Guy Mancuso wrote:
Jan not sure you have the 1dMKII but the noise is very very well controlled. At 100 or 400 I can't tell the difference on the surface.
There was a German site that had some samples a while ago, forget where. But I downloaded and checked the differences by subtracting them in layers in PS. 100-400 only differed in sharpening. I didn't even see noise until 800. I don't have a mk2, but if I did I'd see no reason to shoot anything less than 400 as a standard setting, going to 100 only if I knew I was going to do a lot of work on the images such as say using Incandescent WB. Curiously, the ISO 50 image I checked had odd color banding when subtracted from the ISO 100 one. I think even ISO 1600 looks quite OK on the samples I've seen so far. Me, I'm very impressed! Now, if I only had an excuse to buy one!
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Jack Just wanted to remind you of what they look like.
Well, News
Iron lets remember there is no sharpening . The 1ds is sharper out of camera but they both need sharpening in post or in camera jpegs. the 1dMKII just needs a little more applied that's it. The 1ds has more detail and it should but sharper is relative to what you do with the file
Let me also chime in and say congrats and a great post here! I told you after getting my hands on this in Vegas in February that you guys would love it!
One question, please - I have heard much to do about how accurate the new E-TTL is on this camera. Have you had any chance yet to try it with a 550 EX to see what it does with E-TTL? Dennis Reggie said he tried on many occasions to fool it but could not - it came back with flying colors!
Thanks and good luck again!
P.S.. Jack - hope you get yours soon - I can hear the drool hitting the floor all the way here in Florida!
The conclusion seems unanimous on noise perf of the MKII. It is amazingly good. On can compensate for a lot of things when shooting at ISO 400 instead of 100. I just love my MKII. So many good features. Not sure how much use 1Ds will get now...
BTW, that above point is what I made out of the MR's reviews of MKII a couple of weeks back but everyone chose to beat up the guy over not publishing other results . 4db of S/N ratio improvement is super significant.
amirm wrote:
The conclusion seems unanimous on noise perf of the MKII. It is amazingly good. On can compensate for a lot of things when shooting at ISO 400 instead of 100. I just love my MKII. So many good features. Not sure how much use 1Ds will get now...
BTW, that above point is what I made out of the MR's reviews of MKII a couple of weeks back but everyone chose to beat up the guy over not publishing other results . 4db of S/N ratio improvement is super significant.
Great test shots, nice torture test. Great kitchen too!
Although the ISO 400 shot don't look grainy, the ISO 100 shots look a lot more "silky" to me; I actually quite like them. I am impressed at how well both cameras handled this scene without additional lighting; this kind of shot is pretty close to a nightmare. Although the shot is not quite interior decorating magazine quality, they are pretty damn close which is amazing seeing how much effort goes into those interior architectural shots.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Ricardo not ready for a conclusion yet need to try the flash out but so far , a pretty damm good camera from canon. My hats off to them and worth the wait.
Guy
Hi Guy, thanks for your post!!! Can't wait for your comments on the E-TTL II
Your RAW files are now available on my server --I've made another post on this.
Thanks for the interesting tests and making the RAW files available. The Noise levels look IMO very good indeed -- just what a lot of us have been hoping.
I've just made a nice A3+ of your kitchen using the 800 ISO RAW shot --- maybe I can persuade someone that it's time ours needed upgrading.
The print is excellent -- relatively noiseless and capable of going much larger -- I'm going to try maybe a 32 X 40 just to see what it looks like.
Thanks for the RAW -- it's nice being able to print so I can see what the pics really look like -- it's often difficult making judgements just on web resized jpegs.
From what I'm seeing 800 ISO is very useable indeed -- this is likely to be the fastest I need to shoot at.
The 400 ISO shots IMO are perfectly useable for most situations.
It looks as if this cam will be a reall winner if you have to shoot gigs / concerts without using flash.
This kitchen type shot is normally a real pain in the you know where -- lighting all over the place but the camera obviously handled it OK.
I've now done a print at 32 X 40 -- it's great and actually comparable with what I would expect from a 1Ds -- pity I can't show it on the web .
The Lab thought I was going into kitchen design .
It looks like that I'm swayed towards a 1D MK II now rather than a 2nd 1Ds -- I couldn't believe the 32 X 40 print of the 400 ISO shot --- I even checked the EXIF again to make sure it wasn't the 1Ds -- and I also compared 1Ds and 1D MK II Pixel sizes to make sure it was the right camera.
If this cam is capable of producing these size prints at quality it is going to really give the 1Ds a run for it's money --- just wish it was FF but on second thoughts at 8MP the 1.3 factor might be an advantage.
Now let's see how well it does in the field in real "battle conditions" -- viz a viz sensor dust etc.
)
. 4db of S/N ratio improvement is super significant.