5D3 highest usable ISO

[Donald Ong]

So just out of curiosity, I would like to know what most of you consider the maximum ISO you would comfortably use on the mark3. Personally, I try not to go above 3200 whenever possible but I will push it to 4000-6400 if I really need to. Shooting above that just doesn't really appeal to me and it does get quite noisy.

Here's my breakdown of the ISOs on the III:

1600: good, clean
3200: there is noise in the shadows if you really look for it. Clean enough.
4000- 6400: Noise is apparent but is still reasonably clean and I would still use it.
8000-12800: pushing it, pattern noise starts to appear dramatically and I would avoid whenever possible. 8000 is sort of ok....anything above...I'm not too fond of.

Is that how most of you feel about it as well?

 

[AndreeOnline]

While I welcome the question, it really doesn't matter.

ISO stays as low as it can, but if you have to up it to get the shot, then you do. It most likely means you're out of other options.

It isn't the noise per se that hurts the image the most, it's the lack of detail at higher ISOs due the the nature of how the image is recorded.

As an example, if I shoot a mk3 and a C100 side by side and both have same amount of noise, detail and color will be much better on the C100; it doesn't loose detail or color at higher ISOs.

To answer your question, I wouldn't hesitate to use ISO 6400 on a mk3.

 

[Donald Ong]

While I welcome the question, it really doesn't matter.

ISO stays as low as it can, but if you have to up it to get the shot, then you do. It most likely means you're out of other options.

It isn't the noise per se that hurts the image the most, it's the lack of detail at higher ISOs due the the nature of how the image is recorded.

As an example, if I shoot a mk3 and a C100 side by side and both have same amount of noise, detail and color will be much better on the C100; it doesn't loose detail or color at higher ISOs.

To answer your question, I wouldn't hesitate to use ISO 6400 on a mk3.

True. I just mostly wanted to see how far people were willing to push the 5d3

 

[Scott Freestyle]

I never go beyond 6400...too much detail is lost after that.

 

[ProfessorU]

For me, it depends on where the final video will be used, and the overall look of the piece. Live event footage of a concert or party is totally different than anything more formal. I would be reluctant to go above 800 on anything I wanted to look crisp on broadcast. When in doubt, add more photons.

 

[Donald Ong]

I never go beyond 6400...too much detail is lost after that.

Definitely.

For me, it depends on where the final video will be used, and the overall look of the piece. Live event footage of a concert or party is totally different than anything more formal. I would be reluctant to go above 800 on anything I wanted to look crisp on broadcast. When in doubt, add more photons.

I'd be pretty happy up to 1600 until 4000 is actually quite nice.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

I know that some tests showed less noise at the ISOs that were believed to be native; 160,320,640, etc. Does this apply to the 5D3 the same as the older cameras using the crop sensor?

 

[Oller Visuals]

When I returned my 5dmk3 for a 6D instead I was surprised how much difference it is between the high-iso's. The "classic" Canon pattern banding in 5dmk3, but none to be seen on the 6D even at 12.800 iso. There's a major difference between these sensors.

(...on the other hand 6D as moire, but that's another topic).

 

[maarek]

When I returned my 5dmk3 for a 6D instead I was surprised how much difference it is between the high-iso's. The "classic" Canon pattern banding in 5dmk3, but none to be seen on the 6D even at 12.800 iso. There's a major difference between these sensors.

Were the settings the same? HTP off etc?

 

[Donald Ong]

When I returned my 5dmk3 for a 6D instead I was surprised how much difference it is between the high-iso's. The "classic" Canon pattern banding in 5dmk3, but none to be seen on the 6D even at 12.800 iso. There's a major difference between these sensors.

(...on the other hand 6D as moire, but that's another topic).

I would take lack of moire over clean 12800 any day.
How often would you need to shoot at anything above 3200?

 

[Oller Visuals]

How often would you need to shoot at anything above 3200?

Well, even 3200 looks a lot better than on the 5dmk3. It's kinda the same problem as the old Canon VDSLR's, fixed noise in shadows is a *****... but it was a surprising find that 6D is this good, I've only seen similar performance on Sony sensors in the past.

...but again, the aliasing kinda sucks. But it *is* another topic

 

[maarek]

Well, even 3200 looks a lot better than on the 5dmk3. It's kinda the same problem as the old Canon VDSLR's, fixed noise in shadows is a *****... but it was a surprising find that 6D is this good, I've only seen similar performance on Sony sensors in the past.

But were the settings the same? I have no pattern banding with the 5dmarkIII (if using 160,320,640 etc ISO values and HTP off)

 

[Donald Ong]

Well, even 3200 looks a lot better than on the 5dmk3. It's kinda the same problem as the old Canon VDSLR's, fixed noise in shadows is a *****... but it was a surprising find that 6D is this good, I've only seen similar performance on Sony sensors in the past.

...but again, the aliasing kinda sucks. But it *is* another topic

that's interesting...

 

[Justin Kuhn]

I've used incredibly high iso settings on the 5D3 for a couple of projects...on one with the default numbers, and on another with the higher ones unlocked...in both cases at the highest settings. The first setup was two candles in a windowless white room. The second setup...holy crap. The artist brought us an ugly, unfinished warehouse space, which I intended to hide with bright lighting and low apertures. Then he gets out a disco ball and hangs that up. Someone turns out the light and it looks pretty cool with the little light it has on there. My original plan was to spot a light on the disco ball and light the subjects separately so as to hide the ugly space, but I went with the flow because of laziness brought on by the bullsh!t budget situation. So to preserve what we had coming off the disco ball, I lit with one light shooting off into a room in the back. The keylight was a cell phone. Not the LED flash, mind you, but a cell phone screen. The footage came out surprisingly well, better than I had feared.

 

[ProfessorU]

I've noticed the 6D handles noise better, too. I think it's a little bit the bigger pixels and mostly extra noise filters. The 6D stuff I've shot at high ISO tends to look like it's already been run through a denoiser, with fine details like sand completely gone.