5D Canon is a noisey camera

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris Loffredo wrote:

Not always.

I'm just saying that good lenses don't need to be stopped down to f/8.0
to produce "a sharp image".

Very good fast lenses are often better at f/5.6 than at f/8.0
(diffraction already being stronger at that point than the lens' other
abberations).

There are lenses that are sharper opened up wider then f/8, mostly
primes. But even shooting with a prime I will often shoot at f/8 just
for the DOF. Unlike the OP, I have not found a problem using ISO 800.
True I am running a 20D but the tests I have seen pretty much match the
noise performace of the 20D and the 5D.

I use prime lenses when needed but if I can use a zoom lens I will.

Of course when I was shooting film I would not dream of shooting iso
800.


It's an issue at all if you shoot medium-format. But then, you're just not
happy if you can't get a dig in against film, are you.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

It's an issue at all if you shoot medium-format. But then, you're just not
happy if you can't get a dig in against film, are you.


I think you meant to say "not an issue" but I knew what you meant.

I am not above putting in a dig against film from time to time, but
then I get a lot more digs against digital so I don't feel too bad
about it. But in this case I did not really mean it as a dig. What I
was trying to say was that there was a time that shooting iso 800 was
something that you only did if you could not help it, but now it is no
big deal. We have to get recalibrate about what iso means what. That
the OP got so much noise at iso 800 is a surprise.

As for high iso not being an issue with MF I would think it would be
much less of an issue give the larger film size. But I would also
think more people shooting MF would want to get as much out of it as
they can. I would bet that the ratio of ISO 100 to ISO 800 sold in 120
format is larger then it is for 35mm. When you shoot MF what ISO do
you tend to use?

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:

Scott W wrote:

DuffMomma wrote:


who shoots F8 @ 800iso?


I do all the time with the 20D. I don't see anything like the noise
the OP seems to be seeing when I shoot at iso 800. If you want a bit
DOF or just a sharp image f/8 is a good place to be shooting.

You must have some wonderful lenses...
; )


Most lenses are sharper at f/8 then faster f numbers, but then you knew
this.

Scott


Sadly, this camera is like the 2, before it from Canon. It has a back
focus problem. At distances under about 1 metre, the thing focuses 4"
(about 100mm) forward of the focus point. All my lenses are the same and
I don't seem to be able to get anywhere near a crisp image even with
manual focus. No way the camera is going back to Canon with 3 week
turnaround quoted so I'll just keep the aperture small if I use this
camera again over Christmas.

I sold a 20D because of the many quirky little problems it had. Like
switching off when I changed a lens and never coming back on for days at
a time and it too had a back focus error almost as bad as this one has.

The Nikon D2X I replaced the 20D with eats the 5D for sharpness but
suffers a lot more from heat stress than the Canon's do. My swag of
Olympus E300s produce noise like this Canon does at ISO 400 and they
"really" do suffer from heat stress in the extreme. They also are the
absolutely sharpest picture takers I have -- For about 15 minutes after
you take 'em out of the refrigerator!

I guess the 5D is no worse than any other consumer camera and the Full
frame sensor allows me to forgive some of it's quirks. I will be going
back to Canon first day of next year. Way too expensive to have this
many problems this early in it's like. The bright side is that Canon AU
do a good job of fixing the things.

--
Anonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google
are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and
every poster's name for all eternity.
How big is big brother, for Christ sake?

wrote:
anonomous individual is a lousey speler


Only when you read with radioactivation turned off :-)
My English is not your American *******ized version. Color really is
*Colour* in real English as spoken by the English and their descendants,
embraced nations and colonial outposts.

Sadly this Mozilla news reader I'm using is even worse at spelling
corrections than I ma. - now whatch it leave that in place.

The errors on the web page have been corrected. Thank you for your
vigilance. Not quite up to my Troll's level yet but keep trying and
you'll get there.


--
Anonymously I post, knowing Microsoft and Google
are recording ever keystroke, every source IP and
every poster's name for all eternity.
How big is big brother, for Christ sake?

Malcolm Stewart wrote:

"anonomous individual" wrote in message
...
Who said the 5D from Canon was a low noise camera?
Certainly when you combine moderately high (for a Canon DSLR) ISO 800
and low light, the camera doesn't like it one Iota. Easy to fool
autofocus too! Pictures, EXIF data and more on the subject at:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ISO2high.htm

If I'm reading his notes correctly, the shots were taken in an ambient of
36degC and 78% humidity. Thankfully, I'm not likely to use my 5D in
temperatures as high as that - highest normal temp I see is around 28degC.
(For RAW, I use BreezeBrowser which uses the Canon SDK.)

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

As far as I am aware, semiconductor noise is proportional to temperature
in degrees Kelvin. 28 deg. Celcius is 301 K, and 36 C is 309 K, a
proportional difference of 2.66%, probably negligible in terms of noise
increase.

Colin D.

Colin D wrote:

As far as I am aware, semiconductor noise is proportional to temperature
in degrees Kelvin. 28 deg. Celcius is 301 K, and 36 C is 309 K, a
proportional difference of 2.66%, probably negligible in terms of noise
increase.

Colin D.

Dark current goes can rise very fast with temperature, I don't know
if this is an issue with the CMOS sensor or not. It rarely gets above
30 C here so I don't know how the 20D would do at 35. There are
covered photo sites to help compensate for dark current but any extra
current will mean more noise.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:

Not always.

I'm just saying that good lenses don't need to be stopped down to f/8.0
to produce "a sharp image".

Very good fast lenses are often better at f/5.6 than at f/8.0
(diffraction already being stronger at that point than the lens' other
abberations).


There are lenses that are sharper opened up wider then f/8, mostly
primes.

That's exactly what I'm talking about - excellent primes! (Y'know, those
lenses you don't have to use at f/8.0 for decent results)

But even shooting with a prime I will often shoot at f/8 just
for the DOF.

As often as much I'll choose NOT to have much DOF and choose the opening
accordingly..
I guess always having *everything* in focus is a digital shooter's thing...
; )


I use prime lenses when needed but if I can use a zoom lens I will.

No surprise that you "need" to stop down to f/8.0 (or f/11.0) for a
"sharp image".

Of course when I was shooting film I would not dream of shooting iso
800.

I hardly ever shoot ISO 800 film: I have some nice lenses which at f/1.4
are better than most other lenses at f/4.0...
: )
And for availble light I simply choose a camera which doesn't suffer
from mirror slap (or I use a tripod).


As you see yet again, there is far more than one approach (or
philosophy) in photography.

Chris Loffredo wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:

Not always.

I'm just saying that good lenses don't need to be stopped down to f/8.0
to produce "a sharp image".

Very good fast lenses are often better at f/5.6 than at f/8.0
(diffraction already being stronger at that point than the lens' other
abberations).


There are lenses that are sharper opened up wider then f/8, mostly
primes.

That's exactly what I'm talking about - excellent primes! (Y'know, those
lenses you don't have to use at f/8.0 for decent results)

But even shooting with a prime I will often shoot at f/8 just
for the DOF.

As often as much I'll choose NOT to have much DOF and choose the opening
accordingly..
I guess always having *everything* in focus is a digital shooter's thing...
; )
I will also open up the lens to reduce DOF, but often I need more then
what shooting at f/4 will give me. Hell I have even shot at f/22 when
needed.



I use prime lenses when needed but if I can use a zoom lens I will.

No surprise that you "need" to stop down to f/8.0 (or f/11.0) for a
"sharp image".

Of course when I was shooting film I would not dream of shooting iso
800.

I hardly ever shoot ISO 800 film: I have some nice lenses which at f/1.4
are better than most other lenses at f/4.0...
: )
And for availble light I simply choose a camera which doesn't suffer
from mirror slap (or I use a tripod).
Mirror slap is normally not was much of a problem as people who are
moving. I am pretty good holding the camera still, better then people
are at holding still while I shoot the photos.

As you see yet again, there is far more than one approach (or
philosophy) in photography.

True, but then it was not me who was saying otherwise. It seemed that
I was attacked for the sin of shooting at f/8 of all things. I don't
believe I have ever given someone a hard time for shooting at f/1.4.

Scott

Scott W wrote:

True, but then it was not me who was saying otherwise. It seemed that
I was attacked for the sin of shooting at f/8 of all things. I don't
believe I have ever given someone a hard time for shooting at f/1.4.



No, just for using film...

Who said the 5D from Canon was a low noise camera?
Certainly when you combine moderately high (for a Canon
DSLR) ISO 800 and low light, the camera doesn't like it
one Iota. Easy to fool autofocus too! Pictures, EXIF data
and more on the subject at:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ISO2high.htm



As per the other thread, I'm betting the image is underexposed, like
the last time he posted a similar complaint.

Histogram?

Full image?

No valid interpretation is possible without those.