Off topic a bit..but anyone know of any threads comparing the IQ of the ID mk2 N vs the 50D or the 5D....I'm looking to upgrade to something better than my 10D...which I mainly use for studio work and (with L lenses) gives very good images.
anthonygh wrote:
Off topic a bit..but anyone know of any threads comparing the IQ of the ID mk2 N vs the 50D or the 5D....I'm looking to upgrade to something better than my 10D...which I mainly use for studio work and (with L lenses) gives very good images.
anthonygh wrote:
Off topic a bit..but anyone know of any threads comparing the IQ of the ID mk2 N vs the 50D or the 5D....I'm looking to upgrade to something better than my 10D...which I mainly use for studio work and (with L lenses) gives very good images.
5D is by far the best IQ of the bunch, Mark 2N the best everything else. In a studio, 5D is certainly the camera to grab.
h_2_o wrote:
OK i'm a bit curious on this, i'm looking at a 1d mark 2 and possibly a 30d or a 40d. how do the iso's with the same lenses look? i am mainly concerned with primes around the f2.0 area. if anyone knows of comparison photos of the two or has these similar cameras it would be appreciated. I guess at this point i'm very curious how they handle iso's and image handling at low light in general
I have had the EOS 1D II, and now have the 1D IIN and 1D III as well as the 40D.
The 1D III is the best of these, but I would say that the 1D II is not far away - around one stop or so.
But, there is a big but:
The 1D III and 1D II have one thing in common: They keep the detail at high ISO, and that cannot be said about the 20D, 30D and 40D.
Consequently, I find that the 1D II/1D IIN is totally superior to the lower-end cameras when it comes to high ISO. Yes, this includes the 40D. The 1D II is not superior because there is less noise, but because there is more detail at high ISO.
- It amazes me how people sometimes judge high ISO performance after the amount of noise. That criterion is gravely mistaken. The important thing is the amount of detail present at high ISO.
Zander Alberts wrote:
Ok, if we're talking Canon 1DMkII here, some samples:
Zander,
Your examples are far from being representative of what an EOS 1D II can achieve. At 1/320 and 1/250 sec. and intense movement in the subjects, it is likely that you have been the victim of motion blur here. Or the blurriness may be caused by a not-so-good lens.
I've used all three for high school hockey, looking to produce 8x10 or 10x13 prints. I'm usually working in caves, where I need f2.0 or 2.2 at 3200ISO (at least) to generate 1/400 shutter speeds (the absolute minimum to avoid motion blur), and shooting through the glass. I always shoot RAW.
The noise on the 30D and 1D2 were comparable, but the 1D focus and detail were far better. The 1D is a much, much better choice.
The 40D/1D2 comparsion, however, has proven to be a different story in my experience. The 1D2 focuses more effectively (say 8 of 10 v. 5 of 10 for the 40D), but I have found the 40D's very high ISO noise performance to be superior. THe 40D detail is often better, simply because I must be very aggressive with noise reduction on the 1D files. In my experience, you really have to nail the 1D2 exposure to generate a printable capture, while the 40D is far more forgiving.
Bottom line, if I were shooting at 800 ISO, I'd choose the 1D every time. At 1600 ISO, I'd still opt for the 1D due to the better AF and live with a little more noise. At 3200 ISO, though, I've found the 40D to be the better bet.
I agree with Sayeret18 in that the 40D beats the 1DmkII at pixel-noise levels if you have to shoot at 3200iso in poor cave lighting. However, if I absolutely must get the shot then the 1-series gets the call. I recently went back to the mkII bodies from the mkIII and, while I miss the cleaner high iso, the mkII AF is more reliable in every shoot I do. The 40D makes an excellent back up to the mkII and I actually utilize the 1.6x crop factor of the 40D for indoor sports where action is more "controlled".
Your examples are far from being representative of what an EOS 1D II can achieve. At 1/320 and 1/250 sec. and intense movement in the subjects, it is likely that you have been the victim of motion blur here. Or the blurriness may be caused by a not-so-good lens.
Bogatyr
Well are we talking about noise or blurriness here? Noise will be the same regardless of motion blur... OTOH, gotta love those bright high school lights!
Pixel Perfect wrote:
He said proper NR, so why do you think he used LR for the NR?
Is because the noise level isn't so bad that you need an extra software to smooth it out. I like to finish my PP work quick. I don't want to use a dedicated program with tons of settings to do NR. LR nr setting? Color noise about 30. Luminance noise is about 50+.
