5D iso 1600 and iso 3200 performance

hi all 5d owners, wonder if any of you would be kind enough to post some iso1600 and iso3200 pic using 5D here (as we seen how 40d performed yesterday)....let's share only full size or 100% crop...would much appreciated. thanks

pandapanda wrote in post #4873232
hi all 5d owners, wonder if any of you would be kind enough to post some iso1600 and iso3200 pic using 5D here (as we seen how 40d performed yesterday)....let's share only full size or 100% crop...would much appreciated. thanks

Do a search . . . there are only about a million of them on the forum!

See my sig.

thanks,...i read your signature a few days ago, just the sample did not seems to have a 100% crop, and no comparison with 40d, and reason i ask the question is hard to decide a 40d or 5d....an old question with no clear answer

cosworth wrote in post #4873970
See my sig.

Uhh, those ARE 100% crops. Plus the 20D and 40D have the same noise.

Good test, Jason!

pandapanda wrote in post #4874133
thanks,...i read your signature a few days ago, just the sample did not seems to have a 100% crop, and no comparison with 40d, and reason i ask the question is hard to decide a 40d or 5d....an old question with no clear answer

Not so hard if you need FF theres only one answer.

V8Rumble wrote in post #4874309
Uhh, those ARE 100% crops. Plus the 20D and 40D have the same noise.

Exactly. The point of my test was to shot you that there is no real difference. Buy the camera you want. No one has a CLEAR noise advantage.

pandapanda wrote in post #4873232
hi all 5d owners, wonder if any of you would be kind enough to post some iso1600 and iso3200 pic using 5D here (as we seen how 40d performed yesterday)....let's share only full size or 100% crop...would much appreciated. thanks

iso 1600 w/ 5d...........

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

All of Canon's cameras perform pretty well at high ISOs, the 5D is among the best, no doubt. I just did a quick snap here of my face - hand held in front of myself with the 5D and 50 1.4 (you can see the reflection in my eye haha), a single tungsten light bulb as the light source.

5D, 50 1.4 lens, ISO 3200, 1/60s, f/2.8, 100% crop - ran through ACR for white balance tweaks and the usual tiny bit of sharpening - no other post-processing done; NO noise reduction performed, nothing, pretty much out of camera:

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

One thing that often bugs me in these noise comparisons is that people tend to forget the effect of white balance / color of the light. Shooting in daylight (=natural light) is often much better than shooting in artificial light, especially if the artificial light is warm and then compensated with white balance adjustment to achieve neutral balance. This is because the blue channel needs to be pushed quite far (I assume it is not entirely like push processing one "part" of the image). And of course, noise performance is also dependent on things like how good the exposure was, what sort of curve was applied to the image in raw conversion (= how much contrast) etc.

Of course, if you do the comparison with identical settings in the same (lighting) conditions you'll get comparable images, but if you expect to get the quality you get in daylight in, let's say, a rock concert, you'll be disappointed. A well-exposed daylight balanced image is the best case scenario, while for many, the reality (when shooting high-ISO images) may be not-that-well-exposed images in tungsten lighting. Yes, you should always expose correctly, but in action shooting (sports, concerts, children indoors, weddings...) there often are situations where you have a really good moment captured but the exposure isn't perfect (because you'd have missed the moment if you'd spend 0.5-5 seconds fiddling with the camera's controls - and even then you may fail to get the *perfect* exposure).

Also, when you turn the sharpness and noise reduction sliders down to zero in your favorite raw conversion software (which may be the one embedded in your camera), it does not mean the software still does some sharpening / noise reduction (the algorithms that convert the data from the bayer array to the viewable picture may be different, and some RAW converters may force some image enhancements to gain an edge over competitors (in case of bundled and in-camera softare, competing manufacturer's cameras) when comparing "zero NR / sharpening pictures". Nobody knows what goes behind the scenes if the software is not open source.

(This wasn't a reply to any of the messages above, just some things I have had in my mind and decided to share with you just because I happened to stumble upon this thread about noise ).

pandapanda,
I have both the 5D and the 40D and did a ISO 1600 comparison some time ago to compare high ISO noise and found they are very very close to each other (with 100% crops) 5D vs 40D <-- click to see.

The 40D is superior in AF, features (like live view), cost (cheaper then a 2+ year old model), no vignetting on lenses when wide open (5D shows vignetting on some lenses when wide open) and excepts more lenses then the 5D (40D takes EF and EF-s lenses).

Now my 40D is my main camera and my 5D is my backup (poor 5D, it was loved as my favorite for years prior to the 40D)

Both are great cameras, and with all the new lenses both can be used for just about all. ex. on my 5D for landscape photos the 17-40 f/4L was excellent, my 40D with a 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 is excellent. And 16 x 20" prints from both cameras look beautiful

Good Luck with your choice
Oh and welcome to the forum

One thing also, I dont know if anyone has already said this (havent read every post) but the 5D in my experience not only has less visible noise at higher ISO's which is great, but also retains more detail which is even more important.

As for this 40D or 5D debate, just the other day I read an statement on a website saying the 40D has managed to increase the pixel count but shares the same noise figure as the 30D (which it said was a good thing) well ive owned a 30D & I didnt feel that was anywhere near as good as the 5D, being as the 40D shares the same noise figures to the 30D same could be said for that then

Whatever the camera the noise levels are all now in the "acceptable" level, its just one has the edge over the other, whether you want to pay a premium for that extra low noise figure + higher detail retained is another story, for me it was well worth the extra money for the full frame sensor alone, something no other camera could even compete with in the first place, so for me the desicion was simple!

Some people also prefer cropped bodies, whilst others prefer fullframe, its down to how you use the camera, your lens selection etc... no camera is a bad choice.

Nick_C wrote in post #4875723
One thing also, I dont know if anyone has already said this (havent read every post) but the 5D in my experience not only has less visible noise at higher ISO's which is great, but also retains more detail which is even more important.

As for this 40D or 5D debate, just the other day I read an statement on a website saying the 40D has managed to increase the pixel count but shares the same noise figure as the 30D (which it said was a good thing) well ive owned a 30D & I didnt feel that was anywhere near as good as the 5D, being as the 40D shares the same noise figures to the 30D same could be said for that then

Whatever the camera the noise levels are all now in the "acceptable" level, its just one has the edge over the other, whether you want to pay a premium for that extra low noise figure + higher detail retained is another story, for me it was well worth the extra money for the full frame sensor alone, something no other camera could even compete with in the first place, so for me the desicion was simple!

Some people also prefer cropped bodies, whilst others prefer fullframe, its down to how you use the camera, your lens selection etc... no camera is a bad choice.

NickC-

I 100% completely agree with you... For the OP, you can check out my little study I did comparing the high ISOs for the 30D vs the 40D... Check out the review here, including a link to the photos to judge for yourself:
https://photography-on-the.net …376858&highligh​t=sadowsk2

Unscientifically, the majority of those folks viewing those images actually preferred the 30D over the 40D.

I was considering the 40D as an alternative to purchasing a 5D which I had used extensively for weddings but after getting ahold of the 40D, and for what I was looking to use it for, I opted for the FF 5d, (the 1D was outta budget) and haven't looked back. Both though, are excellent cameras

3200 ISO