I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is too funny. Reminds me of the guy querying the 'connection with his clients'. Classic. Reading this guys previously edited posts is a hoot.
"You've been reported" he proclaims. Oh lord, save me from his reporting ways. The guy should report himself for being a veritable ass.
Sorry... and thanks apdieb for the box shot, great to see how much detail has been retained. It's amazing how quickly hi-ISO capability is improving. I'm told that the D3/700 is still a way better, but looking at these images I couldn't care. I can't really think of anything I couldn't shoot with this camera as far as a typical wedding might go. Unless of course the bride and groom decided to play action sports in the church during late December...
ISO 6400 from the camera is awesome considering. At a 4x6 print, noise would be virtually undetectable (with little noise removal).
The banding in ISO12800 is distracting- looks artificial compared to the random grain pattern in film. Assuming Noise Ninja does not have 5DII profiles yet, the results from NN will only improve once they do.
Overall, I rate ISO6400 as the max usable ISO for the 5D2, and 12800/25600 as emergency use only. I'd be interested in tests of ISO3200 pushed 1-2-3 stops versus the corresponding ISO (6400 etc) to see what the sensor is doing (is it native ISO or does the camera push the exposure internally from some base ISO)
Am I correct in understanding that ISOs above 6400 on the 5DII are "extrapolated" in camera (i.e., no additional amplification is provided, just after-the-fact level adjustment)?
If so, it might be interesting to compare in-camera 12800 to a 6400 shot "pushed" in a raw developer like ACR to approximate 12800.
jvarszegi wrote:
Yes, it was. This is a good illustration of why ISO 12800 and above are not really needed for most shots around the house, and also why it generally shouldn't be used for optimal results either, but only as a last resort. 1/320s was not needed for this stationary toddler. If the shutter speed was higher because a wider aperture was needed, the OP made a mistake (and you have no valid point): the extra light would have been better spent on a lower ISO. The OP did not state that he took this shot with the sole aim of presenting an ISO 12800 sample here, but rather just that the shot is an ISO 12800 sample, and that he wanted feedback on how much the obvious noise has impacted the quality.
I beg to differ.
It was obvious that it was a test of the ability to use 12800.
You say 12800 is not needed around the house, but this was taken with a 1.2 lens so if your fastest lens was 2.8 then that puts you down at 1/60th which is getting marginal.
I would rather have the ability to shoot at very high ISO and still get something usable than not have the option. and anyway if it was film rated that fast then it would have grain the size of pebbles.
The fact that a 21mp FF sensor can get an image anywhere near as good as this is testament to how good things have got.
Eyeball wrote:
Am I correct in understanding that ISOs above 6400 on the 5DII are "extrapolated" in camera (i.e., no additional amplification is provided, just after-the-fact level adjustment)?
If so, it might be interesting to compare in-camera 12800 to a 6400 shot "pushed" in a raw developer like ACR to approximate 12800.
I don't have a 5DII yet or I would try it.
I have been pushing 1Ds3 H files by one and two stops in DPP for the last year. After appropriate noise reduction I would guess that you are not going to see significant differences between iso 12800 and 3200+2 shots from a 5D2, a 1Ds3, a D700, and a D3. The D3x very likely will be worse at this because the a900 is.
If you really want to get good results from a 5D2 or 1Ds3 at iso 12800, shoot raw and apply NeatImage or NoiseNinja with maximum large scale chroma NR, and go gently on the luminosity NR because grain prints well.
I don't get all the debate about the 5D2's high ISO performance. Negative posters seem like they're trying to find something wrong or bad. The whole point of being able to shoot at higher ISOs is to make it possible to take shots where either no flash is allowed, you don't want to use a flash, or if it's the only way to get the shot. And the image quality shooting RAW with (something like) NN IMHO is nothing short of amazing. The only thing I can guess is that those negative posts are from jealous Nikon users or those who can't afford the 5D2!
Let the "flames" begin!!
(Yes, I am being purposely sarcastic, or "jazzin’” as my Aunt used to say. "Lively" debates done in fun just seem so much more interesting. And remember, it’s all fun and games until someone puts an eye out!)
ohyeah wrote:
I don't get all the debate about the 5D2's high ISO performance. Negative posters seem like they're trying to find something wrong or bad. The whole point of being able to shoot at higher ISOs is to make it possible to take shots where either no flash is allowed, you don't want to use a flash, or if it's the only way to get the shot. And the image quality shooting RAW with (something like) NN IMHO is nothing short of amazing. The only thing I can guess is that those negative posts are from jealous Nikon users or those who can't afford the 5D2!
Let the "flames" begin!!
(Yes, I am being purposely sarcastic, or "jazzin’” as my Aunt used to say. "Lively" debates done in fun just seem so much more interesting. And remember, it’s all fun and games until someone puts an eye out!)...Show more →
Actually, I can afford the 5D II, although I don't have one. What's really going on here is that nobody can stand someone pointing out that at 12,800, even the 5D II looks kinda bad. The fact that I tried to help the OP makes the personal attacks against me even more pathetic.
I guess you could call the image quality amazing, in that it's not much worse. That doesn't mean it's actually good. I don't see the benefit over push-processing-- it just seems kinda like a gimmick. Note the performance is the same as the 1Ds Mark III, but they just added the high numbers to parallel the Nikon marketing gimmickry.
Dude. High horse. Dismount. There are many things that we could all use work on but for you to call someone else out on attitude is richer than my Mum's chocolate cake.
Oh and to address your argument rather than your rant: one thing that's not gimmicky is that you can do it at the flick of a button in camera which saves on a bunch of work in PP. Yes, you have the option in a 3200/6400 frame to push it, but if you require a fast shutter to stillframe the shot, pushing it in post won't change the fact that the image is blurry. Having the option is very very useful in my view.
tonyhart wrote:
Dude. High horse. Dismount. There are many things that we could all use work on but for you to call someone else out on attitude is richer than my Mum's chocolate cake.
Oh and to address your argument rather than your rant: one thing that's not gimmicky is that you can do it at the flick of a button in camera which saves on a bunch of work in PP. Yes, you have the option in a 3200/6400 frame to push it, but if you require a fast shutter to stillframe the shot, pushing it in post won't change the fact that the image is blurry. Having the option is very very useful in my view....Show more →
I guess you still haven't learned the difference between an attack and a response to one. I am waiting for the mod to address your previous insults in this thread, which will hopefully happen soon. Learn some manners. You would have lost some teeth already if you behaved this way in real life.
As for the image quality, sure-- they could make it "go to 11" and add even higher numbers, pushing the image quality into even poorer territory. Here's hoping they do that, so you can swoon over the useful ability to shoot even softer images on a regular basis. BTW you can batch postprocess.
I just figured out what the "Hide Me" button is for! Efforts to keep things civil around here seem futile... Nevertheless, if you can't say something nice(ly), please don't post. It is unfortunate that what could have been a civil discussion about a topic many people care about has devolved into name calling and attacks. Oh well, maybe the next thread (if anyone is brave enough to start one).
jvarszegi wrote:
I think it's distracting, and the general softness is not good either. Shoot at lower ISO-- you didn't need 1/320s.
What part of the OP's posting can't you understand?
He wanted to show an example of a shot at ISO12800. Now if he shot at a lower ISO, how would he have been able to post an example of ISO12800?
So what if you think it is distracting and has poor general softness? It is a sample shot. Do you understand yet?
There happen to be people that are interested in seeing sample shots at high ISO's. You certainly are free to express your opinions on the shot, but to telling the OP to shoot at lower ISO, is a joke.
I guess if someone wants to post an example of how a 300mm shot at f2.8 looks, you would tell them to shoot at f4
Yep. Quite agree htbryon, it's the first time someone on the internet has actually suggested they'd physically assault me...
Anyways, jvarszegi believe what you will mate, I don't wish you any physical or mental harm, believe me. I won't be responding to your posts from now on but I hope you find a way to deal with disagreements other than an escalation from angry argument to suggesting violence.
Once again, cheers OP, this thread has helped a lot in my decision regarding 5D or 5DII.
This thread is quite interesting. My general impression is that the 5D-II can certainly perform well at esoteric ISO values and the resulting images are certainly useful. Careful work in post-processing can certainly eliminate much of the negative effects.
However, I cannot really understand why some of the expectation of some folks is that the camera should deliver the same image quality and detail as though the images were shot at ISO 200. It seems to me that noise is a characteristic of digital images (just as grain was characteristic of B&W film).
The quality of the image is often interpreted based upon the ability to have low noise, high dynamic range, and good colour fidelity. Seems to me that, considering noise is "part of the parcel", maybe we really need to get a handle how to shoot images in such a way that the photograph is sufficiently good in spite of the noise so that the noise is immaterial. Humm, in some cases, it can even be used as part of the image element. I have numerous images (in particular, of the performing arts - dance, jazz, etc) which IMO are not negatively impacted by noise.
Here is a shot with the "real noise king" - the Nikon D2H which may (or may not, according to your sensibilities) illustrate that noise is not necessarily "evil".
Totally know what you mean Tony. I shoot weddings and I actively enjoy noise in my B&W images. It lends the image a sense of filmic reportage that I'm going for. My friend Kieran Kieran Doherty, who is an exceptional and very high end wedding photographer shoots with two D3's, and loves the fact that if needs must he can shoot as high as 12,800, but that said he doesn't shy away from noise, and in fact tends to add some in using AE Exposure 2.0 in PP to acheive the filmic look that he's shooting for (if you'll scuse the pun!)
And remember, it’s all fun and games until someone puts an eye out!)