Just in:Couple of test shots from 5D Mk 2

[solasido]

how about ISO 6400 in dimmer lighting condition?

like under candle light? is the noise artifact pronounced?

 

[wranger]

Time to upgrade.

 

[PictureFreak]

If can take pic of stuff with lots of fine details like a stuffed toy Wanna see how the NR affects the fine details

Here are some pictures taken of a stuffed toy.

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L with f/4 aperture, ISO 6400

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L with f/2.8 aperture, ISO 1600

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L with f/2.8 aperture, ISO 1600

The noise difference is especially evident in the left background

 

[jopel]

at 1600 the noise is quite obvious. I might be wrong.

 

[m3lv1nh0]

So in your opinion, what's the best usable noise level? Does the noise fair better than say D3 or D700?

 

[raptor84]

THanks wah really damn poisonous... chroma noise seems well controlled.

 

[PictureFreak]

Here are a few more test shots, arranged in order of decreasing ISO.

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, ISO 6400, aperture of 2.8

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, ISO 3200, aperture of 2.8

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, ISO 1600, aperture of 2.8

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, ISO 800, aperture of 2.8

The difference in noise is especially evident in the background. Even at ISO 1600, the noise is already quite hard to discern....Loving this new baby....;p

 

[coffee3in1]

:thumbsup: u're my Canon-idol! :bsmilie:

The difference in noise is especially evident in the background. Even at ISO 1600, the noise is already quite hard to discern....Loving this new baby....;p

 

[PictureFreak]

So in your opinion, what's the best usable noise level? Does the noise fair better than say D3 or D700?

In my opinion, I have no hesitation using ISO 6400 if need be. Under normal circumstances, i will hover around a maximum of 1600 to 2000. Using a good noise reduction plug-in should help matters even more....All in all, i think this camera will become one of the best wedding cameras

 

[jopel]

So in your opinion, what's the best usable noise level? Does the noise fair better than say D3 or D700?

unfortunately, I can't afford any of the cameras you mentioned. Noise in itself is an art.

 

[lkkang]

at 1600 the noise is quite obvious. I might be wrong.

yes I agree with you that the noise is obvious.

However, I am sure that this monster is able to trigger some noise cancellation function ( low , medium and high ) on the camera body itself... just guessing because Nikon does have this feature.... I remember reading somewhere before.

If the shot is taken without any noise cancellation , then I should say that this amount of noise, I can accept.

 

[PictureFreak]

yes I agree with you that the noise is obvious.

However, I am sure that this monster is able to trigger some noise cancellation function ( low , medium and high ) on the camera body itself... just guessing because Nikon does have this feature.... I remember reading somewhere before.

If the shot is taken without any noise cancellation , then I should say that this amount of noise, I can accept.

There is standard, low and strong noise reduction available in the camera. All those pictures are taken with the "standard" noise reduction....I am sure with low or strong noise reduction activated, the noise will be even less obvious

 

[archlover]

as for me seems the 6400 still good enough... at least better than 1600 at my 350d !
wowowowwwww

 

[kelvinkhoo]

Swee.... nice pic... :thumbsup: noiseless @ 6400...... :bigeyes: love the nosieless pics..... :bsmilie:

 

[lkkang]

There is standard, low and strong noise reduction available in the camera. All those pictures are taken with the "standard" noise reduction....I am sure with low or strong noise reduction activated, the noise will be even less obvious

appreciated for the clarification.

 

[KangS]

Can we request some shots of you very loveable stuffed tiger at ISO 6400/3200/1600 at say f/8 or f/11 aperture or even f/16?

It will be most useful at discerning the noise control and detail retention as compared to a shallow DOF whereby large areas are OOF, thus can really see the detail retention in the darker areas ?

Thanks! :thumbsup::sweat:

 

[thedaniel]

Are these samples crop to 1 to 1 or resized pictures?
If resized, anywhere to see the original size or 1 to 1 crop sized pictures?
Thanks.

 

[PictureFreak]

Are these samples crop to 1 to 1 or resized pictures?
If resized, anywhere to see the original size or 1 to 1 crop sized pictures?
Thanks.

You can see the original files at the following

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luhaiwong/sets/72157610209464207/

 

[thedaniel]

Hi, thanks for the link. Great samples, but did you handheld the shots on the lens? Seems to have slight some camera shake as certain pictures are less sharp.

Overall very good quality. Perfect to iso 1600. Some noise on 3200. Some banding on the iso6400 shots especially on the dark part of the tiger's ear. Downsize a bit should be ok.

CA is obvious on the pictures. Looks like the bigger MB will reveal the slightest flaws in the lens.

Gongrats on your good buy. Time to enjoy taking pictures with it.

 

[engrmariano]

Here are some pictures taken of a stuffed toy.

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L with f/4 aperture, ISO 6400

deym!!!:bigeyes:

i dont mind the grain on the side, IQ still rocks!:thumbsup:

i'll be getting one myself tomorrow.