The 5D2 has strong pattern noise at ISO 100

silvex wrote in post #8639111
wow 21 pages of noise...

...talking about....noise!

Well, you have to admit, at least, that it's on topic!

Thanks for posting the noise results.

It seems that the underlying pattern noise is increasing only slightly as it gets pushed harder, but the random noise gets worse dramatically. Is that a fair summation?

The astronomy 'togs have methods of dealing with random noise which might be of use to the rest of us.

Canon's 5D Mark II strap only holds 33.5 lbs. When I use it with the Sigma 200 - 500 f2.8 + the body and wear it around my neck, I get severe strap stress and eventual breakage when walking. I'm not saying that you shouldn't by the 5D Mark II, but everyone should be away of it's strap limitations. I'm not sure if Canon has addressed this problem with the 7D strap, but we can all only hope.

Now when I test the Nikon D700 strap you clearly can hold 35.2 lbs, but there is that battery issue.

BS Testing Labs strap testing backs this up.

-i'm just saying.

S2000 wrote in post #8640692
Canon's 5D Mark II strap only holds 33.5 lbs. When I use it with the Sigma 200 - 500 f2.8 + the body and wear it around my neck, I get severe strap stress and eventual breakage when walking. I'm not saying that you shouldn't by the 5D Mark II, but everyone should be away of it's strap limitations. I'm not sure if Canon has addressed this problem with the 7D strap, but we can all only hope.

Now when I test the Nikon D700 strap you clearly can hold 35.2 lbs, but there is that battery issue.

BS Testing Labs strap testing backs this up.

-i'm just saying.

I'm sure that's close to the breaking point of most necks...

c00lpix wrote in post #8633993
Actually what I was trying to say (perhaps poorly) is that some people would like to sweep the issue under the rug claiming the exposure was wrong therefore any after effects (PP) are rightfully deserved. Or that one should have shot "to the right". I actually don't agree with that sentiment, I think even if the exposure was wrong (and I'm not saying it was!) what we see in front of us shouldn't be so bad.

gotcha, and agreed!

I seriously doubt video had anything to do with it since the T1i added video, added MP, and does quite well on noise -vs- the XSi. Further, the 5Dii has very clean 3200 and 6400 with expanded 12800 and 25600. The 1DsIII only goes to 1600 natively and 3200 is 'H'... The D3x has a very similar approach. Basically, I'd bet they have to maximize the quality at one end and deal with the other end in the software. The 1DsIII is quality at base ISOs, the 5Dii is all about extreme high ISOs (where's it's mind boggling honestly). Nikon seems to have taken a different approach which is very interesting to me. 200 is their base ISO, 100 is low1 and they've seemed to done a bit better at keeping both clean by limiting the ISO range by one stop.

CyberPet wrote in post #8633431
Sorry mate.... you must be lost, the Nikon forum is that way ---->

yeah, sorry if I'm not a giant fanboi for either system. The 5Dii is a great camera. So is the Nikon. Anyone that doesn't want to hear the pluses AND minuses of EITHER should just go to the shareholders meeting and avoid non brand sponsored forums. I'm sorry, but just because I've switched systems doesn't make my observations any less relevant. In fact, those of us who have switched can share more only because we've seen other options with similar specs. I'd expect the same from anyone who "switched" from to to a 1Diii/5Dii.

c00lpix wrote in post #8634103
I've been reading posts claiming the 5D II natively supports ISO 100, 200, 400, etc and the 160, 320 are the result of using a higher ISO and then mathematically dividing down to produce the 160; i.e. 160 = 200 * 0.8 .

Still looking for proof on that one.

that's generally how it's been done in the past, and I've seen a dpreview test back in the day that showed how bad the faked ISOs were... But the fact that 160 is the cleanest, maybe it's actually a base ISO and the even ISOs are the ones that are derived? Canon pushed hard to get great noise at high ISOs with this sensor, I'd bet they develop the sensors first, THEN do some sort of standardized test. Maybe 160 was what they thought 100 was going to be but it tested out higher?

toxic wrote in post #8634273
Back to the original post: this really shouldn't be an issue. Canon spent three years developing the Mk II, so the existence can't be because R&D got rushed by marketing or whatever. It seems Canon decided to compromise the shadows (since not many people push the shadows that much) in favor of something else, probably ISO 3200 and 6400, much the way Nikon has expended ISO 100.

that and it's the 1DsIII sensor (basically). So to differentiate that body a bit (and justify it's price tag) they might have intentionally made them different. 5Dii has killer high ISOs, the 1DsIII has killer base ISOs? The 5Dii is still very good at the base unless you really start pushing shadows?

S2000 wrote in post #8640692
Canon's 5D Mark II strap only holds 33.5 lbs.

wait, you use a strap?

so if the 5dmarkII is this noisy and banding... does it show up in prints? And at what size?

russkny wrote in post #8637559
Here they are:

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

ISO100 and ISO200 are very close in the amount of noise, but to my eyes ISO100 is slightly better. Of course these are EXTREME examples, I had to increase RGB brightness/contrast to 100 in DPP to make the noise this obvious.

P.S. Order of images is as follows: ISO200 pulled, ISO100, ISO200, ISO100 pushed.

Ran it though NR software.... everything is OK now...

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

russkny wrote in post #8634052
Wow! That is REALLY interesting!

I don't even have a 5D MKi/ii, but ran the same test on my 50D out of curiosity. The results were VERY surprising to say the least! This quick test (and I recommend everyone does it - it's super easy) seems to show that ISO 160 gives the LEAST noise - less than ISO100 and definitely less than ISO125. ISO125 is actually one of the worst in the lower range, it seems worse than ISO200 and more or less matches ISO250 in the amount of noise.

I'm going to avoid 125 like the plague!

Although I still don't know what this test means when it comes to real world results... Still, very interesting. Thanks for the link, c00lpix!

Agreed, problem fixed - shoot at ISO 160....

Originally Posted by c00lpix

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I'm curious what the result would be if the OP used ISO 160 instead of 100:

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/3821596...76179​03991680/

What gives the other cameras the ability to have higher levels of dynamic range? Does that have anything to do with the number of bits during the A/D conversion?

awdark wrote in post #8642383
What gives the other cameras the ability to have higher levels of dynamic range? Does that have anything to do with the number of bits during the A/D conversion?

That is part of the equation: 12 bits = 4096 graduations, 14 bits = 16384 graduations
There must be enough headroom in the analog and digital signal path (just like audio) to manage the signal and the sensor or transducer must be able to generate the signal.

Very complex relationships between all of these elements and quite honestly I am blown away by how far technology has come in the last 20 years.

S2000 wrote in post #8640692
Canon's 5D Mark II strap only holds 33.5 lbs. When I use it with the Sigma 200 - 500 f2.8 + the body and wear it around my neck, I get severe strap stress and eventual breakage when walking. I'm not saying that you shouldn't by the 5D Mark II, but everyone should be away of it's strap limitations. I'm not sure if Canon has addressed this problem with the 7D strap, but we can all only hope.

Now when I test the Nikon D700 strap you clearly can hold 35.2 lbs, but there is that battery issue.

BS Testing Labs strap testing backs this up.

-i'm just saying.

will you hold 35lbs on your neck all day ? I will not recommend to use the camera strap for ANY lens over 3lbs...the strap will bot break, but the lens/camera mount WILL break.

This is why you SHOULD put a LENS strap for a lens over 3lbs and use that to hold lens/camera.

Can you please test this? mount the sigma 200-500mm F2.8 (30lbs+) and wear it around your neck. Make sure orthopedic surgeon is near by with ambulance...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

J_TULLAR wrote in post #8641619
so if the 5dmarkII is this noisy and banding... does it show up in prints? And at what size?

The OP is not saying that the 5DII is "noisy." He is saying that there is an issue with banding when you push the shadows in the instances where you want to maximize the dynamic range from one exposure.

Do you push your shadows more than 2 stops regularly? If not, don't worry about it. If so, look up some workarounds or get a different camera.

S2000 wrote in post #8640692
Canon's 5D Mark II strap only holds 33.5 lbs. When I use it with the Sigma 200 - 500 f2.8 + the body and wear it around my neck, I get severe strap stress and eventual breakage when walking. I'm not saying that you shouldn't by the 5D Mark II, but everyone should be away of it's strap limitations. I'm not sure if Canon has addressed this problem with the 7D strap, but we can all only hope.

Now when I test the Nikon D700 strap you clearly can hold 35.2 lbs, but there is that battery issue.

BS Testing Labs strap testing backs this up.

-i'm just saying.

You're just saying? Saying what exactly? Does Canon publish load specs for their straps?

Does Canon post dynamic-range specs for their sensors?

Do you see a difference?

J_TULLAR wrote in post #8641619
so if the 5dmarkII is this noisy and banding... does it show up in prints? And at what size?

you'd notice the bands in the church shots in a 4x6 I'd bet, 8x10 FOR SURE. But it's also an extreme example.

As for th enecstrap, wasn't that a sarcastic post guys?

versedmb wrote in post #8642132
Agreed, problem fixed - shoot at ISO 160....

Originally Posted by c00lpix

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I'm curious what the result would be if the OP used ISO 160 instead of 100:

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/3821596...76179​03991680/

Actually, judging by the results of my further testing, shooting at ISO100 with HAMSTTR should yield even better results once you pull the exposure a bit in PP