EOS 5D
v
EOS 5D Mark II
PART 7 - Noise continued - More real world tests
"Around the block in 21.1 megapixels"
After going out without a tripod, taking the pictures above and sniffing their pixels I am not afraid of ISO 1600 on the Mark II. It may take some work but it will clean up fine for A2 prints. Not so with ISO 3200. Whilst it might be a fraction better than on the 5D, ISO 3200 should probably be avoided for large prints, although should be fine for the web and other smaller outputs. ISO 6400 is OK for small web images but probably too difficult to clean up for top quality prints of any real size. Anything above ISO 6400 could only be useful for special effects and monochrome output, but that usefulness should not be underestimated. The offensive part of the noise at higher ISOs is colour blotches - chrominance noise. For monochrome output this is a non-issue. You could probably make decent large monochrome prints at ISO 6400, as long as you were after the "moody" look.
So in conclusion on noise, there is not much to choose between the 5D and Mark II. The Mark II is certainly no worse, but I'm not convinced it's materially better either. Some comparisons may show the Mark II to be about a stop better than the 5D at high ISO, but I could equally find results where the 5D had less shadow noise than the Mark II. I suspect the old 5D may have slightly better dynamic range which helps the shadows in high ISO images whilst the highlights look better on the Mark II. Downsampling to 5D size does not really help at all with noise, as the splotchy chroma noise has a medium to low frequency, so the same splotches are just as visible after a mild downsize. Overall the noise competition is a draw.