5D Mark III - Noise at Low ISO

[tusharrajyaguru]

<p>I recently upgraded to 5D Mark III. My expectation was extremely low noise compared to my previous body 40D. However it seems I am getting noise at even low ISO. HTP and Auto light optimizer is off. Original files were shot in RAW and converted to JPG at 100% in LR. Images were shot at ISO 100 and ISO 340. <br>

Is there something wrong in my setting? OR there may be problem in camera. <br>

<a href="https://app.box.com/s/ndzfn2epbz86ey0iybjg">https://app.box.com/s/ndzfn2epbz86ey0iybjg</a><br>

<img src="https://app.box.com/s/ndzfn2epbz86ey0iybjg" alt="" /></p>

[paddler4]

<p>Exposed properly, the 5DIII has little enough noise that I don't use any noise reduction at ISO 800. So, my first thought was that you were underexposing. But when I looked at your images, I didn't see the noise. Look at the first one. the white background is buttery-smooth, as are the white stripes on the boy's shirt.</p>

<p>If you are getting noise at low ISOs, check the histogram. Noise increases from amplifying the image, which includes both signal and noise. Boosting the ISO does this, but so does brightening in postprocessing, and the latter is often worse.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I looked at the pic of your two kids, and I don't see any noise, either. I downloaded and viewed at 100% in PS. </p>

<p>I can see you standing in your driveway(?) in the kids' eyes.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Looking at 200%, I only see a very smooth bit of Luminescence and no Chromanance. You had way more room to Expose To The Right. That'll lower noise and, since you're already shooting Raw, you should take advantage of it. I'm guessing that you could have use +1EV on the first shot. Then in Raw conversion, you "normalize" the exposure level by bring down the overall Exposure level. Also, you've got more room to raise the shadows on the woman without adding noise.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'm not that knowledgeable, but I've heard it's best to stick to the "traditional" ISO's, ie: 100, 200, 400, 800 and so on. That the intermediate ISO's are actually shot at those and then adjusted. Might be a factor in noise.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I see it, about what I see out of my 5D2 at similar ISOs... don't see anything exceptional though. The bottom line is that (especially w/ modern sensors) there is<em> always</em> noise to a lesser or greater degree, but your pictures express what I would expect to see, and any noise at that level is going to be nigh invisible unless you push the image, or spend all day pixel peeping...</p>

[zelph_young]

<p>If you want the low noise king right now it is the 6D. Astrophotography tests on these bodies have the 6D as a better choice for this reason.</p>

[tusharrajyaguru]

ll,

Thank you for taking time to go

through images and providing your

helpful opinion. This is great

relief to know that there is no

issue with camera. I checked

several images at various ISO and

common observation is most images

were slightly underexposed per

histogram and noise was slight to

high noise(depending on iso)

present in shadows.

 

As I am not pro photographer, I

did not have any way to compare

and hence your review was very

helpful.

 

This is lesson learned to always

check histogram. Again as I shoot

may be once in a month or even

less, tend to forget this things.

(difference between hobbyist and

professional)

[dcstep]

<p>Since you're already shooting in Raw, working with ETTR will give you much more flexibility to work with shadows, colors and contrast in your finished image. As a default, I'm using +2/3 to +1EV. I go to 0-EV or minus EV when there are strong, important highlights in the image (like a white bird in direct sun, with a brown background). Use the Shadow and Highlight sliders to recover details and bring the finished image closer to what the eye sees.</p>

<p>You're on the verge of learning a valuable technique that'll make your images stand apart.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Even in the shadows, I see no problem with these photos.</p>

<p>Keep in mind what David said about exposure compensation, though. Do be careful when you have bright spots, as David also said.</p>

<p>I was just looking back to shots made with my old 5D II. It was actually pretty good where noise was concerned. The 5D III is even better. Yes, the 6D is superb where noise is concerned, but for most of us that difference will not matter most of the time. I do wonder if the technology that went into making the 6D so noise free will be found in the top end models to come.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dcstep]

<p>When you look at comparisons of the Dynamic Range ( www.dxomark.com for one ) of the 6D to the 5D MkIII, the differences are not significant at all below ISO 1600 and they're pretty small after that.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Tushar,<br>

Your pictures are slightly underexposed because of the white background which the meter is trying to turn into medium gray. Get familiar with using exposure compensation. I would probably give these shots plus 1/2 to 1 stop of exposure compensation (which will open up the aperture or lower the shutter speed). That said your pictures are exhibiting little to no grain, unless you are viewing them at 100% or going to extremes to 'see' grain. Relax, enjoy your camera, everything is right with the world, Just work on your technique and expose to the right of your histogram. Great book 'Understanding Exposure' by Peterson. Good luck!<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406320002&sr=1-2&keywords=on+exposure</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I don't see any noise at all on my 25" Dell monitor ?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Some people (not here) speak as if there should be "no noise," but there will always be some noise in digital photographs, and you can find it if you go looking for it. But that very small amount of normal noise is not a problem and you should not worry about it.</p>

[ruben leal]

Some people expect a plastic look in digital images, but when you compare some 100 years of film (or so called these

days "analog") photography to today's cheapest digital cameras, there is no digital noise to be worried about. Rest

assured you need to make a major mistake to have objectionable noise in a printed photograph from your camera.

[dcstep]

<p>Ruben, even with a good DSLR, like my 5D MkIII, I can under expose a high-ISO image, not apply any NR, and see "objectionable" noise, even in a small print. Even when properly exposed at high ISO, I see the noise unless I apply NR in Raw conversion. Maybe you're making a comparison to "100 years of film", but I don't see what comparison you're making.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>under expose a high-ISO image</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That ought to do it, David, but it sounds like you might be trying to get noise! </p>

<p>Thank goodness for raw when we do accidentally over-expose.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ruben leal]

David, had you ever compared for similar conditions under film against digital? Even 800 ISO film was really "noisy"

(grainy) compared to today "objectionable" noise standards, and it was used as a professional tool (Portra 800 was my

default film for nighttime indoor weddings). I guess most people would currently say T-MAX 3200 was a joke from Kodak,

how could someone use such a grainy image?