dpreview review samples

Photo
12 / 12
Navigation
Back to album
Slideshow
Start
Canon EOS 5D Mark III low light ISO samples:
ISO 102400 (H2)
Viewed 152526 times
ISO 102400 (H2)
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, 13.0MB)
Captured: -
Uploaded: Mar 1, 2012 (UTC)
Focal length: 100 mm
Shutter speed: 1/80 sec
Aperture: F11
ISO: 102400
Exposure comp.: -

Comments

Total comments: 15
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 10, 2012)

EV=3.24 or 3

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 4, 2012)

Looks like a big improvement. I've been amazed at how my D700 is still usable at 2000 whereas my 5DII gets noisy at 500. Still not sure what ISO 50,000 is used for, though. Maybe if you leave the lens cap on?

0 upvotes
nothsafoto
By nothsafoto (Mar 4, 2012)

Although some people are complaining about the fact that these samples are jpeg out of camera with internal noise reduction, these images are far superior to anything my 7D or 1DIII ever produced at ISOs from 400 up.

I can bet safely too that the 5DIII in real world situations will be more than enough resolution (MP) so no need for the route that Nikon has taken.

0 upvotes
100zub
By 100zub (Mar 3, 2012)

Я думаю,что 5mark3 лучше по зерну ,чем d800.Больше пикселей-больше шум,природу не обманешь.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
wingedhorse
By wingedhorse (Mar 3, 2012)

From this point on, it seems that Canon and Nikon started to develop in different directions -- Canon decided to stop pushing the pixel count, and concentrate on quality of pixels, while Nikon is still pushing the count (like, 36MP in D800)

0 upvotes
Dalerous
By Dalerous (Mar 3, 2012)

Just wondering..are these jpegs straight from the camera or RAW files converted?

0 upvotes
nanomatrix
By nanomatrix (Mar 3, 2012)

Existing Light photography...

1 upvote
Miguel J Princz
By Miguel J Princz (Mar 3, 2012)

i prefer to analize high ISO pictures at low light levels...

0 upvotes
100zub
By 100zub (Mar 3, 2012)

тут итак низкая освещённость,диафрагма-то прикрыта

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Mar 4, 2012)

...lucky these high ISO pictures were shot under low light levels then.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
dubstylz
By dubstylz (Mar 2, 2012)

My 1st ever digi-cam was worse than this at ISO 400 lol

Seriously though thats not bad for such extremes, i wonder what it would look like in better light (prob still need B+W conv)

I downloaded the full rez file to run it through some NR, admittedly it was not easy but the file came out surprisingly clean so if shooting raw and you have good NR software these high ISO setting wont be that much bother.

1 upvote
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Mar 2, 2012)

It looks like ISO 400 from my Kodak DCS 760!

0 upvotes
snackwells
By snackwells (Mar 2, 2012)

Likely a limitation in the EXIF due to byte space constraints. (8 bits)

0 upvotes
Herman Liu
By Herman Liu (Mar 2, 2012)

This one is ISO 102400 right? But why you write ISO : 65535?

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Mar 2, 2012)

That was a bug in Canon's metadata, which we read the ISO from - it's now manually fixed on this gallery page.

1 upvote
Total comments: 15