Andrew J wrote:
Romy writes:
"Off hand, the 5D2 looks to me to be at least 1 stop better than my 20D in high ISO noise when compared at the pixel level."
Not really a ringing endorsement IMO.
Ya I read that to, but didn't want to rain on anyones parade.
And yes, the image is pretty sharp, even with a TC attached. But then again, it is an $8,000 lens... It better still be sharp.
Andrew J wrote:
Romy writes:
"Off hand, the 5D2 looks to me to be at least 1 stop better than my 20D in high ISO noise when compared at the pixel level."
Not really a ringing endorsement IMO.
From what I remember with my old 5D, that example at 3200 seems a lot cleaner. That combined with the fact that it's a much more dense sensor is enough reason for me to be blown away actually. I think I may sell my Mark 3 for this gem.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well that is a ringing endorsement to me. Keep in mind the qualification "at the pixel level." Because the 5D MKII is full frame and the 20D is a crop this means that noise at the picture level will be a lot better as the 5D MKII files will need a lot less magnification when printed. The difference in prints could easily be 2.5 stops better noise if the difference at the pixel level is 1 stop better.
That's right. So let's do the arithmetic, although this may be incorrect or fanciful. 5616^2 / 3504^2 = 2.57. So the 5D2 has 2.57 pixels occupying the same print area as one 20D pixel. Let's call that 2.5 times less noisy per print, and let's call a stop of noise a doubling. So we have one stop better per pixel, plus a little over one stop better due to magnification, giving an improvement of over two stops. A print from a 6400 iso 5D2 file should look a little better than an iso 1600 20D shot. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but that looks like a reasonable prediction.
You want clean at 12800? Think you'll have to wait for the third or fourth version for that. From what I've seen the 5DII brings Canon into the Nikon D3/D700 level (and with more pixels to boot) as far as high ISO is concerned but not over.
tcamper wrote:
I could care less about what it loks like at 3200. Your example looks great, but this second version better be clean at 12,800, like 3200 is on the original 5D.
I shoot 3200 on a 5D all the time and so do many, many other wedding photogs. I think 3200 on a 5D surpasses "usable". So, let me reword this...........
with the advanced technology in the MarkII, is it too much to assume that 6400, and maybe 12,800 might be comparable to 3200 on the original version?
That's all I'm asking. I still haven't even seen a shoot at 6400, and the camera goes to 25,600. Can someone at least post a shot at 6400?
It looks okay, but I really don't understand why people make such a big deal and say it's so amazing. It just looks like any other ISO 3200 shot, but with a fair amount of noise reduction. There isn't a 3D sort of look to it, and the tones are quite flat. Again, this is exactly what I would expect.... I just don't understand all the excitement.
floris wrote:
He also shot it at f/18... you can bet that wide open it's not quite that sharp...
True, but you need those sort of apertures for such a focal length to get the bird covered by the DOF (of course if it's parallel to the sensor place then you need less DOF).
if noise at high ISO is all you care, 5D with noise ninja/neat image should produce less noise/on par with 5D II with only $100 upgrade (but u dunt get all the excitements with new toy which 75% of reason ppl make the upgrade )
luant16 wrote:
if noise at high ISO is all you care, 5D with noise ninja/neat image should produce less noise/on par with 5D II with only $100 upgrade (but u dunt get all the excitements with new toy which 75% of reason ppl make the upgrade )
I think mk2 would punish the mk1 in a noise-off, even if mk1 had a ninja to back him up
Ben Horne wrote:
It looks okay, but I really don't understand why people make such a big deal and say it's so amazing. It just looks like any other ISO 3200 shot, but with a fair amount of noise reduction. There isn't a 3D sort of look to it, and the tones are quite flat. Again, this is exactly what I would expect.... I just don't understand all the excitement.
You fail to understand the lighting in the forest - 1/40s @ ISO 3200, it's very dark so of course it looks drab, what were you expecting?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You fail to understand the lighting in the forest - 1/40s @ ISO 3200, it's very dark so of course it looks drab, what were you expecting?
abam wrote:
i wonder how much PP romy performed in the first shot.
For the posted 1350x900 Brown Shrike photo, I did some NR on the background, and some small radius USM on the subject after resizing. Of course, downressing will mitigate the noise and increase sharpness. The unedited FF from DPP is linked for reference.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well that is a ringing endorsement to me. Keep in mind the qualification "at the pixel level." Because the 5D MKII is full frame and the 20D is a crop this means that noise at the picture level will be a lot better as the 5D MKII files will need a lot less magnification when printed. The difference in prints could easily be 2.5 stops better noise if the difference at the pixel level is 1 stop better.
I'm very impressed with the 5D2's high ISO performance at the pixel level. Noise is very fine grained and should print very well. It also responds nicely to NR routines.
From the tests I've seen, comparing RAW outputs pixel-to-pixel (as opposed to frame-to-frame), the 50D is not better than the 40D in high ISO noise, which in turn is not better than the 30D/20D along the same area.
I've not done any scientific tests but to my subjective eyes, the ISO 3200 photos from the 5D2 are comparable to ISO 800-1600 (indicated ISO) on my 20D. Note that the actual sensitivity of the 20D is about 1/3 stop higher than the indicated ISO, and newer Canon bodies have matched actual and indicated ISOs (I assume this is true with the 5D2). As such, 5D2 ISO 3200 is similar to 20D ISO 1000-2000 (actual sensitivity when ISO 800 or 1600 is selected).
This is the basis of my opinion that the 5D2 is at least 1 stop better in high ISO than my 20D at the pixel level. That the 5D2 has 21 MP to the 20D's 8.2 MP will magnify this edge even more on a frame-to-frame comparison, as Steve pointed out above.
)