High ISO series from 5Dmk2

Dragos Nenciu said:

Sal Baker said:

Dragos Nenciu said:

Ok will get nowhere like this people that are convinced that 5dmk2 is
the next coming will have to wait for raw files to see what other
have already realized that the 5dmk2 high iso capability is just
strong in camera jpg NR.

Click to expand...

And the proof that the 5Dmk2 raw files will look bad is the fact that
no one has yet to see a raw file?

I don't think anyone has said the 5Dmrk2 is the next coming. Waiting
to see an actual raw file from a production camera before deciding
that raw files from a production camera are cr@ppy is not necessarily
a sign of brand worship.

Sal

Click to expand...

--

I totally agree is just that as was already discussed in other
threads the sensor in the 5dmk2 is pretty much the same as the 1dsmk3
with minor tweaks.

Click to expand...

Dragos Nenciu said:

What I see personally is a lot of heavy handed NR applied and you can
see from the color blotches in shadow areas even at iso 200 that the
iso performance is not much better than the 1dsmk3.

Click to expand...

Dragos Nenciu said:

We can certainly wait and see but I don't think the RAW files are
going to be much better than the 1dsmk3.

Click to expand...

Dragos Nenciu said:

I am not saying the 1dsmk3 is bad as it is not. Up to iso1600 it
holds it's own against the d3 but shadow detail suffers a bit even at
low iso.

At iso 3200 the d3 has a slight lead. All this is assuming you down
size the 1ds file to 12mpx.

Now this is very good performance as you have good high iso and much
higher res at low iso with good glass.

The only problem is that canon is doing with the 5dmk2 is what they
did with the 50d heavy handed NR just to be able to put on paper that
it supports iso6400+.

The other problem is that all the jpeg at low iso I have seen from
the 5dmk2 look bad plasticky and the detail smudged. This is the
biggest issue for me if it's a general image quality issue and not a
jpeg processing issue.

(by the way if you take the res # on dpreview for 1dsmk3 and d3 and
calculate the equivalent, the 1dsmk3 it's only the equivalent of an
18mpx sharper not 21. It's probably the lens used)

Click to expand...

davejp said:

genotypewriter said:

...
Umm... how can you make worthwhile conclusions from a test that you
yourself thought was done badly?
...

Click to expand...

Worthwhile conclusions? Then I wouldn't belong in this forum.

Agreed, RAW is required for final judgment. But you can make a good
assessment from jpeg quality. I compare my 5D jpeg's at ISO 3200 to
the so far available 5D MKII ISO 6400 samples,

Click to expand...

davejp said:

and I have been
disappointed so far every time. I was hoping the 5D MK II at 6400
would at least match the old 5D at ISO 3200. I'm thinking the 5D II
looks crippled by too many megapixels.

Click to expand...

davejp said:

Here's hoping for a RAW miracle. Maybe next round!

Click to expand...

Sezzi said:

...keep whining about how it's the 'same' sensor blablabla as the
1dsmkIII?

So, wait, they're giving me a chance to buy the IQ of the 8k $
flagship, for around 2600-2700 $, in a compact body... OH NOES!

--
nandeyanen!

Click to expand...

genotypewriter said:

Dragos Nenciu said:

Sal Baker said:

Dragos Nenciu said:

Ok will get nowhere like this people that are convinced that 5dmk2 is
the next coming will have to wait for raw files to see what other
have already realized that the 5dmk2 high iso capability is just
strong in camera jpg NR.

Click to expand...

And the proof that the 5Dmk2 raw files will look bad is the fact that
no one has yet to see a raw file?

I don't think anyone has said the 5Dmrk2 is the next coming. Waiting
to see an actual raw file from a production camera before deciding
that raw files from a production camera are cr@ppy is not necessarily
a sign of brand worship.

Sal

Click to expand...

--

I totally agree is just that as was already discussed in other
threads the sensor in the 5dmk2 is pretty much the same as the 1dsmk3
with minor tweaks.

Click to expand...

One of the more uninformed posts I've come across lately. Why do you
think it's the same sensor as the 1Ds3's? From the down to the pixel
resolution? Have you seen the Sony R1 bridge camera released in 2005
and how accurately it matches the resolution of the 40D? Does that
mean it's the same CMOS that's in the 40D?

I'm not going to bother explaining but if you've ever done anything
significant in your life you'd know that there's no evidence
suggesting that they're the same sensor. FWIW, Canon itself has said
that the sensor is different from the 1Ds3 and it will produce better
IQ.

genotypewriter said:

What I see personally is a lot of heavy handed NR applied and you can
see from the color blotches in shadow areas even at iso 200 that the
iso performance is not much better than the 1dsmk3.

Click to expand...

You talk like you did the tests... I've only heard such
fantasy-speculations in the Sony SLR forums.

genotypewriter said:

We can certainly wait and see but I don't think the RAW files are
going to be much better than the 1dsmk3.

Click to expand...

So the 5D2 is not the second coming but you're all-knowing.

genotypewriter said:

I am not saying the 1dsmk3 is bad as it is not. Up to iso1600 it
holds it's own against the d3 but shadow detail suffers a bit even at
low iso.

At iso 3200 the d3 has a slight lead. All this is assuming you down
size the 1ds file to 12mpx.

Now this is very good performance as you have good high iso and much
higher res at low iso with good glass.

The only problem is that canon is doing with the 5dmk2 is what they
did with the 50d heavy handed NR just to be able to put on paper that
it supports iso6400+.

The other problem is that all the jpeg at low iso I have seen from
the 5dmk2 look bad plasticky and the detail smudged. This is the
biggest issue for me if it's a general image quality issue and not a
jpeg processing issue.

(by the way if you take the res # on dpreview for 1dsmk3 and d3 and
calculate the equivalent, the 1dsmk3 it's only the equivalent of an
18mpx sharper not 21. It's probably the lens used)

Click to expand...

Someone doesn't even know how to read the results properly...

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Click to expand...

motopram said:

I don't know, 3200 is pretty much the same as on the 5D, that even
looks slightly worse. Not very impressive in one sense but the fact
this is done with a 21MP sensor is quite impressive.
http://flickr.com/photos/nrkbeta/2907341346/sizes/l/in/set-72157607660862630/

I think it will be the same story as with the 50D, you'll get higher
resolution sensor with higher ISO but with similar high ISO
performance to the 5D just as was the case with the 40D-50D. My only
concern is the low ISO performance, because on my 50D is was not good
at all, maybe to much attention had been put on getting a high spec
camera out and not enough into the 50D's IQ.

I doubt that will be the case with the 5D MK II though as they're
taking there time. This is Canon's baby and i think they'll get it
right before release. I just don't believe the ISO performance will
be better than the 5D, 1D/1Ds MK III.
--

Click to expand...

Bastian09 said:

If you take a look at the (blurred) ISO 160 (not 1600) pic, there is
a lot of noise!
I hope the photographer had a typo, else the iso performance is
unbelievable weak. Even weaker than my Canon 20D, which has no
visibile noise at iso 200.

Click to expand...

Ricari said:

A not-so-little-known-fact is that intermediate ISOs exhibit worse
noise perofmance than the standard "power of two" ISOs. Try comparing
the ISO 200 from the 5DII against your 20D and get back to us.

Click to expand...

Dragos Nenciu said:

I feel the same way but you will not convince some people until they
will see the raw files with there own eyes and even than they will
find excuses.

Click to expand...

Dragos Nenciu said:

motopram said:

I don't know, 3200 is pretty much the same as on the 5D, that even
looks slightly worse. Not very impressive in one sense but the fact
this is done with a 21MP sensor is quite impressive.
http://flickr.com/photos/nrkbeta/2907341346/sizes/l/in/set-72157607660862630/

I think it will be the same story as with the 50D, you'll get higher
resolution sensor with higher ISO but with similar high ISO
performance to the 5D just as was the case with the 40D-50D. My only
concern is the low ISO performance, because on my 50D is was not good
at all, maybe to much attention had been put on getting a high spec
camera out and not enough into the 50D's IQ.

I doubt that will be the case with the 5D MK II though as they're
taking there time. This is Canon's baby and i think they'll get it
right before release. I just don't believe the ISO performance will
be better than the 5D, 1D/1Ds MK III.
--

Click to expand...

--
I feel the same way but you will not convince some people until they
will see the raw files with there own eyes and even than they will
find excuses.

Click to expand...

Sal Baker said:

Dragos Nenciu said:

motopram said:

I don't know, 3200 is pretty much the same as on the 5D, that even
looks slightly worse. Not very impressive in one sense but the fact
this is done with a 21MP sensor is quite impressive.
http://flickr.com/photos/nrkbeta/2907341346/sizes/l/in/set-72157607660862630/

I think it will be the same story as with the 50D, you'll get higher
resolution sensor with higher ISO but with similar high ISO
performance to the 5D just as was the case with the 40D-50D. My only
concern is the low ISO performance, because on my 50D is was not good
at all, maybe to much attention had been put on getting a high spec
camera out and not enough into the 50D's IQ.

I doubt that will be the case with the 5D MK II though as they're
taking there time. This is Canon's baby and i think they'll get it
right before release. I just don't believe the ISO performance will
be better than the 5D, 1D/1Ds MK III.
--

Click to expand...

--
I feel the same way but you will not convince some people until they
will see the raw files with there own eyes and even than they will
find excuses.

Click to expand...

Why would we want to convince people of what they see before they see
it? If RAW files don't look good who cares if they find excuses.

I won't be convinced of anything until I see the 5DII's raw files
simply because I won't buy a camera until I know how it performs with
my workflow.

Sal

Click to expand...