This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20095D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
p.14 #15D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
You blew your colour accuracy in the sky. Thanks for the lesson.
Feb 07, 2009 at 11:53 AM
p.14 #25D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
allnak wrote:
"No.
Exposing to the right is the default starting point for optimum exposure with digital sensors. It is virtually always the best choice in the more common situations in which dynamic range is no larger than that of the sensor."
So I guess it just depends on whether what you're shooting is a "common situation." If you're shooting concerts or other events where the lighting is changing by seconds and you're looking for critical moments, you don't have the luxury of ETTR. When I'm out shooting streetscapes with plenty of time, I factor in ETTR. Henri Cartier Bresson's negs would make Ansel...Show more →
I totally agree. Shooting landscapes is very different from shooting concerts, wars, sport and weddings. ETTR is appropriate when possible, but don't forget that with many landscapes, like the one I show above, there is no room for ETTR because the sun is directly in the picture. You will never keep the sun under control AND retain detail in the shadows. In this situation one actually has to effectively expose to the left, and then push the shadows to retrieve them, in the sense that the great majority of pixels in the image are going to have to be darker than mid-grey, since it is so hard to cope with the very strong highlight of the sun. Those are the circumstances in which I found the 1Ds3 to be excellent at retrieving shadows. My surprise with the 5D2 is that at low isos it seems slightly less good at the trick of exposing to the left and pushing shadows in order to preserve highlights.
"No.
Exposing to the right is the default starting point for optimum exposure with digital sensors. It is virtually always the best choice in the more common situations in which dynamic range is no larger than that of the sensor."
So I guess it just depends on whether what you're shooting is a "common situation." If you're shooting concerts or other events where the lighting is changing by seconds and you're looking for critical moments, you don't have the luxury of ETTR. When I'm out shooting streetscapes with plenty of time, I factor in ETTR. Henri Cartier Bresson's negs would make Ansel...Show more →
I totally agree. Shooting landscapes is very different from shooting concerts, wars, sport and weddings. ETTR is appropriate when possible, but don't forget that with many landscapes, like the one I show above, there is no room for ETTR because the sun is directly in the picture. You will never keep the sun under control AND retain detail in the shadows. In this situation one actually has to effectively expose to the left, and then push the shadows to retrieve them, in the sense that the great majority of pixels in the image are going to have to be darker than mid-grey, since it is so hard to cope with the very strong highlight of the sun. Those are the circumstances in which I found the 1Ds3 to be excellent at retrieving shadows. My surprise with the 5D2 is that at low isos it seems slightly less good at the trick of exposing to the left and pushing shadows in order to preserve highlights.
Feb 07, 2009 at 12:09 PM
p.14 #35D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Dan,
Don't you think your being a champion of the obvious a bit? If Brainiac spent most of his time shooting studio and landscapes, then I'd agree with you. Does he? I'm assuming he's shooting a lot of events. And within that context - yes, ETTR is a luxury. Some of Salgado's negs were hell to deal with for his developer/printer...but produced some pretty impressive pics. If you're shooting fast changing events/documentary, you've got other priorities besides ETTR. It's all context.
Don't you think your being a champion of the obvious a bit? If Brainiac spent most of his time shooting studio and landscapes, then I'd agree with you. Does he? I'm assuming he's shooting a lot of events. And within that context - yes, ETTR is a luxury. Some of Salgado's negs were hell to deal with for his developer/printer...but produced some pretty impressive pics. If you're shooting fast changing events/documentary, you've got other priorities besides ETTR. It's all context.
Feb 07, 2009 at 12:15 PM
p.14 #45D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Sorry, I posted again there after deleting my original post.
And, Brainiac, I get where you're going about DR even in shooting landscapes with the 5dII. I know it's disappointing for you in comparison with the dIII. Just out of curiosity, are you happy with it weight/performance-wise in comparison to the dIII?
And, Brainiac, I get where you're going about DR even in shooting landscapes with the 5dII. I know it's disappointing for you in comparison with the dIII. Just out of curiosity, are you happy with it weight/performance-wise in comparison to the dIII?
Feb 07, 2009 at 12:21 PM
p.14 #55D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
Sorry - I didn't miss it, I just haven't had time to discuss it. I use DPP, latest version, which I think is the fairest way to assess Canon cameras since Canon produces the software. Also I am mean, and having spent much money on a camera that can produce raw files, I like to avoid spending yet more money on raw developers, when I think the camera maker should supply such software, and my experience is that the camera maker generally supplies the best available raw engine.
Fair enough, it would make sense for Canon to be able to provide the software that maximizes quality. But since this isn't a flag ship camera, it's quite possible that they spent less time optimizing the raw converter than they did for the 1DsmkIII, and perhaps that's where some of the discrepancy is coming from? I would expect that trying a few different raw converters would reveal whether the pattern noise is a product of the sensor or the conversion.
floris wrote
Brainiac - I don't know if you missed my question in the midst of all this bickering about what a proper exposure is.. but have you tried other raw converters? It is quite possible that the raw converter is responsible for the banding/blobbing you see. I haven't seen any problems with my 5D2 at high or low iso...Fair enough, it would make sense for Canon to be able to provide the software that maximizes quality. But since this isn't a flag ship camera, it's quite possible that they spent less time optimizing the raw converter than they did for the 1DsmkIII, and perhaps that's where some of the discrepancy is coming from? I would expect that trying a few different raw converters would reveal whether the pattern noise is a product of the sensor or the conversion.
Feb 07, 2009 at 01:38 PM
p.14 #65D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Daan B is on the money. I own two 1Ds MKIII bodies and they are incredible performers.
JW
JW
Feb 07, 2009 at 01:46 PM
p.14 #75D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
OK,
I've read most of this thread, and I have to admit I can no longer see the wood for the trees on this. I would like to run my own test on my own 5D2 to see if I can replicate the problem.
Could someone please advise me, EXACTLY please, what I need to do to check this on my own camera?
Thank you.
I've read most of this thread, and I have to admit I can no longer see the wood for the trees on this. I would like to run my own test on my own 5D2 to see if I can replicate the problem.
Could someone please advise me, EXACTLY please, what I need to do to check this on my own camera?
Thank you.
Feb 07, 2009 at 02:12 PM
p.14 #85D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Set iso to 200. Take a normal picture that has areas of flat tone in the dark grey to black range. Process images in DPP and set contrast to minimum. You should be able to see a slight criss-cross texture in the darker shadow regions especially if you push to lighten up the shadows to gain further DR. The result from my 5D is different to what I used to see from my 1Ds3 in these circumstances.
Feb 07, 2009 at 02:18 PM
p.14 #95D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
There may be some truth to the whole issue revolving around the RAW conversion. I noticed quite different results between Firmware 1.0.6 and 1.0.7. Also I was at my friend's studio the other day and he was shooting with the MkII getting spectacular results. I asked him what converter he was using and he swore by the latest C1Pro 4.
I downloaded the free trial and sure enough it is producing exceptional conversions. I have a feeling Canon rushed the new DPP and it is not optimal as yet.
I downloaded the free trial and sure enough it is producing exceptional conversions. I have a feeling Canon rushed the new DPP and it is not optimal as yet.
Feb 07, 2009 at 02:19 PM
p.14 #105D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
Set iso to 200. Take a normal picture that has areas of flat tone in the dark grey to black range. Process images in DPP and set contrast to minimum. You should be able to see a slight criss-cross texture in the darker shadow regions especially if you push to lighten up the shadows to gain further DR. The result from my 5D is different to what I used to see from my 1Ds3 in these circumstances.
Ah, I had a feeling that you were doing something to push the shadows up. Not that it isn't fair to do. But contrast to a minimum is probably different than the default. Which is probably why others had problems reproducing this.
Set iso to 200. Take a normal picture that has areas of flat tone in the dark grey to black range. Process images in DPP and set contrast to minimum. You should be able to see a slight criss-cross texture in the darker shadow regions especially if you push to lighten up the shadows to gain further DR. The result from my 5D is different to what I used to see from my 1Ds3 in these circumstances.
Ah, I had a feeling that you were doing something to push the shadows up. Not that it isn't fair to do. But contrast to a minimum is probably different than the default. Which is probably why others had problems reproducing this.
Feb 07, 2009 at 02:29 PM
p.14 #115D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
kidtexas wrote:
Ah, I had a feeling that you were doing something to push the shadows up. Not that it isn't fair to do. But contrast to a minimum is probably different than the default. Which is probably why others had problems reproducing this.
No - minimum contrast is the default in Landscape picture style, a style which comes pre-installed on the camera.
The issue here is that the 5D2 is not performing as well as the 1Ds3 in a specific way, and that was unexpected.
brainiac wrote
Set iso to 200. Take a normal picture that has areas of flat tone in the dark grey to black range. Process images in DPP and set contrast to minimum. You should be able to see a slight criss-cross texture in the darker shadow regions especially if you push to lighten up the shadows to gain further DR. The result from my 5D is different to what I used to see from my 1Ds3 in these circumstances.No - minimum contrast is the default in Landscape picture style, a style which comes pre-installed on the camera.
The issue here is that the 5D2 is not performing as well as the 1Ds3 in a specific way, and that was unexpected.
Feb 07, 2009 at 02:41 PM
Andi Dietrich
Offline
[X]
Details
p.14 #125D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
So would shooting at a higher ISO improve the banding? Sounds odd, but that is what you basically say?
Feb 07, 2009 at 02:45 PM
p.14 #135D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Andi Dietrich wrote:
So would shooting at a higher ISO improve the banding? Sounds odd, but that is what you basically say?
I don't know, but remember, my expectations are set by using a 1Ds3 for a year, so the question becomes 'does the gap between the two cameras close at higher isos?'
So would shooting at a higher ISO improve the banding? Sounds odd, but that is what you basically say?
I don't know, but remember, my expectations are set by using a 1Ds3 for a year, so the question becomes 'does the gap between the two cameras close at higher isos?'
Feb 07, 2009 at 02:59 PM
p.14 #145D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
FashionBoy wrote:
There may be some truth to the whole issue revolving around the RAW conversion. I noticed quite different results between Firmware 1.0.6 and 1.0.7.
That is my feeling as well... FW 1.0.6 gives better IQ when used in LR 2.2 and DPP 3.5.2 (apart from the black dots and sRAW banding) IMO. Less noise at low ISO's (shadows) and virtually no magenta spots/casts.
But there is only one way to find out...
If you see excessive noise/magenta spots/casts in low ISO RAW files, please state the FW version and RAW converter used.
Do the same if you don't see excessive noise/magenta spots/casts in low ISO RAW files...
Maybe it is time for a poll
There may be some truth to the whole issue revolving around the RAW conversion. I noticed quite different results between Firmware 1.0.6 and 1.0.7.
That is my feeling as well... FW 1.0.6 gives better IQ when used in LR 2.2 and DPP 3.5.2 (apart from the black dots and sRAW banding) IMO. Less noise at low ISO's (shadows) and virtually no magenta spots/casts.
But there is only one way to find out...
If you see excessive noise/magenta spots/casts in low ISO RAW files, please state the FW version and RAW converter used.
Do the same if you don't see excessive noise/magenta spots/casts in low ISO RAW files...
Maybe it is time for a poll
Feb 07, 2009 at 03:07 PM
p.14 #155D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
You blew your colour accuracy in the sky. Thanks for the lesson.
Hah!
What a joke!
You blew your colour accuracy in the sky. Thanks for the lesson.
Hah!
What a joke!
Feb 07, 2009 at 03:55 PM
p.14 #165D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
No - minimum contrast is the default in Landscape picture style, a style which comes pre-installed on the camera.
The issue here is that the 5D2 is not performing as well as the 1Ds3 in a specific way, and that was unexpected.
I understand the issue.
It didn't look like contrast at a minimum was a default from the above screen shot of DPP, but what do I know. I don't use it. Apparently it is for Landscape mode.
However, I was referring to why others are not seeing what you are seeing, and my point still stands. Maybe if they converted their images in DPP, in Landscape mode, etc., like you are, they'd see it. Maybe not. I don't know.
No - minimum contrast is the default in Landscape picture style, a style which comes pre-installed on the camera.
The issue here is that the 5D2 is not performing as well as the 1Ds3 in a specific way, and that was unexpected.
I understand the issue.
It didn't look like contrast at a minimum was a default from the above screen shot of DPP, but what do I know. I don't use it. Apparently it is for Landscape mode.
However, I was referring to why others are not seeing what you are seeing, and my point still stands. Maybe if they converted their images in DPP, in Landscape mode, etc., like you are, they'd see it. Maybe not. I don't know.
Feb 07, 2009 at 04:09 PM
p.14 #175D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
You will never keep the sun under control AND retain detail in the shadows. In this situation one actually has to effectively expose to the left, and then push the shadows to retrieve them, in the sense that the great majority of pixels in the image are going to have to be darker than mid-grey, since it is so hard to cope with the very strong highlight of the sun.
Like in this photograph?
http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2622-3/PanamintRangeGodLight20080402.jpg
I exposed this so that the very bright area where the sun illuminates the edges of the clouds is just barely "blown" - and I bring back just enough detail using the recovery slider in PS. Technically there is a small bit of pure white there, but not much and it is appropriate for this scene.
I had to do considerable shadow recovery in several portions of this image - in the partially illuminated arroyo area part way up the ridge I had to apply curves adjustments to get a bit more contrast due to the atmospheric effect. In front of the mountains and on the playa I had to boost the shadow levels significantly. I also applied a curves adjustment to a masked area on the right side of the frame where that light beam was not as strong as I wanted for the composition. Despite having large areas of low luminosity and low contrast that had to be brought up in post, it prints nicely.
100% crop detail from base of mtn range:
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/images/PanamintPlayaCrop.jpg
Dan
You will never keep the sun under control AND retain detail in the shadows. In this situation one actually has to effectively expose to the left, and then push the shadows to retrieve them, in the sense that the great majority of pixels in the image are going to have to be darker than mid-grey, since it is so hard to cope with the very strong highlight of the sun.
Like in this photograph?
http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2622-3/PanamintRangeGodLight20080402.jpg
I exposed this so that the very bright area where the sun illuminates the edges of the clouds is just barely "blown" - and I bring back just enough detail using the recovery slider in PS. Technically there is a small bit of pure white there, but not much and it is appropriate for this scene.
I had to do considerable shadow recovery in several portions of this image - in the partially illuminated arroyo area part way up the ridge I had to apply curves adjustments to get a bit more contrast due to the atmospheric effect. In front of the mountains and on the playa I had to boost the shadow levels significantly. I also applied a curves adjustment to a masked area on the right side of the frame where that light beam was not as strong as I wanted for the composition. Despite having large areas of low luminosity and low contrast that had to be brought up in post, it prints nicely.
100% crop detail from base of mtn range:
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/images/PanamintPlayaCrop.jpg
Dan
Feb 07, 2009 at 04:10 PM
p.14 #185D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Only other explanation I can think for increased noise would be that the sensor is running hotter than spec (i.e., too much LiveView usage prior to taking the shot) or a defective component. I don't think it's reasonable to draw conclusions without trying another body.
Feb 07, 2009 at 04:18 PM
p.14 #195D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
FashionBoy, of course with Canon's QC issues, it becomes the norm to try another body, lens, copy. I don't think this should be the case at all. Lowered expectations only hurt the consumer.
Feb 07, 2009 at 04:23 PM
p.14 #205D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
FashionBoy wrote:
Only other explanation I can think for increased noise would be that the sensor is running hotter than spec (i.e., too much LiveView usage prior to taking the shot) or a defective component. I don't think it's reasonable to draw conclusions without trying another body.
As I stated earlier in the thread .... I had two bodies which exhibited the same poor low ISO quality compared to a 1DSMKIII
Only other explanation I can think for increased noise would be that the sensor is running hotter than spec (i.e., too much LiveView usage prior to taking the shot) or a defective component. I don't think it's reasonable to draw conclusions without trying another body.
As I stated earlier in the thread .... I had two bodies which exhibited the same poor low ISO quality compared to a 1DSMKIII
Feb 07, 2009 at 04:23 PM