phibes wrote:
hard to tell from a downsized jpeg ....
I can tell that Canon improved shadow and low mids a lot. No way I can lift the lows that much with my 5D2 and not see gritty noise and banding (not that I normally want or need to do so).
ISO 8000 looks good but that being said.... all the images are out of focus. Would love to see sample shots where the shooter or camera nails the focus.
hatch1921 wrote:
ISO 8000 looks good but that being said.... all the images are out of focus. Would love to see sample shots where the shooter or camera nails the focus.
Thanks for the link
Hatch
I don't think it's out of focus. Someone here said something about the RAW being soft.
Gochugogi wrote:
I can tell that Canon improved shadow and low mids a lot. No way I can lift the lows that much with my 5D2 and not see gritty noise and banding (not that I normally want or need to do so).
Me neither. That is one of the reasons I went back to the 5Dc.
Okay.... I opened some of my raw files.... reduced the sharpening down to 0% and they still look better than the samples. Granted they were not shot @ ISO 8000.
So... I guess I should just pay attention to just the noise or lack there of in the image samples.
hatch1921 wrote:
ISO 8000 looks good but that being said.... all the images are out of focus. Would love to see sample shots where the shooter or camera nails the focus.
Michaelparris wrote:
Me neither. That is one of the reasons I went back to the 5Dc.
I prefer a natural look and like the shadows to block up in contrasty scenes, so I rarely lighten shadows more than a half stop in my landscapes. Overall I like the image quality of my 5D2 more than the 5D, especially the extra stop of clean high ISO and the freedom to crop more. But, yeah, the 5D was a great camera and I used the heck out of it for nearly 4 years. At pixel level I thought the 5D was cleaner at low ISO but once rezzed up to large print sizes the 5D2 was cleaner. The tiny and dim LCD drove me nuts as I could only see the histogram in dim light so I pretended like I was shooting slide film...
You looked at the full res images right? The reduced web sizes look amazing.... open the original files... nothing in focus IMO. If they were posted from raw with no sharpening or noise reduction then I can see where the images would be very soft. And again... I'll just focus on the ISO results. But... if you think the full res shots are sharp as they are presented... I need a new monitor. or my eyes checked. lol
hatch1921 wrote:
You looked at the full res images right? The reduced web sizes look amazing.... open the original files... nothing in focus IMO. If they were posted from raw with no sharpening or noise reduction then I can see where the images would be very soft. And again... I'll just focus on the ISO results. But... if you think the full res shots are sharp as they are presented... I need a new monitor. or my eyes checked. lol
snapsy wrote:
Shadow performance can't be evaluated from JPEGs. The tonal range is too limited (blacks crushed).
Really? I can tell by those jpegs that shadow detail has improved. Look at the rim of the hat in both shots.
! I think you are telling me I need glasses. Good one!
well.... those images are horrible.... other than the ISO performance which I believe the OP was showing off and I originally missed the point of the thread. So again... on ISO performance alone... ISO 8000 looks great. Everything else... I would hit the delete key if those were fully processes shots and they looked like they do.
hatch1921 wrote: ! I think you are telling me I need glasses. Good one!
well.... those images are horrible.... other than the ISO performance which I believe the OP was showing off and I originally missed the point of the thread. So again... on ISO performance alone... ISO 8000 looks great. Everything else... I would hit the delete key if those were fully processes shots and they looked like they do.
Hatch
As stated in the title. This is not an example of high ISO quality but the ability to lift detail from the shadows. My 5d MKII could not do in raw what was done in these jpegs. It would have been a banded mess of signal noise. The rim of the hat goes from black to detailed gray. The background although not a bunch of detail at least it is not full of digital noise.
Michaelparris wrote:
Really? I can tell by those jpegs that shadow detail has improved. Look at the rim of the hat in both shots.
Yep. This same JPEG exercise was done when the 5DM3 came out, with the same conclusions by some that DR was improved, which turned out to be wrong once the raws could be processed. I'm not saying DR hasn't been improved on the 6D, just that we can't tell if that's the case from JPEGs.
! I think you are telling me I need glasses. 