dpreview review samples

Photo
10 / 12
Navigation
Back to album
Slideshow
Start
Canon EOS 5D Mark III low light ISO samples:
ISO 25600
Viewed 131309 times
ISO 25600
Shot with pre-production Canon EOS 5D Mark III, low-intensity halogen lighting (ca 3000K)
This photo is in 1 album:
Canon EOS 5D Mark III low light ISO samples
Canon EOS 5D Mark III low light ISO samples
(12 photos)
This photo is marked as:  Safe.
Camera:
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Available sizes: Small, Medium, Large, Original (5760×3840, 8.8MB)
Captured: -
Uploaded: Mar 1, 2012 (UTC)
Focal length: 100 mm
Shutter speed: 1/20 sec
Aperture: F11
ISO: 25600
Exposure comp.: -

Comments

Total comments: 18
Felice62
By Felice62 (Mar 20, 2012)

At least 2 stops better than the already great 5DII.
Bravo Canon! IQ of the 5DIII looks really promising.
But €3400 is just too pricey.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 10, 2012)

EV=3.24 or 3

0 upvotes
buckaroo50
By buckaroo50 (Mar 9, 2012)

It's a shame they shot on a black velvet background. It would have been easy to see noise on a flat black, but the crushed velvet already looks like noise at 50.

0 upvotes
Denis James Evans
By Denis James Evans (Mar 3, 2012)

Seems to be 2 stops better than the 5DII.

1 upvote
David Strachan
By David Strachan (Mar 3, 2012)

Wow! That Digic 5 processor is sensational...the best in the world?

cheers Dave S ;)

0 upvotes
VidJa
By VidJa (Mar 2, 2012)

25600 is usable, 51200 way less. I'm really looking forward to a side by side comparisson of the D800 at 25600, we might be surprised

2 upvotes
walnist
By walnist (Mar 3, 2012)

What kind of surprises?
The D800 goes up to ISO6400.
ISO25600 is a Hi2 setting, meaning that you're just pushing up via sw the native ISO6400.
The D800 will be 1.5-2 stops worse than the 5DmkIII in terms of ISO.

0 upvotes
Mike Fulton
By Mike Fulton (Mar 5, 2012)

Wow, it's amazing to me how people can simply dismiss images which show even the slightest hint of noise. Back in the early and mid '80's when I was shooting night football games under poor lighting, the best option we had (for color) was shooting ISO 400 film pushed to 1600. The slides we got back had much more film grain (i.e. noise) than the ISO 102400 example shown here. We would have killed for a usable 1 stop improvement (ISO 3200), let alone a six stop improvement (ISO 102400) that was actually less noisy!

2 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Mar 2, 2012)

Rare glimpse of the new Pentax Q there, just next to the nail clippers...

5 upvotes
Robert Marooni
By Robert Marooni (Mar 2, 2012)

must be something wrong - even the ISO 25600 looks usable
Is really that good?

2 upvotes
Alfonso Bresciani
By Alfonso Bresciani (Mar 2, 2012)

oh wow! usable big time!

0 upvotes
DanCee
By DanCee (Mar 2, 2012)

looks good!!

0 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Mar 2, 2012)

Wow, so much wood grain left, absolutely fantastic performance. Easily beating 5D2.

0 upvotes
alexruiseco
By alexruiseco (Mar 2, 2012)

Wow! when you have no choice but to shoot at this ISO because ligth limitations.... this is absolutely usable.

2 upvotes
JamieTux
By JamieTux (Mar 2, 2012)

This still looks remarkably useable!

The rat is losing some detail and it's beginning to look a bit washed out but considering the conditions and the ISO wow!

3 upvotes
SerKol
By SerKol (Mar 2, 2012)

I like everything up to ISO 12800

0 upvotes
Techblast
By Techblast (Mar 2, 2012)

This is why pixel size is so critical - to capture light. When image sensors strain to identify low levels of light, a larger pixel presents a better output signal relative to inherent noise.

4 upvotes
nothsafoto
By nothsafoto (Mar 4, 2012)

My gripe with the 7D and D800 (possibly) is the pixel size and density. MP isn't a factor for me as I got very usable images from my old 1DII 8MP body. The images here look as clean and detailed as I get from my 7D at ISO 400.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 18