1D mark IV vs 5D mark II (high ISO)

I would not be afraid at all on the 5D2 to do 6400 in Av at +1/3, you just have to be a bit more careful on the 7D at 6400 with exposure, the 5D2 is a bit more forgiving. Regarding the noise removal on the 7D, I just ran my sequence of noise removal steps I came up with in Oct 09, it is a different set of steps for each color channel, but using noiseware and some of the despeckling actions in CS3.

The best thing would be to try to get into a wedding of a friend or family member and just sit to the side and test shoot a bit, in my opinion. Or even shoot during a Sunday service... I am the designated church photographer, so it may be strange for others to see me shoot during service, but it is at the church's request, so I am good with it.

I was just a guest at these friends' wedding, so I just shot from the pews with no flash on the 7D, I didn't want to interfere with the paid photographers. I have a few 12800 shots in there too. Nothing too great really to speak of, but the bride was happy afterwards, her father died less than a year after these were taken, and she was able to download some memorable shots for her memories. I wish I had the 5D2 back then to try it out at the same time.

http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …331_Lp2vX#72636​0569_spuEQ

I get usable 7D ISO 6400 shots that clean up fine with the luminance NR in Adobe Camera Raw 6.X or Lightroom 3.X. Here's an example, using "50" luminance NR in ACR 6.3. With the 5Dii's advantage at these higher ISOs, a 5Dii ISO 6400 shot should be very good indeed.

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

A question for Teamspeed and stsva.

Both of your 7D ISO 6400 shots look very soft to me even in these tiny web-sized images. Is this some other technical issue with the shots (missed focus, motion blur), effects of the high ISO on this body, failure to sharpen for web-sized images, or heavy NR?

I also notice stsva, that you comment that you used NR of '50' in LR3 for this ISO level on the 7D. When I shoot the 1D Mark 4 at ISO 12800 I typically find NR of no more than '20' or so yields excellent prints and web images. At ISO6400 I would be using no higher than '10'.

I'm not trying to pry, I'm just looking a bit at judging between some of these bodies a bit and I'm wondering just how much the 7D is struggling to get past ISO 3200 based on these shots. If they are soft just for other reasons then that would be good to know.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11555111
A question for Teamspeed and stsva.

Both of your 7D ISO 6400 shots look very soft to me even in these tiny web-sized images. Is this some other technical issue with the shots (missed focus, motion blur), effects of the high ISO on this body, failure to sharpen for web-sized images, or heavy NR?

I also notice stsva, that you comment that you used NR of '50' in LR3 for this ISO level on the 7D. When I shoot the 1D Mark 4 at ISO 12800 I typically find NR of no more than '20' or so yields excellent prints and web images. At ISO6400 I would be using no higher than '10'.

I'm not trying to pry, I'm just looking a bit at judging between some of these bodies a bit and I'm wondering just how much the 7D is struggling to get past ISO 3200 based on these shots. If they are soft just for other reasons then that would be good to know.

One thing you might notice is that the depth of field is pretty limited in the shot I posted, so only a portion is in sharp focus. That portion looks sharp to me, but maybe your eyes are better than mine; I've posted a 100% crop below. I'm sure using the fairly high degree of luminance NR I used softened the image some, but I've been very pleased with the detail ACR retains even with aggressive luminance NR; to the extent there is softness in the image, it's almost certainly attributable to the "50" luminance NR (and possibly the 1/80 shutter speed for a 200mm shot, although I think the IS on the lens made that shutter speed feasible). I'm obviously not surprised that the 1D4 does better at high ISOs compared to the 7D, just as I'm not surprised that the 5Dii does better, as I noted in my post. This stuff is just a hobby for me, and a $5K camera is out of the question. I'm very happy with my 7D, including its high-ISO capabilities. Since this is really a 1D4 versus 5Dii thread, perhaps you might consider posting some samples, or comparisons if you have both cameras.

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

@JeffreyG, I am not sure much any more, I took these literally a month or so after getting the 7D and was still working my post procedures, etc. I no longer have the full size jpg files either, and didn't shoot raw at the time. They probably are a bit soft due to heavy handed NR and not enough sharpening. I just wanted to show that if one had to shoot at a higher ISO to get necessary shutter speeds, one could with decent results.

EDIT: I did find a few original JPG sizes from my post processing, and yes, they are soft due to my NR and post processing, it is very obvious. I have indeed changed methods and actions since, so I am processing better. I also shoot RAW now, as to get the most out of the images before I start to rip through them.

I believe I have learned how to use the 7d better since and also better post processing steps. I could be wrong though.

I have a few nice shots in the first 19 shots in this gallery that were shot with the 7D at ISO 6400, I believe. Are these a bit better? I was having focus adjustment issues with the 7D and Sigma 50-500, so I moved the lens over to the 5D and shot the rest of the game with that body (20 to the end).

http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com/Sports/Mad-Ants-Basketball

ISO 12800 gets a bit dicey though, I would shoot this for small prints and web images though. It's a little better on the 5D2, but the 5D2 ends up with its own unique problems once you get into 12800 and above, especially in the shadows.

stsva wrote in post #11555286
One thing you might notice is that the depth of field is pretty limited in the shot I posted, so only a portion is in sharp focus. That portion looks sharp to me, but maybe your eyes are better than mine; I've posted a 100% crop below. I'm sure using the fairly high degree of luminance NR I used softened the image some, but I've been very pleased with the detail ACR retains even with aggressive luminance NR; to the extent there is softness in the image, it's almost certainly attributable to the "50" luminance NR (and possibly the 1/80 shutter speed for a 200mm shot, although I think the IS on the lens made that shutter speed feasible). I'm obviously not surprised that the 1D4 does better at high ISOs compared to the 7D, just as I'm not surprised that the 5Dii does better, as I noted in my post. This stuff is just a hobby for me, and a $5K camera is out of the question. I'm very happy with my 7D, including its high-ISO capabilities. Since this is really a 1D4 versus 5Dii thread, perhaps you might consider posting some samples, or comparisons if you have both cameras.

I think the main issue is that you didn't sharpen your web-sized image for the web perhaps. The 1:1 view is more of what I would have expected.

I understood the (sax?) player was the focal point. The detail is pretty good, I was not intending to disparage the 7D, I think that I was just put off by how it looked on the web.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11555664
I think the main issue is that you didn't sharpen your web-sized image for the web perhaps. The 1:1 view is more of what I would have expected.

I understood the (sax?) player was the focal point. The detail is pretty good, I was not intending to disparage the 7D, I think that I was just put off by how it looked on the web.

I understand - I've been disappointed posting images here on POTN because the low-rez web images sometimes don't convey very well what was in the original.

This is what goes down hill the higher the ISO you go. DR. What separates the cameras is not so much the noise since one can always use NR but at a price.

Microcontrast starts to go out the window, the higher the ISO. NR just accentuates the problem. With less microcontrast, you can't be as aggressive with sharpening since there is less to actually sharpen, requiring even higher than normal settings, which makes the image look even worse.

Sure, you can selectively remove noise, add sharpening but I'd rather pay $1000 more for a camera and save myself having to process thousands of images to that extent, over the life of the body.

I do everything possible to avoid using Luminance NR since I rarely am happy with the results. My standard may be different than others. The image has to look good at 30 inches. It doesn't mean I will throw it away if it fails that challenge but that is my "standard" for a good image capture.

Thankfully, downsizing for the web hides even high levels of noise in the image and printing also obscures a great deal of noise.

DStanic wrote in post #10300794
I'm a bit surprised actually at how much worse the 5DmkII is over the 1DmkIV... from other reviews I've seen i thought it would be the opposite.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Just pulled the trigger on a MKII which will be here tomorrow. For what I'm doing, and the level of dollars the camera actually generates this is a much more sensible option for me than the MKIV. I'll have a 7D and the 5D2 now. MKIV would cost as much as both combined, and trying to do paid shoots with one body is dumb, silly, irresponsible. Nice to know the technology keeps breaking new ground though....


Ninja....that you were a Nikon dude...or do you play for both teams

Thanks for this little test.