It's certainly a fake ISO if it's called "L" and you have to enable it
in custom settings.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/7/2012 1:49 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> If I read the graphs correct, the 5D mkII is never two stops better then
> the 5D, I'd say mostly under 1 stop, in the 3200 region slightly over 1
> stop. Actually, I'm quite surprised that in the iso range both cameras
> share, the differences are not too big. The 5D mkII has a bigger range
> of
> ISO values though.
>
> Best, Frank.
>
> Just a quick caveat comparing noise. I recall with the 5D classic
> the "native" ISO's were 100, 400, 800 .... The others were
> interpolated with ISO 160 for example using 200 and
> software adjusted-- with sometimes worse performance than a higher
> "native" ISO. I quickly looked for the link I had posted a few years
> ago with no success. The 5DII perhaps behaves a bit differently.
> The better noise at ISO 160 may just reflect better ETTR though. DR at
> ISO 50 suffers a bit and it is likely a "fake" ISO too.
>
> Mike
>
> PS I recall Moose always saying that he avoided the intermediate ISO's
> and that is good practice.
>
> http://terragalleria.com/blog/2011/03/22/best-iso-for-low-noise-on-canon-5d-mk2/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|