ISO test files

Just a simple Canon ISO Test of the 20D | 40D | 50D | 5D | 5DMKII

http://www.flickr.com …721576017291164​79/detail/

checking it out now.Looks seriously interesting!

Do you know if these are crops?I didnt see any details.

i was comparing the 50D and 5DmkII but it's not a straightforward comparison as the 50D images are MUCH sharper.Those from the 5DmkII have to be sharpened to give a fair comparison
That said,no matter what is done with images from the 5DmkII,they will always have a more 'realistic' look.

Too bad the Nikon 700D is not included!

The exposure time on the ISO 100 files is different. I'm just comparing those. The 50D was shot at 50mm and with a shutter speed of 1 sec. The 5D mk2 was shot at 85mm with a shutter speed of 2 sec.

I'd also guess, could be wrong, that the subject is farther away from the camera in the 5D shot. I'm impressed with the results. Both are way better than my 20D.

The iso 1600 shot from the 50D has very noticeable noise even in the crop. This isn't in line with what I've seen thus far. Perhaps we're all in for disappointment in that regard (or it's a bad sample/poor test).

if you compare the 50D vs the 5D MKII 6400 ISO shots there is a massive difference

the MKII @6400 is a little better than the 50D @3200

Wow, 5D MKII's ISO performance is at least 2 stops better than 50D. This camera is looking better and better every day. Can't wait!

gpx4 wrote in post #6347982
Just a simple Canon ISO Test of the 20D | 40D | 50D | 5D | 5DMKII

http://www.flickr.com …721576017291164​79/detail/

The original file sizes do not match the actual file sizes from these cameras. I saw one 50D "original" file size at 12.8 MP instead of 15.1 MP. There was another 5Dmk2 file that was 19.6 MP instead of 21.0 MP.

Any reason for the discrepency?

I can see a touch of noise even at ISO 100 for the 50D while the 5DMII starts to show a touch of noise at ISO 800.

What were the Noise reduction settings on these cameras and how did you get your hands no the 50D and the 5DMII?

Looks like the 50D is about the same as my 40D. any thoughts on that? usable to about 1600 then too noisy for this kat. The 5Dmk2 looks to be very good through 3200, but since this is JPEG's and there's obviously lots of NR happening you can't really judge.
Thanks OP...if these are yours.
Would be great to see a side by side with 40D vs 50D then 5D vs 5D2 vs 1Dmk3
Guess we'll see it soon enough though

I've taken a longer look at those 5Dmk2 files. I'm pretty sure that many of those photos are out of focus. ISO 1600 on the 5Dmk2 looks blurrier than ISO 1600 on the 50D --- even when both are resized to a common size.

It also looks like the NR/sharpening settings for the 50D was set very differently from the 5Dmk2.

These certainly don't appear to be a true representation on iso noise. Some indeed look as if a NR in camera or via software was used.

I tried some comparison of these images. My main question is : does the 5D MkII is two sops better than previous generations ? more ? less ?

I picked the images of the 5D MkII at 6400, and the others at 1600.
To estimate the noise independently to the other aspects of the images (focus, etc), I did as follows:

1. download full res images
2. duplicate layer
3. apply Noisware Professional, option "full noise reduction"
4. set blending mode to "difference"
-> at tis point, I have extracted the noise (or what noiseware consider as)
5. apply a level adjustment layer to multiply all values by 2 (0; 1.0; 120 )
6. copy the histograms of the entire image
7. change the level layer to (0; 1.0; 20)
-> at this point I have a magnified view of the noise
8. Take 100% crops of images of noise, and compare.

This is the result images

100% crops of the original images

wow @ 5D MkII!
thanks for posting.

So people will go to buy 5D mk2, then next year, what camera they will buy?
In fact i buy only and only because people here buy new gear.