Hey Canon! ISO, ISO, ISO, ISO. ISO!

Nikon's D700 boasts ISO 200 – 6400: extensible up to 25600 (equivalent) and down to ISO 100 (equivalent). The D700 body is, I understand, about three grand.

Canon, you want (another) three grand from me?

Match, or beat, those ISO specs with a camera body that'll take my Canon EF glass, and I'll write the check the same day you ship the camera body. Done deal. FF or C sensor, I prefer the latter, but I'd buy a FF if it had that kind of honest, usable ISO performance.

The 40D's ISO 1600 isn't enough for this guy. It's close -- but I'm definitely looking for more. Nikon's really, really tempting me here, but I have a load of Canon glass, and of course that tends to make one stop and think.

Sigh.

Fall 2008? 50D? ISO 6400?

Here's hoping...

I don't do much (well nothing) with Nikon, But I thought all modes over 1600 were obtained in similar fashion to pushing in Post-Production. I'm just throwing that out there... I could be completely wrong.

Here's a ISO800 Sigma pushed to 6400 by Carl Rytterfalk:
http : farm3.static.flickr.com/2206/2261850476_fcc4213a0e_o.jpg

Well, according to the spec, they have real up to 6,400, and pushed up to 25,600 (!)

I'm not all that interested in the pushed modes, they're noisy as heck, but a sensor that can provide a high amplitude, low noise output at 6400... that , I am interested in.

Price?

It'll be useless without autofocus improvement

I may be making the jump to Nikon, although I prefer the Canon lens line up. I just really could use that higher ISO!

I think I'm going to wait a bit, because at my age my learning curve has steepened. haha (Or maybe I'm just getting lazy.) However, if Canon doesn't come out with something better in the next few months, I'm going to leap over to the other side.

Not when a 'real' ISO1600 on my Canon G9 is noisier than a ISO800 raw file pushed to 1600 in post. (this proved by controlled experimentation by another G9 user, which thread I sadly can not find at the moment.)

Try underexposing your ISO3200 ('H' is just as real an ISO3200 to me as its image quality) by 3 stops. You might like the results

Judge the 'realness' of an ISO rating not by the manufacturer's claim of whether it is 'boosted' or not, but by its image quality.

fyngyrz said:

Well, according to the spec, they have real up to 6,400, and pushed
up to 25,600 (!)

I'm not all that interested in the pushed modes, they're noisy as
heck, but a sensor that can provide a high amplitude, low noise
output at 6400... that , I am interested in.

Click to expand...

I used to use Nikon film cameras but switched to Canon for digital. I am seriously considering putting my Canon dslr cameras and lenses on ebay and going back to Nikon if Canon dont get off their duffs and up the ISO capability of the xxd lineup. I am using 2 20Ds and a 5D, and several L lenses. I will be watching Canon for the next year, then I will make a move.
--

Please speak slowly and distinctly. I have a wife, and a computer. I dont need any more confusion in my life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to be a nude photographer, but when I went outside naked everyone pointed and laughed, so I gave it up.

LOL- True.

Just go Nikon... it's really the way to go... pick your tools wisely.

Any camera is capable of capturing a great image.. but you said it yourself.. your 40D is lacking for you... the D700 will give you true ISO 6400... Everyone needs to give Nikon credit for their hard work... they really do have Canon beat down to a powder...

focal said:

It'll be useless without autofocus improvement

Click to expand...

--
'Procrastinate now, don't put it off.'

'Vista is the ME of our generation.' - John C. Dvorak

Let's get a little bit real here, folks. You get high ISO by having big photon wells. Oh, there are some other factors and some fairly small differences between different sensor designs, with the best all-else-held-equal performers being, almost every time, the latest, most advanced designs, but we are talking pretty minor stuff here. The big differences come from the main factor: size of the sensor element.

If you have a big sensor with a (relatively) small number of pixels, you have good high ISO performance. Size matters. This is why the best ISO performers, without exception, are the ones with the lowest pixel count relative to sensor size. The D3, D700, and 5D have big sensors and only 12MP, which is why these are the best high ISO performers around. The D3/D700 sensor is three to four years newer than the elderly 5D sensor, and gains about one stop in high ISO, perhaps a little less than that. The 1D III sensor has significantly smaller pixels (10MP but a smaller sensor) but, like the D3/D700, it is a much newer design and thus more efficient. It too is an excellent high ISO performer, equal to or a little better than the 5D.

There is no reason to think that a 5D made with today's technology and 12MP would not at least equal the D3/D700 and almost certainly pass it by a small margin. In reality, it's a fair bet that the 5D replacement will hold the line on high ISO performance or improve only modestly, but achieve a significant step forward in detail resolution through higher pixel count.

You can't have both. You can can sacrifice high ISO to get resolution,or you can sacrifice resolution to get high ISO, or you can steer a middle path. Those are your choices. There are no other choices: physics is physics.

fyngyrz said:

Nikon's D700 boasts ISO 200 – 6400: extensible up to 25600
(equivalent) and down to ISO 100 (equivalent). The D700 body is, I
understand, about three grand.

Canon, you want (another) three grand from me?

Match, or beat, those ISO specs with a camera body that'll take my
Canon EF glass, and I'll write the check the same day you ship the
camera body. Done deal. FF or C sensor, I prefer the latter, but I'd
buy a FF if it had that kind of honest, usable ISO performance.

The 40D's ISO 1600 isn't enough for this guy. It's close -- but I'm
definitely looking for more. Nikon's really, really tempting me here,
but I have a load of Canon glass, and of course that tends to make
one stop and think.

Sigh.

Fall 2008? 50D? ISO 6400?

Here's hoping...

Click to expand...

No, here's singing!

A little filk, to the tune of Iko! Iko! and with no apologies whatsoever to the "Dixie Cups"

ISO! ISO!

My Nikon and your Canon, were sittin by the fire,
My Nikon told your Canon, I'll set your sensor on fire,

chorus -

Takin bout hey now, hey now
ISO! ISO! an de'

Jackomo fe no nan e'
Jackin' up ISO today

Look at my 5D, his days are past!
ISO! ISO! an de'
Three thousand dollars, the Nikon's so fast!
Jackomo fe nan e'

Takin bout hey now, hey now
ISO! ISO! an de'

Jackomo fe no nan e'
Jackin' up ISO today

See that CMOS is so clean,
ISO! ISO! an de'
He's the camera, he's a lovin machine!
Jackomo fe no nan e'

Takin bout hey now, hey now
ISO! ISO! an de'

Jackomo fe no nan e'
Jackin' up ISO today

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

A little filk, to the tune of Iko! Iko! and with no apologies
whatsoever to the "Dixie Cups"

ISO! ISO!

My Nikon and your Canon, were sittin by the fire,
My Nikon told your Canon, I'll set your sensor on fire,

chorus -

Takin bout hey now, hey now
ISO! ISO! an de'

Jackomo fe no nan e'
Jackin' up ISO today

Look at my 5D, his days are past!
ISO! ISO! an de'
Three thousand dollars, the Nikon's so fast!
Jackomo fe nan e'

Takin bout hey now, hey now
ISO! ISO! an de'

Jackomo fe no nan e'
Jackin' up ISO today

See that CMOS is so clean,
ISO! ISO! an de'
He's the camera, he's a lovin machine!
Jackomo fe no nan e'

Takin bout hey now, hey now
ISO! ISO! an de'

Jackomo fe no nan e'
Jackin' up ISO today

Click to expand...

......Bah

You Nikon fellows were oh so dull and serious for the past several years but now it's time to sing and be merry. It'll be a long summer for us Canon folk until PMA. Save me Brian Wilson!

Tim in upstate NY said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

A little filk, to the tune of Iko! Iko! and with no apologies
whatsoever to the "Dixie Cups"

ISO! ISO!

My Nikon and your Canon, were sittin by the fire,
My Nikon told your Canon, I'll set your sensor on fire,

chorus -

Takin bout hey now, hey now
ISO! ISO! an de'

Jackomo fe no nan e'
Jackin' up ISO today

Click to expand...

......Bah

You Nikon fellows were oh so dull and serious for the past several
years but now it's time to sing and be merry. It'll be a long summer
for us Canon folk until PMA. Save me Brian Wilson!

Click to expand...

Me? Serious? Me? "Sing and be merry" is who I am. Search dpReview for the word "filk"...

In those "past several years" of yours, I've done...

ISO! ISO!
M8 the Red Nosed Camaera
He's Not Heavy, He's My Nikon
As Time Goes By (A Zeiss Is Still A Zeiss)
If I Had A Leica Camera
Trollochrome
Will C. photos
Troll John B
Rawhide (Trollin, Trollin, Trollin)

And many others...

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

You Nikon fellows were oh so dull and serious for the past several
years but now it's time to sing and be merry. It'll be a long summer
for us Canon folk until PMA. Save me Brian Wilson!

Click to expand...

Me? Serious? Me? "Sing and be merry" is who I am. Search dpReview for
the word "filk"...

In those "past several years" of yours, I've done...

ISO! ISO!
M8 the Red Nosed Camaera
He's Not Heavy, He's My Nikon
As Time Goes By (A Zeiss Is Still A Zeiss)
If I Had A Leica Camera
Trollochrome
Will C. photos
Troll John B
Rawhide (Trollin, Trollin, Trollin)

And many others...

Click to expand...

....I've seen the rawhide one which was pretty good, but not the others. Got any links?

Tim in upstate NY said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Tim in upstate NY said:

You Nikon fellows were oh so dull and serious for the past several
years but now it's time to sing and be merry. It'll be a long summer
for us Canon folk until PMA. Save me Brian Wilson!

Click to expand...

Me? Serious? Me? "Sing and be merry" is who I am. Search dpReview for
the word "filk"...

In those "past several years" of yours, I've done...

ISO! ISO!
M8 the Red Nosed Camaera
He's Not Heavy, He's My Nikon
As Time Goes By (A Zeiss Is Still A Zeiss)
If I Had A Leica Camera
Trollochrome
Will C. photos
Troll John B
Rawhide (Trollin, Trollin, Trollin)

And many others...

Click to expand...

....I've seen the rawhide one which was pretty good, but not the
others. Got any links?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately not. I include the word "filk" in pretty much every post that I do with one of these weird songs. But the dpReview search engine is down at the moment, so I can't find the filk. First time I've seen the search down since the big upgrade...

But if you're wondering what "filk" is, the Wikipedia is still up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filk

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

....I've seen the rawhide one which was pretty good, but not the
others. Got any links?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately not. I include the word "filk" in pretty much every
post that I do with one of these weird songs. But the dpReview search
engine is down at the moment, so I can't find the filk. First time
I've seen the search down since the big upgrade...

But if you're wondering what "filk" is, the Wikipedia is still up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filk

Click to expand...

.....Thanks for that link. Learned something new!

FF sensor: 36x24mm = 864 mm2
C sensor: 22.5x15mm = 337 mm2
864/337 = 2.56 times the area for FF

40d is 10 mp
Nikon is 12 mp
ratio of 10/12 is .833....

.833 x 864mm2 = 720 mm2 for same number of sites (10mp)

720mm / 337mm = ratio of 2.13 for per-sensor cell size

2.13 x ISO 1600 = ISO 3400, a hair over double

But Nikon has reached ISO 6400, which is 4x.

So there's a lot more to it than sensor size.

Consequently, I'm expecting a performance increase. At least double to 3200. There are many other issues that are not specifically about photon collecting: read amp noise, thermal noise, sensor noise, a/d conversion noise, closer matching between the performance of sensor sites. If the noise goes down and the a/d can read small signals, that's the same as more ISO without otherwise changing the sensor. Just as one example.

Since Nikon has far outstripped the ratio of comparative areas in their 6400 ISO, they've figured some of this out. I can only assume that Canon's been working on it too.

At any rate, we will see.

Joseph - who knew composing & songwriting are part of your repertoire. Encore!

--
Best regards,
Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

I can actually live without the super high ISO's but wouldn't complain about it...definitely would like a real ISO 100.

Most important for me would be well placed AF points in addition to spread out robust AF points.

That's really all that I ask for! : )

I am a 5D user and my biggest dislike has been the clustered AF points w/ only the center point being robust.

--
Pak K So
'Enjoy your life, guy'

Joe0Bloggs said:

Not when a 'real' ISO1600 on my Canon G9 is noisier than a ISO800 raw
file pushed to 1600 in post. (this proved by controlled
experimentation by another G9 user, which thread I sadly can not find
at the moment.)

Click to expand...

The G9's 1600 is 800 digitally pushed, just like the 3200 on all the Canon DSLRs except the 1D3. It is not better or worse than 800 with -1 EC, except that 1600 has a stop less headroom.

Joe0Bloggs said:

Try underexposing your ISO3200 ('H' is just as real an ISO3200 to me
as its image quality) by 3 stops. You might like the results

Click to expand...

Joe0Bloggs said:

Judge the 'realness' of an ISO rating not by the manufacturer's claim
of whether it is 'boosted' or not, but by its image quality.

Click to expand...

There's no connection between ISO quality and ISO reality. ISO 1,000,000 means a grey card rendered as middle grey, shot under the sun at 1/1000000 second and F/16.

"ISO setting" does not equal "ISO exposure index".

Maybe what you really mean to say is that you care only about how useful an ISO setting is.

--
John