I don't really know when the newer cameras start looking good (which, of
course, is very subjective). Although I called the 5D's ISO 3200 noisy
it's probably much better than the Minolta A1's ISO 400 or maybe even
200. As to quality I just take my cues from the way that Canon ISO
selection works.
The 5D has a normal ISO range of 100-1600 selectable within 1/3 stop
increments. It will also do 50 or 3200 but they are not labeled as
such. They are labeled "L" and "H". To be able to use them at all they
must be deliberately enabled by a custom function setting and there are
no 1/3 stop increments between 50 and 100 or 1600 and 3200. This
deliberate custom function setting requirement says to me something
like: "We really don't want you to go there but, if you insist, we'll
allow it and you agree to accept the risk."
I've never seen high ISO images from a 5D Mk II but the Mk II increased
the definition of "normal" ISO range by 2 stops from 100-1600 to
100-6400. It also has an expanded range that must be selected via
custom function. It has an L = 50 setting but adds 2 high settings, H1
= 12,800 and H2 = 25,600. I have assumed that the 5D Mk II's 6400 is as
good as the 5D's 1600 but do not know that for sure. A 2 stop
improvement was not enough to make me jump but a 3 stop improvement
(that I believed) probably would. For the few times I've been forced to
use 3200 it's usually OK but subject motion can be a problem. I've
concluded that a 3 stop improvement would allow a fast enough shutter
speed to avoid the motion blur. It would also help compensate for my
lack of IS lenses.
There is another clue to noise levels in the Canon full auto modes. The
5D's full auto mode automatically selects ISO but limits the range to
100-400. The 5D Mk II's auto ISO range has been increased to 100-3200.
Since only JPEGs are allowed in full auto mode I'm not sure that's an
improved sensor development or just better noise reduction firmware.
The Nikon D3 matches the 5D Mk II's ISO ranges except that it starts at
ISO 200 rather than 100 and allows 1/3 stop increments over higher
ranges. The Nikon's low range only goes down to ISO 100 rather than 50.
That's a drawback for a flash user trying to do fill flash in bright sun.
The D4 offers normal ISO range of 100-12,800 which is extendable from 50
– 204,800. The 50 offering helps solve the fill flash problem for Nikon
users. If the 5D Mk III also offers 12,800 in its normal range that may
be exactly the 3 stop improvement I'm looking for.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/7/2012 1:10 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> That's interesting, Chuck. I had thought that the 5D was the stage
> at which high-ISO shots were much easier to use. At what camera
> stage does Canon (or Nikon) start looking good with 3,200 or 6,400?
>
> Chris
>
> On 7 Jan 2012, at 03:06, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> The 5D Mk II didn't offer enough to get me to change. Maybe the Mk
>> III will but who knows when that's coming or what it will be. What
>> will tempt me will be truly high ISO. I'd probably jump at
>> something that gave me ISO 12,800 with quality equal to the 5D's
>> ISO 1600 (3 stops more). The 5D does go to 3200 but gets pretty
>> noisy at that level.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|