noise...

<p>Good evening and thank you in advance for you inputs...<br /><br />I am considering upgrade to a 5D Mark III and I was wondering if anybody can provide some experience about the increased ISO and how does noise do at 25600 and above... <br /><br />thank you again for your time</p>

<p>Compared to what, J.C.? As you expected there will be noise, but what's acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you.</p>

<p>What are you upgrading from? To my eyes, ISO 25,600 is usable. ISO's 51,200 and especially 102,400 are noiser. 102,400 is at the point of being unbearable.</p>

<p>It's up to you, <em>really</em>.<br>

<br /> <em>I</em> thought ISO 3200 on a 20D was peachy. We would have stormed the fort to get that good an image in the days of GAF 500 slide film.</p>

<p>It's almost always better, the newer the camera is and the 5Diii has been well reviewed on this point (e.g., http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/high_ISO_noise.shtml ).<br /> A Google™ for 'Canon 5d mark iii noise' will yield more than half a million hits.</p>

<p>Noise performance also depends massively on how you convert and process the files - the camera's only part of the story, and often a relatively small part.</p>

<p>Keith is absolutely right, which is one of the reasons a RAW at ISO25600 will appear so much worse than an in-camera JPEG. Canon has mixed up an awesome brew for in-camera JPEG conversions though. If you want' the best 'native' high ISO performance out of a mk3, shoot JPEGs. It'll add a couple of stops of usability (whatever your threshold for noise is) to the images.</p>

<p>THank you all for your inputs...<br /><br />david, Peter: Sorry for missing the "comparison part” of the equation... I am intending to upgrade from 5D mark II... <br /><br />JDM, I will carefully read the article.. <br /><br />Keith / MArcus, I was wondering about the direct raw/jpeg files before processing. THank your technical tips... <br /><br />Still too much to learn... <br /><br />I do appreciate your times and inputs..</p>

<p>In my experience, the 5D3 seems to be about a stop-and-a-half better than the 5D2 in terms of high ISO noise, but it depends on many factors and may vary scene to scene.</p>

<p>It's all a matter of degrees. Noise is clearly visible at ISO 1600 if you examine the files at 100 percent, but it responds well to NR processing. The 5D3 can produce high quality output at ISO 8000 and even 12800 if you expose the files carefully. Higher than that, you probably wouldn't want to enlarge the files extensively. The 5D3 at ISO 25600 can render an adequate 8x12 inch image, but beyond that size, grain could become a limiting factor.</p>

<p>The High ISO NR feature on these cameras is amazing, but it only works on JPEG files. If you need to produce raw files, this feature is of no use. You might consider turning NR on and shooting RAW+JPEG in challenging situations, because those JPEG files will be quite clean.</p>

<p>Your results may vary.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Dan...<br /><br />I Do appreciate your comment and time... This is what I was wondering... <br /><br />Thank you..</p>

<p>Crop of the same image showing grain.</p>

<p>No noise reduction was applied either in camera or in post processing, so this is a worst case scenario.</p>

<p>I would expect to see this much grain in ISO 800 film, so in the grand scheme of things, the results are astonishing. Just don't expect the same noise performance that you'll see at ISO 100. Technology can't perform miracles.</p><div></div>

<p>102,000 is very very grainy, but still outperforms many camera phones.</p>

<p>As the ISO rises it becomes more and more critical to get the exposure right. There's not much room for error at 25,600.</p>

<p>Dan, there's not too much noise in your CD collection! :-)</p>