A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 04, 12:45 AM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

From: (Carol R)

With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
400 noise begins to be a factor.


My wife has a 10D and after testing it for noise I would agree with your
numbers, 200 looks good and 400 doesn't (for good sized prints and our tastes).

The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
noise at higher ISO speeds.


Just got one of these a couple weeks ago and it's a great camera. Haven't
tested for noise above 320 yet but at 320 it's better than the 10D at 200.

I am close to opting for this camera if
this is true. Now I hear there will be new releases from Canon in
Sept so I want to wait for that.


No way they'll replace the Mark II that quickly (it's still in short supply)
but it would be wonderful if they used the same 8 Mpix sensor in a lower price
camera, either on the Elan body (10D Mark II?) or even better on the EOS-3 body
(3D?). Unless you need the super fast autofocus and frame rate of the Mark II
I'd wait a bit and see if they bring out an 8 Mpix dSLR on one of these cheaper
bodies.

Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kii/page18.asp and scroll down for
the 'Luminance Noise Graph' ... basically what it says is the Mark II noise at
800 is about the same as the 10D at 400, and the M II at 400 is about the same
as the 10D at 200. At any given ISO the Mark II is better than the other
cameras shown (Nikon D2H, Canon 1Ds, Canon 1D, Canon 10D).

If you want to see a couple of samples look at these I shot yesterday ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotogra...z_crop_usm.jpg (600x400 actual pixels
crop, if the file were printed 30x45" this is what 5x7.5" worth of detail would
look like on my screen)
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/liz.jpg (the full image after
downsampling for the web, the crop was just of the eye area)

http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm_det.jpg another 100% crop, this
shows how smooth the background is at ISO 250 ... this and the first shot were
taken at 1,000 mm (500 f/4 w/ 2x converter) and this one shows how quickly it
autofocuses, catching a hummer in mid-air.
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm.jpg (full frame shot reduced about
5x, the crop was of the head)

I took 11 shots of the hummer and 9 were in focus and sharp.

Any camera that can AF on a hovering hummingbird with a 1,000 mm lens (1,300 mm
equivalent 35 mm FOV) is OK by me

One more and I'll stop bragging about this camera ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotogra...ve_blossom.jpg .. this one prints
beautifully at 12x18", as good as or slightly better than scanned 35mm film.

Bill


  #2  
Old July 9th 04, 12:45 AM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

From: (Carol R)

With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
400 noise begins to be a factor.


My wife has a 10D and after testing it for noise I would agree with your
numbers, 200 looks good and 400 doesn't (for good sized prints and our tastes).

The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
noise at higher ISO speeds.


Just got one of these a couple weeks ago and it's a great camera. Haven't
tested for noise above 320 yet but at 320 it's better than the 10D at 200.

I am close to opting for this camera if
this is true. Now I hear there will be new releases from Canon in
Sept so I want to wait for that.


No way they'll replace the Mark II that quickly (it's still in short supply)
but it would be wonderful if they used the same 8 Mpix sensor in a lower price
camera, either on the Elan body (10D Mark II?) or even better on the EOS-3 body
(3D?). Unless you need the super fast autofocus and frame rate of the Mark II
I'd wait a bit and see if they bring out an 8 Mpix dSLR on one of these cheaper
bodies.

Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kii/page18.asp and scroll down for
the 'Luminance Noise Graph' ... basically what it says is the Mark II noise at
800 is about the same as the 10D at 400, and the M II at 400 is about the same
as the 10D at 200. At any given ISO the Mark II is better than the other
cameras shown (Nikon D2H, Canon 1Ds, Canon 1D, Canon 10D).

If you want to see a couple of samples look at these I shot yesterday ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotogra...z_crop_usm.jpg (600x400 actual pixels
crop, if the file were printed 30x45" this is what 5x7.5" worth of detail would
look like on my screen)
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/liz.jpg (the full image after
downsampling for the web, the crop was just of the eye area)

http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm_det.jpg another 100% crop, this
shows how smooth the background is at ISO 250 ... this and the first shot were
taken at 1,000 mm (500 f/4 w/ 2x converter) and this one shows how quickly it
autofocuses, catching a hummer in mid-air.
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm.jpg (full frame shot reduced about
5x, the crop was of the head)

I took 11 shots of the hummer and 9 were in focus and sharp.

Any camera that can AF on a hovering hummingbird with a 1,000 mm lens (1,300 mm
equivalent 35 mm FOV) is OK by me

One more and I'll stop bragging about this camera ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotogra...ve_blossom.jpg .. this one prints
beautifully at 12x18", as good as or slightly better than scanned 35mm film.

Bill


  #3  
Old July 9th 04, 03:13 PM
Bob Shomler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.


I have both 10D and D60 and use them in theatre photography where
frequently lighting on stage can be relatively dim. I use the noise
filtering in Adobe camera raw and sometines Neatimage to mitigate the
high iso - low lighting levels noise. I find the 10D to show about half
the noise of the D60: the 10D at 800 has noise range close to what I see
in the D60 at 400, and I can use the 10D at 1600 and get very usable
results (not my first choice but sometimes the only way to get the
shots). I'll really be looking forward to the Mark II (or its
technology in another body) if its noise characteristics are half of the
10D is these low light environments.

Bob Shomler
www.shomler.com
[email via web site]

  #4  
Old July 11th 04, 01:29 AM
Randall Ainsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
SD10 is at ISO 800...


The 10D looks better at 800 than your crappy Sigma is at 100.
  #5  
Old July 11th 04, 01:29 AM
Randall Ainsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
SD10 is at ISO 800...


The 10D looks better at 800 than your crappy Sigma is at 100.
  #6  
Old July 12th 04, 10:24 PM
Bart van der Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions


"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
SNIP
Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
compared to current technology...


Wrong again, as usual.

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...luma-noise.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...lumi_graph.gif
http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...ance-graph.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...lumi_graph.gif

Bart

  #7  
Old July 13th 04, 11:34 AM
Bart van der Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions


"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message

...
"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
SNIP
Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
compared to current technology...


Wrong again, as usual.


http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...luma-noise.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...lumi_graph.gif
http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...ance-graph.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...lumi_graph.gif

It's not an opinion...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original


A person with normal mental capabilities understands that you cannot compare
a 4064x2704 pixel camera JPEG image with a 2268x1512 pixel RAW processed
image at the pixel level (clue: different output magnification and data
processing).
Also recheck the Luminance charts above (the ones you snipped out of your
response).

Bart

  #8  
Old July 13th 04, 03:24 PM
Randall Ainsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

The 10D is an absolute mess at ISO 800. It's completely unusable at
ISO 400...


Again, take the exact opposite of what you say and you'll be pretty
close to the truth. Truth is, you don't know ****.

It's a very P&S like DSLR in this regard. Even Phil's brilliantly lit
(a bone thrown to his biggest cash cow) ISO 800 Canon 10D demo images
are heinous...


Uh-huh. Compared to your crappy Sigma, the Canon at ASA 800 *SMOKES*
your pitiful Sigma.

The 10D is also extrememly noisy at ISO 100, compared to Foveon.
Especially considering you have to underexpose to avoid sharply blown
highlites. But it is an average Bayer DSLR in terms of noise. While
the even more ancient Canon 1Ds is a truly horrid performer with
respect to noise, even for a Bayer, and even at ISO 100...


Compared to a 10D at any speed, it's a wonder Sigma and Foveon are
still in business.
  #9  
Old July 13th 04, 05:37 PM
Brian C. Baird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

In article ,
says...
It's not an opinion...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original

You're right. It's a fabrication.
  #10  
Old July 13th 04, 05:37 PM
Brian C. Baird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

In article ,
says...
It's not an opinion...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original

You're right. It's a fabrication.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stabilization Effectiveness Canon S1 IS vs Olympus 2100UZ? nesredep egrob Digital Photography 5 July 12th 04 04:02 AM
Which lens for wedding (Canon 300d) Joseph Meehan Digital Photography 11 July 8th 04 01:40 AM
Kenko Pro 300 3X TeleConvertor ... problem? w / Canon EOS BPR2 35mm Photo Equipment 0 June 27th 04 03:32 PM
Canon 1D Mark II starting to ship? Bill Hilton Digital Photography 9 June 24th 04 04:25 PM
Review of Canon 1D Mark II Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 0 March 29th 04 09:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.