brainiac wrote:
It is still the the least noisy camera canon has ever produced in terms of NOISE PER IMAGE.
Based on the samples I've seen (including yours, in the linked thread), I disagree with that summary. Indeed, while the 1Ds III is much better in terms of noise per image than the 100% crops would indicate, I think the 5D is better on both a per pixel and per image basis.
moondigger wrote:
Based on the samples I've seen (including yours, in the linked thread), I disagree with that summary. Indeed, while the 1Ds III is much better in terms of noise per image than the 100% crops would indicate, I think the 5D is better on both a per pixel and per image basis.
When you up-size the 5D files to the size of the 1ds3 files or when you down-size the 1Ds3 files to the size of 5D files, I find both cameras are about equal in the amount of noise they produce at higher ISO's. But the 1Ds3 is able to maintain a great deal more detail at high ISO's. Probably because it has more resolution to begin with. Just my opinion (after doing some tests).
Well, I don't have a 1Ds III to compare side-by-side with my 5D. As I mentioned before, I'm basing my comment on those 1Ds III samples I've seen so far. In terms of noise, I think the 5D might still be better on a per-image basis. But I wouldn't be surprised if the detail with the 1Ds III is better.
brainiac wrote:
Because noise PER PIXEL increases with smaller pixels. It is still the the least noisy camera canon has ever produced in terms of NOISE PER IMAGE.
To my way of looking at images, all those look greatly laden with noise,
attaining appearance of some sorta pointillistic photgraphy To each their own I guess. .
brainiac wrote:
Who on earth uses this lens for shooting landscape or still life? This lens is for sport, theatre, portraits, and wildlife, and if you think those subjects are going to benefit from IS, you're dreaming.
After reading a comment like that, I wonder if you use the 200 f/1.8 handheld a lot.
Or 500 f/4.5, or 300 f/2.8, or 400 f/2.8.... all non -IS.
In fact, all of the current generation of supertelephotos have benefitted greatly from IS, althougfh they are often used for action......sports, wildlife, etc, i.e., at high shutter speeds to stop action.
brainiac wrote:
Yes, the new lens is darker, i.e. gives slower shutter speeds, even when both are at f2. Combine that with the specified extra 1/3rd stop, and you get about 2/3rds of a stop more light through the old lens. For this lens, and what I use it for, that matters: http://www.cyberphotographer.com/c/20080628costa/496.jpg
Who on earth uses this lens for shooting landscape or still life? This lens is for sport, theatre, portraits, and wildlife, and if you think those subjects are going to benefit from IS, you're dreaming. If your subject matter stays still, take a 70-200 f4 IS. If it doesn't and light is low, the older 200 and a monopod beat the new one.
Edited by brainiac on Jul 08, 2008 at 06:17 PM GMT...Show more →
It seems like a bit of a reach to say the new glass transmits 1/3 less light at the same f/stop, but I won't quibble. So you needed to shoot your sample shot at a shutter speed approaching that needed for indoor sports?
jvarszegi wrote:
It seems like a bit of a reach to say the new glass transmits 1/3 less light at the same f/stop, but I won't quibble.
Neither will I because I don't have the lens yet, nor have I seen the results of a credible test which would demonstrate that.
However, what I will suggest is that one has to give the new lens some more time so that a greater amount of operating experience accumulates.
So far, The Digital Pictures Com ISO charts depict the lens in a very good light.
Besides, it's not the sharpness alone nor a loss of a 1/3 of a stop relative to the 200 f/1.8, that defines the 200 f/2 IS.
What we also have is..
* A very light (relatively speaking) lens.
* Apparent improvement in tripod mount design.
* Clear improvement in hood size
* Unprecedented 5 stop ISO
* AF drive speed...if it equals the 300 f/2.8 IS (per Canon) then it's really good.
* Use of fluorite (+ two UD glass elements) promises excellent colours, low aberration.
Is there a lot of JPEG artifacting going on? The background looks pixelated. I have yet to see anything posted form any of the newer glass that rivals the 200 1.8, 135 f2 or 85mm f1.2
I think a direct comparison would be in order and if the focal length is different one would have to compensate by getting closer or further from the subject.
> So you needed to shoot your sample shot at a shutter speed approaching that needed for indoor sports?
The sample shot of the girl with the eyelashes was at 1/50th, on a monopod at iso 8000 (i.e. 3200 and pushed 1.3 stops in DPP). I find that I need surprisingly fast speeds to get enough sharpness on people laughing, talking, moving their eyes etc.. My normal rule is 1/250th minimum but 1/500th better. If I'm forced to use slow shutter like this shot, then I have to take quite a few, and watch carefully for the rare combination of stasis and a smile. Success rate of moving faces at 1/50th is quite low.
> It seems like a bit of a reach to say the new glass transmits 1/3 less light at the same f/stop, but I won't quibble.
I can't remember which, but there was a thread here on this, and some quite serious pros making the case that it was about 1/3rd stop darker. That is by no means an abnormal variation in light transmission between two similar lenses.
PetKal wrote:
Neither will I because I don't have the lens yet, nor have I seen the results of a credible test which would demonstrate that.
However, what I will suggest is that one has to give the new lens some more time so that a greater amount of operating experience accumulates.
So far, The Digital Pictures Com ISO charts depict the lens in a very good light.
Besides, it's not the sharpness alone nor a loss of a 1/3 of a stop relative to the 200 f/1.8, that defines the 200 f/2 IS.
What we also have is..
* A very light (relatively speaking) lens.
* Apparent improvement in tripod mount design.
* Clear improvement in hood size
* Unprecedented 5 stop ISO
* AF drive speed...if it equals the 300 f/2.8 IS (per Canon) then it's really good.
* Use of fluorite (+ two UD glass elements) promises excellent colours, low aberration. ...Show more →
Don't get me wrong - I think the new 200 is a terrific lens and all the shots I have seen with it have been truly excellent. I have shot both side by side, and the new one is much nicer to handle and hold, it balances much better, the tripod mount is far better designed, the lightness and size saving is very welcome, and IS rocks. I'm not sure that I would use one for extended periods without a monopod - it's still pretty uncomfortable. But... awesome light gathering is the whole point of lugging this thing around, and 2/3rds of a stop is a pretty major concession. It can make the difference between a keeper and junk if you are photographing people laughing in nearly no light.
The old lens also has an extraordinary look that just leaps out at you. I haven't seen too many examples of the new one doing that yet. It may just be that the chance hasn't arisen, and frankly I hope so, because Canon no longer services the f1.8, but where are the killer 3D pictures? The old 200 is just jaw-dropping. The new one is sharper, perhaps, but does it have the look?
"f/1.8 -> f/2 = 1/3 stop, not 2/3. And for that third of a stop, and this focal length, you betcha I'd take IS in trade. I believe in aperture over IS also, but for such a small tradeoff..."
"It seems like a bit of a reach to say the new glass transmits 1/3 less light at the same f/stop, but I won't quibble. So you needed to shoot your sample shot at a shutter speed approaching that needed for indoor sports?"
I know that I've written this elsewhere and it may be where brainiac got it from, but when I personally compared the new lens against my 1.8, there was, at f/2, about a 1/3 stop difference in light transmission, with the new lens being the darker of the two. Not really surprising considering that the 1.8 has 12 elements and the 2.0 seventeen. That's why the film industry measures their lenses in T-stops, not f-stops. Combine that transmission loss with the third of a stop in real f/stop, and you've got your 2/3s of a stop. For the kind of shooting I do a lot of, that shutter speed is very important, especially when shooting in a darkened nightclub, which is very much like shooting sports while trying to capture a great expression or mood all at the same time.
Don't get me wrong, the 2.0 is a fantastic lens, and in some ways may be an even better lens, especally that for some subjects, it's actually handholdable and a good chunk lighter and smaller in size, focuses closer, but in that one crucial area, light transmission, there is still a difference. I suspect that difference will disappear as soon as Canon equals the high ISO performance of the new Nikons, and the lighting in the clubs doesn't get any dimmer...
brainiac wrote:
The old lens also has an extraordinary look that just leaps out at you. I haven't seen too many examples of the new one doing that yet. It may just be that the chance hasn't arisen, and frankly I hope so, because Canon no longer services the f1.8, but where are the killer 3D pictures? The old 200 is just jaw-dropping. The new one is sharper, perhaps, but does it have the look?
Well said, Brainiac.
However, we also need to reflect on a possibility that all 200 f/1.8's are not performing equally at this point in time, and remedies for substandard lenses are not readily available any longer.
brainiac wrote:
The sample shot of the girl with the eyelashes was at 1/50th, on a monopod at iso 8000 (i.e. 3200 and pushed 1.3 stops in DPP). I find that I need surprisingly fast speeds to get enough sharpness on people laughing, talking, moving their eyes etc.. My normal rule is 1/250th minimum but 1/500th better. If I'm forced to use slow shutter like this shot, then I have to take quite a few, and watch carefully for the rare combination of stasis and a smile. Success rate of moving faces at 1/50th is quite low.
Okay, but as an (again ex) event photog I can tell you that with practice, you can get much better keeper rates in the 1/50s to 1/80s range-- and there is obviously a world of difference between that and 1/250s, which I would call wasteful in low-light conditions for many shots. In any event that sample shot shows where you could have benefited from IS, as you were forced to use a monopod.
jvarszegi wrote:
Okay, but as an (again ex) event photog I can tell you that with practice, you can get much better keeper rates in the 1/50s to 1/80s range-- and there is obviously a world of difference between that and 1/250s, which I would call wasteful in low-light conditions for many shots. In any event that sample shot shows where you could have benefited from IS, as you were forced to use a monopod.
OK - let me try and make my point a bit clearer: no amount of IS reduces the blur in a subject's eyes as she moves. Even 50 stops of IS. That's why a monopod and no IS at 1/100th is a better option for me than no monopod and 1/60th. Get me? The subject movement is typically the limiting factor for me in this kind of photo, not my own movement, with or without monopod/tripod.
Peter Figen wrote:
...in that one crucial area, light transmission, there is still a difference. I suspect that difference will disappear as soon as Canon equals the high ISO performance of the new Nikons, and the lighting in the clubs doesn't get any dimmer...
No, that difference will always be there. The guy with the 1.8 and the latest body will be able to get usable shots of people laughing in situations where the guy with the f2(.2) can't, no matter which iso limit they are both subject to. Given the same camera, the f1.8 is 2/3rds of a stop brighter.
brainiac: not doubting that the lens you tested could have been off by some percentage, but has anyone else confirmed this anomaly? I can't see Canon getting away with claiming their 200 F2 as F2 if it's off by 1/3 to 1/2 stop. Just seem far fatched.
To each their own I guess. 
.