EV=3.24 or 3
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?
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.
Я думаю,что 5mark3 лучше по зерну ,чем d800.Больше пикселей-больше шум,природу не обманешь.
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)
Just wondering..are these jpegs straight from the camera or RAW files converted?
Existing Light photography...
i prefer to analize high ISO pictures at low light levels...
тут итак низкая освещённость,диафрагма-то прикрыта
...lucky these high ISO pictures were shot under low light levels then.
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.
It looks like ISO 400 from my Kodak DCS 760!
Likely a limitation in the EXIF due to byte space constraints. (8 bits)
This one is ISO 102400 right? But why you write ISO : 65535?
That was a bug in Canon's metadata, which we read the ISO from - it's now manually fixed on this gallery page.