I suspect that a raw file, with no in-camera NR, and appropriate NR in post, e.g. NeatImage, could give a much better result. I would be a little disappointed with that result from my 1Ds3, which, I think is becoming clear, is almost identical in image quality to the 5D2.
Sahid Limon wrote:
Thank you both for posting the sample. Both cameras are pretty remarkable at such high ISO.
apdieb, I'm curious about the 5D2's sharpness in the 2nd image. The 1st image seems sharper than the 2nd one. I'm curious though, is this due to the megapixel downsize issue that Braniac mentioned in another thread, the 5D2's camera's performance, or because of a user focus issue when you were taking the picture?
Good question. I am pretty sure user error. I shot them at 1/50th handheld while lying down on the floor.
I fired them off really fast (ie, 1 shot each), and ran upstairs to post. But then again I did have to move back with the MK3 to get them similarly framed. I used the same aperture.
I bet if I tried it again, the 5D image would be just as sharp.
I was making sure and not shooting at a fast shutter speed to not get told that my technique sucked like the OP got from one individual.
So do you like the Noise Ninja version of this shot? (nice one mountainrivera)
It solved the banding, and it's certainly smoother, but it's also softer. The image can't take much sharpening, either. So I have to say that the image would have been better off at a lower ISO, and I'd still only use 12800 as a very last resort. Brainiac's point seems like a good one, though, that starting from RAW might give better results.
The Noise Ninja Version is incredible. I'm loving it!!! A little soft, but if someone showed me that and asked me what ISO it was shot at, having been told nothing about the camera, I'd have guessed no higher than 800. Maybe even 400! Awesome to be able to squeak by at 12,800. It's just genius.
tonyhart wrote:
The Noise Ninja Version is incredible. I'm loving it!!! A little soft, but if someone showed me that and asked me what ISO it was shot at, having been told nothing about the camera, I'd have guessed no higher than 800. Maybe even 400! Awesome to be able to squeak by at 12,800. It's just genius.
Try Noise Ninja...then Sharpen for print. You'd be amazed. Unless you are printing extra large, you'd be hard pressed to see that softness.
jvarszegi wrote:
Opinion noted, and it's an incorrect one. The point stands: the noise has seriously impacted the quality of this shot, and it would have been better shot at a lower ISO because it was not necessary. In the future, refrain from posting if you're only going to tell someone else not to post their opinion.
Opinions can't be right or wrong, lest they be called 'facts' or 'lies', respectively. I know this next part will interest you, so please read carefully. You are right; the high ISO impacted the quality of this shot and was NOT necessary. That being said, it's not relevant to the topic of high ISO noise.
I was not attempting to tell you not to share your opinion, but rather to please stop detracting from the topic at hand, which you have been doing. That being said, I won't post here in response to you again and I will let your arrogance and your lack of ability to understand the intent of this topic do the talking.
Okay:
OBVIOUSLY, I did not need a 320th of a second to snap a kid. Why did I do it:
TO TEST THE CAMERA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why else?
The F1.2 will show AF errors, and the ISO12800 will show noise
Silly forum members, silly...
Here's one at ISO 3200, at 1/80th (cropped, but not PPed otherwise):
I thought this was interesting "high Shutter speed wasn't need for this stationary toddler". I can't get a good image of my daughter (18 months old) with anything less than 1/250 and wide open! Sometimes the toddler looks still but other parts of their bodies are moving fast - hands and head.
It is appreciated by many who have not received or bought this camera to see examples of how good the ISO abilities are with the 5D mkII, a $2700 camera. Perhaps some think this is not so good. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I would hope people would just quit flaming each other and OPs who try to be helpful with displaying example images. That is stuff is found on other sites and seems to have picked up in tempo here again lately.
I have had my 5D mkII over a week now and with a bit of NR high ISO images are great IMHO. The 5D mkII is my FF upgrade from the 1Ds, so yes as can be imagined, I'm quite impressed and pleased. Maybe some will normally shoot at such a high ISO, but in my personal shooting so far, ISO 3200 has become my high ISO of choice.
Thank you OP. Most of us here knew and understood your intention. Don't let others ignorance and stupidity keep you from posting more like this.
And if you could, could you do another 12800 shot and a 25600 shot in darker conditions? I hate making requests, but until I get mine its killing me to know how this thing will do in poorly lit situations.
shrink1, thank for posting this image. I've been curious to see some 12800 shots from the 5D2. Please disregard the very few members here that strangely don't have the common sense enough to realize you posted this shot so that we can simply see what the camera can do at 12800. Of course our creator didn't bless us all with common sense of course! How boring these forums would be
Gil_W wrote:
It is appreciated by many who have not received or bought this camera to see examples of how good the ISO abilities are with the 5D mkII, a $2700 camera. Perhaps some think this is not so good. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I would hope people would just quit flaming each other and OPs who try to be helpful with displaying example images. That is stuff is found on other sites and seems to have picked up in tempo here again lately.
I have had my 5D mkII over a week now and with a bit of NR high ISO images are great IMHO. The 5D mkII is my FF upgrade from the 1Ds, so yes as can be imagined, I'm quite impressed and pleased. Maybe some will normally shoot at such a high ISO, but in my personal shooting so far, ISO 3200 has become my high ISO of choice.
Hey.Underpants wrote:
...
And if you could, could you do another 12800 shot and a 25600 shot in darker conditions? I hate making requests, but until I get mine its killing me to know how this thing will do in poorly lit situations.
Thanks again.
I won't promise, because I don't know if I can deliver, but I AM very interested in this myself, to really use this as an available light camera in near dark conditions.
I think I said this already, but the limiting factor will likely be whether the main subject is light or dark relative to the overall scene, and at ISO 25600 even more so.
shrink1 wrote:
I won't promise, because I don't know if I can deliver, but I AM very interested in this myself, to really use this as an available light camera in near dark conditions.
I think I said this already, but the limiting factor will likely be whether the main subject is light or dark relative to the overall scene, and at ISO 25600 even more so.
Don't forget to keep those shutter speeds down when capturing those future high ISO test shots! Sorry, that was too easy....
