Reading mode: Light Dark

5DmkII, more RAW early conversions...

Go to last post
M

Magne Nilsen

Senior Member
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Trondheim, NO
Got them from the ftp below...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29939865
The prior thread seems to go full at 150 messages, so I'll start another...

Did a quick development using an unreleased converter (don't ask). Tonality and colors are not in any final stage, but still... Pretty impressed with the HI ISO too, most credited to the camera... here's a quick peek:



~~~~
Magne
 
Thanks for the images, much appreciated.

Very good for a 20+ Mpix camera - esp. compared to Sony A900.

However, the chroma noise is and loss of detail is very apparent at ISO6400, imho.

In darker areas - using other publicly available raw files - chroma-noise is even worse.

Ah well, here's waiting for that 12-14Mpix super low-noise Canon high-iso full frame dSLR with a working AF in low light using fast lenses.

I guess they are never going to build one for the masses :)
 
to my eye, real world high iso examples look even better than these studio test shots... but it probably is only the thing of jpeg + in-camera low NR thing.

compared to 5D mk I raw, noise is only a bit better. it has more detail, too, but from this crop i can not tell how much more.
 
oksamot said:
to my eye, real world high iso examples look even better than these
studio test shots... but it probably is only the thing of jpeg +
in-camera low NR thing.
Click to expand...
Hi, and thanks for sharing the images!

Your comments are probably true, the examples above was without Sharpening and Noise Reduction, something which I do not think is even possible to get from the camera-made JPGs... they are alwyas somewhat processed...
oksamot said:
compared to 5D mk I raw, noise is only a bit better. it has more
detail, too, but from this crop i can not tell how much more.
Click to expand...
I am impressed. This is a 21MP camera...

--
~~~~
Magne
 
halc said:
However, the chroma noise is and loss of detail is very apparent at
ISO6400, imho.
Click to expand...
Really? I was thinking just the opposite.

Where is the loss of detail very apparent? I am amazed as to how much detail is retained actually. The only thing I noticed was a loss in contrast, but that can be easily compensated for.

Look at the string detail. No loss at all. Toggle back and forth. It's all there. Whatever loss you are seeing may be from the noise masking the detail in subtle areas, but the detail is still there.

Chroma noise can be very easily removed with no impact to detail. Luma noise is different, unfortunately.
 
oksamot said:
I uploaded all the other files. Feel free to compare them all, any
opinion is welcome.

please remember that picture style hugely affected the mk I jpeg
files, so these are not comparable.

ftp://dpr:[email protected]/
Click to expand...
Thanks, got them, but will not have time to play more until Monday, since I am out of town this weekend. Will upload some full size conversion to a friend, and he will post links if need be...

Also had a quick look at the 5DmkII expanded 12800 and 25600 - which to me seems like pointless fakes for RAW shooters, but maybe OK for desperate JPG shooters... You can do the same using EV corrections, it is just multiplication math...

FWIW: I found the mkI ISO3200 and mkII ISO3200 very identical in terms of Noise, and that is impressive indeed, considering the double amount of pixels...

~~~~
Magne
 
Nice shots, it's very good of you to share.

I was thinking that I would not want to use ISO 3200 if I could avoid it at all, but it could be used. I would not want to use 6400.
I would love to see the same shots done with a D700 and A900 too.
 
Oh, why is it now that whenever someone complains about noise in a mkII image, you have to "take into consideration that its a 21mp camera"?
I wish it would not be a 21mp camera, and just produce amazing images.
 
that pixel level noise in a 21M pixel image is pretty hard to spot in anything less than a poster sized print? Trying to compare two cameras that differ markedly in resolution at a pixel level seems to be a trap that many have fallen into here. Forget individual pixels, what do the results look like for equal sized images?
Nicolaj Roos said:
Oh, why is it now that whenever someone complains about noise in a
mkII image, you have to "take into consideration that its a 21mp
camera"?
I wish it would not be a 21mp camera, and just produce amazing images.
Click to expand...
 
It seemed reasonably fast. However, if it gets hit by a lot of people, it will slow down. It will slow down half as much if there's another site serving the same files. Just trying to share the load.
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/

 
Thanks for the link(s). Not being a 5D or 1DsmkIII owner I am pretty impressed with the ISO 6400 shot. Was able to open it in C1 and it cleaned up very well and retained detail. If it was to be printed and not cropped, NR would not have been required I'm sure. Even cropped
--
Gil
 
Thanks for the images. The raw images do seem to be much more impressive than the jpegs, more than I would expect. Certainly ISO 3200 looks good. I cringe at iso 800 with my 40D, but I use it when I have to.

I cancelled my 50D order when some of the raw images and high iso jpegs started circulating because it wasn't the big step up from my 40D that I expected. The 5D MK II does seem to fill the bill, but only a final production camera will tell us for sure.
 
Nicolaj Roos said:
Oh, why is it now that whenever someone complains about noise in a
mkII image, you have to "take into consideration that its a 21mp
camera"?
Click to expand...
But I did not say that... I said: "I found the mkI ISO3200 and mkII ISO3200 very identical in terms of Noise, and that is impressive indeed, considering the double amount of pixels..."
Double amount of pixels, same Noise, that's a litte evolution...
Nicolaj Roos said:
I wish it would not be a 21mp camera, and just produce amazing images.
Click to expand...
I consider this a 21MP camera that produces amazing images.

~~~~
Magne
 
Geenine said:
Nice shots, it's very good of you to share.
I was thinking that I would not want to use ISO 3200 if I could avoid
it at all, but it could be used. I would not want to use 6400.
I would love to see the same shots done with a D700 and A900 too.
Click to expand...
Why would you not want to use ISO6400? It is 100% crop at 21MP. If you downsize that to 12MP it will look more cleaner than the ISO 3200.
 
oksamot said:
to my eye, real world high iso examples look even better than these
studio test shots... but it probably is only the thing of jpeg +
in-camera low NR thing.

compared to 5D mk I raw, noise is only a bit better. it has more
detail, too, but from this crop i can not tell how much more.
Click to expand...
If it is the same let alone better than the 5D at 21MP then it is waaaaay better.
 
Nicolaj Roos said:
Oh, why is it now that whenever someone complains about noise in a
mkII image, you have to "take into consideration that its a 21mp
camera"?
I wish it would not be a 21mp camera, and just produce amazing images.
Click to expand...
You could always resize or shoot sRAW1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top