50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

2 end

jonbrach
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #1 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

I shot these last night at Birdland here in NYC...i usually use my markIII but I wanted to see how the 50D performed....1600 ISO...no noise reduction ,no sharpening applied...what do you think?

http://jlb.smugmug.com/gallery/6201245_hMaLe//390953025_

Edited on Oct 10, 2008 at 10:33 PM · View previous versions

Oct 10, 2008 at 09:32 PM

shrink1
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

nice shots, all, and pretty noise free. jpeg or RAW?

Oct 10, 2008 at 09:37 PM

jonbrach
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #3 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

raw using ACR 4.6..as I said,no sharpening or noise reduction used!

Oct 10, 2008 at 09:46 PM

koenrutten
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

most of them are pretty noisy with the horizontal or vertical (in the portrait oriented images) banding in the black background.
By using the default ACR noise reduction (25% color) you could make that look a lot better.
It also looks like the images are less sharp at 1600, but that could also be due to the limited depth of field. Because the 85L looks a lot sharper at low iso settings, even without any sharpening.

I'd say it doesn't look a lot (if any) better than my 20d did with these settings/lenses.
What do you think?

Edited on Oct 10, 2008 at 09:48 PM · View previous versions

Oct 10, 2008 at 09:47 PM

bacilonur
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Seriously? That's some nasty banding and smudging.

Oct 10, 2008 at 09:47 PM

jonbrach
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

I am posting the pictures for those interested in the ACR 4.6 issues spoken of...I am not making a judgment just showing the pictures...from my perspective the noise level looks similar to my old 40D although I will say for sure that focus was quicker and better with the 50D....I do look forward to the ACR being upgraded from Beta to see if things improve a bit more..in general I find the camera very fast to focus and very accurate in most of my testing thus far...the LCD is a godsend as well!

Oct 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM

WebDog
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Do you really mean 5D

Exif says 50D

jonbrach wrote:
I shot these last night at Birdland here in NYC...i usually use my markIII but I wanted to see how the 5D performed....1600 ISO...no noise reduction ,no sharpening applied...what do you think?

http://jlb.smugmug.com/gallery/6201245_hMaLe//390953025_

Oct 10, 2008 at 10:11 PM

jonbrach
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #8 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Yes,I apologize...it is the 50D....

Oct 10, 2008 at 10:39 PM

orangefirefish
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #9 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Have you done it in DPP to see if the banding goes away?

Oct 11, 2008 at 12:16 AM

jvarszegi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Ugh... these don't look good.

Oct 11, 2008 at 12:21 AM

Gochugogi
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

I did some city skyline shots at iso 1600 last night, and the sky showed similar amounts of banding patterns even in DPP. I could make it go away if I overexposed the city lights but that kinda ruined the shot. I appears the 50D is really sensitive to underexposure. I'll try ISO 1250 tonight and see if that's better. ISO 1250 was significantly cleaner on the 40D compared to 1600.

Oct 11, 2008 at 12:24 AM

uz2work
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

I tried my 50D for the first time today at ISO 3200, and I was not impressed with the results. Banding was evident on many of the shots. The rest suffered from loss of detail and rather unpleasant noise. I tried converting the RAW files with both DPP and ACR 4.6. At 100%, the DPP conversions may have been a bit cleaner, but the difference was not significant. My early assessment is that ISO 3200 might be ok with noise reduction for subjects without fine detail, but, for animals, birds, or other subjects with fine detail., the fur, feather detail, etc. is lost to a greater degree than I'd like.

When I tried a few ISO 1600 shots, they were significantly better than the 3200 shots, but still not as good as my 1DIII at ISO 3200. Performance at 1600 and 3200 appears to be pretty close to what it was in the 40D, which is to say that it is not something I'd want to rely upon on a regular basis.

For my uses, this isn't a major problem because my uses won't often call for ISO 1600 or 3200, and for the rare situations when I need to go to 1600 or 3200, I do have the 1DIII. It may well be that Canon would have been better able to use the gapless microlens technology by making the 50D sensor a 12 mp sensor and genuinely improving performance at higher ISO, but it is also my guess that they will sell more 15 mp 50Ds than they would have sold a camera with 12 mp.

Les Zigurski

Oct 11, 2008 at 12:48 AM

ward1066
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

did you adjust exposure in ACR any?

Oct 11, 2008 at 12:52 AM

uz2work
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

ward1066 wrote:
did you adjust exposure in ACR any?

I can't tell you what the OP did, but, in my case, at both 1600 and 3200, I tried pushing the exposure to the right quite a bit, and I still wasn't impressed by the results.

Les Zigurski

Oct 11, 2008 at 12:57 AM

ChrisDM
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #15 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

I shoot music with a Mk3 and I think 3200 on my Mk3 looks at least as clean as these. Still, impressive for that much resolution on that size sensor. It looks at least as good as my 40D, if not better. About to be expected, Canon always makes improvements but nothing revolutionary.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

Oct 11, 2008 at 01:21 AM

kenshin
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #16 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

jonbrach wrote:
I do look forward to the ACR being upgraded from Beta to see if things improve a bit more..

Looks like it's no longer in beta. Mac release here. And PC here.

Oct 11, 2008 at 01:39 AM

Gil_W
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #17 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

I'm getting confused. I see this banding and noise on some other posts also and yet see great clean shots at high ISO on the Wildlife and other boards/sites, albeit in brighter conditions.
Guess I should just stick to the 40D and wait on the 60D

Gil

Edited on Oct 11, 2008 at 02:46 AM · View previous versions

Oct 11, 2008 at 01:54 AM

jonbrach
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #18 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

I did install the new 4.6 and played around with it a few shots at 1600 and 3200..it looks a bit better...for the most part it appears to be about the same as my 40D was or perhaps a bit better,certainly not the 1-1/2 stops better promised...that said the 50D is a far better camera even if the noise is essentially the same in my opinion....i also agree that my markIII is dramatically better in terms of noise but then it is dramtically more expensive as well

Oct 11, 2008 at 01:58 AM

Gary Petersen
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #19 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Print it and look then.

Oct 11, 2008 at 02:09 AM

jonbrach
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #20 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Gary,those are words of wisdom...so many pictures look noisy or have issues on the computer but look just fine when printed...i will do just that

Oct 11, 2008 at 02:13 AM

uz2work
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Gary Petersen wrote:
Print it and look then.

Yes...and no.

At ISO 800, I can see some fine noise on the screen. What I see on the screen doesn't bother me at all, but even that fine noise disappears completely in a print. And, because the detail is still there at 800, the pictures look great.

On the other hand, while the noise I see on the screen at ISO 1600 and 3200 doesn't look as bad in a print, there is loss of fine detail that deteriorates the quality of the final product. Like I said above, for shooting subjects without a lot of ine detail, 1600 and 3200 might well work out fine, but when there is fine detail, the same is not the case.

For me, the purpose of the 50D is for use with long lenses where I need to get as many pixels on the subject as possible. That being the case, I don't need the the high ISO capability, but I'd still have a hard time being convinced that the 50D is 1 to 1 1/2 stops better than the 40D. For my purposes, though, if I can get as many pixels on the subject with, say, the 50D and the 500 as I could with the 40D and the 500 plus 1.4x or with the the 1DIII and the 500 and 2x, not having to use the converters has the same ultimate effect as gaining one stop (compared to the 40D with a 1.4x) or two stops (compared to the 1DIII with a 2x), but, again, otherwise, I'd judge the 50D to be about the same as my 40D was at 1600 or 3200, and I'm not sure why, other than for marketing reasons, Canon would even bother to put the H1 or H2 settings on the camera.

I seem to recall reading that firmware version 1.0.2 is supposed to improve noise performance. I'd be interested in hearing from someone whose camera shipped with 1.0.2 and finding out what they are seeing at 1600 and 3200.

Les Zigurski

Oct 11, 2008 at 02:32 AM

bluetsunami
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

Supposed firmware 1.0.2 50D High ISO shots...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98909363@N00/

Oct 11, 2008 at 03:11 AM

David Estes
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

bluetsunami wrote:
Supposed firmware 1.0.2 50D High ISO shots...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98909363@N00/

I don't get it, These shots look good at 1600 and even 6400 looks decent. Yet the few members in here that have posted High ISO shots their's don't look near as good.

Oct 11, 2008 at 03:42 AM

Daan B
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

1) There is a difference in noise levels/characteristics between RAW images converted by DPP 3.5 and ACR 4.6 (beta/RC).

2) There is little difference in noise levels/characteristics between RAW images converted by ACR 4.6 beta/RC and ACR 4.6 (official release).

3) Maybe there is a difference in noise levels/characteristics between RAW images shot with 50D FW 1.0.1 and FW 1.0.2. There are reports indicating this is true.

IMO ACR 4.6 does a "not so good job" at converting 50D RAW images. By oversampling of the RAW data, DPP does a much better job regarding noise levels/characteristics... but at the expense of fine detail with high ISO's (in comparison to ACR 4.6).

Oct 11, 2008 at 07:46 AM

mabidally
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

When using ACR one must apply luminance smoothing for higher ISO shots. ACR does not do this automatically for you.

For eg IMG 0087 is shot at ISO 1600 but luminance smoothing is 0, this is a bit like "buying a new car and driving it with 0 air pressure in the tyres".

The ACR sharpness also is set at the default 25 which is probably too high for an ISO 1600 image.

For ISO 1600 suggest you set LS at about 50 and sharpness at 10 see how the noise looks.

If you want to use default (easy conversions) your probably better off with the in camera JPG's or DPP. ACR gives a lot of power to fine tune and optimise RAW files of many many camera models but the defaults are just not that good.

Could you possibly share one of those RAW files and allow me a shot at processing it? I can receive email upto 10MB on mohammed at slt dot lk

BTW those shots of what looks to be a Jazz session look great! Jus gotta love that low DOF with the 85/1.2

Edited on Oct 11, 2008 at 01:11 PM · View previous versions

Oct 11, 2008 at 07:53 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end