Loving natural light - 5D2 iso handling
- Thread starter Hodders
- Start date
But I could have 2 5D2s for the cost
Plus the cost of replacing all my Canon lenses with Nikon ones.I would like a play with one at some point though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
I swear this forum is poluted by anti grain folk. You'll miss some of the most amazing moments you'll ever take worried about grain!
Love the grain!!
Glad you enjoy your 5D mate. Lets see some video huh? No one seems to post much on that front.
Love the grain!!
Glad you enjoy your 5D mate. Lets see some video huh? No one seems to post much on that front.
Depends on the grain. In general, digital grain is nothing compared to B&W film grain.
I may be biased but some Nikon Camera are known for making "nice" digital noise/"grain" since Nikon try to remove chroma noise which is visually disturbing and leave some of the luminance noise to keep details. Some of this noise is fine, depending on the end product of the photo. For some things noise is ok, for other uses even slight noise is disasterous.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
I usually compensate the digital noise with processed grain for an even effect.
The problem with the way Nikon NR is they loose detail by ND. Whereas with the canon you post process out the chroma - greater control, less immediacy. Suppose it depends on your needs...
Also I never really found the 5DII that special ISO wise. It wasn't better than a 1DIII! [nor the 1DsIII].
As was mentioned - the D3s and 1DIV are very impressive high ISO wise (1DIV Slightly better 100-1600, equal 3200-5000, D3s slightly better 6400-12000, at 25000 they are both pretty poor...
Also I never really found the 5DII that special ISO wise. It wasn't better than a 1DIII! [nor the 1DsIII].
As was mentioned - the D3s and 1DIV are very impressive high ISO wise (1DIV Slightly better 100-1600, equal 3200-5000, D3s slightly better 6400-12000, at 25000 they are both pretty poor...
I just wish I had the opportunity to use all the above. All I know is that it is loads better than my 40D at 1600!
1 stop maybe, but 2 stop? - doubt it.
The origional D3 was at least one stop better than the 5dmkII and the new 3Ds is unbeliebaly 1 stop better than the 3D
In all fairness though ones a 12MP camera the other is 21 odd!!
D.P. Is clrext about the improvement. 5000 on the 3s/IV is the same as 2000 on the 5DII. So that's 1 1/3rd of a stop...
IMO the IV is the most impressive here: 17 megapixels on a crop camera (pixels twice as dense as a d3s - yet still more or less matching the high iso - & beating it at medium ISO!!!!!
But the D3s is still an awesome camera.
D.P. Is clrext about the improvement. 5000 on the 3s/IV is the same as 2000 on the 5DII. So that's 1 1/3rd of a stop...
IMO the IV is the most impressive here: 17 megapixels on a crop camera (pixels twice as dense as a d3s - yet still more or less matching the high iso - & beating it at medium ISO!!!!!
But the D3s is still an awesome camera.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
Surely if the 5DII image was reduced to 12MP then it would kick it's backside?
For example my 7D looks slightly worse than my 40D at 100% but at 10MP it's amazing...
Last edited:
Why is it that whenever someone mentions a Canon 5D Mk II some chump starts quacking on about Nikon ?
Conversely, why is it that whenever someone mentions a D3 some chump starts quacking on about the 5D Mk II ?
In conclusion, you have to ask yourself about the motivation of 98% of the people quacking on about both bodies - who own neither a D3 or a 5D Mk II.
Nice shot, btw.
Conversely, why is it that whenever someone mentions a D3 some chump starts quacking on about the 5D Mk II ?
In conclusion, you have to ask yourself about the motivation of 98% of the people quacking on about both bodies - who own neither a D3 or a 5D Mk II.
Nice shot, btw.
