Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2011 · 1DIII and ISO 6400
  
 
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


Lots of useful information here. I'm grateful.

Several of you have pointed out that the included pix is OOF with regards to the shooter. Obviously correct. Why did I select this one to run? Well, in small town papers there are lots of "rules" about who gets their picture in the paper. With a limit of one shot per sport (boys and girls) that's two per issue. A truly stunning shot of an opposing player in action (I have some) will never run. Seniors must all get their pix in the paper. One player can't have it too many times. You begin to see how I end up having to use less than optimal shots at times. Since I also write the stories and the player in question had delivered the best performance of his career and he hadn't been in the paper yet - he got the nod though this is not really a good picture. Truth is - given the printing process - no one will be able to tell that it is not perfectly focused.

I've begun to wonder if the tendency of the AF to pick up and focus on the background rather than the intended object is part of poor low light performance. In this case the focus point (as outlined by DPP) was square on the player's number. (The shot was with the 1DIIn, an 85 f/1.8 shooting at 2.8 and ISO 3200.) In examining the original, the spectator's hand just to the left of #5's shorts is in perfect focus. Maddening. I can't tell if this is clumsiness on my part or the equipment not doing what I need. For sure if there is a ref anywhere in the frame it's likely to get the focus.

Palmor, your shots are quite useful. The black dog pix is excellent. I'm guessing that you do have the advantage of generally "knowing" where the action will take place. This isn't always possible with humans who insist on doing all kinds of unpredictable things The 1DIII shot at ISO 6400 clearly looks excellent.

So here is what I think I've learned so far from the collective wisdom assembled here. The 7D and the 1DIII will give roughly equivalent performance in low light with several people suggesting that the 1DIII "cleans up" better. The 1DIII has a superior AF system (assuming it has been to Canon for the "fix.") I personally much prefer handling and using a 1D series camera over Canon's less expensive offerings.

When parents want prints they tend to be in the 8 x 10 area as this is a cash strapped area. Photos in good light taken with the 1DIIn have - to my eye - looked better printed at this size than the 7D's. This is a quite subjective judgement, so who knows.

It seems that know one quite knows if the 1DIII ISO 6400 is "real" as opposed to being like the extrapolated ISO 3200 on the 1DIIn. I've done some searching but haven't found the answer to this so if any knows, I'd appreciate the information.

David makes particularly cogent points on the advantage of the 1DIV, and I don't think anyone would really argue them. His description of the light on the football field sound oh so familiar. I'm "getting by" during the winter with the 85mm and the 135mm both this won't work come fall.

I have always appreciated high quality action photography without ever thinking too much about what it takes to get that type of shot. As a landscape photographer, I either waited for or hunted light. Now the light is a given and I have to stop action. A whole different equation. I live in a very small town - clustered next to an abandoned copper works - that is more than 100 miles from any urban center with "real" media. The "real" media- if they even knew of this community's existence - wouldn't be able to pronounce its name. Thus the town's paper is the only way that the community knows about itself. A real throw back to the "age of newspapers."

On the plus side, I'm about half way thru the BB season (neither team is in danger of reaching the playoffs) so I'll be moving outside in the daylight for the rest of the year as neither ball field has lights.

It all boils down to more skill on my part and how to come up with capital to improve my performance as it is clear that while the 1DIIn is a magnificent camera for capturing action in reasonably good light (read ISO 1600 max, more likely ISO 800), it just isn't up to darker situations.

Robert






Dec 27, 2011 at 04:33 PM
StanOPhoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


ISO 6400 is expanded and only available through the custom functions.

Here is a ISO 4000 file from my 7D. You'll miss the 1/3 stop settings between ISO 3200 and 6400 with the 1D3:




And here's one at ISO 3200 from the 1D3:




Dec 27, 2011 at 06:54 PM
Andrew J
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


They have proven that the MKIII has real ISO 6400, not software based. Using this plugin you can get more detail than a D3:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=680947



Dec 27, 2011 at 08:24 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


It has been my experience that in order of "which is better"

1d4>----1d3/7d>----1d2n>----1d2.

I've got a friend who shoots a lot of the same stuff I do. Our gear is very similar, with just a few differences. He opts for the non is 70-200, I've had both is vs and still have one. He has a 300 2.8, I don't.
We both have 7d and I've got mark3's. He's got mark 2n's.


The 7d is a step up from the 2n in my opinion. However there is a following of people who like the af of the 2n more than the mark 3. I don't know if it's the af issue stigma or not. I had one of the affected cameras and I was assured that it had the fixes...it went to canon three times. Now it's awesome.

I don't know why it is in my head that it's real 6400, but I can't find that post I was talking about. As for which cleans up better, you've got to look at output and not 100%pixels. I use both interchangeably.

I will post some images at 6400 with the 1d3 when I am home tonight.



Dec 28, 2011 at 01:32 PM
GeneO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


Andrew J wrote:
They have proven that the MKIII has real ISO 6400, not software based. Using this plugin you can get more detail than a D3:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=680947


Who is they? As far as I can see in that tortuously long thread, nobody has even suggested let alone proved that the 1D3 ISO 6400 is a real (amplified) ISO.

Perhaps you misunderstood. We are talking in-camera pushing of (a true amplified) IS3200 to attain ISO6400 vs. an in-camera ISO 6400 achieved by direct amplification of the signal in the camera. We are not referring to ISO pushed in post-processing, which the thread you linked to is about.



Dec 28, 2011 at 09:42 PM
lwrnclightner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


I use 6400 iso on my mkIII's when needed, and as with any photo scenario, the end result depends on the lighting, just my .02cents. Here are a couple examples I was able to dig out......

1






2






I am not a specialist at picking apart files, but they look pretty ok to me.. I will leave the finer details to you guys.



Dec 28, 2011 at 10:18 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


GeneO wrote:
Who is they? As far as I can see in that tortuously long thread, nobody has even suggested let alone proved that the 1D3 ISO 6400 is a real (amplified) ISO.

Perhaps you misunderstood. We are talking in-camera pushing of (a true amplified) IS3200 to attain ISO6400 vs. an in-camera ISO 6400 achieved by direct amplification of the signal in the camera. We are not referring to ISO pushed in post-processing, which the thread you linked to is about.



I can say this much. ISO 6400 in the 1D3 looks better than taking 1D3 3200 and underexposing a stop, then bringing it back 1 stop in post.



Dec 29, 2011 at 12:00 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


A few samples.





ISo3200 shot from 7D

  Canon EOS 7D    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens    70mm    f/2.8    1/400s    3200 ISO    0.0 EV  







Too low of light to even use a good shutter speed, and a horrible color cast from the lights. Brought back 1/2 f/stop in post.

  Canon EOS-1D Mark III    EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens    57mm    f/2.8    1/250s    6400 ISO    0.0 EV  







Added 2/3 stop in post.

  Canon EOS-1D Mark III    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens    73mm    f/2.8    1/400s    6400 ISO    0.0 EV  







Brought back 1/3 or so in post. They were moving fast, even for 1/400

  Canon EOS-1D Mark III    EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens    51mm    f/2.8    1/400s    6400 ISO    0.0 EV  




Dec 29, 2011 at 12:05 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


A few more.




  Canon EOS-1D Mark III    EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens    70mm    f/2.8    1/400s    6400 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS-1D Mark III    EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens    70mm    f/2.8    1/400s    6400 ISO    0.0 EV  







mess up these settings, here's one at 1600. Complete accident.

  Canon EOS-1D Mark III    EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens    27mm    f/3.5    1/50s    1600 ISO    0.0 EV  







added 2.5 stops, and cropped it. Not a "winning" photo, but certainly presentable. This would be "6400+" equiv from post pushing.

  Canon EOS-1D Mark III    EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens    27mm    f/3.5    1/50s    1600 ISO    0.0 EV  




Dec 29, 2011 at 12:16 AM
GeneO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


Hmm, I see hardly any difference comparing pushed 3200 and 6400 side by side. And the file sizes after processing are nearly identical. I will run a systematic comparison test and post here when I get a chance.


Dec 29, 2011 at 01:00 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


GeneO wrote:
Hmm, I see hardly any difference comparing pushed 3200 and 6400 side by side. And the file sizes after processing are nearly identical. I will run a systematic comparison test and post here when I get a chance.

Hardly means you see some. In this Iso range some is better than none. The pair of 1d3s cost what 1 1d4 does, so I need every ounce of performance I can get, you know? I simply can't swing 10 grand for two new cameras right now.



Dec 29, 2011 at 02:19 AM
Dawei Ye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


I used a 1D3 against a 5D2 for a bb game at ISO 6400 - there was no comparison, the 1D3 was horrible, horrible, horrible in the noise. Keeper rate was lower, but IQ, particularly colour fidelity, was so much better. At a pixel level, the noise is probably equal, but obviously the 5D2 has a huge resolution advantage, and more importantly, the files don't fall apart when pushed


Dec 29, 2011 at 02:21 PM
GeneO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


RobertLynn wrote:
Hardly means you see some


No, I didn't say that



Dec 29, 2011 at 02:28 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


Dawei Ye wrote:
I used a 1D3 against a 5D2 for a bb game at ISO 6400 - there was no comparison, the 1D3 was horrible, horrible, horrible in the noise. Keeper rate was lower, but IQ, particularly colour fidelity, was so much better. At a pixel level, the noise is probably equal, but obviously the 5D2 has a huge resolution advantage, and more importantly, the files don't fall apart when pushed

I don't get where you're seeing this horrible that you're talking about.

I'm quite impressed with the 1d3 at 6400.
I think the files hold up well to post processing. I pushed one a generic 2.5 stops and it did pretty well. That's without actually spending any real amount of time on it either.

I guess we will have to respectfully disagree. I use te 1d3 at 6400 a lot. I print with it at 6400 a lot. I'm not 100% pixel peeping and comparing to a camera with double the resolution, and a full frame sensor. I'm looking at large print output and small web output. It does well there in both categories.



Dec 29, 2011 at 03:48 PM
Deborah Kolt
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


I've shot regularly at 3200 and 6400 with both the Mark III and IV in venues where flash is not allowed. Noise is not an issue if you don't underexpose. I get the best results by over exposing slightly and then pulling it back in post. (I'm assuming shooting raw and in manual mode for precise control.) The 1 series is quite forgiving; you can have "blinkies" on the white uniforms and when recovered in post, you discover that that detail is not gone, but there is essentially no noise. And results are much better than using any noise reduction software. It just takes a bit of experimentation to get a feel for the correct level of overexposure. As a starting point, let the rim of the white unis - shoulders and edges of the folds, e.g., blink. Experiement with another third of a stop to see how far you can push it without losing detail or saturation. Just make sure that the unis aren't solid blinkies and that no pale Caucasian skin is blinking.

There are always some hs sports venues where there just isn't enough light to make this work, but for those where it can be used, the results are great.

Note: I learned the hard way that this techinque does not work with my 5DII!



Dec 30, 2011 at 06:15 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


Robert, your fight pix are nice. In fact I'd say you - at least in some cases - have worse light than I do. Looking at them I see that most of the poses are "relatively static," i.e., clinches and attempted pins. The third pix shows a lot of motion and I think I detect a bit of blur of the about to be slamee's head at 1/400. I find that If I'm not at 1/500 minimum, it's hard to stop action. 1/640 is obviously nicer.

Deborah, useful advise and thanks. I struggle often to get the 1/3 stop over exposure I prefer and also have a fast enough shutter speed. At times I just can't "maximize both variables" at the same time. Will try your technics.

As a result of this conversation, several people have contacted me offering 1DIII's for sale. I've agreed to buy a moderately used one at good price from an original owner. Am putting my beloved 1DIIn up for sale. Hate to see it go. For a while I'll compare the 7d and 1DIII in my environment and report back with what I see.

Again, this forum is a truly valuable source of information and I appreciate all who have offered advice and opinions.

Robert



Dec 30, 2011 at 04:50 PM
GeneO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


Here is what I mean by hardly any difference. The first 100% crop is ISO 6400 and the second ISO 3200 pushed a stop 9actuially 1.1 stop). Adjustments in Photoshop were: no sharpening, standard color noise reduction, no luminance noise reduction and the rest standard Photoshop settings.

The can be a disadvantage in pushing at this high ISO - you are also boosting the noise so white specs can be a problem.

Anyhow, the shadows are a litter better.












- Gene




Dec 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM
Al Goldis
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


The Mark III will definitely give you at least an extra stop. I'm not sure I would want to use it at 6400, but 3200 will be a big improvement over the Mark IIn at 3200, plus you get third stops between 1600 and 3200 (I really wish it had ISO 4000 and 5000, though). I guess 6400 on the Mark III is a little better than 3200 on the Mark IIn.

To go off topic a little...

Are you getting paid enough by this newspaper to justify the capital expense out of your own pocket for the upgrade? Is it really worth it when you're talking about how bad their printing is? Will you be getting paid more for less noisy photos?



Dec 31, 2011 at 02:07 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


If he isn't makin a lot of cash from the paper, but wants the camera and is using it for work, he can deduct it as a work expense.

@op the situations "looks" static (well the women and people in the corner are) but trust me, even If "looks" static, please check out an Mma match where people are fighting for submissions.

I can find more examples if I have to, but the point is, if there was "light", I wouldn't need high ISo am low shutter speeds.

My mk3s deliver in the high ISo department and it will be better than the mk2n.

It's a great value.



Dec 31, 2011 at 02:34 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 1DIII and ISO 6400


Al Goldis wrote:
The Mark III will definitely give you at least an extra stop. I'm not sure I would want to use it at 6400, but 3200 will be a big improvement over the Mark IIn at 3200, plus you get third stops between 1600 and 3200 (I really wish it had ISO 4000 and 5000, though). I guess 6400 on the Mark III is a little better than 3200 on the Mark IIn.

To go off topic a little...

Are you getting paid enough by this newspaper to justify the capital expense out of your own pocket for the upgrade? Is it
...Show more

Al,

Thanks for your thoughts on 1DIII at ISO 6400. I'm about to find out. As for your off topic thoughts, no the wage (I refer to it as an "honorarium") will not pay back the cost of the upgrade to the 1DIII in any near future. Even if I'm successful at selling the 1DIIn at a upper end price, I'll still be out $700 - $800 for the upgrade. So, you, very reasonably ask, "Why do it?"

I've worked my way up to having all professional grade gear (except for the 50mm and 85mm as I feel the L versions won't be useful to me) by purchasing older, used, 1 to 2 versions back gear and slowly moving forward as used prices go down. I'm sure this approach doesn't endear me to Canon stock holders, but I'm not overly concerned about their well being.

What I am concerned about is taking the best photo possible every time I push the button. Idealistic? Sure, I've never gotten over my teenage belief in a better world no matter what level one works at. While my work for the paper is "good enough" (in fact the publisher - who does most of the paper's non-athletic shooting - has noted several times my photos are much better than his), it isn't up to the standard I hold for myself. In particular, the color versions in general aren't good enough to sell to parents - who bluntly know so little about photography that they won't care if their son/daughter is slightly OOF. I don't like them, so I need to get better.

I recognize that the largest component in my improvement is bettering my own skill and I work diligently at that even if sometimes I'm not sure what I have to do to get better. As I've noted a couple of times in this discussion, I often get pix in which the focus is behind the action though the focus point was directly on the player. WTF? Still working on that. Learning where and when to take a pix clearly demands experience.

You've pointed out a fundamental divide in human endeavor between "good enough" and "right." Lots of things for me are just fine at the "good enough" level - politics, for example. "Right" requires either Fascism or a theocracy. I'm just not willing for anyone to be that "Right."

In the realm of my own artistic efforts, I try to be "Right." Without a doubt a new 1D Mk IV with a 200mm f'/2.0 L would give me opportunities that my older used equipment can't touch. Such gear, however, won't make me a good photographer. Sometimes as I sort through the hundreds of shots I take of each game, I despair of actually being good at this. Still, "perseverance furthers." I've also exposed my questions and ineptitude to public eye because I want people to recognize that a "professional" photographer is not just some one who shots for SI or Vogue. There are - I'm sure - probably thousands of us laboring in small market/limited interest areas who don't care if they ever make an SI cover. We just want to take the best pix possible and do what we can to advance (at least in my case) the kids and the school at the local level.

Besides, if I really ran my life on a cost/benefit analysis approach, I'd gone into finance rather than spending my life in schooling, NGOs, and trying to start small business so folks get jobs. All in all, I've found shooting high school sports with a deadline to be utterly rejuvenating to my "real" photography.

Just a few thoughts here at the end of the calendar year.

Robert



Dec 31, 2011 at 05:13 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password