low light no flash pictures taken with 5d mk ii -- HIGH ISO--

[shortpballer]

I was amazed at the pictures this thing takes at high ISO. This was an event I shot in downtown. I think these examples were taken with the 35mm 1.4L. Not anything artistic obviously. Just showing you guys the ISO performance on this baby.

 

[jnm]

very nice, esp. #1!... what were the full stats on iso, shutter, and aperture?

 

[syphlix]

man you've acquired a lot of nice gear in a pretty short time... i'm slightly jealous lol

 

[Derrel]

The single woman at the top was shot at ISO 1600 with a 35mm lens at f/2 at 1/30 second, while the trio was shot at ISO 1000 at f/2.5 and 1/85 second. Both shots are a bit underexposed, according to their histograms, but you know, both files have a LOT of "malleability" in them, meaning it's easy to lift the curves, and re-work the files a bit, with the files holding together and not "falling apart".

A few years ago, that type of malleability, as many call it, was not present in the JPEG images of many cameras...JPEGs used to be somewhat thin an frail,and you could not alter them much without the quality heading to Hades.

And yeah, I've noticed you've been picking up some first-rate equipment very rapidly...pretty soon you're gonna rival VI as far as top drawer Canon gear.

 

[bigtwinky]

*droooool*

I can so see my Rebel's 1600 ISO is somewhat lacking...hell, its 800 is somewhat lacking...the 400 can work well.

I'm thinking those are at 3200?

 

[shortpballer]

*droooool*

I can so see my Rebel's 1600 ISO is somewhat lacking...hell, its 800 is somewhat lacking...the 400 can work well.

I'm thinking those are at 3200?

They were at 1600 and 1000. But at 3200 it works well too

 

[shortpballer]

I traded my car for another car plus cash in order to afford a lot of the equipment I have. Yes I traded the lotus...

 

[ErectedGryphon]

Very nice functionality, what I would like to see, and you seem to have the capability, is a comparison of the 5D and the 5D MarkII.

Same seen with all the same settings, is 1600 iso on the MarkII any better than the 1600 iso on the original 5D.

My 5D is 3 years old, and I'm happy with it so I won't be upgrading any time soon (the shutter might wear out before I replace it). I would just like to see if there is much differance other than megapixel.

 

[shortpballer]

Very nice functionality, what I would like to see, and you seem to have the capability, is a comparison of the 5D and the 5D MarkII.

Same seen with all the same settings, is 1600 iso on the MarkII any better than the 1600 iso on the original 5D.

My 5D is 3 years old, and I'm happy with it so I won't be upgrading any time soon (the shutter might wear out before I replace it). I would just like to see if there is much differance other than megapixel.

Its not even close... When I get my 5d back from canon I will do this for you. However I can tell you now that the 5d iso performance is not EVEN close to the 5dii

 

[DScience]

*droooool*

I can so see my Rebel's 1600 ISO is somewhat lacking...hell, its 800 is somewhat lacking...the 400 can work well.

I'm thinking those are at 3200?

They were at 1600 and 1000. But at 3200 it works well too

Sorry but 1600 and 1000 aren't that high. Try 3200 & 6400 and repost.

 

[inTempus]

ISO 1600 looks clean on even a 50D.

Here's an ISO 6400 shot taken a couple of days ago in my office to prove to a user on another board that ISO 6400 was indeed usable out of a 5D2. He claimed anything over ISO 3200 was "useless".

ISO 6400
F/2.8
1/100

No noise reduction, shot in RAW and exported to JPG using Lightroom. As always, it's all about nailing the exposure if you want clean images.

EDIT: I'm hosting on SmugMug and the exif is stripped. Here's the exif data: