p.2 #1 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
I would love to try a 1D4 and compare. I was hoping it would be a stop better than my 5DII (5DII ISO 3200 = 1D4 ISO 6400) that would make me seriously consider upgrading. From what I understand from the 5DIII speculation thread we are reaching some limitations with how much better sensors can gather light and I shouldn't expect the next canon cameras (1DX, 5DIII) to be more than a full stop better (5DII ISO 3200 = 1DX ISO 6400, not ISO 12,800 (which would be amazing, but I won't be buying a 7k body anytime soon if ever).
p.2 #2 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
Pixel Perfect wrote:
+1
Something fishy about those results. They are surely per pixel noise
and not how you would compare cameras at all.
Although the 5DII is a lower res camera in terms of pixel size - it's effectively 12.5mp compared to the 1DIV at 16mp. Pixel size obviously isn't the only important variable but it is one factor that gives the 5DII the edge.
This is has tweaked my curiosity, I might try a few test shots with each if I can find some time tomorrow.
p.2 #7 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That makes them even less plausible then.
The numbers are weird because of the definition. Specifying the ISO at which all of 3 different properties are above a certain level, only looks at the worst defining factor for each sensor. It does not take into account how much better it may be at the other two factors.
The underlying 18% SNR measurements are not so weird. The 5D and 1DIV are roughly equal, and that is quite an acheivement of the 1D IV, given that the 5D has a 0.75 stops sensor size size advantage.
For dynamic range, the 1D IV crushes the 5D.
BTW, I always preferred dB as a measure for everything.
p.2 #8 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
BrianO wrote:
Could you explain what you mean by this? "Lower res in terms of pixel size"?
It's just that the the 5DII has 21mp and the 1DIV has 16 mp but the 5DII sensor is 69% larger. This means that the pixel size (or perhaps more accurately the spacing between pixel centres) is actually larger on the 5DII. If you cut the centre out of the 5DII sensor to make it the same size as the 1DIV then it would only have about 12.5mp.
Traditionally, in optics, resolution is measured in terms of the smallest distance between 2 points that an optical system can resolve as 2 separate features. Given identical lenses, the larger pixel size/spacing means lower resolution in these terms.
With regard to noise, it's relevant because, "if everything else is equal", larger pixels have better SNR.
p.2 #9 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
Don't get your hopes up. I own a 1D IV and the guy I partner with on weddings shoots a 5D II. They are similar in ISO performance. The Mk IV is certainly not a stop better.
IMO There are lots of other ways that the IV is superior to the 5D II but not in high ISO shooting.
p.2 #10 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
pjbuehner wrote:
Don't get your hopes up. I own a 1D IV and the guy I partner with on weddings shoots a 5D II. They are similar in ISO performance. The Mk IV is certainly not a stop better.
IMO There are lots of other ways that the IV is superior to the 5D II but not in high ISO shooting.
Similar ISO performance has certainly been my perception but I've never actually done a direct comparison on the same shot under the same conditions.
p.2 #11 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
saneproduction wrote:
Oh man, I would love to see the 5DII vs the 1D4 in similar lighting to my shots above at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400!! I may just rent one for the next show
I think you need to be little more realistic about the 1Dmk4's high ISO performance Its pretty much on a par with the 5Dmk2 from what I've seen. I have found the 1Dmk4 high ISO RAW files do clean up very nicely in Lightroom 3/CR though and even in DPP.
p.2 #12 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
BrianO wrote:
Of those I chose, they rate noise-handling ability this way from highest to lowest:
Nikon D3s -- 3250 ISO (The current champ in noise handling.)
Nikon D700 -- 2302 ISO
Canon 5D Mark II -- 1815 ISO
Canon 1Ds Mark III -- 1663
Canon 1D Mark IV -- 1320
Nikon D7000 -- 1167 ISO
Canon 60D -- 813 ISO
Nikon D300s -- 787 ISO
My poor old Canon 20D doesn't fare too well: 721 ISO
That looks like what I expected/experienced.
But as far as I can imagine of cause that calculation is based on a 100% view of the images.
What means they had to compare 21MP pictures to 12.5MP pictures or the average else sensor resolution.
There is no visible difference in noise if one compares D700/5DMK II images in the same printout format. Based upon that 3Ds is "best" at a third stop higher.
To me in "real life" photography there is no problem to use ISO 3.200 of 5D MK II (e.g.: for weddings) without any noise reduction and ISO 6.400 with some depending on the image.
The actual noise levels (like you can see in the ISO 3.200 concert pics on the first page of this thread) are nothing compared to ISO 1600 grain in film times 10 years ago:
p.2 #16 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
saneproduction wrote:
Do you feel that I can safely use ISO 6400 on my 5DII in this type of situation? I have always avoided it.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Surely only you can answer that. What's acceptable to others may not be acceptable to you. Just try it out.
saneproduction wrote:
Oh man, I want the Internet to tell me
Okay: I think you can use 6400. I find that a bit of noise adds to the gritty feel of the nightlife scene. Of course, I cut my teeth on grainy film for night-time use, so to me crystal clear images don't look "real."
As Pixel Perfect said, though, you're the final arbitor of your own images. What matters is what looks good to you (and your clients, of course).
p.2 #17 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
saneproduction wrote:
Do you feel that I can safely use ISO 6400 on my 5DII in this type of situation? I have always avoided it.
I did it the last couple of weddings inside of the church. The pics needed a few NR in Lightroom when compared to ISO 3.200 or less shots. After that in normal print sizes (like a wedding photo book) my customers did not see a quality difference. I did. But it is small. And I do stoped to care about as long they are happy.
p.2 #20 · Compare High ISO Perfromace 5DII vs 5DIII RAW
I use my 5D MK II at ISO 3200 for low light. After lightroom 3 came out, I can probably use ISO 6400, but with a lot of the detail lost. Its basically a ISO 1600 sensor and the noise eats up resolution above that, but its still usable.
I'm waiting to see what the RAW ISO rating of the D1X actually is. DXO ratings all match my experience. I can live with a lower s/n ratio than 30 db, but not beloow 20 db.
I'm hoping for a 1-1/2 stop increase over my 5D MK II in high ISO capabiliity, but am not really expecting that much. I am awating something tangable.
