5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

Started Jan 1, 2009 | Discussions
Staale Junior Member • Posts: 44
5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

Anybody have a take on this ?

I personally think ISO 400 is too noisy for good shots on my 450D. ISO 200 is just about acceptable.

How much can I push the 5D mark II before I get to 450D ISO400 noise level ?

Thanks

Smorter Regular Member • Posts: 206
Re: 5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

450D should be fine right through ISO 1600, are you sure you are exposing properly? The best defense against noise is appropriate exposure

Despite the hype about the 5DII, it looks like it's only marginally better, if at all, than the Canon 450D. I did a test against my 40D and it was at most 2/3 of a stop better than my 40D at high ISO, and the 40D is very similar to the 450D

If 450D at ISO 400 is too much noise for you you have some technical issues that need to be identified

mkuzmick Junior Member • Posts: 40
Re: 5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

I agree---I'm absolutely in love with the 5D2, but I have to say that it's low-light performance isn't mind-blowingly great.

Here's a quick test I did, comparing it to my old Rebel XTi. It's not really fair to compare 100% crops, of course, since the 5D2 obviously offers more resolution--but whatever . . .

All shots are f/5.6 with an EF 50 f/1.4 USM. The lighting's purposefully a little harsh so that you can get a sense of what the noise in slight shadow looks like.

Here's a 50% version of the whole image at ISO 3200 with the 5D2

And here are various ISOs side by side

So it looks to me as though the 5D2 gets me an extra stop . . .

best,
MK

Karma Traveler Regular Member • Posts: 494
Are you insane?

Staale wrote:

I personally think ISO 400 is too noisy for good shots on my 450D.
ISO 200 is just about acceptable.

ISO 400 on the EOS 450D is too noisy for good shots? ISO 200 is just barely acceptable? No offense, but I think you need to get your head re-examined. Or at the very least, you need to quit pixel peeping at 500% magnification.

I never hesitated to use the 450D up to ISO 800. In fact, ISO 1600 was very much acceptable to me as well, as long as I nail the exposure. It boggles my mind that anybody --- ANYBODY AT ALL --- would find ISO 400 on the 450D to be unacceptable. You really need to decide if you're a photographer, or a rabid pixel-peeping maniac.

How much can I push the 5D mark II before I get to 450D ISO400 noise
level ?

Depends. If I look at noise relative to the entire image, I'd say that the 450D @ ISO 400 isn't as good as ISO 800 on my 5DII, but better than ISO 1600. If I look at noise on a per-pixel basis --- something that you are probably doing --- then the 5DII at ISO 800 looks worse than the 450D @ ISO 400.

Nicolaj Roos Regular Member • Posts: 236
Re: 5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

Smorter wrote:

Despite the hype about the 5DII, it looks like it's only marginally
better, if at all, than the Canon 450D.

That is a joke.

I upgraded from the 450d and I am now a 5dmkII owner. With the 450d I didnt feel comfortable going higher than 800 iso. With the 5dmkII I can easily go to 3200.

Take a look at this 5dmkII 3200iso picture. The 450d would never be able to produce this kind of image at this iso setting (if it had it, that is).

Nolock Regular Member • Posts: 232
Re: Are you insane?

I used iso 400 on my 450D routinely. Noise was not a significant issue. Seems like my 5DII is just as clean up to at least iso1250, tho I haven't made any specific comparison.

I printed from the 450D regularly 13x19", always sent the files through neatimage with a 450D iso400 profile, the prints were fine, but I could have skipped the NI step with no problem, I'm sure.

personally, having come up through a series of P&S cams, I find the noise concerns raised with these DSLRs to be kind of pointless..

beltzclan Senior Member • Posts: 1,511
Agreed

With my 450 I have NEVER went below 400. I shot with 400 all the time and made prints out to 16X20 with most of the packages I sold to the customer. They were and are still, fantastic. And I have Noise Ninja but seldom ever used it.

-- hide signature --

Just shut up and shoot!
BCphoto.biz
Enabeling Photography skills to the masses.

OP Staale Junior Member • Posts: 44
Re: Are you insane?

I hope I'm not insane.

cropped this picture, no resize and max quality in DPP

2 problems with it.

1. The dittering in the background. I like taking pictures with blurry background. ISO 100 gives me nice blur... ISO 400 and up.. gives me dithering.... It reminds me of those 8 bit GIF's from the old days

2. Sharpness no more. My F2.8 lens usually manages to make the subject I take pictures of stand out from the background.. but here is is just flat.... I always get this when I shoot high ISO... ISO 100.. sharp, almost 3D look alike... high ISO.. just a pixel blur.

I certainly don't need to zoom the picture in anyway to see this "issues"

I don't deny that in good sun light and you want to shoot 1/4000 of a second.. High ISO is good. But in poor sunlight and 1/40 second.. high ISO doesn't work for me quality vise.

neroangelo Contributing Member • Posts: 841
What Lens

That reminds me of the kind of shots I would get when I had a Minolta Z1!! lol

What lens are you using?

-- hide signature --

Slainte(cheers)

OP Staale Junior Member • Posts: 44
Re: What Lens

Sigma 120-300 F2.8

F2.8 on this shot

Smorter Regular Member • Posts: 206
Re: 5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

You've posted up one of the world's best bird photographer's photos that you have no idea what type of processing or NR it has gone through, and to top if all off it is a websize image of a well lit area that a properly exposed 400D (even worse than 450D) pushed a stops could probably achieve

What does it look like at a per pixel level? How much NR has it had? I'm sorry but with careful processing and reduction to that kind of small size my 400D (worse) could do that pushed to 3200.

Please compare RAW with RAW with zero NR, not soft JPGs or NR'ed converted files. At a pixel level the 5D2 is marginally better at best compared to 40D file at ISO 3200, that's my take based on my tests with a friend's 5D2. At a print level, yes the 5D2 is probably better, but not the 2 stop advantage you quote. What you are pretty much saying is your 5DM2 at ISO 400 is better than your 450D at ISO 100 (essentially noiseless). Sorry but I have yet to see an essentially noiseless 5D2 shot

I hope you are right and I am wrong though, I really want this camera to be great because I'm buying one once these issues get sorted

Nicolaj Roos wrote:

Smorter wrote:

Despite the hype about the 5DII, it looks like it's only marginally
better, if at all, than the Canon 450D.

That is a joke.
I upgraded from the 450d and I am now a 5dmkII owner. With the 450d I
didnt feel comfortable going higher than 800 iso. With the 5dmkII I
can easily go to 3200.

Take a look at this 5dmkII 3200iso picture. The 450d would never be
able to produce this kind of image at this iso setting (if it had it,
that is).

Smorter Regular Member • Posts: 206
typo

Sorry but I have yet to see an
essentially noiseless 5D2 shot

Sorry I meant noiseless ISO 400 5D2 shot, but now that I think about it, even ISO 100 shots seem to have shadow noise in the shots I've seen for the 5D2

bronxbombers Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: 5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

Smorter wrote:

450D should be fine right through ISO 1600, are you sure you are
exposing properly? The best defense against noise is appropriate
exposure

Despite the hype about the 5DII, it looks like it's only marginally
better, if at all, than the Canon 450D. I did a test against my 40D
and it was at most 2/3 of a stop better than my 40D at high ISO, and
the 40D is very similar to the 450D

??
seems a good 1.5 stops better than my xxD's for sure.

bronxbombers Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: What Lens

is it focusing properly?

Staale wrote:

Sigma 120-300 F2.8

F2.8 on this shot

neroangelo Contributing Member • Posts: 841
Re: What Lens
-- hide signature --

I forgot to ask if it was hand held and how much you cropped by and how old is the lens...

I'd agree that it could be an AF problem and/or soft lens that needs to be callibrated. Have you tried stopping down to 5.6/8? Does it make any difference? How are your other lenses?

Slainte(cheers)

Ricari Regular Member • Posts: 286
Re: 5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

I'm sorry but with careful processing and reduction to that kind of
small size my 400D (worse) could do that pushed to 3200.

I have a 350D (as well as the 5DII) and I doubt you could get that shot at ISO 3200, even if you used fancy 3rd party NR software and resized it. Why not show us the best (cleanest, not necessarily artistic) ISO 3200 shot from your 400D to back this up? You should try to find something with similar exposure of course.

beltzclan Senior Member • Posts: 1,511
Then our cameras are different in some way...

Here is one from a 450D, ISO 400, cropped 50 percent. It prints at 8X10 quite nicely. This was shot with the 24-105mm at 105mm and f/7. Indoors with a 430 off to the side shooting through an umbrella. Another 430 behind and up high for a hair light.

I cannot seem to reproduce your problems.

-- hide signature --

Just shut up and shoot!
BCphoto.biz
Enabeling Photography skills to the masses.

Sezzi Regular Member • Posts: 129
Ditto

Well, almost. I have a 400d.

I used to be afraid of using ISO 800 or even 1600 because I thought the images would look too crappy. Now however I routinely use 800 and also push that a bit.

Is there grain? Yes, of course. But .. so? DPP does a really nice job of removing enough chroma noise so that the image looks good (I rarely go over 10 in the chroma reduction level, more like 5-10).

I don't see why some people are so afraid of some grain, I personally find it kind of pleasing to look at.

-- hide signature --

nandeyanen!

Hans Ree Regular Member • Posts: 191
Re: 5D Mark II ISO performance compared to 450D

What about comparing with 400D?
Look at this site:
http://eirikso.com/2008/11/29/quick-iso-test-of-the-canon-5d-mk-ii/

-- hide signature --

Hans
Photographers don't shoot, they capture a moment of life

 Hans Ree's gear list:Hans Ree's gear list
Panasonic LX100
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 24,780
Re: Ditto

Sezzi wrote:

I don't see why some people are so afraid of some grain, I personally
find it kind of pleasing to look at.

Perhaps, if it actually looks like grain, but the noise is the deep shadows of digital images can often be "streaky" or banded, and totally annoy and distract.
--
John

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads