Reading mode: Light Dark

1Ds is a noisy machine

Go to last post
Given that quote, I wouldn't know whether to think that the image had been manipulated in Photoshop or not. It doesn't say it was, so my initial inclination would be to say that it hadn't been.
Jason Hutchinson said:
I read the following:

"Fortunately, chroma noise is the easiest one to reduce in software.
Below is an image shot at ISO 400 for you to inspect. "

as... here's what software reduced chroma noise looks like, and
below is what you get right out of the camera.

No big cover up is it?
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Fred's 17-35/2.8 @ f/2.8 shot was clearly misfocused. Either that, or he had a VERY bad sample.

My 17-35 and 16-35 were very similar in sharpness. AFTER I had gone through two of the 16-35/s, and also figured out the problems I was having with focus.
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
No, I think this was an honest mistake. The test shot was not
focused properly and no one noticed.
Click to expand...
Maybe Fred should pull those pics too then
Adam-T said:
DavidP can tell you all about his tests of the same lenses.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'd be interested to see that as the 17-35L I tried wasn't
up to much and so far has been struck off the list as a possible
16-35L substitute

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60.

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
DavidMillier said:
Do they have libel laws where you come from?
Click to expand...
European and American laws are pretty indentical.
DavidMillier said:
If you accuse someone of being paid to lie about something you risk
impugning their professional reputation unless you can prove it in
court.The internet may encourage the frank expression of opinion
but it does not free anyone from liability for slander and libel!
Click to expand...
I know that.
 
Ned Bunnell said:
The word "cheat" has a very strong meaning and in no way should be
used to describe Fred's review which was extremely well written and
even-handed.
From your recent posts, I think the "truth" is you're over in the
Foveon Sigma camp and are trying to find any fault you can with
Canon's cmos design.
Click to expand...
Yes, I like Foveon, and film, but I'm not paid for this.
Ned Bunnell said:
Maybe you can get Al Gore or Jesse Jackson to support you?
Click to expand...
I don't like Gore.
 
Steven Noyes said:
When I looked at that top birds 100% crop yesterday, there were two
spots on the bird that looked out-of focus. One on the beak and the
other in the top right part of the head. Just on the border of the
background. And it is not there any more.

This is a standard aspect of many of my pictures so I recognized it
for that. The second bird had no filtering.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. ISO 400 doesn't look like the noise was masked, but I'm talking only about the first one (grey bird).
 
Member said:
I posted the wrong "Unsharpened 100% crop" version. That crop was
an edited version I was playing with. It was not supposed to be
there. I'm glad you catch the mistake. (which has been corrected
now)
Click to expand...
Pretty bad photoshoping.
Member said:
The default crop straight from the camera without any
sharpening/editing applied that should be there instead, was posted
below:



Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
I guess, the understanding is now found.
 
When you first put up your review, you stated ISO from 800 on up looked better on the 1D. Today, you've changed your tune. I looked at an image that WSLAM put up at 1250ISO and it definitely has more noise than anything that ever came out of my 1D at, even 1600ISO. Your new assumption comes up within your new test images. The gray patch from the 1Ds isn't even gray anymore. Looks very green to me. Granted the 1Ds does very well at long exposure, but I'm not buying high ISO. Look at the images from the theater on my web site and I'll send you a full-size one if you want to compare. Maybe your 1D can't handle high ISO, but mine excels with it.

Best Regards,
"See the Light"
photography by Christian Kuiphoff
http://www.ckuiphoff.com
 
24-70L Review

The new 24-70L lens from Canon is VERY sharp, as you can see from this unedited 100% crop straight from the camera:



(This is just a joke. Don't you see history brush used after sharpening this blurred image?)
Igor R. said:


Crapy image... Colors and resolution.
Atleast, photographer is good! ;)
Click to expand...
 
You know, what's to prevent you from applying the unsharp mask to those areas yourself, just to prove your "point"? A person who knows how to use photoshop doesn't make a hard edged, straight line selection to fix problems like this. This was done by somehow who either pulled this off in a few seconds without caring about how it looked, or someone who simply doesn't know how to use photoshop.

Moreover, in your example image, it is VERY clear you applied no sharpening at all to the areas that remain noiseless. This is because they are no sharper now than in the original.

Here's what I get when I apply sharpening to the ENTIRE image:


Peter G said:
Mishkin said:
Peter G said:
You know that really doesn't make sense.
Mishkin said:


"The above image is virtually noiseless and has incredible detail
at ISO 200."
( http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html )

I applied ridiculously high USM 500/2/0 to emphasize noise. Traces
of brush are clearly visible.
Igor R. said:
Just want to let you know, that Fred Miranda has cheated with 100%
crop of the ISO 200 image. It was photoshoped to hide noise, and
the levels was set incorrectly to make it alldarker.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html
And look at the parts, that was not bloured, they are so nosiy! And
this is just a ISO 200!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'm glad somebody else remembered reading that, too. I was beginning to think maybe I'd imagined it.

I'd certainly like to see some real-life concert shots at ISO 1250 from somebody who owns both cameras.

Then again, maybe my wallet doesn't really want to see. ;)
Chris K. said:
When you first put up your review, you stated ISO from 800 on up
looked better on the 1D.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
I just realsied I don't have the same image you do, after looking at your again. That smelled odd so I went back to the site...

In fact, I found this:



I can see a blurred spot on the head!

Sorry if I offended you trying to prove you wrong...

Even though, I'm not sure that is due to him "cheating". If it was I'd expect he would use a soft selection at least! I'm not sure what's going on, but you did indeed find some fishy thing - might be jumping to conclusions calling Fred a cheater, though.
 
Ah! That's why I couldn't find the source everybody was working from.

But, the new version looks to have just cropped out the obvious spots, and the "resize larger image" link still clearly shows a blur spot on the head. Might want to fix that too.
Fred Miranda said:
The default crop straight from the camera without any
sharpening/editing applied that should be there instead, was posted
below:



Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Best,
Fred
Mishkin said:


"The above image is virtually noiseless and has incredible detail
at ISO 200."
( http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html )

I applied ridiculously high USM 500/2/0 to emphasize noise. Traces
of brush are clearly visible.
Igor R. said:
Just want to let you know, that Fred Miranda has cheated with 100%
crop of the ISO 200 image. It was photoshoped to hide noise, and
the levels was set incorrectly to make it alldarker.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html
And look at the parts, that was not bloured, they are so nosiy! And
this is just a ISO 200!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Fred Miranda
http://www.fredmiranda.com
Click to expand...
 
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