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.7 #15D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
I can see quite clearly the canvas pattern in Brainiac's image. I'm sure hoping this is a firmware issue, too.
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:11 PM
p.7 #25D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
IMO its not what I would call a 'significant' noise problem compared to the 1Ds3. The 5D2 does seem to have more noise in the red channel in the deep shadows at low ISO but you seem to only see it if you are trying to lift detail out of your shadows.
Unknown so far are how it is compared to the 5D and whether the firmware 1.0.6 vs. 1.0.7 makes a difference (as DaanB has alluded to).
I'm not sure you're likely to find much consensus here at this point however.
Unknown so far are how it is compared to the 5D and whether the firmware 1.0.6 vs. 1.0.7 makes a difference (as DaanB has alluded to).
I'm not sure you're likely to find much consensus here at this point however.
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:14 PM
p.7 #35D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
vachss wrote:
Guys, take pity on a poor potential 5D2 buyer here. Is the consensus that:
A) All 5D2's have a significant pattern noise problem compared to the 1DS3 (whose significance may depend upon the stringency of individual user's requirements)
B) Only some 5D2's have this problem
C) It's a firmware issue
"Significant" is a strong word. I trust Brainiac's conclusion (i.e., that there is some more noise with the 5D2).
Is it likely to be fixed in firmware? I wouldn't buy the camera with the expectation that it definitely will be.
Should it be a deal-breaker for potential 5D2 buyers? I'd say no based on this thread, but if anyone finds the samples horrifying they can try to find a camera in their price range* that better suits their needs.
*I agree with digilloyd that the D3x looks to do much better in the shadows, but it does cost more than 3 times as much...
Guys, take pity on a poor potential 5D2 buyer here. Is the consensus that:
A) All 5D2's have a significant pattern noise problem compared to the 1DS3 (whose significance may depend upon the stringency of individual user's requirements)
B) Only some 5D2's have this problem
C) It's a firmware issue
"Significant" is a strong word. I trust Brainiac's conclusion (i.e., that there is some more noise with the 5D2).
Is it likely to be fixed in firmware? I wouldn't buy the camera with the expectation that it definitely will be.
Should it be a deal-breaker for potential 5D2 buyers? I'd say no based on this thread, but if anyone finds the samples horrifying they can try to find a camera in their price range* that better suits their needs.
*I agree with digilloyd that the D3x looks to do much better in the shadows, but it does cost more than 3 times as much...
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:16 PM
p.7 #45D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
RalphJ wrote:
"Significant" is a strong word. I trust Brainiac's conclusion (i.e., that there is some more noise with the 5D2).
Is it likely to be fixed in firmware? I definitely wouldn't count on it.
Should it be a deal-breaker for potential 5D2 buyers? I'd say no based on this thread, but if anyone finds the samples horrifying they can try to find a camera in their price range* that better suits their needs.
*I agree with digilloyd that the D3x looks to do much better in the shadows, but it does cost more than 3 times as much...
I guess you'll get that consensus after all
I agree with everything RalphJ has said. I will add that if it can be determined that the issue was introduced in the 1.0.7 firmware update, then there is hope that it will be resolved in future firmware.
If anyone can get me the 1.0.6 firmware, I'm willing to try the two different firmware versions and see if there is a difference.
Edited on Feb 04, 2009 at 12:20 PM · View previous versions
"Significant" is a strong word. I trust Brainiac's conclusion (i.e., that there is some more noise with the 5D2).
Is it likely to be fixed in firmware? I definitely wouldn't count on it.
Should it be a deal-breaker for potential 5D2 buyers? I'd say no based on this thread, but if anyone finds the samples horrifying they can try to find a camera in their price range* that better suits their needs.
*I agree with digilloyd that the D3x looks to do much better in the shadows, but it does cost more than 3 times as much...
I guess you'll get that consensus after all
I agree with everything RalphJ has said. I will add that if it can be determined that the issue was introduced in the 1.0.7 firmware update, then there is hope that it will be resolved in future firmware.
If anyone can get me the 1.0.6 firmware, I'm willing to try the two different firmware versions and see if there is a difference.
Edited on Feb 04, 2009 at 12:20 PM · View previous versions
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:19 PM
p.7 #55D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
BTW Brainiac, I always found iso 200 an anomoly on my 5D's, a lot noisier than 100 and less DR or shadow detail than iso 400. No idea why. Ditto 800 compared to 1600 which again seems far better (1600 that is) unless 800 is exposed perfectly using ETTR. Could it be that like the 5D, certain iso's are 'fake' steps which are less able than certain higher iso's? I assume a 1 series would have better firmware enabling different iso's, my 1Ds didn't show this phenomenon, heck the 5D was the first non 1 series to have third stop iso's and we know that they cause more trouble than they are worth. Methinks try iso's 100/400 and see if you get better results.
BTW Brainiac, I always found iso 200 an anomoly on my 5D's, a lot noisier than 100 and less DR or shadow detail than iso 400. No idea why. Ditto 800 compared to 1600 which again seems far better (1600 that is) unless 800 is exposed perfectly using ETTR. Could it be that like the 5D, certain iso's are 'fake' steps which are less able than certain higher iso's? I assume a 1 series would have better firmware enabling different iso's, my 1Ds didn't show this phenomenon, heck the 5D was the first non 1 series to have third stop iso's and we know that they cause more trouble than they are worth. Methinks try iso's 100/400 and see if you get better results.
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:20 PM
p.7 #65D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Here is an interesting analysis of the 5D mkII's iso values, might be worth contacting the guy who made the comparisons to see if he's seen anything with iso 200.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31288
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31288
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:23 PM
p.7 #75D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Beni wrote:
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
BTW Brainiac, I always found iso 200 an anomoly on my 5D's, a lot noisier than 100 and less DR or shadow detail than iso 400....Show more →
Good point here. Could be that ISO 200 is pushed from an ISO 100 RAW file in-camera. So far we've seen ISO 200- a side by side comparison of both cameras incrementally from ISO 100 to ISO 800 would paint a better picture.
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
BTW Brainiac, I always found iso 200 an anomoly on my 5D's, a lot noisier than 100 and less DR or shadow detail than iso 400....Show more →
Good point here. Could be that ISO 200 is pushed from an ISO 100 RAW file in-camera. So far we've seen ISO 200- a side by side comparison of both cameras incrementally from ISO 100 to ISO 800 would paint a better picture.
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:31 PM
p.7 #85D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Beni wrote:
Methinks try iso's 100/400 and see if you get better results.
If I have time tomorrow morning I'll do that before I hand over the 1Ds3 to the courier with a tear in my eye.
Methinks try iso's 100/400 and see if you get better results.
If I have time tomorrow morning I'll do that before I hand over the 1Ds3 to the courier with a tear in my eye.
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:34 PM
p.7 #95D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Beni wrote:
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
Sorry to hear that. My click count is about 80k per year, if that matters to you.
I have provided two raw files for people to be able to compare. That's pretty constructive, I think. In case you missed it:
http://fm.jirman.com/200/
I think that is about as constructive as it can be. It doesn't change the fact that I consider it pixel peeping
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
Sorry to hear that. My click count is about 80k per year, if that matters to you.
I have provided two raw files for people to be able to compare. That's pretty constructive, I think. In case you missed it:
http://fm.jirman.com/200/
I think that is about as constructive as it can be. It doesn't change the fact that I consider it pixel peeping
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:36 PM
p.7 #105D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Yeah I know how you feel...that's why I've never sold anything..
brainiac wrote:
If I have time tomorrow morning I'll do that before I hand over the 1Ds3 to the courier with a tear in my eye.
brainiac wrote:
Beni wrote
Methinks try iso's 100/400 and see if you get better results.Feb 04, 2009 at 12:38 PM
p.7 #115D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Beni wrote:
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
I don't understand your point...pro photographers have been making a living without pixel peeping since the dawn of digital photography. Unless printing very large if you need to pixel peep to sell prints or run a business I'd say your being a bit over meticulous and borderline obsessive. Looking at 100% crops on computer screens doesn't always portray the results of a print therefor nit picking at each individual noise granule holds little to no bearing over the final result, again, with the exception of printing extremely large. I could understand if the differences in noise levels were substantial but relatively speaking they aren't. If anything this is just making a monsoon out of a sun shower. As for the number of posts any one person has, how does that reflect a persons skill level or status
I have 1500+ posts, does that make me any less a professional than someone with 3K posts?
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
I don't understand your point...pro photographers have been making a living without pixel peeping since the dawn of digital photography. Unless printing very large if you need to pixel peep to sell prints or run a business I'd say your being a bit over meticulous and borderline obsessive. Looking at 100% crops on computer screens doesn't always portray the results of a print therefor nit picking at each individual noise granule holds little to no bearing over the final result, again, with the exception of printing extremely large. I could understand if the differences in noise levels were substantial but relatively speaking they aren't. If anything this is just making a monsoon out of a sun shower. As for the number of posts any one person has, how does that reflect a persons skill level or status
I have 1500+ posts, does that make me any less a professional than someone with 3K posts?Feb 04, 2009 at 12:56 PM
p.7 #125D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
If you're due to take 300,000 shots with a particular camera/sensor, then it makes sense to investigate quite carefully which one to use.
Feb 04, 2009 at 12:58 PM
p.7 #135D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
If you're due to take 300,000 shots with a particular camera/sensor, then it makes sense to investigate quite carefully which one to use.
There are dozens of other camera's that would yield worse results in the noise department and photographers have been using them professionally for years...putting bread on the table and all.
If you're due to take 300,000 shots with a particular camera/sensor, then it makes sense to investigate quite carefully which one to use.
There are dozens of other camera's that would yield worse results in the noise department and photographers have been using them professionally for years...putting bread on the table and all.
Feb 04, 2009 at 01:01 PM
p.7 #145D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
M Vers wrote:
There are dozens of other camera's that would yield worse results in the noise department and photographers have been using them professionally for years...putting bread on the table and all.
And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.
brainiac wrote
If you're due to take 300,000 shots with a particular camera/sensor, then it makes sense to investigate quite carefully which one to use.And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.
Feb 04, 2009 at 01:05 PM
p.7 #155D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
thedigitalbean wrote:
And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.
In your mind it may not, but other less informed individuals will read this thread and walk away with a very sour taste in their mouth.
And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.
In your mind it may not, but other less informed individuals will read this thread and walk away with a very sour taste in their mouth.
Feb 04, 2009 at 01:10 PM
p.7 #165D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
thedigitalbean wrote:
There are dozens of other camera's that would yield worse results in the noise department and photographers have been using them professionally for years...putting bread on the table and all.And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.
Quite, and since starting this thread I have ordered a 2nd 5D2, to put this in perspective. Peeping pixels is best done with a sense of proportion.
M Vers wrote
brainiac wrote
If you're due to take 300,000 shots with a particular camera/sensor, then it makes sense to investigate quite carefully which one to use.Quite, and since starting this thread I have ordered a 2nd 5D2, to put this in perspective. Peeping pixels is best done with a sense of proportion.
Feb 04, 2009 at 01:12 PM
p.7 #175D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
M Vers wrote:
In your mind it may not, but other less informed individuals will read this thread and walk away with a very sour taste in their mouth.
Yeah - really p**ssed off that their £2000 cameras produce very very slightly inferior results compared to two £5500 cameras which weigh twice as much and don't shoot video. Keep it real.
thedigitalbean wrote
And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.Yeah - really p**ssed off that their £2000 cameras produce very very slightly inferior results compared to two £5500 cameras which weigh twice as much and don't shoot video. Keep it real.
Feb 04, 2009 at 01:14 PM
p.7 #185D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
Yeah - really p**ssed off that their £2000 cameras produce very very slightly inferior results compared to two £5500 cameras which weigh twice as much and don't shoot video. Keep it real.
Keeping it real...I think you'd be surprised.
Yeah - really p**ssed off that their £2000 cameras produce very very slightly inferior results compared to two £5500 cameras which weigh twice as much and don't shoot video. Keep it real.
Keeping it real...I think you'd be surprised.Feb 04, 2009 at 01:16 PM
p.7 #195D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
The only people who have any justification in being a little miffed are those of us who have decided to downgrade and subsequently discovered that Canon's claim that the 5D2 provided their best image quality ever isn't entirely true.
Feb 04, 2009 at 01:19 PM
p.7 #205D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
The only people who have any justification in being a little miffed are those of us who have decided to downgrade and subsequently discovered that Canon's claim that the 5D2 provided their best image quality ever isn't entirely true.
I agree. I truly am looking forward to more comparisons wondering whether or not this has something to do with product variation or if the 'issue' is widespread and or generally accepted.
P.S. It wouldn't be the first time Canon lied
The only people who have any justification in being a little miffed are those of us who have decided to downgrade and subsequently discovered that Canon's claim that the 5D2 provided their best image quality ever isn't entirely true.
I agree. I truly am looking forward to more comparisons wondering whether or not this has something to do with product variation or if the 'issue' is widespread and or generally accepted.
P.S. It wouldn't be the first time Canon lied
Feb 04, 2009 at 01:25 PM