1D ISO200-1600 Test shots

[timmyquest]

I was wondering what the differences were with noise between the ISO levels on the 1D MKI (200, 400, 800, 1600, H-3200) so i decided to go and take a few shots. Then i figured i might as well share them here.

Not a very technical test, i should have shot in TV i guess but i shot in AV so the shutter length changes (30seconds at ISO 200 to 2 seconds at iso 3200)

Noise reduction was on (and man does that slow this puppy down!

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/200.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/400.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/800.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/1600.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/3200.jpg

[timmyquest]

Full sized images can be found here

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/200L.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/400L.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/800L.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/1600L.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/isotest/3200L.jpg

*PS, remotely link an image like this and you may just find yourself posting something you dont want to be ;-)

[Ballen Photo]

These really dont look bad at all considering the ISO used. In fact, the noise wasn't that noticable at 800, and was very acceptable at 1600 and 3200, IMHO. 8)
-Bruce

[timmyquest]

I must admit i was suprised...i wouldnt call 3200 useable (did you check out the full sized?)

I do think that 1600 is workable...some noies reduction could help.

But ISO 800 is totally acceptable.

I've been shooting football games at ISO 1000, i may bump it up this week.

I doubt it, but perhaps that'll allow me to use the 2x tcon at the games with the 70-200 f/2.8. At f/5.6 i'm not holding my breath, but i'm sure gonna give it a shot.

[Ballen Photo]

I must admit i was suprised...i wouldnt call 3200 useable (did you check out the full sized?)


Yes I did. I think that if you have to use iso 3200 to get the shot, at least you'll have a "Shot" at it. Pun intended. :lol:
Have you ever shot Kodaks T-Max 3200 B&W film? You'll get plenty of noise there too, but many people still used it because you "Could" at least get the shot in less than desirable light. :wink:
Also, have you tried Neat Image on this yet?
-Bruce

[toddb]

I think the 3200 ISO can be useful in some very specific cases....night shots I don't think would be one of them. Just way to much of the noise shows up in the dark. If you need a tripod to begin with, I'd just got with the longer shutter time then dialing up the iso. When shutter speed is critical, that iso 3200 can actually be useful.

I like to see this kind of post. I like to compare the same shot side by side with different iso settings rather then seeing that one shot that could just be just right condition for that setting. In any case, here is my test. I too used AV mode.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41270&highlight=

[mdude85]

I am sure some ppl on here would like to see a sample of how much more light ISO 3200 lets in than ISO 1600, so we can judge if the increase in noise is a not such a big deal for what you get in return.

[timmyquest]

I am sure some ppl on here would like to see a sample of how much more light ISO 3200 lets in than ISO 1600, so we can judge if the increase in noise is a not such a big deal for what you get in return.

I would imagine it is two stops more light ;-)

[maderito]

Timmy,

I think you're shooting the wrong thing to judge noise levels.

ALL of these shots have tones concentrated in deep shadows. Noise in shadows is always significant - and these shots simply show that.

The only area of the shot worth judging is the graded tonality around the light. Since there's no real image detail there (in the fence or trees), you are basically looking at noise. It does increase with ISO - but how much it degrades the underlying image you can't say.

I know your goal was modest - so don't take this post as a serious critique. :)

[photomd]

Given the initial size, I think those are pretty good. I didn't check out the enlarged pictures which I'm sure show the differences clearly. Did you shoot RAW or JPEG?
(highjack)
Right now I'm playing with the JPEG settings and sharpness. So far you can tell a slight difference and the JPEG's are better if you drop the compression to a minimum, but the software is pretty difficult (at least for me) to figure out.
(/highjack)

If you don't have a Firewire hookup, get a cheap one off eBay. Mine was $13. Now if I can learn Canon's Digital Photography Pro software, I'll be set. :wink:

[drisley]

ISO1600 shots even on the Rebel are more than useable.
Actually, my ISO1600 shots show very little noise.
I would expect the MKII to be even better.

[timmyquest]

Timmy,

I think you're shooting the wrong thing to judge noise levels.

ALL of these shots have tones concentrated in deep shadows. Noise in shadows is always significant - and these shots simply show that.

The only area of the shot worth judging is the graded tonality around the light. Since there's no real image detail there (in the fence or trees), you are basically looking at noise. It does increase with ISO - but how much it degrades the underlying image you can't say.

I know your goal was modest - so don't take this post as a serious critique. :)

I understand what your saying but my goal in this test was to judge the actual differences between noise level at differnt ISO ranges. If i needed to shoot ISO 1600 in daylight i have no doubt that it would produce a useable image.

[Ballen Photo]

I am sure some ppl on here would like to see a sample of how much more light ISO 3200 lets in than ISO 1600, so we can judge if the increase in noise is a not such a big deal for what you get in return.

I would imagine it is two stops more light ;-)

Timmy, The difference between iso 1600 and iso 3200 is one stop. :wink:
-Bruce