Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 28 Oct 2008 (Tuesday) 08:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5D Mark II VS D700 High ISO noise performance

 
heheapa
Member
113 posts
Joined Aug 2005
     
Oct 28, 2008 08:40 |  #1

ISO25600

http://dc.watch.impres​s.co.jp/cda/st.../d700​3_09l.jpg (external link) vs http://dc.watch.impres​s.co.jp/cda/st...5dmk2​3_10l.jpg (external link)

ISO12800

http://dc.watch.impres​s.co.jp/cda/st.../d700​3_08l.jpg (external link) vs http://dc.watch.impres​s.co.jp/cda/st...5dmk2​3_09l.jpg (external link)

ISO6400

http://dc.watch.impres​s.co.jp/cda/st.../d700​3_07l.jpg (external link) vs http://dc.watch.impres​s.co.jp/cda/st...5dmk2​3_08l.jpg (external link)

The banding in 5D Mark II highISO (12800 & 25600) quite concern me. Hope it will be resolved in production units.
I personally think the fine grained noise is more pleaseful in D700. It's more like film grain.


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
zcp ­ m3
Member
Avatar
83 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
     
Oct 28, 2008 08:53 |  #2

Interesting. What causes banding anyway?


Body: EOS 5D w/ BG-E4 Grip
Zooms: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
Primes: EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
Flashes: 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,284 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Oct 28, 2008 08:58 as a reply to  @ zcp m3's post |  #3

I'm not sure where the banding comes from, but I was playing with that 5DII ISO25600 image yesterday (NR, resizing, sharpening, etc), and I noticed that the visible banding changed pretty significantly when the image was resized in Gimp vs. PS. It might be worthwhile to play around with different resizing options and see if the banding can be minimized.


Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
form
"inadequately equipped"
Avatar
4,929 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Henderson, NV
     
Oct 28, 2008 09:04 |  #4

Looking at 12800 the 5D retains apparent color better in the color palette because the noise reduction leaves fewer dark spots in the colors, but per pixel sharpness is not as good and chroma noise is more apparent. The D700's grains add texture which seems to generate artificial detail in certain areas. The 5D is more blotchy, keeping in line with all the previous Canon noise I've seen.

ISO25600 is stifling and I don't think either camera should offer it, the 5D being somewhat worse in appearance and retaining less detail.


Las Vegas Wedding Photographer: http://www.joeyallenph​oto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JBF
Goldmember
Avatar
1,492 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY
     
Oct 28, 2008 09:35 |  #5

I don't see alot of banding in the 12800 Canon. The nikons looked alot more blotchy especially in the gray parts of the pic.


JBF
Canon 7D, Canon 1D Mark IV, Canon 24-105L f/4, Canon 35L 1.4, Canon 200L f/2.8, Canon 70-200L II IS f/2.8, Canon 300L f/2.8IS, 580ex Flash, 430ex Flash, 1.4X Converter. Bunch of other crap! I want the new 500mmL and the 200L f/2.0

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basroil
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,015 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2006
Location: STL/Clayton, MO| NJ
     
Oct 28, 2008 09:38 |  #6

form wrote in post #6576220 (external link)
Looking at 12800 the 5D retains apparent color better in the color palette because the noise reduction leaves fewer dark spots in the colors, but per pixel sharpness is not as good and chroma noise is more apparent. The D700's grains add texture which seems to generate artificial detail in certain areas. The 5D is more blotchy, keeping in line with all the previous Canon noise I've seen.

ISO25600 is stifling and I don't think either camera should offer it, the 5D being somewhat worse in appearance and retaining less detail.

It'd help if the image was in focus you know... Until someone frames and focuses EXACTLY the same image on both cameras, there is no way to compare. From what I see, 5dmkii has less noise, but what noise it does have is chroma noise. If you enable high iso NR, it'll get rid of a lot of chroma noise, and if you take it one step further and make a noise profile, it should be a very clean image from either camera.


I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Metalstrm
Goldmember
Avatar
1,056 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Malta
     
Oct 28, 2008 10:28 as a reply to  @ basroil's post |  #7

Honestly, looking at the ISO 25600 images I think the D700 ones look better... But until someone comes out with a test that everyone agrees on I won't make up my mind whether I'm gonna by one or the other. That is why I'm waiting for the dpreview comparisons...


Kristian D'Amato

http://www.krisdamato.​com (external link) - just my flickr at the moment.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
deeeez
Senior Member
Avatar
521 posts
Joined Apr 2007
     
Oct 28, 2008 18:16 |  #8

But the scene looks well lit, not a situation anyone would use for high ISO shooting...
Less color noise on the D700, not worth mentioning in the ISO 6400 range. More pronounced on the higher range.


Love this forum, even though I shoot with dark side. :D
Haibert B.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dean ­ Humphrey
Senior Member
579 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 17
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Oklahoma City Ok.
     
Oct 28, 2008 18:46 as a reply to  @ deeeez's post |  #9

I know this is Canon on the Net and I own 2 Canon cameras but I'm very happy with the images from the Canon in comparison to the Nikon, 12800 and 6400 look very usable to me.


My Stuff 1D MK IV, 5D MK IV,1D MK II, 100-400L, 28-70 2.8L, 580EX II, 70-200 2.8L IS,16-35 f4L. www.humphreyimages.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,284 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Oct 28, 2008 18:49 |  #10

deeeez wrote in post #6579797 (external link)
But the scene looks well lit, not a situation anyone would use for high ISO shooting...

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's ever been demonstrated or explained why light level significantly effects the look of a high iso exposure. I shoot about 90% of the time at ISO1600+ and I just don't see this phenomenon. Quality of light is certainly an issue, regardless of quantity. That said, it may be true that the quality of light may often be less interesting at low light levels. However, I just haven't seen any real evidence to suggest that an evenly lit seen at a low light level will produce a worse high ISO image than an evenly lit scene at a higher light level.

That being said, I've spent more time than I care to mention looking at these samples. The interesting thing that I notice is that (to me) the canon images look quite good up to 12800, but the noise level (and banding) jumps quite a bit going to 25600. I'm thinking that at the standard jpeg NR level, we're seeing a fair amount of in Camera processing (probably an unprecedented amount by Canon standards)...but the amount of detail retained seems to be quite high. It will be interesting to see how ACR handles the RAW files.


Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 172
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Oct 28, 2008 18:52 |  #11

bacchanal wrote in post #6579975 (external link)
People keep saying this, but I don't think it's ever been demonstrated or explained why light level significantly effects the look of a high iso exposure.

The more information you try to drag up from darkness, the more noise comes with it...

Less light means more amplification and an increase in the noise floor. It works exactly the same as having to turn up the volume on music that was recorded at too low an input level.

You can make the music louder but you also get an increase in hiss, rumble, etc... ie, more noise.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,284 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Oct 28, 2008 19:14 |  #12

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6579995 (external link)
The more information you try to drag up from darkness, the more noise comes with it...

Less light means more amplification and an increase in the noise floor. It works exactly the same as having to turn up the volume on music that was recorded at too low an input level.

You can make the music louder but you also get an increase in hiss, rumble, etc... ie, more noise.

Right, but if the meter reading (in camera) and the ISO is the same for 2 exposures (only the aperture or shutter speed changes), how are you increasing the amplification?

An ISO test is an ISO test as far as I'm concerned (as long as there are at least some shadows).

For instance, what is the difference between:

f/1.4 1/100 ISO1600 - meter reading 0 (low light)
f/11 1/100 ISO1600 - meter reading 0 (decent light)

non-scientific example:

1/100 f/22 ISO1600 flash (580ex bounced) 1/1 power

IMAGE: http://www.photos.fahrenheit128.com/img/v4/p467251671-4.jpg

1/100 f/2.8 ISO1600 flash (580ex bounced) 1/64 power
IMAGE: http://www.photos.fahrenheit128.com/img/v4/p322366313-4.jpg

1/100 f/22 ISO1600 flash 1/1 100% crop
IMAGE: http://www.photos.fahrenheit128.com/img/v4/p72584394.jpg

1/100 f/2.8 ISO1600 flash 1/64 100% crop
IMAGE: http://www.photos.fahrenheit128.com/img/v4/p420477646.jpg

Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ salgado
Member
Avatar
164 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Location: San Diego California
     
Oct 28, 2008 19:47 |  #13

And what does this prove ? Looks good I Guess


john salgado san diego wedding photographer Canon gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,284 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Oct 28, 2008 19:51 |  #14

john salgado wrote in post #6580339 (external link)
And what does this prove ? Looks good I Guess

It doesn't prove anything. It suggests that light level is not significant when comparing images at the same ISO value. Which would suggest that an ISO test in decent light is no more or less meaningful than an ISO test in low light. This probably wouldn't hold true as the light gets very dim and shutter speeds get very slow (1 sec plus).


Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 172
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Oct 28, 2008 19:51 |  #15

bacchanal wrote in post #6580133 (external link)
Right, but if the meter reading (in camera) and the ISO is the same for 2 exposures (only the aperture or shutter speed changes), how are you increasing the amplification?

An ISO test is an ISO test as far as I'm concerned (as long as there are at least some shadows).

For instance, what is the difference between:

f/1.4 1/100 ISO1600 - meter reading 0 (low light)
f/11 1/100 ISO1600 - meter reading 0 (decent light)

non-scientific example:

1/100 f/22 ISO1600 flash (580ex bounced) 1/1 power
QUOTED IMAGE

1/100 f/2.8 ISO1600 flash (580ex bounced) 1/64 power
QUOTED IMAGE

1/100 f/22 ISO1600 flash 1/1 100% crop
QUOTED IMAGE

1/100 f/2.8 ISO1600 flash 1/64 100% crop
QUOTED IMAGE

I follow you but now instead of aperture as a variable, use ISO...

(Nice choice of subject...) ;)


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

29,143 views & 0 likes for this thread
5D Mark II VS D700 High ISO noise performance
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mwelleco
581 guests, 158 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.