5D iso 1600 and iso 3200 performance

^ what a funny little fellow

If you ever shot MF film, my impression of the 5D at 1600 is that those images are as good as prints produced from 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 ASA 400 negatives. I don't have a 40D so I can't give you that info, but I have been extremely pleased with the 5D.

The one main caveat though, as with any image is that the capture needs to be properly exposed for optimal results. An under exposed digital file will result in a noisy image just as an underexposed negative will result in a grainy print. - Stu

thanks all you guys, jason, ed rader, perry,Kalle, John_B, sapearl, nick....thanks for all your candid response...

ed rader: i really like the panda pic you took,

my assumption is, 5D by all means should be superior to 40d (as its body cost double of what 40d), i just want to find out if there is a clear advantage to justify..looks like canon quite enjoy a uncontested market.

I dug around and found the old thread I'd started about the 5D at 3200. Rather than repost the photo here's the link:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=156113

downtowner wrote in post #4876276
my assumption is, 5D by all means should be superior to 40d (as its body cost double of what 40d), i just want to find out if there is a clear.

I've seen images posted here that are contrary to that.

Bottom line is that the differences are so small and almost unseen at resize or print that it really comes down to buying the camera you like.

i think Kalle brings up a very good point re: artificial lighting.


i can't wait to start processing the first concert shoot w/ my 5D (last night). woo!

cosworth wrote in post #4876594
I've seen images posted here that are contrary to that.

Bottom line is that the differences are so small and almost unseen at resize or print that it really comes down to buying the camera you like.

I totally agree with this statement. Especially if you properly expose your image. ISO Shots are almost all alike, or the difference is so small it really comes down to the camera you enjoy the most.

I did high iso tests as well with the 1D Mark II and came to the same conclusion you did to be honest.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=450098

I would urge the OP to TRY both cameras, for landscapes ive tried a 30D with a 10-22mm lens in the past, I just never enjoyed it as much as the 5D, for landscapes I still believe the 5D is king, sure you can get away with using a much cheaper body with a 10-22mm with good results, but for me the 5D wins hands down in the sheer enjoyment to use factor

Most people will naturally go for the cheaper body, it gives you more money after all for lenses, im lucky enough to have owned both ends of the market, some say they prefer the 40D, some the 5D, im with the latter, despite it lacking all the bells & whistles of the newer/cheaper bodies, its still hard to beat in terms of noise/IQ & enjoyment, mainly due to the massive viewfinder, my lenses all perform better on the 5D than ANY other body I have tried.

Go with whatever floats your boat

Canon 5D, ISO 1600 >>>

Nice, Ben (amoergosum)! How's that 22" K Constantinople Medium Ride?

b.d.bop wrote in post #4877794
Nice, Ben (amoergosum)! How's that 22" K Constantinople Medium Ride?

LOL...I just saw "bdbop" and I knew it could only be you!
GREAT to see you here, Mark!
The Con is doing very well.
So you're into photography, too? I didn't know that.
best,
Ben

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.

i agree. with the 5d i'll use iso 1600 without a second thought. with the 30d i've gotta examine my other options first .

ed rader

narlus wrote in post #4876652
i think Kalle brings up a very good point re: artificial lighting.

i can't wait to start processing the first concert shoot w/ my 5D (last night). woo!

i eagerly await your pictures and your opinion and assume you have no axe to grind !

ed rader

For some addle-pated reason I had my ISO set to 1000 on my 5D. But it seemed to have worked for me.

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

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

3200 85 1.2 wide open

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE