^ ^
Did you even care to read what I wrote in my post? This is not "just" a web size reduction. It was carefully measured exactly to the size you would see when viewed in a 24"x12" spread in a wedding album. I only took a cutout of the entire 24"x12" image for your viewing convenience here on FM. But it's the same definition as the entire image.
Comparing 100% crops is useless because no client ever sees a 100% crop.
Again, I'm not saying a 5Dclassic is in any way better than a 5DmkII. I just want to show that it is perfectly useable even for the most pixel / noise demanding output like a wedding album spread. Even @ISO3200.
David Baldwin wrote:
I agree though that in very low light ISO 6400 on a 5D2 is not so satisfying:
Hi David,
Nice images! I find that ISO6400 on the 5DmkII is quite usable, provided it is well exposed. Your image looks a bit dark and that may well be intended, but noise is inevitable. Could you provide us the exact PP exposure correction?
I will take the image from your web site and use 3rd party noise software to see if I can clean it up. Please shoot me a pm in case you don't want me to or if you want me to send you the results.
Chris Fawkes wrote:
I was thinking 6400 when i said that.
I was a bit gutted to find shots taken at that iso were not usable when 3200 on the classic were totally usable up to 20x30.
Lovely shots btw.
Hi Chris,
I was intrigued by your ISO6400 remark here so I looked back to your original post on page #7, where you were talking about the 5Dclassic. So you got me confused a bit
I agree to some extent that ISO6400 on the mkII isn't as good as ISO3200 on the classic. But with good exposure and adequate PP even ISO6400 on the II is usable.
I have to admit I am a bit of a noise addict, at high ISO I rarely process it out, accepting ACRs default. It comes of being raised on Tri-X! Personally I like the 5D2s 3200 noise, but it starts to get "scrappy" at ISO 6400, subjectively. I have noticed banding at ISO 6400, but to be frank have veeeeeerrrrry rarely seen "burlap" at much lower ISOs in daylight, without apparent rhyme or reason. Not remotely enough to be a practical problem, more like a curiosity once in a blue moon.
To be honest if I had the money for a new low light camera (I don't sadly!) I would personally get a 6D, I know the outer focus points aren't as good as the 5D3s, but I've heard the 6D sensor is the business in the dark!
I am saving for a new FF body, should take me 2 more years by which time my 5D2 will be 6 and ready for backup duty. By then I would see a 6D Mk2 in my future.
rabbitmountain wrote:
[...]
The "5D @ISO3200 is crap" camp is awfully quiet.......
I'm not in that "camp," but there are a few things going on here I think.
First, I do shoot a 5D2 at 3200 ISO when working particular subjects in particular situations - for example, I have an ongoing project shooting classical musicians during rehearsals and performances without using flash. I frequently shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200 for this work.
In general - not restricted to high ISO concerns - a lot of forumtographers go on about noise as if a) it can be eliminated and b) having any at all ruins a photograph. As we know, there is some noise in every photograph, it is rarely visible in a final image (e.g. - a print), and even when a bit of noise is visible that is not always really a problem. In fact, it usually is less of an issue than film grain was.
That said, there has been a steady improvement in the ability to shoot at higher ISOs with equivalent noise and other performance. The majority of my work is landscape and similar tripod-based photography, shot with the intention of making very large prints. With the 5D I would never shoot at other than ISO 100 if I could avoid it, occasionally shot at 200, and virtually never shot these subjects at 400. With the 5D2 I don't care (from the noise perspective) whether I shoot at 100 or 200, and I don't hesitate to shoot landscape at 400. I have used 800 for this purpose with fine results.
At a given ISO the noise situation will be better with the newer camera, however some qualifiers are necessary. First, unless you are making fairly good sized prints you will not see the noise or the difference. Second, depending on your feeling about the visibility of noise in the image you may be willing to accept (or even embrace!) higher amounts of noise. Third, smart use of various forms on noise reduction can improve higher ISO shots quitea bit.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm not in that "camp," but there are a few things going on here I think.
First, I do shoot a 5D2 at 3200 ISO when working particular subjects in particular situations - for example, I have an ongoing project shooting classical musicians during rehearsals and performances without using flash. I frequently shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200 for this work.
In general - not restricted to high ISO concerns - a lot of forumtographers go on about noise as if a) it can be eliminated and b) having any at all ruins a photograph. As we know, there is some noise in every photograph, it is rarely visible in a final image (e.g. - a print), and even when a bit of noise is visible that is not always really a problem. In fact, it usually is less of an issue than film grain was.
That said, there has been a steady improvement in the ability to shoot at higher ISOs with equivalent noise and other performance. The majority of my work is landscape and similar tripod-based photography, shot with the intention of making very large prints. With the 5D I would never shoot at other than ISO 100 if I could avoid it, occasionally shot at 200, and virtually never shot these subjects at 400. With the 5D2 I don't care (from the noise perspective) whether I shoot at 100 or 200, and I don't hesitate to shoot landscape at 400. I have used 800 for this purpose with fine results.
At a given ISO the noise situation will be better with the newer camera, however some qualifiers are necessary. First, unless you are making fairly good sized prints you will not see the noise or the difference. Second, depending on your feeling about the visibility of noise in the image you may be willing to accept (or even embrace!) higher amounts of noise. Third, smart use of various forms on noise reduction can improve higher ISO shots quitea bit.
Hi Dan,
I couldn't agree more. Thank you for your view on this. In my personal experience, a 12" wedding album containing a spread is the most critical final product if your goal is to completely rule out visible noise. This is because it's a fairly large print that is viewed from the hands. Any larger print will be hung on a wall and viewed while standing in front of it, in which case the viewing angle (which basically is the variable that determines how much of the noise captured is actually visible) is likely to be smaller. 4x6 prints obviously are the most forgiving as their viewing angle is the smallest.
I never use aggressive noise reduction because it takes away the detail in your image. Using Topaz DeNoise at "RAW-light" is borderline for me for wedding album spreads. For small insets, I can use stronger values if necessary.
Because the. Noise removal software is run from within Lightroom, it's no hassle at all and it has become part of my workflow. That said, I usually shoot as low ISO's as possible because obviously contrast and colour are better then.
For B/W work Actually like the grain look of the 5DmkII noise. I prefer the 1DmkIV for that, but have never owned it.
Finally I'd like to emphasize that I do think the 5DmkIII is better than the II and the II is better than the Classic in all respects. I reject the god-like status of the classic, but at the same time I think it's silly to suggest that the 5D is useless / sucks at ISO3200. With my image I merely tried to show that that just isn't true.
Chris Fawkes wrote:
I love noise but banding I have issues with.
Anybody know how to get rid of it?
You may want to check out Topaz DeNoise, they have a 30 day trial. It's one of the few noise removal packages that actually manages to remove mild banding. Don't set your 5DmkII to 12800, lift shadows and expect miracles. But it managed to completely remove banding in some well exposed 12800 images.
There may be more, but this is my personal experience. Hope that helps.
rabbitmountain wrote:
The "5D @ISO3200 is crap" camp is awfully quiet.......
Sorry for not responding!
I should have said "For a small reproduction size like this, that is an example of what I consider far too noisy, and why I kept the 5D at ISO 1250, or below, for event photography with flash and ambient light mix."
If others find this example photos' IQ satisfying, no problem. I limited my 5D to 1600 max (800 being my last satisfying ISO) for fine details, and the 5D2 to 3200 max (1600 being preferred). From what I've seen in examples and my own limited use, the 5D3 will keep me happy at 6400 under similar circumstances (but happier with 3200).
If I were shooting live musical or stage performances, I'd go to much higher ISO (the new 5D3 looks really great at 12500!) -- a gritty look is more acceptable.
To your quote, "Comparing 100% crops is useless because no client ever sees a 100% crop." I disagree. I've taken many group shots at events (even a few weddings) where the client wanted to do a severe crop to feature a few individuals in a much larger scene. In those situations, the close-ups fall to pieces with low MP images at high ISO. I like being able to tout the cropping capabilities as an added creative option.
Reading David's response about his enjoying noise, having been raised on Tri-X illuminates the discussion. I was "raised" on Velvia 50, seeking as grainless and punchy an image as possible. That holds true today as well -- I'm simply not a fan of noise (and other things too -- black and white; severe lens aberrations; and a number of other illustrative effects). Different strokes.
dhphoto wrote:
You are so blinkered about this it's weird.
Does yours make coffee and take the kids to school as well?
The samples you posted show nothing about the high ISO of the 5D
Honestly dhphoto, I think the only person that is being blinkered about this is you. No one is saying that its build quality isn't comparable, no one is saying that its menu system isn't horrible, its AF crap and its ISO performance is not as good as modern cameras. No one is disputing that. However, the actual files are a joy and there are many people out there that just love it for the sensor and for no other reason.
You seem to be telling us that oranges are better than apples and calling us fanatics and devotees because we enjoy aspects of the camera that are outside of the scope of your rather rigid argument.
rabbitmountain wrote:
You may want to check out Topaz DeNoise, they have a 30 day trial. It's one of the few noise removal packages that actually manages to remove mild banding. Don't set your 5DmkII to 12800, lift shadows and expect miracles. But it managed to completely remove banding in some well exposed 12800 images.
There may be more, but this is my personal experience. Hope that helps.
morganb4 wrote:
Honestly dhphoto, I think the only person that is being blinkered about this is you. No one is saying that its build quality isn't comparable, no one is saying that its menu system isn't horrible, its AF crap and its ISO performance is not as good as modern cameras. No one is disputing that. However, the actual files are a joy and there are many people out there that just love it for the sensor and for no other reason.
You seem to be telling us that oranges are better than apples and calling us fanatics and devotees because we enjoy aspects of the camera that are outside of the scope of your rather rigid argument.
Gunzorro wrote:
Sorry for not responding!
No problem
I should have said "For a small reproduction size like this, that is an example of what I consider far too noisy, and why I kept the 5D at ISO 1250, or below, for event photography with flash and ambient light mix."
First, it perfectly acceptable for me that you find it too noisy. However, what you're looking at is a heavily cropped image. It's about 10% of the entire image found on page #8: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1212965/7#11564491
It's hard to explain why I show it like this, so I think I should stop doing it. They keep getting misunderstood.
So here it is again:
- The original image has 4368x2912 pixels
- For simulating the pixel definition of how a 2-page spread in a 12" album would look I shrunk the original image to 2424x1616 pixels.
- showing a 2424x1616 pixel image on FM forum is impossible due to image size limits
- so I took a 800x533 crop from the 2424x1616 image to show here
You can have a look at the 2424x1616 pixels image here:
Find the largest computer monitor you can find in your home, the image is meant to be 24 inches wide, so you'll need a 27" or 30" monitor to view it. Then take appropriate distance to the image, let's say about 25 inches or so, just as if you'd be viewing an album that's lying on your lap.
Evaluate again if the noise is visible and if so if it bothers you. If it does, fair enough.
Chris Fawkes wrote:
That did the trick, saved me a reshoot.
I owe you a beer man.
(sorry for going off topic everyone else).
Glad it worked out for you. About that beer: I've visited Australia 3 times, Melbourne as well. If I were to visit it again, I'll shoot you a pm
