1D Mark II ISO Shots (bored)

AdamLewis wrote in post #4879575
Well these pics look like all the pics you post and they always look like they have NR done.
If they dont, then youve got the best performing MkII ever made. Better than any MkIII ive ever laid hands on.

Definitely NR being done somewhere. 3200 shot has no detail and no noise.

Nope, I have first hand experience with the camera he is using as I sold it to him......

I consistently got great pics at ISO 3200....when over exposed 1/3-2/3 then brought back down it was like shooting at ISO 1600. And its not so much the camera as it is the exposure....

Take this shot for example....was taken with an XT @ ISO 1600...according to many on this forum, 1600 is pretty much unusable with this camera.....Over exposed a hair and brought back down...no NR

R_Metzel wrote in post #4879820
Nope, I have first hand experience with the camera he is using as I sold it to him......

I consistently got great pics at ISO 3200....when over exposed 1/3-2/3 then brought back down it was like shooting at ISO 1600. And its not so much the camera as it is the exposure....

Take this shot for example....was taken with an XT @ ISO 1600...according to many on this forum, 1600 is pretty much unusable with this camera.....Over exposed a hair and brought back down...no NR

And a shot of the XT taken with the 40d at ISO 3200 over exposed a hair and brought back down....

I hear that.

I slipped in those 2 pics in my post that were taken with my XTI (1600 ISO 2 stop push and 4 stop push).

http://i110.photobucke​t.com/albums/n..._4sto​p_Web.jpg

http://i110.photobucke​t.com/albums/n..._2sto​p_Web.jpg

R_Metzel wrote in post #4879820
Nope, I have first hand experience with the camera he is using as I sold it to him......

Firstly, if I read correctly, these were UNDERexposed and then brought back up.

Secondly, without even talking about the ones that were "corrected" that 3200 is much cleaner than a 3200 from my MkIII (or any Ive ever seen for that matter). When I see no detail in the cardboard edge of the toothpase box and NO noise in the shadowy parts of the bottle, I know somethings going on.

AdamLewis wrote in post #4879924
Firstly, if I read correctly, these were UNDERexposed and then brought back up.

Secondly, without even talking about the ones that were "corrected" that 3200 is much cleaner than a 3200 from my MkIII (or any Ive ever seen for that matter). When I see no detail in the cardboard edge of the toothpase box and NO noise in the shadowy parts of the bottle, I know somethings going on.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.....I can not say w/ 100% certainty that he didn't apply any NR as I was not there. But seeing as I have talked with him on numerous occasions, used the exact camera and got the same types of results, add that to his great knowledge of photography and his skills, I cant find a single reason why he would lie.... You have called him out on it 3 times now, he stated his work flow...and now I jumped in, as it was my camera, and now, you are in fact calling me a liar also....

I guess this is just a conspiracy.....

Obviously he's about to put the body on the sell forum and is just trying to jack up the price.

R_Metzel wrote in post #4880020
Well, you are entitled to your opinion.....I can not say w/ 100% certainty that he didn't apply any NR as I was not there. But seeing as I have talked with him on numerous occasions, used the exact camera and got the same types of results, add that to his great knowledge of photography and his skills, I cant find a single reason why he would lie.... You have called him out on it 3 times now, he stated his work flow...and now I jumped in, as it was my camera, and now, you are in fact calling me a liar also....

I guess this is just a conspiracy.....

Haha its not a conspiracy. But there IS NR being done.

If youre going to try to tell me theres not after looking at this crop, then you really need some glasses.

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

AdamLewis wrote in post #4879924
Firstly, if I read correctly, these were UNDERexposed and then brought back up.

Secondly, without even talking about the ones that were "corrected" that 3200 is much cleaner than a 3200 from my MkIII (or any Ive ever seen for that matter). When I see no detail in the cardboard edge of the toothpase box and NO noise in the shadowy parts of the bottle, I know somethings going on.

Actually you did read wrong. He overexposed and then brought back down. Hence the lack of detail, much like high ISO 5D shots. Yes they look great, however the camera is overexposing and losing some detail. It's not that hard to get that lack of noise with a compromise in detail if you mess with the raw file. Try it! I think you'll like it!

That isn't NR that is out of focus.

and again I guess I have to state this another time, there was ZERO, NONE, Nothing, Noise Reduction done to ANY, ALL, EVERYSINGLE ONE, of those images i Posted.

I hope this clears it up.

Again if you over expose the image it really really cleans up the ISO.

I don't know how else to tell you lol

WorkingClassHero wrote in post #4880339
Obviously he's about to put the body on the sell forum and is just trying to jack up the price.

Dang it

Mr. Clean wrote in post #4880959
Actually you did read wrong. He overexposed and then brought back down. Hence the lack of detail, much like high ISO 5D shots. Yes they look great, however the camera is overexposing and losing some detail.

Really? "lightening things up" means bringing it back down? I must have missed that memo somewhere.

And like I said, the ones that were corrected dont matter. Even the baseline ones lack detail and are noisefree.

AthleticsPhotog wrote in post #4880962
That isn't NR that is out of focus.

and again I guess I have to state this another time, there was ZERO, NONE, Nothing, Noise Reduction done to ANY, ALL, EVERYSINGLE ONE, of those images i Posted.

I hope this clears it up.

Again if you over expose the image it really really cleans up the ISO.

I don't know how else to tell you lol

For the 3rd time, Im not even talking about ones that you under/overexposed. Just the basic ones. Theres no noise in them. And its not because its OOF. Noise isnt focus dependant.

AdamLewis wrote in post #4880965
Really? "lightening things up" means bringing it back down? I must have missed that memo somewhere.

And like I said, the ones that were corrected dont matter. Even the baseline ones lack detail and are noisefree.

He "lightened" the exposure up. It says that right in his first post. Lightening ie overexposing.
It's been posted sooo many times though that high ISO shots will look very good when exposed properly or overexposing slightly.

Well Adam I don't know what to tell you to make you believe me lol

I just don't understand why you don't believe me, when have I come off in this forum as a liar or something that does one thing and says another?

Kinda annoying man

Mr. Clean wrote in post #4880981
He "lightened" the exposure up. It says that right in his first post. Lightening ie overexposing.
It's been posted sooo many times though that high ISO shots will look very good when exposed properly or overexposing slightly.

4th time.

It doesnt matter. Im talking about the "correct" ones.

100% crop, 2000ISO MkIII, no NR

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