Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

samples @ 25600 iso
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:03 pm    Post subject: samples @ 25600 iso Reply with quote
today I try the 25600 iso of 5DII
all wide open with the contax 35:1.4 & 85:1.4







PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wicked!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great shots.
... and pretty good quality compared to the former ISO 800/1600 films.

If you can't find your way home in the dark, you can take pictures and follow by the images shown in the display.

Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Exactly like ISO 400 on G1 Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
When there is good uniform lighting, it may look like a good 1600 ISO film.
But when there are dark areas, the banding is terrible even at this small size.
I never use my 5DMkII at more than 3200 ISO unless I have a gun pointed at my head Laughing Wink

By the way, great night shots!
I especially like the last ones with the fire performers.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh my..!! Its looks very usable!!!


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thanks for nice comments

Orio wrote:
But when there are dark areas, the banding is terrible even at this small size

yes, the noise is terrible at 25600
if I push the noise reduction, the banding disappear but then the image look really plastic
other method or selective NR may give better results

Quote:
I never use my 5DMkII at more than 3200 ISO unless I have a gun pointed at my head

same for me, I could deal with this light at 3200 F1.4
I would had get something around 1/125s which is usable with a little motion blur

I had more problem with the viewfinder to find some light area to focus on
for the fire sequence, I prefocused with liveview


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It shows the technical improvement. So maybe better such images than nothing. But at the end poor IQ and for regular photo shooting not usable.

They look a little bit better on my 13" LCD Laptop.

Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Outdoor shots show less noise. Ok still exploitable pix, but it depends if you plan to enlarge or not.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
Outdoor shots show less noise. Ok still exploitable pix, but it depends if you plan to enlarge or not.


I think reporters (photojournalists) can really use it, in those situation where it's important to have a picture taken, no matter the quality.
Usually reporter photos end up in newspaper at low resolution anyway, or on web sites at postage stamp sizes.
I think no "art" photographer or dedicated amateur would ever use that ISO for an exhibition or portfolio picture.
But maybe, a few years more, and second or next-to-second new generation of FF cameras will reach the goal.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I never go higher than ISO 3200, too.
I have gotten some very good shots at ISO 3200.
My preference is to stay up to ISO 1600.

This is my favorite shot at iso 3200. Light was minimal.
1/20 sec. @ f/2.8
Even at 1920x1200, it is very clean.


EDIT: Orio, could you post a photo at iso 3200 with the M9? I am curious to see how a camera that costs 4 times more and is 2 years newer, compares to the 5DII.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find it strange when people say an image is "unusable" due to the amount of noise, whilst noise is usually undesirable and doesn't look as good as a clean image I think all of these photos are very much usable, the fact that they are posted here at all is proof of that.

I would rather have a noisy image than no image at all!

I dislike noise as much as the next person but saying the images are unusable is not accurate IMO the only thing they are unusable for is being examples of clean images!

The only genuinely negative aspect is the banding pattern in the noise but we are talking about a sensitivity that was impossible a few years ago. It would be foolish to shoot at this sensitivity unless it was essential but if it meant the difference between getting the shot not it's a great option to have Smile


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting to see these sample shots, Poilu.
Sure there's a lot of banding but they are good photos !

Sometimes, when I want to be sure of the right speed to avoid shaky hand shots, I set the Iso to auto. It's magic in low light action shots.
The Auto Iso sets the Iso so that speed equals 1/focal length.

This way, I got some good 3200 iso. But I never had 6400 or higher.
I think higher isos are available only by menu option, isn't it ?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
Interesting to see these sample shots, Poilu.
Sure there's a lot of banding but they are good photos !

Sometimes, when I want to be sure of the right speed to avoid shaky hand shots, I set the Iso to auto. It's magic in low light action shots.
The Auto Iso sets the Iso so that speed equals 1/focal length.

This way, I got some good 3200 iso. But I never had 6400 or higher.
I think higher isos are available only by menu option, isn't it ?

the last real iso on the 5DII is 6400 iso
H1 (12800) & H2 (25600) are software generated and you have to allow it in settings to be able to select them
taking a underexposed pic at 6400 and working on the pc should probably give better result
I tried 25600 for fun but I never really needed more than 3200 iso


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It really demonstrates how much better the chip is on the FF Canon than the smaller chips. My 40D has terrible noise at ISO200! I cannot imagine pushing much beyond 800. Noise has long been a major thorn in Canon's Achilles heel.


patrickh


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very usable at ISO 25600.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is really "high-level griping", isn't it?
How can we dare to whine about noise at ISO 25600? Wink
Can somebody imagine an ISO25600 film? I bet you wouldn't see anything.

These images are impressive. And BTW, you could always convert them to b&w and gone the colour noise is. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
It really demonstrates how much better the chip is on the FF Canon than the smaller chips. My 40D has terrible noise at ISO200! I cannot imagine pushing much beyond 800. Noise has long been a major thorn in Canon's Achilles heel.
patrickh

Maybe your 40D has problems because mine has no terrible noise at Iso 200. I would say it is too noisy over Iso 800.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
patrickh wrote:
It really demonstrates how much better the chip is on the FF Canon than the smaller chips. My 40D has terrible noise at ISO200! I cannot imagine pushing much beyond 800. Noise has long been a major thorn in Canon's Achilles heel.
patrickh

Maybe your 40D has problems because mine has no terrible noise at Iso 200. I would say it is too noisy over Iso 800.


I think Patrick is accustomed to the noise of Nikon DSLR which is better than Canon cameras. If one is only used to Canon cameras maybe it's more difficult to realize, but I too find that the noise of recent APS-C cameras by Canon is quite intrusive, even at 200 ISO if you look at the flat shadow areas. Sometimes even the 5DMarkII shows some noise problem in flat shadow areas at ISO 200. Some say that it's because the AA filtering in the Nikon cameras is stronger. I don't know, but for sure I know that if there's an area where Canon has to work harder on for the next releases, it's the noise department.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just thinking.
Maybe I find the 40D's noise correct because I only use Raw.
Hence, noise could be worse in Jpeg ?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IMHO Nikon is not that much better when it comes to noise.
Yes, the D700 (or D3) is amazing, but you must not compare those cams with an EOS 40D.

I had the chance to test both a Nikon D60 and a D90 for several days and the D60 was worse than the 40D. OK, the D90 was a little better but not that much, really.

I can use ISO1000 images with my 40D without problems. (ISO 1250 or 1600 generates some considerable noise, yes, but with a little post-production even those are usable.)
Even my old 300D is usable at ISO800.

And my 5D is great even at ISO1600, all IMHO of course.

The sensor that really produces noise at high ISO levels is the Foveon of my SD10. Don't get me wrong, I really like this cam, I like the way I shoot with it, but it's not good for available light and high ISO photography. More than ISO400 is not funny any more - unless you employ some intense pp, that is.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio's description is very accurate. I personally started with the Nikon D200 and moved to a Canon 40D (for the MF lens compatibility). My personal experience (no flaming intended or invited) is that the Canon has a distinct tendency to underexpose, and with shots offering contrasting areas of light and dark there is considerable noise in the dark areas at ISO200. Again, my experience is that Canon's paranoiac insistence, imposed by mechanical means, that focus and exposure be linked directly to the lens and the lens has to be a Canon AF one has seriously degraded its capabilities in this area. Compared with the D200 my 40D is a distant second for those aspects of usage.
Please put these comments in the context that I use the Canon for fully half of the shots I take overall and will not trade it.

Carsten, let's hope the newest iteration of the foveon chip is a major step ahead.


patrickh


PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:

Carsten, let's hope the newest iteration of the foveon chip is a major step ahead.


Don't get me wrong, the SD10 is very nice up until ISO400! Absolutely on par with modern CMOS or CCD sensors. Just from ISO800 on it deteriorates rapidly. (And it also can be caused by my own still limited experience with RAW development of X3F images.)

Here are some examples:

Bottom left (speaker) of this image>


No noise reduction and no sharpening whatsoever.

ISO100 (there is some motion blur, though)


ISO200


ISO400


ISO800


ISO1600


This series clearly shows the huge gap between ISO400 and ISO800 of the SD10. ISO400 = still usable, ISO800 = many flaws.

Last edited by LucisPictor on Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:02 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alike 1600 iso on Canon 400D which I using. Good pics with acceptable grain Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am really overwhealmed about the performance, and I definitly consider this results as useable.

Great shots !

Cheers
Tobias
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2