Reading mode: Light Dark

1Ds is a noisy machine

Go to last post
Hi "David,

What do you think of the high ISO gray patches and the 1250 ISO image Wslam posted? Do the patches look too green to you?

Best Regards,
"See the Light"
photography by Christian Kuiphoff
http://www.ckuiphoff.com
http://pbase.com/c_kuiphoff
DavidP said:
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
Click to expand...
 
DavidP #28649 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe the one I borrowed (which was well worn so you'd think it was representative of the lens as it's been used so much) was a poor sample too then - I'll have to find some 100% crop samples, though they're almost as rare if not rarer than 20-35Ls used over here anyway so it may be a moot point..

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

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

 
I repeated your experiment & there is none of the PS manipulation you've shown.
Mishkin said:
Igor, how did you manage to see this? You have eyes of the eagle?
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...
 
He is right. That is no simple mistake! I believed it was an impartial review some days ago.
Mishkin said:
Igor, how did you manage to see this? You have eyes of the eagle?
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...
--
http://www.URphoto.com

See my equipment experience in my profile.
 
Stephen Eastwood said:
here is a cropped section from the 1DS, at 100 percent, straight
conversion from raw, no sharpening, no leveling nothing, then
reopened cropped at 100% then saved level 11 of 12 in PS 7.0 that
crop ws then reopened run through my 1DS interpolation action only,
still no leveling, sharpening nada, to just a few pixels over 400%
original size and then saved at 100 percent jpg through PS 7.0 save
for web and I still see no noise. You tell me, I can easily say,
and show that 35mm film could never do so well.

100 percent crop



400%



oringinal framing of shot



--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
Click to expand...
 
been getting that type of response a lot, so I made a thread with an even larger example check it out here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3857396

Samples there go up to a crop from a 2 gig upsample
Frank E. said:
Stephen Eastwood said:
here is a cropped section from the 1DS, at 100 percent, straight
conversion from raw, no sharpening, no leveling nothing, then
reopened cropped at 100% then saved level 11 of 12 in PS 7.0 that
crop ws then reopened run through my 1DS interpolation action only,
still no leveling, sharpening nada, to just a few pixels over 400%
original size and then saved at 100 percent jpg through PS 7.0 save
for web and I still see no noise. You tell me, I can easily say,
and show that 35mm film could never do so well.

100 percent crop



400%



oringinal framing of shot



--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
I think there is something fishy going on. I don't know if it was a mistake or not but definetly not an honest review. Fred should have been more careful.
Chris K. said:
What do you think of the high ISO gray patches and the 1250 ISO
image Wslam posted? Do the patches look too green to you?

Best Regards,
"See the Light"
photography by Christian Kuiphoff
http://www.ckuiphoff.com
http://pbase.com/c_kuiphoff
DavidP said:
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
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
I resent the use of the word "cheated" here. If you don't like Fred's work, stay off his FREE site! You're geting more than you pay for there -- and here.
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
Click to expand...
-------------------------------
Bob Markey II
http://www.palmswestpress.com
Royal Palm Beach/Wellington, Fla.
 
I can understand the 100% crop mistake but was there any definite proof that the pic was manipulated via photoshop??????
One I could understand, the other I could not....
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...
 
As Igor R. pointed out, the 100% crop of the first picture on this page:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html

was modified in Photoshop in original version of the page. Fred replied that this was simply a mistake and substituted the crop with a new version. No problem.

However, I still see that a "Resized larger version" has the same Photoshop work in it (see the image at 400% and you will see signs of PS work... see bird's forehead - right edge - closely... traces of brush work are visible... looks like the noise in the background has been reduced).

Fred, what did you do to this image and why? Could you please show us the original ISO 200 image in the review? This will be helpful in thorough evaluation of the camera by users.

Thank you for coping with user's concerns, and I appreciate your hard and excellent work in reviewing the 1Ds, which is truly amazing camera!

-Mishkin
 
Yes, if you have an original image in your browser's cache, you can magnify it to 200-400% and see it for yourself. Apply high USM to see regions of high/low noise. As far as I understand, Fred did this for purposes not related to review and simply uploaded wrong picture to the server. No big deal.

Now, he needs to correct the mistake with "Resized larger image", too...
Daven said:
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...
 
From the sample on Fred's 1Ds noise test page, it seems 1Ds has slighly more noise at ISO 200 than D60 does. Also, it looks like 1Ds' noise at 200 is somewhat patterned.

Anyway, here is D60 at ISO 200 for comparison. RAW converted to JPEG with default parameters and +1EV to compensate for 28-135's underexsposure. No additional sharpness or any other manipulation in PS. Resized pic on the top and 100% crops below it. Was focusing on the swan, but 28-135 is slow and not sharp, so the swan is not quite sharp... however, this should not affect noise.



D60
ISO: 200
Shutter: 1/760
Aperture: 5.6
Lens: 28-135@122mm
Metering Mode: Center Weighted Avg.
White Balance: Auto
Contrast: Normal
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
Color Tone: Normal
Flash: Off
Flash Exp. Comp: 0.0
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...
 
If you go back to Fred's response, he stated that the resized larger versions of each photo had undergone editing. His exact quote is as follows:

"Ok, let's make it clear:

The "Unsharpened 100% crops" were all straight from the camera. They were converted from RAW to tiff and then saved as jpeg for the web.

The thumbnails and resized images were edited by me: Some tone/color correction, sharpening, resizing was performed."

Since he's providing the uneditied 100% crop, what's the deal?

Kevin
Mishkin said:
As Igor R. pointed out, the 100% crop of the first picture on this
page:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html
was modified in Photoshop in original version of the page. Fred
replied that this was simply a mistake and substituted the crop
with a new version. No problem.

However, I still see that a "Resized larger version" has the same
Photoshop work in it (see the image at 400% and you will see signs
of PS work... see bird's forehead - right edge - closely... traces
of brush work are visible... looks like the noise in the background
has been reduced).

Fred, what did you do to this image and why? Could you please show
us the original ISO 200 image in the review? This will be helpful
in thorough evaluation of the camera by users.

Thank you for coping with user's concerns, and I appreciate your
hard and excellent work in reviewing the 1Ds, which is truly
amazing camera!

-Mishkin
Click to expand...
 
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...
--
---
Toralf Sandåker, writer and consultant, Norway
Technique Editor, Fotografi
 
No big deal. It's just that visible PS work raises concerns among the readers.
Kevin Blair said:
"Ok, let's make it clear:

The "Unsharpened 100% crops" were all straight from the camera.
They were converted from RAW to tiff and then saved as jpeg for the
web.

The thumbnails and resized images were edited by me: Some
tone/color correction, sharpening, resizing was performed."

Since he's providing the uneditied 100% crop, what's the deal?

Kevin
Mishkin said:
As Igor R. pointed out, the 100% crop of the first picture on this
page:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html
was modified in Photoshop in original version of the page. Fred
replied that this was simply a mistake and substituted the crop
with a new version. No problem.

However, I still see that a "Resized larger version" has the same
Photoshop work in it (see the image at 400% and you will see signs
of PS work... see bird's forehead - right edge - closely... traces
of brush work are visible... looks like the noise in the background
has been reduced).

Fred, what did you do to this image and why? Could you please show
us the original ISO 200 image in the review? This will be helpful
in thorough evaluation of the camera by users.

Thank you for coping with user's concerns, and I appreciate your
hard and excellent work in reviewing the 1Ds, which is truly
amazing camera!

-Mishkin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
digiphoto said:
I think there is something fishy going on. I don't know if it was a
mistake or not but definetly not an honest review. Fred should have
been more careful.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, I will not trust Fred anymore. And I think many other people will do as well.

Even if it was just a mistake, it doesn't excuse Fred. If you're making review, you have a great responcebility for what you publishing. It may influence many byers who are about to pay a pretty big money, atleast big enough for the photographers, because they are not millioneers.

I have much more trust to the Phil, even though he is an average photographer, and his photos are looking amateurish comparing to Fred. His reviews are full, and atleast he is not hiding that he is payed for the reviews.
 
Yeah, a simple PS slip may cost company millions.

Well, this may be not a bad thing afterall. The less people are interested in 1Ds, the more Canon will be urged to make AFFORDABLE DSLRs to catch up with the competition. Charging $8K for 3fps 10-frame buffer camera is simply ridiculous.
Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:
I think there is something fishy going on. I don't know if it was a
mistake or not but definetly not an honest review. Fred should have
been more careful.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, I will not trust Fred anymore. And I think many other
people will do as well.
Even if it was just a mistake, it doesn't excuse Fred. If you're
making review, you have a great responcebility for what you
publishing. It may influence many byers who are about to pay a
pretty big money, atleast big enough for the photographers, because
they are not millioneers.
I have much more trust to the Phil, even though he is an average
photographer, and his photos are looking amateurish comparing to
Fred. His reviews are full, and atleast he is not hiding that he is
payed for the reviews.
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