snooked123 wrote:
can someone please convert the RAW files and post them here. I am really interested in seeing the noise performance.
heres a crop of the iso 28600 with NR off and no sharpening in DPP. I couldn't find any raw files or 1600 or 3200 tho OP posted. thanks for the samples BTW
ward1066 wrote:
heres a crop of the iso 28600 with NR off and no sharpening in DPP. I couldn't find any raw files or 1600 or 3200 tho OP posted. thanks for the samples BTW
Wow, that's erm... pretty terrible. But not unexpected I guess.
And it's 25600, not 28600. Man, we're all gonna have to brush up our arithmetic here with the higher ISO ratings. It was easy to multiply or divide by 2 when we only had single and double digits, but now we have triple digits to deal with! It's like speaking a new language with these super high ISO numbers.
ward1066 wrote:
heres a crop of the iso 28600 with NR off and no sharpening in DPP. I couldn't find any raw files or 1600 or 3200 tho OP posted. thanks for the samples BTW
I played with the same image. I would definitely call ISO 25600 for "emergency use only" (as expected).
Interestingly, I found there was significantly less noise using the Standard picture style instead of Landscape. Using the same crop, here are some results with both DPP and Neat Image using conservative settings (I tend not to use luma NR in DPP):
Neat Image does an amzing job cleaning up the image, but there is still some banding and splotchiness visible. Still, I would expect that a more realistic 3200 or 6400 capture could be made to look rather good based on this.
Thanks for posting these Rob. It would be great if you can find the time to post a 3200 and 6400 file or two...
One thing I noticed also about the new DPP, when you save your file as a jpeg NR is applied it seems even if you have it all turned off. I also compared a 1ds3 RAW 3200 pushed 3 stops and the croma noise seems coarser in the 5d2 to my eyes
Last night I was doing some testing in the 200-300% range (ridiculous I know) and found that "Neutral" had the least amount of what appeared to be software induced artifacts and sharpened up the best.
Gil_W wrote:
Last night I was doing some testing in the 200-300% range (ridiculous I know) and found that "Neutral" had the least amount of what appeared to be software induced artifacts and sharpened up the best.
Gil
+1 on this. I do prefer the punchier colors of Standard, but find contrast is too high on the default setting. Standard with Contrast -1 gets close to Neutral tonal range but with more pleasing colors (to me).
IMHO, Canon's Contrast settings (both in-camera and in DPP) are too coarse. There should be about half as much change moving from step to step I think.
