# Canon 5D Mark IIII and ISO at 8,000



## kathyt (Jan 4, 2013)

So, the 2 main reasons for upgrading to the Canon 5D Mark III over my Mark II was the improvement in the focusing system and the HUGE improvement in the way it handles low light without all of the noise. Another nice thing about the Mark III is the way it is rendering the WB. This is such a huge time saver for me when it comes to post processing, which I already loathe in the first place.
 Here are 2 examples from my New Years Eve wedding, both shot with the Mark III, AWB, and iso at 8,000 in a fairly dark church. 
These are both SOOC. When I zoom in I can still see some noise, but overall I am pretty impressed at how it handled the situation since I generally don't shoot at an iso of 8,000. The focusing on the Mark III was fantastic.:heart:  That was long overdue. 

SOOC/iso 8,000/AWB













































SOOC/ iso 8,000/ AWB


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 4, 2013)

Have you :hug:: your :camera: today?


----------



## kathyt (Jan 4, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Have you :hug:: your :camera: today?



Ummm, yes. Yes I have. Not so much my wallet though if I don't stop spending!


----------



## keith foster (Jan 4, 2013)

Thanks for sharing these Kathy.  I have a MkII and its struggle to focus in lowlight is a handicap that I would like to overcome.  The ISO performance here is way better than acceptable for this kind of shot.  

I may have to make the leap later this year.


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 4, 2013)

Thanks Kathy,

I wasn't going crazy enough waiting on mine to get here. lol. Nice images.


----------



## wtfranky22 (Jan 4, 2013)

Amazing captures! did you use a tripod for down the aisle image?


----------



## kathyt (Jan 4, 2013)

wtfranky22 said:


> Amazing captures! did you use a tripod for down the aisle image?



Thank you. No, I generally don't use a tripod because I move around too much. I typically will try to stabilize on my own body somehow.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 4, 2013)

keith foster said:


> Thanks for sharing these Kathy.  I have a MkII and its struggle to focus in lowlight is a handicap that I would like to overcome.  The ISO performance here is way better than acceptable for this kind of shot.
> 
> I may have to make the leap later this year.



You will be very happy when you do. I bought mine for $2950, so the price did drop a bit. I bet the price will stay around $3000 though.


----------



## curtyoungblood (Jan 5, 2013)

I have to say, as a 5dII shooter, I am quite jealous.  On the other hand, the company is supposed to be buying me a 5dIII soon. Fingers crossed...


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 8, 2013)

Awesome!!! If there weren't all these rumors about a new big megapixel body on the horizon, I would upgrade.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 8, 2013)

Very nice Kathy. Thanks for rubbing it in for us "less fortunate". :lmao:


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2013)

Too good to be true, but I figured I would post this anyway.

Digital Depot Online


----------



## irfan.in.tx (Jan 8, 2013)

If it sounds too good to be true, suspect something:

digital-depot-online | Ripoff Report | Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported


----------



## shesnotmia (Jan 8, 2013)

Nice!  I've been thinking about eventually switching over to the Canon side and picking up a 5D Mark III.  This might have just made the choice for me.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2013)

Just as I suspected!  Thanks Irfan.


----------



## sactown024 (Jan 8, 2013)

amazing, from the review i saw from Tony Northrup who recently bought the mark III said there was no major difference and he would recommend the mark II unless you have disposable money.

.. I like her dress


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jan 8, 2013)

ISO8000?  That's it?

New York Mag's Stunning Sandy Cover Was Shot From A Moving Helicopter


----------



## ronlane (Jan 8, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> ISO8000? That's it?
> 
> New York Mag's Stunning Sandy Cover Was Shot From A Moving Helicopter



lol, well yeah, but if we all went out and got the 1Dx and the 24-70 mk II then who would we be the same and that would be boring. :mrgreen: (But Kathy, if you get the 1Dx, feel free to send me your mk iii as a hand me down).


----------



## dbvirago (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm a little hard pressed to understand why anyone would buy the 1DX. I'm sure there is a valid reason, but comparing the specs on the Canon site, the biggest difference I see is the price.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 8, 2013)

dbvirago said:


> I'm a little hard pressed to understand why anyone would buy the 1DX. I'm sure there is a valid reason, but comparing the specs on the Canon site, the biggest difference I see is the price.



Because we all know if you own (in debt) a 1Dx, then you MUST be a professional photographer.


----------



## ceejtank (Jan 8, 2013)

Thanks for the shots! Theyre very nice.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 8, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Very nice Kathy. Thanks for rubbing it in for us "less fortunate". :lmao:



I took on two weddings in one weekend to justify this gem mister! This girl works hard.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 8, 2013)

dbvirago said:


> I'm a little hard pressed to understand why anyone would buy the 1DX. I'm sure there is a valid reason, but comparing the specs on the Canon site, the biggest difference I see is the price.



I looked at them both, and I agree. I didn't see much difference.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 8, 2013)

sactown024 said:


> amazing, from the review i saw from Tony Northrup who recently bought the mark III said there was no major difference and he would recommend the mark II unless you have disposable money.
> 
> .. I like her dress



I am going to call the bullsh*t flag on this one. He should come look through my raw files of some of my weddings Mark II vs. Mark III and then see if he can see which wedding is which camera!


----------



## ronlane (Jan 8, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Very nice Kathy. Thanks for rubbing it in for us "less fortunate". :lmao:
> ...



I'm not arguing that at all Kathy.  Just wished I could shoot a wedding and be able to shoot 2 to earn the money to get the mk iii.


----------



## Rick50 (Jan 10, 2013)

Really nice shots... I also have the Mk III and last weekend I used it hand held and was amazed at the quality of images in dark rooms.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 10, 2013)

Canon: So advanced, they don't stick to roman numeral convention!


----------



## TonyNorthrup (Jan 12, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> > amazing, from the review i saw from Tony Northrup who recently bought the mark III said there was no major difference and he would recommend the mark II unless you have disposable money.
> ...



OK, I'm in, though maybe you can just email them to me: tony@northrup.org. 

I did extensive subjective and objective testing, blind "taste tests" by more than a dozen different photographers, I've been using the two cameras side-by-side since the Mark III came out, and my review has challenged hundreds or thousands of Mark III owners who thought the raw image quality is better than the Mark II's... and so far I haven't seen a single raw comparison that shows the Mark III has better image quality. DXO's objective tests agree with me, showing only a 3% improvement.

Here was my initial review where I did the subjective image comparison:






Click the link 9 seconds in to watch my long-term review, done more recently. I know, the light changed during the first test, invalidating it... stick with it for the other tests, though. Here are the raw files from my objective lab tests comparing the two bodies:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dslr-raw/lab-test.zip


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Jan 12, 2013)

Great shot very clean.


----------

