a bit more color blind and chroma noise but it basically has close to the best high iso there is.

Low ISO DR is pretty sad in that it is not better than 3-5 years ago (actually slightly worse!).

 

[YoukY63]

Why do you compare high iso jpeg from 5DmIII with high iso RAW from 40MP bodies?

Of course you will find less details because of lower number of pixels and NR seriously kicking in... :

 

[briansquibb]

Oh no - not another "my Nikon is better than your Canon" thread ??? ??? ???

 

[VirtualRain]

I wouldn't choose money as a test subject... it's a like taking a photo of a dot matrix print out... Who would ever shoot this? And then analyze and draw conclusions from it? The photos I've taken of real people at extreme ISO look great. The noise is palatable and easily cleans up without loosing a lot of detail with he right processing.

Here's 16,000 ISO...

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

You're comparing the 5D3 at 12800 ISO to a Pentax 645D? How high does the 645D's ISO go? Do you know? I do as I have the camera. 1600 is the highest the 645d will go. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

Not only that, you are comparing much lower ISO on a camera with a much bigger sensor. These theoretical discussions bore me. If you expose correctly you'll have little noise where it matters. I shoot sometimes at higher ISO than I'd like but don't always use noise reduction in post

 

[Hesham]

You're comparing the 5D3 at 12800 ISO to a Pentax 645D? How high does the 645D's ISO go? Do you know? I do as I have the camera. 1600 is the highest the 645d will go. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

Not only that, you are comparing much lower ISO on a camera with a much bigger sensor. These theoretical discussions bore me. If you expose correctly you'll have little noise where it matters. I shoot sometimes at higher ISO than I'd like but don't always use noise reduction in post

I guess Pentax was thrown just as a deviation, the real, hidden message, is how D800 has more detail!!!! I have seen this in every Canon forum, Nikon marketing are working extremely hard...

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

To be honest, it's been known for months that a lot of the high ISO improvement was in JPEG. Canon hinted at this with the 1dx back in October.

In terms of RAW improvement, it's a lot closer to the d4 / d3s now which is where the market is so it's pretty competitive. Not quite there, but not far off.

 

[poias]

You're comparing the 5D3 at 12800 ISO to a Pentax 645D? How high does the 645D's ISO go? Do you know? I do as I have the camera. 1600 is the highest the 645d will go. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

Not only that, you are comparing much lower ISO on a camera with a much bigger sensor. These theoretical discussions bore me. If you expose correctly you'll have little noise where it matters. I shoot sometimes at higher ISO than I'd like but don't always use noise reduction in post

Talk about missing the point. The pentax image was there to show what detail is present. 5D3 high iso jpg has absolutely no detail, which was my point. That is why I don't get so called improved high iso performance of 5D3.

 

[poias]

To be honest, it's been known for months that a lot of the high ISO improvement was in JPEG. Canon hinted at this with the 1dx back in October.

The jpg looks like a mush, no detail at all. I wouldn't call that an improvement.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

The jpg looks like a mush, no detail at all. I wouldn't call that an improvement.

Turn it off then.

Starting to seem trollish if I'm honest...

*edit* just read some of your recent posts. Clearly troll

 

[altenae]

A so called BS topic.

I also read his posts.
And indeed.

It's better to remove these kind of topics, because it's clearly wat he wants.

 

[tomscott]

But you are talking 12800 ISO...

The fact is at 1600, 3200 it is very useable you could even get away with 6400. The ISO performance has been significantly improved over the 5D MKII if you ask me.

I dont think the raws are that bad for 12800 but just because it is there doesn't mean you should used it readily... the subject matter doesn't really help either. Yes the D800 has more detail but we already know that... so whats new here?

 

[awinphoto]

Turn NR off and sharpness up in jpeg and you may get closer to the detail in the raws... raw is raw, jpeg is processed, what do you expect... Unless you know what high ISO NR and sharpness settings were set for jpeg, it's apples and oranges. Get over it.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

But you are talking 12800 ISO...

The fact is at 1600, 3200 it is very useable you could even get away with 6400. The ISO performance has been significantly improved over the 5D MKII if you ask me.

I dont think the raws are that bad for 12800 but just because it is there doesn't mean you should used it readily... the subject matter doesn't really help either. Yes the D800 has more detail but we already know that... so whats new here?

There's a good saying in other places - "Don't feed the troll".

I suggest we just let this die gracefully and naturally