Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
|
Here's a sample at ISO25,600 from my 5DmkII, with noise reduction applied in Lightroom:
http://philhart.com/files/_MG_7741.jpg
Is it really that much worse than the 5DIII example above? Look particularly at the colour chart and around the wine bottles in your sample. It's also not true that the mkIII sample JPGs have had nothing done to them.. they've had heavy noise reduction applied in camera.. you can see it clearly.
The reason '6400 is the new 1600' is that greater processing power allows much more sophisticated noise smoothing to be applied in camera than what the mkII could do. But you can apply that with software yourself as you have to with RAW anyway.
I'll bet a new 1DX *and* a 5DMKIII that RAW 6400 from the mkIII does not look like 1600 on the MKII. a small gain for sure.. but no way two stops. it's simply not possible to have improved the efficiency of the mkII sensor that much (whoever the manufacturer is) since it was already so good. quantum mechanics says so.
if you're disappointed when your new camera arrives, i'll happily take it off your hands.. i'll appreciate the 10% improvement a lot more!
cheers
Phil