Native ISO of the 5D2? what is to be expected of a 5D3?

[guatitamasluz]

Having just learned in another forum as a non tech, what native ISO means DR wise:

"What is the camera's native ISO? The EOS C300 has a native ISO of 850. It is at this setting that dynamic range, especially in highlight areas, reaches its maximum. At lower ISO settings, the dynamic range tends to shift more toward shadow detail. Why 850 ISO? ISO 850 on the EOS C300 provides an optimum balance between dynamic range and noise levels. At higher ISO or gain settings, dynamic range remains essentially the same, but digital noise tends to increase."

I'd like to ask a few questions on that subject:

a)What is the current native ISO of a 5D2? (800?)

b)And what improvement might be expected in a 5D3? (1600?)

c) Is native ISO the more important base for qualifying a camera body noisewise: "this body in comparison to the other is one stop better in noise?" Or is it both components: sensor size PLUS native ISO?

Thanks for considering. Cheers, Pedro
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/
http://peterhauri.wordpress.com/

 

[kb2zuz]

I'd like to ask a few questions on that subject:

a)What is the current native ISO of a 5D2? (800?)

100

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-II#tabs-2 (click on dynamic range.. also note that while the setting says "100" they measure it as actually being 73... so I guess 73 would be the correct answer)

b)And what improvement might be expected in a 5D3? (1600?)

100

c) Is native ISO the more important base for qualifying a camera body noisewise: "this body in comparison to the other is one stop better in noise?" Or is it both components: sensor size PLUS native ISO?

Most likely it will be 100-200, that where nearly all still cameras are (some point and shoots are 80, some medium format backs are 50 or 35). There are already people on these forums wishing they'd have a lower base ISO so they could get more motion blur without neutral density filters. Also, for a camera that is primarily for still photography they need more dyanmic range and less noise than a Cine camera. For still you can use strobes and long exposures with tripods. For Cine you tend to be locked to a shutter speed... if shooting at 24 fps and you want that 180 degree shutter feel, you're going to be shooting at 1/48th of a second. If you're at 60fps you're at 1/120th. Theoretically you could shoot at almost 1/24th of a second if you're doing 24fps but it would look a little weird, but still you'd need a bit of light if you were stuck at 100 ISO, which is why most pro cine film stock was 400 ISO when still film was 64 or 100 ISO.
--
~K

 

[hotdog321]

800? No way. I shoot a lot of interior business portraits under low light at 800, and they look fine. But images shot at 100 are amazing!

 

[gdanmitchell]

Pedro, this is not really worth worrying about. In general, shoot at the lowest ISO that is reasonable for the photography you are doing - e.g. the ISO 100 or 200 range when possible. (Avoid the ISO 50 setting in virtually all cases.)

In general, as you increase ISO you will encounter additional amounts of noise, both luminosity and chroma noise. While there is technically a difference that can be carefully measured between 100 and 200, it literally cannot be seen in even a large, well-made print. You most certainly cannot see a quality difference when you compare photographs shot at different 1/2 or 1/3 stop intervals.

I've shot landscapes at 400 when necessary and the results are very excellent. When necessary - low light hand held photography, for example, I've shot at 800, 1600, and 3200. I can see some image degradation at these higher ISOs, but I can also produce very fine prints from the photographs. That said, I would not shoot at 800 unless I had to.

I shoot 100 and 200 interchangeably on my 5D2 and I cannot tell you which is which. ISO 400 may be just ever so slightly more noisy and this can be somewhat visible when you look carefully and 100% crops... but again is extremely unlikely to be at all visible in prints. Beyond that you'll just have to experiment to decide where the appropriate trade-offs are for you.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

 

[guatitamasluz]

thank you for your kind answers! and the time shared for my concern. Pedro
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/
http://peterhauri.wordpress.com/

 

[John Sheehy]

Having just learned in another forum as a non tech, what native ISO means DR wise:

"What is the camera's native ISO? The EOS C300 has a native ISO of 850. It is at this setting that dynamic range, especially in highlight areas, reaches its maximum. At lower ISO settings, the dynamic range tends to shift more toward shadow detail. Why 850 ISO? ISO 850 on the EOS C300 provides an optimum balance between dynamic range and noise levels. At higher ISO or gain settings, dynamic range remains essentially the same, but digital noise tends to increase."

There's no such thing as "native ISO". It's a fabricated concept. Digital cameras are linear capture devices. Basically, they just do a fuzzy job of counting photons.

High ISOs are only limited by how much noise the user can tolerate, and low ISOs are only limited by how little highlight headroom the user can tolerate.

c) Is native ISO the more important base for qualifying a camera body noisewise: "this body in comparison to the other is one stop better in noise?" Or is it both components: sensor size PLUS native ISO?

ISO has nothing directly to do with noise. ISO is about amounts of light per unit of sensor area.

Noise is not monolithic in digital cameras. Any statement that camera A has x stops more noise than camera B is probably false, because the two main sources of noise, read noise and photon noise, have different ratios between two cameras.

--
John