Romy, just a friendly suggestion re that shrike shot.
You should clone out those rain drop streaks.....they are kinda distracting....at first they looked like you scrached the camera sensor by cleaning it with too much force applied.
While at it, might as well clone out the branch which is concealing the bird's tail tip.
Liquidstone wrote:
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.
So...If you're reach limited (ie. would be cropping your 5DII file to the size of a 20D's file), this means the 5D mkII is really only 1 stop better in noise than the 20D frame-frame, as they have pretty much the same pixel pitch. Which IMO is really not all that impressive.. they took four years to make a full frame 20D sensor with 1 stop noise improvement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to whine, and I look forward to owning this camera, just saying that in the grand scheme of things it's not a giant leap forward..
It also makes me feel good about still using my 20D, just printed out a 20x30 shot at iso 1600 and it looks great. The sad part is, it would probably look nearly indistinguishable from a 5DII version of that image since I needed the 1.6 crop factor...
floris wrote:
So...If you're reach limited (ie. would be cropping your 5DII file to the size of a 20D's file), this means the 5D mkII is really only 1 stop better in noise than the 20D frame-frame, as they have pretty much the same pixel pitch. Which IMO is really not all that impressive.. they took four years to make a full frame 20D sensor with 1 stop noise improvement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to whine, and I look forward to owning this camera, just saying that in the grand scheme of things it's not a giant leap forward..
It also makes me feel good about still using my 20D, just printed out a 20x30 shot at iso 1600 and it looks great. The sad part is, it would probably look nearly indistinguishable from a 5DII version of that image since I needed the 1.6 crop factor...
Since the 20D, I've seen no revolutionary improvement in high ISO performance on a pixel-to-pixel basis similar to the jump from 10D to 20D, or 1D to 1D2..... perhaps the laws of physics are catching up faster than our expectation for improvements?
I'm getting the 5D2 for its video mode and for bigger printing potential when I'm not focal length limited. When I'm focal length limited, I'll reach for the 40D, while for action, I'd use my 1DM2.
floris wrote:
So...If you're reach limited (ie. would be cropping your 5DII file to the size of a 20D's file), this means the 5D mkII is really only 1 stop better in noise than the 20D frame-frame, as they have pretty much the same pixel pitch. Which IMO is really not all that impressive.. they took four years to make a full frame 20D sensor with 1 stop noise improvement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to whine, and I look forward to owning this camera, just saying that in the grand scheme of things it's not a giant leap forward..
It also makes me feel good about still using my 20D, just printed out a 20x30 shot at iso 1600 and it looks great. The sad part is, it would probably look nearly indistinguishable from a 5DII version of that image since I needed the 1.6 crop factor...
Will Patterson wrote:
Remember you're comparing it to a camera with almost quadruple the pixels. Totally different story.
Did you read my caveats? If I'm going to crop the image down to 8MP because I'm focal length limited (ie. I don't own a 1200mm f/5.6, and if I did, I can't really imagine using it on a monopod), it's actually pretty much the exact same story. It's not like they found out how to make pixels 1/4-1/2 the size of the 20D's ones with 1 stop noise improvement... now that would begin to impress me...
floris wrote:
Did you read my caveats? If I'm going to crop the image down to 8MP because I'm focal length limited (ie. I don't own a 1200mm f/5.6, and if I did, I can't really imagine using it on a monopod), it's actually pretty much the exact same story. It's not like they found out how to make pixels 1/4-1/2 the size of the 20D's ones with 1 stop noise improvement... now that would begin to impress me...
Why would you choose the 5D II for FL limited birding anyway. Surely you'd have a 50D or at least 40D in the bag. You can't knock the 5D II if your cropping away 13MP. Try the same crop on a 5D at high ISO and see how it compares.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Why would you choose the 5D II for FL limited birding anyway. Surely you'd have a 50D or at least 40D in the bag. You can't knock the 5D II if your cropping away 13MP. Try the same crop on a 5D at high ISO and see how it compares.
My point was simply that Canon hasn't made significant progress in sensor sensitivity.. they just made a full frame 20D sensor, and made it 1 stop better.. I'd have hoped for more over the course of 4 years. I was just agreeing with Liquidstone.
floris wrote:
My point was simply that Canon hasn't made significant progress in sensor sensitivity.. they just made a full frame 20D sensor, and made it 1 stop better.. I'd have hoped for more over the course of 4 years. I was just agreeing with Liquidstone.
The cameras not out yet, so I'd wait before being disappointed. Anyway I thinks it's incorrect as the 5D shows a 1 stop advantage over the 20D and I'll bet the 5D II is even better, despite the extra 8.5MP.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The cameras not out yet, so I'd wait before being disappointed. Anyway I thinks it's incorrect as the 5D shows a 1 stop advantage over the 20D and I'll bet the 5D II is even better, despite the extra 8.5MP.
Hi PP,
I sincerely wish you were right that the 5D2 will be better than the 5D at high ISOs.... but based on the photos I've taken with a pre-prod 5D2, my expectations are lowered. I'd settle for 8.xx more MPs while maintaining the 5D's high ISO noise performance.
Note that the 5D2 has a "21 megapixel CMOS sensor (very similar to the sensor in the EOS-1Ds Mark III)."
"DIGIC IV image processor, 14-bit ADC
The 5D Mark II becomes the second Canon DSLR (after the EOS 50D) to feature the new DIGIC 4 processor. This enables various new image processing features (such as lens peripheral illumination correction) as well as dealing with 21 megapixels of data at up to 3.9 frames per second (or 82 megapixels a second). It also enables video capture although we're told a second chip does the actual encoding."
I'm not sure if Digic 4 has a role in controlling high ISO noise, but I've accepted that 5D2 will have similar high ISO noise performance as the 1DS3, at considerably less than half the price, with HD video as bonus. If it turns out I'm mistaken, I'll be very happy to be corrected.
floris wrote:
My point was simply that Canon hasn't made significant progress in sensor sensitivity.. they just made a full frame 20D sensor, and made it 1 stop better.. I'd have hoped for more over the course of 4 years.
That is significant progress. One stop means an ability to work in half as much light. Don't cite Nikon. Nikon abandoned full frame and high iso, relied on noise-reduction to pretend it could compete, realised it had made a mistake, and then 2 years after the 5D produced a sensor that was as sensitive as Canon's best, but less detailed. The D700's light sensitivity isn't significantly better than the 1Ds3's, and it's only 12 megapixels, not 21. Nikon's progress seemed rapid only because it was so far behind. Improving on current sensors is harder than improving on the previous generations because the curve is getting closer and closer to the physical limits. Each successive stop of improvement is harder and harder to achieve. A one stop improvement over the 20D sensor is a great achievement. The full frame adds at least another stop, so the 5D2 will really show more than a 2 stop advantage over the 20D. Don't be fooled by in-camera noise reduction.
That's a nice photo and certainly some nice editing, but I'm not sure why some of you are so over the top impressed. Most of today's top cameras (1Ds3, 1D3, D3, D700) can easily produce results like this as well, in the right hands. Especially considering the amount of NR that was applied to the bokeh areas of the frame here.
DPR's method of noise assessment is entirely broken since crops are shown at different magnification. A fair noise comparison can only be done by comparing crops from images which have been resized to the same number of megapixels. DPR's reviewers lack sufficient technical knowledge to understand why their comparison is radically flawed. A real comparison between the 1Ds3 and D3/D700 at high iso looks like this: http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/d700v1ds3_12800iso_b.jpg
Using the 5D and 1Ds3 side by side I have consistently found that the 1Ds3 has a 1 stop noise advantage over the 5D. Consequently we can expect the 5DmkII to have at least a 1 stop advantage over the 5d also. Reports which contradict this almost certainly derive from people making the error of looking at 5D2 files at 100%, and forgetting that the file is significantly more magnified than the 13 megapixel 5D file at 100%, i.e. precisely the same error DPR has made. Ignore those reports since they are based on a simple mistake which biases the result 29% in favour of the old 5D.
DPR's method of noise assessment is entirely broken since crops are shown at different magnification. A fair noise comparison can only be done by comparing crops from images which have been resized to the same number of megapixels. DPR's reviewers lack sufficient technical knowledge to understand why their comparison is radically flawed. A real comparison between the 1Ds3 and D3/D700 at high iso looks like this: http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/d700v1ds3_12800iso_b.jpg
Using[/url] the 5D and 1Ds3 side by side I have consistently found that the 1Ds3 has a 1 stop noise advantage over the 5D. Consequently we can expect the 5DmkII to have at least a 1 stop advantage over the 5d also. Reports which contradict this almost certainly derive from people making the error of looking at 5D2 files at 100%, and forgetting that the file is significantly more magnified than the 13 megapixel 5D file at 100%, i.e. precisely the same error DPR has made. Ignore those reports since they are based on a simple mistake....Show more →
I get your point, though IMHO there is neither generally correct nor generally wrong method between "pixel-to-pixel" and "frame-to-frame" comparisons to present noise tests.
For shooters who intend to use the whole frame most of the time (landscapes, etc.), your "frame-to-frame" comparison should be the preferred method.
For shooters (like birders) who often crop their output most of the time, DPR's "pixel-to-pixel" comparo makes sense.
> For shooters (like birders) who often crop their output most of the time, DPR's "pixel-to-pixel" comparo makes sense.
No, it doesn't, because if you are using a 600mm lens you will be cropping your 5D2 file no more than your D700 file. The 5D2 effective 1200mm crop will still contain many more pixels than the D700 effective 1200mm crop, in exactly the same ratio. This is not about comparing different sizes of sensor, it is about comparing an equivalent area of the frame. Only by equivalent areas of the frame can you compare image noise. That is precisely what DPR and you have failed to do by comparing 100% crops and per pixel noise from cameras with very different pixel densities.
