snapsy wrote:
Not at all. If I was jerking your chain I would ask you for what evidence you have and then tell you why I think it's insufficient. Instead I indicated up front what type of evidence is necessary to prove any claims about raw NR. I've done my own searches in the past and never found anything legitimate for Canon or Nikon DSLRs. There is proof for Pentax and Sony however.
I have a feeling that I wont be very successful in finding good evidence especially if you have looked before and seem to have more knowledge on the subject than I do! I will retract my earlier statement about proof of Canon NR on Raw files. However, do you think the info in the 5D mkIII press talking about NR before the Digic chip is still just for jpegs? Or could this have some effect on the CR2 file?
Bruce Sawle wrote:
Not true!! Nikon gives you the ability to turn High ISO RAW off completely. And when it is on it will only kick in at higher ISO.
And so does Canon but I was referring to past forum discussions about hidden NR. I understood that astrophotographers were able to prove this in Nikon NEF files. Again, I'm no expert and really don't care because there is nothing one can do about it but always am interested to learn how things work.
arbitrage wrote:
I have a feeling that I wont be very successful in finding good evidence especially if you have looked before and seem to have more knowledge on the subject than I do! I will retract my earlier statement about proof of Canon NR on Raw files. However, do you think the info in the 5D mkIII press talking about NR before the Digic chip is still just for jpegs? Or could this have some effect on the CR2 file?
Thanks. Although I've done my own searches I always have my ears out for new info because it's a topic that interests me. Regarding the 5DM3 press release, Canon talks about "on-chip noise reduction", which might refer to an improved CDS technique ("correlated double sampling"). Nearly all modern CMOS sensors do this, some better than others. It's theorized that shortcomings in Canon's CDS technique on the 5DM2 is what causes its low-ISO shadow banding issue (there are other theories too), which hopefully has been solved on the 5DM3.
snapsy wrote:
Thanks. Although I've done my own searches I always have my ears out for new info because it's a topic that interests me. Regarding the 5DM3 press release, Canon talks about "on-chip noise reduction", which might refer to an improved CDS technique ("correlated double sampling"). Nearly all modern CMOS sensors do this, some better than others. It's theorized that shortcomings in Canon's CDS technique on the 5DM2 is what causes its low-ISO shadow banding issue (there are other theories too), which hopefully has been solved on the 5DM3.
Yeah I hadn't mentioned that, on the face of it, horrifying sounding blurb in the press release because I assume they actually just mean something good, better CDS, and not something nasty like what people think of as NR locked into RAW.
I'm not sure whether they meant NR switched off during long exposure's. But I clearly remember the rep saying it can be switched off for Jpeg and RAW.
I'm on a pre-order for the 1Dx so I was looking for comparisons between the two, the focusing on the 5D3 will be slightly slower under certain circumstances due to only having 1 digic 5+ processor. If all points are selected the AF will need to do a lot of calculations and metering of one chip whereas the 1Dx has a dedicated digic 4 chip to take care of this.
The screen is very good, it is clear and there is a function where 2 images can be shown side by side and rated. I'm not sure whether I would use that, but it's a welcome addition.
I've got more images of the ceiling (to check the metering zones) that i took at different ISO's which I will upload. I had to take the previous images of due to the bandwidth allowance which isn't great.
I went to a Nikon D800 talk and a member of the audience asked about the moire, the rep said he would recommend people buying the D800 rather than the D800E unless you are coming back from a MF camera! lol
Back to the 5D3, the main issue with the 5D II for me was the focus points, that's been addressed and the metering has been improved. I'm actually glad the pixels haven't increased to a crazy amount, I got 40-45mb RAW images! I would have to upgrade my computer along with the additional cost.
The rep said the 1Dx has the best DR of any EOS camera at every ISO! The 5D3 is close to that.
Overall I'm impressed, impressed enough to look at selling the 5D II and buy this camera (along with the 1Dx) This is only my opinion, others may disagree. 5D3 to me is a mini 1Ds III, I believe canon have got a lot of things right for my needs/wants.
Im a Nikon shooter and Im quite impressed by the high iso results. For websized images or people who dont pixel peep it looks very usable even in 25,600. However if you zoom in you can easily tell that its bombarded with NR. To me the D800 looks way more grainy in high iso settings even with NR applied compared to the 5DM3.
Im a Nikon shooter and Im quite impressed by the high iso results. For websized images or people who dont pixel peep it looks very usable even in 25,600. However if you zoom in you can easily tell that its bombarded with NR. To me the D800 looks way more grainy in high iso settings even with NR applied compared to the 5DM3.
Thanks. These are pretty encouraging. I was impressed with the ISO6400 shot in particular - yes it's got a lot of NR, but there's also a good amount of detail left, the noise that's there is "nice" looking and the colours have managed to stay very accurate. I'm not that impressed with the 12800 shot though...
It will be interesting to see how it manages under less ideal lighting conditions (such as a wedding reception under tungsten). And will be interesting to see RAW performance through LR3 too.
Those Flickr shots are strange... Some at low ISO look completely OOF and lack any detail, yet the one ISO 12,800 has great detail, just some more NR. Blah examples to me, but must say the ISO 12,800 image gives me hope.
I can't wait to get this camera and see how the RAW files look.
Rav13 wrote:
however I'll upload the RAW files to a upload site very soon and even then slight NR is applied which can be switched off. I didn't go through the menu's to find it due to time allowed.
FYI, you can upload those RAW files on a file hosting service like http://www.mediafire.com/ in case you're having bandwidth problems.
I'm very interested in seeing those RAW files, especially an ISO 100 RAW file (to check for deep shadow noise that plagued the 5D2).
stargazer78 wrote:
FYI, you can upload those RAW files on a file hosting service like http://www.mediafire.com/ in case you're having bandwidth problems.
I'm very interested in seeing those RAW files, especially an ISO 100 RAW file (to check for deep shadow noise that plagued the 5D2).
ISO 6400 of the girl looks pretty good to me. There is some luminance noise that is possible to clean up nicely in Lightroom 4 without the details in her hair or eyelashes taking the hurt.
The ISO 12.000 shot. I dont know. It is grainly, which is OK, but I cant figure the level of detail out of that shot. The detail on the camera isn't great, but I'm not sure whether it is somewhat out of focus. I don't see 3DS quality here, but I might just be that shot.
Just downloaded the iso 100 raw file from the link above and opened it with ACR 6.7. There is still banding in the deep shadows. The higer iso's look great
Evangelos wrote:
Just downloaded the iso 100 raw file from the link above and opened it with ACR 6.7. There is still banding in the deep shadows. The higer iso's look great
Evan
Jep, but the banding in the deep shadows isn't that bad after all and no trace of the uber ugly pattern noise.
I'm surprised they did let you take the RAWs. All the other reports from the weekend say they "were watched like hawks" so that they didn't insert their own CF cards. Someone, is getting reamed out in a back-office somewhere
Is ACR already supporting these files?? I've never heard of that this early before, or are you converting to DNG?
I did ask and I asked whether i can post them, as long as i quoted BETA camera I was OK to post.
Actually I hope it WAS a canon rep that said it was ok! lol!
arbitrage wrote:
I'm surprised they did let you take the RAWs. All the other reports from the weekend say they "were watched like hawks" so that they didn't insert their own CF cards. Someone, is getting reamed out in a back-office somewhere
Is ACR already supporting these files?? I've never heard of that this early before, or are you converting to DNG?
