Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 21 Feb 2011 (Monday) 21:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

need help choosing a 1.3 crop

 
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Feb 23, 2011 16:20 |  #46

Sam_M wrote in post #11900028 (external link)
After having owned a 5Dc and using a friend's 7D, I can confirm that yes that is true. The 5Dc does still have a certain 'look' to it, but in low light, the 7D does win. Also not to mention that the 7D has faster a/f, and a better lcd screen.

The 7d has much better AF. And many times, that's more important than anything else.


Gear List

Michael

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Feb 23, 2011 16:21 |  #47

metalordie wrote in post #11900275 (external link)
yea im more about simplicity than anything and i understand the use for ISO at a higher grade but the noise factor is always a burden (to me anyway).

Do you have Lightroom 3? Incredible NR, IMO.


Gear List

Michael

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
34,538 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4408
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 23, 2011 19:25 |  #48

Here, I would like to offer up this as an example of what exposure will do for noise. This is from my XTi at ISO 800, then 1600, using AEB of -1, 0, 1. I shot JPG, took them into photoshop, autoleveled each image, took a crop of a section and pasted it in the upper left. I then pasted that same crop in the lower left and did a simple noise reduction/USM run on it.

Compare these to each other to see what just using exposure compensation to your advantage (or disadvantage) for noise control. Also see what a simple run of noise reduction will do. If I had shot in raw, I would have brought the exposure up or down accordingly in DPP, but I didn't. :(

IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/iso800ec-1/1196874590_nwKdt-O.jpg
IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/iso800ec0/1196874574_XWn44-O.jpg
IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/iso800ec1/1196874573_YUNNQ-O.jpg

IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/iso1600ec-1/1196874567_RaTbF-O.jpg
IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/iso1600ec0/1196874593_ueCMQ-O.jpg
IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/iso1600ec1/1196874598_ZbrWa-O.jpg

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
metalordie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
269 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: new jersey
     
Feb 23, 2011 19:30 |  #49

versedmb wrote in post #11900790 (external link)
Do you have Lightroom 3? Incredible NR, IMO.

yes but i still prefer to avoid noise in the first place. the noise reduction programs sometimes leave bad and obvious feathering in return among other obvious tweaks.

Teamspeed thanks for taking the time to post that.


Stephanie

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,475 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Feb 23, 2011 19:34 |  #50

metalordie wrote in post #11901932 (external link)
yes but i still prefer to avoid noise in the first place. the noise reduction programs sometimes leave bad and obvious feathering in return among other obvious tweaks.

As the photographs above illustrate, getting the exposure correct in the camera in the first place goes a LONG way toward reducing noise in the image. You can use higher ISO values and get good quality images if you take steps to get the exposure correct. This may mean going to manual exposure control (maybe even using a handheld light meter like I often do) and not letting the camera do the thinking about the exposure settings.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
34,538 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4408
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 23, 2011 19:43 |  #51

Here is what the 5D2 will do in close to the same settings (lighting did change a bit since the original test), but at ISO 6400, EC +2/3. It requires little noise reduction, and does quite well. The 7D, for example, would look very similar at its 3200 setting at EC +2/3 (it is about 1 stop or so worse). In fact, I found that the 7D at ISO 3200 was very similar to the 5D classic. So either the 7D (or 60D or T2i), or the 5Dc would fit the bill, I think. :)


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,430 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 528
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 23, 2011 19:53 |  #52

metalordie wrote in post #11901932 (external link)
yes but i still prefer to avoid noise in the first place. the noise reduction programs sometimes leave bad and obvious feathering in return among other obvious tweaks.

Teamspeed thanks for taking the time to post that.

I've read this thread and you seem to keep clinging to the idea that there is kind of one particular range of ISO levels beyond which the noise (for you) will become too much. This really only applies to the camera you have right now.

Ignoring everthing else about exposure and such, the size of the sensor and the design generation of the camera will dramatically affect how noisy an image looks.

Say I took a picture with my old 30D at ISO 800. If I compared this shot to one taken with my 5D at ISO1600 (and double the shutter speed) the noise levels would look about the same.

And that shot in turn would look like about ISO3200 on a 5D Mark II or ISO6400 on a 1D Mark IV.

Five years ago I would work pretty hard (too large an aperture, pushing my luck on shutter speeds) to avoid going over ISO800 on a 30D.

These days I shoot ISO6400 without a second thought and I'll go to ISO12800 with the better NR we can get on a 1D Mark IV.

But five years ago I'd have told you ISO800 was my limit. Limits change as cameras change.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
metalordie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
269 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: new jersey
     
Feb 23, 2011 20:18 |  #53

im five years behind what can i say :P


Stephanie

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
metalordie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
269 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: new jersey
     
Feb 23, 2011 20:27 |  #54

actually the camera i have now i love, just wish it were a FF and id be a bit more happy.


Stephanie

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sp1207
Goldmember
1,835 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Right Behind You
     
Feb 23, 2011 20:40 as a reply to  @ metalordie's post |  #55

Why would I shoot ISO 800 and push the exposure comp up a stop instead of just shooting at ISO 400 outright? They'll give you the same shutter speeds, and I'm willing to bet ISO 400 would be cleaner than pulled 800.


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cccc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,016 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 172
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Feb 23, 2011 20:45 |  #56

metalordie wrote in post #11902243 (external link)
actually the camera i have now i love, just wish it were a FF and id be a bit more happy.

It sounds like you are assuming FF = better pictures.

If you want a FF camera, get a used 5D. I saw one for $850 on craigslist a few days ago.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HighPixel
Goldmember
Avatar
2,052 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 155
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Driving my '07 e60 in Puyallup, WA
     
Feb 23, 2011 20:50 |  #57

If you want a 1.3 crop, I have a MINT 1DMkII for sale...Price drop too!
Ron



Canon EOS-1DMk.III
| Canon EOS-5DMk.II / BG-E6 | Canon 70-200 2.8LIS Mk.II | 24-70 2.8L | 16-35 2.8LII | Just all kinds of crap...|RonBaltazar.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
metalordie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
269 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: new jersey
     
Feb 23, 2011 22:48 |  #58

HighPixel wrote in post #11902411 (external link)
If you want a 1.3 crop, I have a MINT 1DMkII for sale...Price drop too!
Ron

can you message me in my inbox what youre asking and condition, etc. thanks


Stephanie

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Feb 24, 2011 09:26 |  #59

metalordie wrote in post #11896846 (external link)
sensor size matters in regards to my lenses. it has nothing to do with my hate for high ISO in general.

You're using the wrong lenses then. If your complaint is that the 16-35 isn't wide enough, you should buy the Tokina 11-16. MUCH cheaper than buying a full-frame body, especially when you refuse to shoot above ISO800.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
metalordie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
269 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: new jersey
     
Feb 24, 2011 17:24 |  #60

egordon99 wrote in post #11904894 (external link)
You're using the wrong lenses then. If your complaint is that the 16-35 isn't wide enough, you should buy the Tokina 11-16. MUCH cheaper than buying a full-frame body, especially when you refuse to shoot above ISO800.


I do WISH i owned that lens and while i asked for it for a bday present the guy im seeing decided to buy a more expensive one (good job eh!) so im keeping it for sure..(build , quality, sharpness this lens is stellar all around) hell its worth more than all the rest of my junk put together.The 16-35 is wide but yes it would be wider on an FF.
The camera i had prior was an FF and very limited on ISO and MPs which is why im stuck in the past i guess.
the more m looking into it, the more im considering a used 1Mk1 or preferably a 1Mk 2


Stephanie

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,872 views & 0 likes for this thread
need help choosing a 1.3 crop
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dbetts
736 guests, 336 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.