Ralph Conway wrote:
@snapsy:
I do not see that. While 5D was quite "acceptable in Iso 3200" at 12MP, 5D II is with no problem in Iso 6400 (at 21MP). That of course is just my 2 cent.
I agree, your eyes aren't deceiving you. But thd 5DM2's ISO 3200 is really ISO 2133, whereas the 5D's ISO 3200 is ISO 2710, as measured by DxoMark. That's slightly over a 1/3 stop difference. That means you have to use a higher ISO on the 5DM2 to match the same shutter speed as the 5D.
Ian -- I think you are dreaming if you think any of the three (1D2, 1Ds2, 5Dc) will beat the 7D or even 60D for ISO 3200 noise, resolution and color. I'm not saying the 7D and 60D are amazing at that ISO, but better than these other three.
I currently own "the three" plus the 60D. I find all three about the same for noise, but the 16.7MP 1Ds2 has significant edge in resolution, making the noise appear less. The 5D is in the middle, as its 12+MP would indicate. I don't like the noise of any of these three above 800, but find 1600 my limit outside of emergencies. The 60D is as good or better than the three at 1600 compared to their 800.
Given the choice, I pick either the 1Ds2 or 60D.
That said, if you have a fantastic deal on a 5D, you should go for it. It is a great camera, just not at its best at above ISO 1600.
Ian, don't forget that you may need to balance AF performance against the noise performance when looking at buying the older cameras. If you only ever use the centre AF sensor and never shoot birds in flight then there's little or nothing to worry about. If you want faster AF, with AF expansion, in poorer light, then you have a problem with older non-1-series cameras compared with your 1D2n.
Check out the charts at DxO Mark for an indication of how dynamic range and tonal gradation suffer at different ISOs. You can compare up to three cameras at a time but don't pay attention to the single-value benchmarks - the charts are more informative.
[update - their new site format is not working for me at present]
Alan , as far as AF goes , if it moves then the mk2n would be pointed at it.
The 5D if that's the route I go would be used at a much slower pace. I pretty much use the middle point most of the time anyway.
Of course thinking as well to put the cat amongst the pigeons . I could think about keeping the 40D (it does most things well enough) and selling the mk2n and getting a mk3 .
Not ff but I would then keep my 12-24 (usable from 15mm)
In my humble opinion, the 5D does very well at high ISO, but of course I must say that proper exposure is paramount when you're trying to create a clean photo. Don't look too deeply into the shadows either.
I must say, that since we had a child this past May, I've been shooting more at ISO 800+ than at any time in the past--especially now that the boy is starting to move around. If I expose to the right a little, the files cleanup easily. At ISO 800 I often don't use noise reduction at all.
I might be weird, but I think this ISO 800 photo looks very acceptable with no noise reduction at all:
Reproduction size plays an important part in how noise is evaluated. mttran's series above shows zero noise from ISO 100 to 1600 -- all look basically identical! I can assure you that isn't the case when images are viewed at 100%, which is how I base my evaluation of noise. At 100%, noise is readily apparent at ISO 800 and above on a 5D.
