Issue with Color noise @ 1000 Iso Canon 5D MarkII, 50mm f1.4, jpg.

elrafo · Jan 22, 2009

PEACE DearLeader !

I think you are saying the same things with different words...
if you could on film push exposure by 4 stops, we have to be carefull now in Digital not to clip our HL informations. underexposing is also coming with noise issue.
IMO, taking right pictures with films is easier, except that we don't have a live preview, and a 3200 Iso film is way to grainy

JerryPH · Jan 22, 2009

dEARlEADER said:
Watching you dance around exposing the right is almost humorous. Jerry, thousands of digital photographers expose to right as common practise. Thousands of digital photographers call this EXPOSING TO THE RIGHT. Your stubborn attempt at renaming/rebranding this technique is lunacy.

Having a bad day? You seem to be going from thread to thread targeting me specifically. Not that I mind a fan club or anything... but I'm sorry, nothing you say has any meaning to me and I find your outbust humorous at best.

I am not "rebranding" anything. You may continue doing things as you wish, and I shall as well in my own way. If you prefer to use jurrassic methods to get your prints, you are more than encouraged to do so. Me, I will do it my way, and shall be quite happy with it as well.

I hope your day gets a little better... seems you really need it.

Village Idiot · Jan 22, 2009

Why's it always gotta be about dinosaurs?

elrafo · Jan 22, 2009

this guy is not a Dino: http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/
he is one of the best photographer of the 21th century, and still shooting with a Sinar 8x10 film

Garbz · Jan 22, 2009

ISO1000 says it all. If you wanted a low noise image for high ISOs you should have looked at cameras with low pixel densities, and not high ones. The Canon 5D MkII has almost the same pixel density as the noise horrid D200.

elrafo · Jan 22, 2009

I owned a D200, and I can tell you that up to 640-800 Iso, my pictures were useless. Noise at 1600 was terrible.

I have seen some great shots done at Iso 3200 on a 5d Mark II, maybe I have to spend more time adjusting my cam image profile, or get a better copy of this model ...

...and yes maybe I would have been better to wait for the D700x

dEARlEADER · Jan 22, 2009

JerryPH said:
If you prefer to use jurrassic methods to get your prints, you are more than encouraged to do so. Me, I will do it my way, and shall be quite happy with it as well.

If you consider a shooting technique that maximizes your sensors tonal ability to render an image to be jurrassic then yes.... we are very far apart...

oh well...:coffee:

Village Idiot · Jan 22, 2009

Garbz said:
ISO1000 says it all. If you wanted a low noise image for high ISOs you should have looked at cameras with low pixel densities, and not high ones. The Canon 5D MkII has almost the same pixel density as the noise horrid D200.

Did you not see my 5D MKII shot at 4000 ISO a few post up? It looks better than most APS-C sensor cameras at 1600 ISO.

The D200 also has a CCD sensor which is horrible for controlling noise in comparison to a CMOS sensor. That's why Canon was always praised as the leader in high ISO performance between Canon and Nikon. Nikon started using CMOS sensors and you can see an improvement.

tsaraleksi · Jan 22, 2009

Garbz said:
ISO1000 says it all. If you wanted a low noise image for high ISOs you should have looked at cameras with low pixel densities, and not high ones. The Canon 5D MkII has almost the same pixel density as the noise horrid D200.

Someone's had their head in the sand.

Garbz · Jan 23, 2009

Village Idiot said:
Did you not see my 5D MKII shot at 4000 ISO a few post up? It looks better than most APS-C sensor cameras at 1600 ISO.

No, but given the high megapixels noise is also less visible. It may look just the same if zoomed at 100% but I am guessing here. I haven't seen them.

Village Idiot said:
The D200 also has a CCD sensor which is horrible for controlling noise in comparison to a CMOS sensor. That's why Canon was always praised as the leader in high ISO performance between Canon and Nikon.

Just plain wrong. Sensor type has nothing to do with SNR. It's all about implementation.

tsaraleksi said:
Someone's had their head in the sand.

Yeah quite possibly. Or maybe the fact that most ISO1000 image I have seen after noise reduction looks like the OP's post lead me to that conclusion. That and the fact that RAW images from the camera at ISO1000 still exhibit noise, and that poor noise reduction algorithms lead to colour blothches like that.

To the OP, what noise reduction are you using? In camera NR? The one with Canon's software? Photoshop? Try using a different noise reduction software, or try turning it off completely before you start blaming your camera.

Sw1tchFX · Jan 23, 2009

You're shooting at ISO1000, that's why you have noise, I shoot on a D700 and when I set it to ISO 1000, I also get noise, Go Figure!!

I think you're being way too critical, you print that picture anything smaller then 20x30 and you wont' see the noise unless you're 2 inches away from it, and if you're scrutinizing the detail THAT much, shoot LF film.

Village Idiot · Jan 23, 2009

Garbz said:
No, but given the high megapixels noise is also less visible. It may look just the same if zoomed at 100% but I am guessing here. I haven't seen them.

Just plain wrong. Sensor type has nothing to do with SNR. It's all about implementation.

Yeah quite possibly. Or maybe the fact that most ISO1000 image I have seen after noise reduction looks like the OP's post lead me to that conclusion. That and the fact that RAW images from the camera at ISO1000 still exhibit noise, and that poor noise reduction algorithms lead to colour blothches like that.

To the OP, what noise reduction are you using? In camera NR? The one with Canon's software? Photoshop? Try using a different noise reduction software, or try turning it off completely before you start blaming your camera.

Apparently you just post and don't read...

Village Idiot said:
ISO 4000

No NR, RAW, completely acceptable.

Compare.

dEARlEADER · Jan 23, 2009

Village Idiot said:
Apparently you just post and don't read...

Why is always about reading?

Village Idiot · Jan 23, 2009

dEARlEADER said:
Why is always about reading?

Ken Rockwell is a joke. That's all I have to say about that.

NateWagner · Jan 23, 2009

Ok, I have a question for y'all...

I remember on the 40d etc. when they came out, and we were able to set the camera to half stop ISO's and the like the off ISO's (such as 600, rather than the 100,200,400,800,1600 etc.) were noisier. Is that still the case or has that been fixed with the camera?

At the time I believe a 1200ish shot would have more noise than a 1600 shot... thus I'm wondering if this could be part of the "problem"

I don't know about this, but I wanted to throw it out there.