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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 05 Feb 2013 (Tuesday) 21:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

50D - 640 ISO not acceptable at all (sample images provided)

 
form
"inadequately equipped"
Avatar
4,929 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Henderson, NV
     
Feb 07, 2013 11:03 |  #31

Want me to show you RAW ISO800/1600 with no noise reduction, daylit photos with the D800?

IMAGE: http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/02-07-13-D800.jpg

Actually, D800 would be a very good wildlife camera for everything except the darkest conditions and things requiring fast FPS burst speeds. Great autofocus system, extremely good resolution, great tracking, very good noise handling...the only significantly better cameras would be 1dx/d4, with the 5d3 being better for fast FPS but not resolution or noise.

Las Vegas Wedding Photographer: http://www.joeyallenph​oto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,066 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 3379
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Feb 07, 2013 11:24 |  #32

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15582796 (external link)
...
Sometimes, it's acceptable to say, "There's really nothing you could have done in that exact situation with the gear you had. A different body would have given you better, more acceptable results, but your 50D just wasn't up to the task". In some situations, that is the simple truth.

I do see what you're getting at with this, Tom; but, at the same time, it really looks like something else may be going on, too. You really SHOULD be getting a much cleaner file at ISO 640 than that. Here's an example of 1600 (from my 7D, but I don't find it to be much different than my 40D), straight RAW exported to jpg via LR3.6; no adjustments made to the file:

Full shot:

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8515/8453927210_3fae210b67_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8453​927210/  (external link)
goose sample-1343 (external link) by Guideon72 (external link), on Flickr

Full crop of eyes:
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8089/8453926802_b3b590bb41_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8453​926802/  (external link)
goose sample crop-1343 (external link) by Guideon72 (external link), on Flickr

While there's certainly some noise visible there, it isn't anywhere NEAR as bad as what I see in your original post.

- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
form
"inadequately equipped"
Avatar
4,929 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Henderson, NV
     
Feb 07, 2013 11:31 |  #33

Snydremark wrote in post #15583183 (external link)
I do see what you're getting at with this, Tom; but, at the same time, it really looks like something else may be going on, too. You really SHOULD be getting a much cleaner file at ISO 640 than that. Here's an example of 1600 (from my 7D, but I don't find it to be much different than my 40D), straight RAW exported to jpg via LR3.6; no adjustments made to the file:


Full crop of eyes:
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8453​926802/  (external link)
goose sample crop-1343 (external link) by Guideon72 (external link), on Flickr

While there's certainly some noise visible there, it isn't anywhere NEAR as bad as what I see in your original post.

That image has color noise reduction, which lightroom always defaults at 25 with every image. The 7d also had about 1 stop better noise control than the 50d. The shadows always have a specific kind of grit when color NR is applied.


Las Vegas Wedding Photographer: http://www.joeyallenph​oto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
THREAD ­ STARTER
"That's what I do."
Avatar
15,893 posts
Gallery: 176 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6017
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Feb 07, 2013 11:42 |  #34

Looks like a nice, clean file, considering it was shot at 1600.

I do want a body that I can underexpose by a full stop, and still get excellent fine detail at 1600 - with no noise reduction at all. I have seen demos done on the 1Dx that showed this was possible. Unfortunately, I will never be able to afford a 1Dx . . . well, at least not until they come down to about $2,000 on the used market. That's probably a decade away:(

All I'll be able to afford is a 1D4. I'm not sure if the 1D4 is capable of the kind of performance I really crave, but it will certainly be better than any of Canon's 1.6 crops.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,066 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 3379
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Feb 07, 2013 11:44 |  #35

So it does...I can pull a crop out when I get home tonight with that default removed. I still think that there's something else wrong with the OP photo for things to be that bad.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,066 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 3379
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Feb 07, 2013 11:45 |  #36

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15583253 (external link)
... I'm not sure if the 1D4 is capable of the kind of performance I really crave, but it will certainly be better than any of Canon's 1.6 crops.

Certainly can't argue there. That's the body I'd love to land on, too.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
form
"inadequately equipped"
Avatar
4,929 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Henderson, NV
     
Feb 07, 2013 12:05 |  #37

Here's a wild animal for reference:

IMAGE: http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/02-07-13-D800ISO2.jpg

Las Vegas Wedding Photographer: http://www.joeyallenph​oto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,066 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 3379
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Feb 07, 2013 22:25 as a reply to  @ form's post |  #38

form wrote in post #15583215 (external link)
That image has color noise reduction, which lightroom always defaults at 25 with every image. The 7d also had about 1 stop better noise control than the 50d. The shadows always have a specific kind of grit when color NR is applied.

Ok, let's try this one now that I'm back at home.

40D, 50 1.8 @ 1.8, RAW, imported/cropped/expor​ted with default NR in LR6.3 set to all zeroes and all export sharpening disabled.

ISO 640:

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8455285444_d6a0143aab_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8455​285444/  (external link)
640 sample crop-5576 (external link) by Guideon72 (external link), on Flickr

ISO 1600:
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8378/8455285290_29f2e4f307_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8455​285290/  (external link)
1600 sample crop-5574 (external link) by Guideon72 (external link), on Flickr

This still leads me to believe there's something else contributing Tom problems.

- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fligi7
Senior Member
968 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 07, 2013 23:00 |  #39

Not to sound harsh, but it seems like you've simply got the wrong tool for the job. You are using a somewhat dated, middle of the road, consumer dSLR camera for income you depend on in a cutthroat market. If the tool you are using is losing you income, then you simply need to invest in a tool that can perform the job you need it to. Right?

Aside from that, your picture, as others have stated, is certainly in a suboptimal environment and underexposed to exacerbate the noise that becomes present in these situations, no matter what the crop body. You can see others' examples here from similar and lesser (40D) crop bodies with better lighting and higher ISO's with less noise than your photo. These crop bodies just really need great light. I remember how disappointed I was with my 7D's noise in a lot of photos when I first got it, until I learned how to shoot to the right and find the balance of PP tweaks.

It really is unfortunate that you can't touch the photos before sending them off. I own both bodies and the 50D and 7D are prime examples of crop bodies that really benefit (and often require) from sharpness and NR adjustments in PP.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jay125
I don't remember 19
Avatar
10,755 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Likes: 1665
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 09, 2013 11:57 |  #40

Allan.L wrote in post #15578903 (external link)
It looks like you tried to pull the shadows too much? I always try to expose to the right by ~+2/3 stop which reduces noise greatly.

If you don't nail exposure there is going to be noise even on a 1dx.

+1 on this. I habitually ettr. This allows me to absorb more detail and seriously assists in eliminating noise.

Also, as elite stated, I have disabled the increment ISO settings so I only have the options of the standards. I've heard the incremental ISO's have produced less than attractive images.



feedback


gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
llareggub
Senior Member
Avatar
631 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Hungary, Jasz Kun Szolnok
     
Feb 09, 2013 12:06 |  #41

I have followed this with interest but cannot help be a little confused by the requirement for an "untouched" image.

If you shoot in RAW there is always a requirement for a degree of noise reduction, sharpening and colour balancing, if you shoot in JPEG the camera does it for you, so to what level are you permitted to "play" for magazine submission?


My Website :D (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Feb 09, 2013 18:40 |  #42

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15579330 (external link)
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to pull the exposure, if I plan on submitting the images. Many publisher's submission guidelines clearly state that they will only accept unedited files. That means no photoshop, no exposure adjustments, no noise reduction . . . no fixing. It's got to be excellent right out of the camera, and for me, the 50D is really struggling in this department when it comes to low-light work.

Then you need to education your publishers, who probably don't know much about photography. Photography has always been about "finishing" the image after it's been recorded whether on film or digital. Finishing mainly being exposure and contrast.

Plus a RAW file is not an image file, so there's nothing to make adjustments to. You choose settings to use during RAW conversion into an image.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dannequin
Senior Member
261 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
     
Feb 10, 2013 02:36 |  #43

the 50D, imo, is just a bad camera... Canon really let the quality slip on this one... Thankfully the 7D makes up for it..


5D Mark 3 | 5D Mark 2
24-70 2.8 | 50 1.4 | 70-200 F2.8 IS
http:/www.facebook.com​/dtfoto

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itzcryptic
Goldmember
1,174 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Cincinnati
     
Feb 10, 2013 08:44 |  #44

dannequin wrote in post #15593408 (external link)
the 50D, imo, is just a bad camera... Canon really let the quality slip on this one... Thankfully the 7D makes up for it..

I think it was great for it's time. The 7D was released about a year later and is roughly 1 stop better in noise. It also cost almost double what the 50D did. The 7D seemed to have it's own issues with focusing and ghosting, which were minimal but seemed to be discussed extensively when the camera was released.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cptrios
Goldmember
Avatar
1,744 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Boston, USA / Burgundy, France
     
Feb 10, 2013 19:38 |  #45

OP, both of your sample shots of the deer/deer (that second one is plural!) look either out of focus or just plain soft to me anyway. I don't think noise is doing any real damage to details. Also, those are some seriously stringent publishing requirements if they won't even let you push/pull exposure. Even most photo contests will at east let you do that!

Also, are you not even allowed to do color NR? Because even a tiny touch of that will get rid of most of your noise problem.


Fuji X100 / Sony NEX-7 / Contax G 45mm f/2 / The ghosts of 3 Canon bodies past / A meagre amount of talent
My weak lil' 500px (external link)

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

11,103 views & 0 likes for this thread
50D - 640 ISO not acceptable at all (sample images provided)
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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 Toddbyrnes
814 guests, 332 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.