Canon 1D Mark II ISO questions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Carol R, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. Carol R

    Carol R Guest

    I currently have the D60. I bought it about a month before it got
    phased out in favor of the 10D. What a downer that was.

    With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
    400 noise begins to be a factor. I can use at 400, but will not get a
    smooth creamy result when enlarged to say 8X10 or higher. Anything
    above 400 is horrible. I did read some digital noise tests between
    the D60 and 10D that showed the different in ISO noise is neglible
    between these two cameras. So why go for the 10D, I reasoned.

    The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
    noise at higher ISO speeds. I am close to opting for this camera if
    this is true. Now I hear there will be new releases from Canon in
    Sept so I want to wait for that...don't want to repeat the D60
    mistake.

    Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
    now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
    two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
    shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.

    Thanks much

    Carol R
    Carol R, Jul 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Carol R

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: (Carol R)

    >With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
    >400 noise begins to be a factor.


    My wife has a 10D and after testing it for noise I would agree with your
    numbers, 200 looks good and 400 doesn't (for good sized prints and our tastes).

    >The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
    >noise at higher ISO speeds.


    Just got one of these a couple weeks ago and it's a great camera. Haven't
    tested for noise above 320 yet but at 320 it's better than the 10D at 200.

    > I am close to opting for this camera if
    >this is true. Now I hear there will be new releases from Canon in
    >Sept so I want to wait for that.


    No way they'll replace the Mark II that quickly (it's still in short supply)
    but it would be wonderful if they used the same 8 Mpix sensor in a lower price
    camera, either on the Elan body (10D Mark II?) or even better on the EOS-3 body
    (3D?). Unless you need the super fast autofocus and frame rate of the Mark II
    I'd wait a bit and see if they bring out an 8 Mpix dSLR on one of these cheaper
    bodies.

    >Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
    >now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
    >two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
    >shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.


    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp and scroll down for
    the 'Luminance Noise Graph' ... basically what it says is the Mark II noise at
    800 is about the same as the 10D at 400, and the M II at 400 is about the same
    as the 10D at 200. At any given ISO the Mark II is better than the other
    cameras shown (Nikon D2H, Canon 1Ds, Canon 1D, Canon 10D).

    If you want to see a couple of samples look at these I shot yesterday ...
    http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/liz_crop_usm.jpg (600x400 actual pixels
    crop, if the file were printed 30x45" this is what 5x7.5" worth of detail would
    look like on my screen)
    http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/liz.jpg (the full image after
    downsampling for the web, the crop was just of the eye area)

    http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm_det.jpg another 100% crop, this
    shows how smooth the background is at ISO 250 ... this and the first shot were
    taken at 1,000 mm (500 f/4 w/ 2x converter) and this one shows how quickly it
    autofocuses, catching a hummer in mid-air.
    http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm.jpg (full frame shot reduced about
    5x, the crop was of the head)

    I took 11 shots of the hummer and 9 were in focus and sharp.

    Any camera that can AF on a hovering hummingbird with a 1,000 mm lens (1,300 mm
    equivalent 35 mm FOV) is OK by me :)

    One more and I'll stop bragging about this camera ...
    http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/dove_blossom.jpg .. this one prints
    beautifully at 12x18", as good as or slightly better than scanned 35mm film.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Jul 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Carol R

    Bob Shomler Guest

    > Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
    > now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
    > two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
    > shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.


    I have both 10D and D60 and use them in theatre photography where
    frequently lighting on stage can be relatively dim. I use the noise
    filtering in Adobe camera raw and sometines Neatimage to mitigate the
    high iso - low lighting levels noise. I find the 10D to show about half
    the noise of the D60: the 10D at 800 has noise range close to what I see
    in the D60 at 400, and I can use the 10D at 1600 and get very usable
    results (not my first choice but sometimes the only way to get the
    shots). I'll really be looking forward to the Mark II (or its
    technology in another body) if its noise characteristics are half of the
    10D is these low light environments.

    Bob Shomler
    www.shomler.com
    [email via web site]
    Bob Shomler, Jul 9, 2004
    #3
  4. dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<>...
    > >From: (Carol R)

    >
    > >With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
    > >400 noise begins to be a factor.

    >
    > My wife has a 10D and after testing it for noise I would agree with your
    > numbers, 200 looks good and 400 doesn't (for good sized prints and our tastes).
    >
    > >The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
    > >noise at higher ISO speeds.

    >
    > Just got one of these a couple weeks ago and it's a great camera. Haven't
    > tested for noise above 320 yet but at 320 it's better than the 10D at 200.


    Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
    SD10 is at ISO 800...

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp

    The $8,000 1Ds doesn't fare any better...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
    > SD10 is at ISO 800...


    The 10D looks better at 800 than your crappy Sigma is at 100.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Bob Shomler <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
    > > now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
    > > two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
    > > shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.

    >
    > I have both 10D and D60 and use them in theatre photography where
    > frequently lighting on stage can be relatively dim. I use the noise
    > filtering in Adobe camera raw and sometines Neatimage to mitigate the
    > high iso - low lighting levels noise. I find the 10D to show about half
    > the noise of the D60: the 10D at 800 has noise range close to what I see
    > in the D60 at 400, and I can use the 10D at 1600 and get very usable
    > results (not my first choice but sometimes the only way to get the
    > shots). I'll really be looking forward to the Mark II (or its
    > technology in another body) if its noise characteristics are half of the
    > 10D is these low light environments.


    Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
    outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
    compared to current technology...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004
    #6
  7. "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
    > outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
    > compared to current technology...


    Wrong again, as usual.

    http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaSD9/Samples/ISO/luma-noise.gif
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaSD10/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif
    http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1Ds/Samples/ISO/luminance-graph.gif
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DMkII/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 12, 2004
    #7
  8. "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message news:<40f30170$0$21106$4all.nl>...
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > SNIP
    > > Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
    > > outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
    > > compared to current technology...

    >
    > Wrong again, as usual.


    It's not an opinion...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 13, 2004
    #8
  9. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<100720041729224809%>...
    > In article <>, Georgette
    > Preddy <> wrote:
    >
    > > Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
    > > SD10 is at ISO 800...

    >
    > The 10D looks better at 800 than your crappy Sigma is at 100.


    The 10D is an absolute mess at ISO 800. It's completely unusable at
    ISO 400...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/31045949/original

    It's a very P&S like DSLR in this regard. Even Phil's brilliantly lit
    (a bone thrown to his biggest cash cow) ISO 800 Canon 10D demo images
    are heinous...

    http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos10d_samples1/originals/crw_8385_rj.jpg

    The 10D is also extrememly noisy at ISO 100, compared to Foveon.
    Especially considering you have to underexpose to avoid sharply blown
    highlites. But it is an average Bayer DSLR in terms of noise. While
    the even more ancient Canon 1Ds is a truly horrid performer with
    respect to noise, even for a Bayer, and even at ISO 100...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 13, 2004
    #9
  10. "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message

    news:<40f30170$0$21106$4all.nl>...
    > > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > SNIP
    > > > Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
    > > > outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
    > > > compared to current technology...

    > >
    > > Wrong again, as usual.


    http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaSD9/Samples/ISO/luma-noise.gif
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaSD10/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif
    http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1Ds/Samples/ISO/luminance-graph.gif
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DMkII/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif

    > It's not an opinion...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original


    A person with normal mental capabilities understands that you cannot compare
    a 4064x2704 pixel camera JPEG image with a 2268x1512 pixel RAW processed
    image at the pixel level (clue: different output magnification and data
    processing).
    Also recheck the Luminance charts above (the ones you snipped out of your
    response).

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 13, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > The 10D is an absolute mess at ISO 800. It's completely unusable at
    > ISO 400...


    Again, take the exact opposite of what you say and you'll be pretty
    close to the truth. Truth is, you don't know shit.

    > It's a very P&S like DSLR in this regard. Even Phil's brilliantly lit
    > (a bone thrown to his biggest cash cow) ISO 800 Canon 10D demo images
    > are heinous...


    Uh-huh. Compared to your crappy Sigma, the Canon at ASA 800 *SMOKES*
    your pitiful Sigma.

    > The 10D is also extrememly noisy at ISO 100, compared to Foveon.
    > Especially considering you have to underexpose to avoid sharply blown
    > highlites. But it is an average Bayer DSLR in terms of noise. While
    > the even more ancient Canon 1Ds is a truly horrid performer with
    > respect to noise, even for a Bayer, and even at ISO 100...


    Compared to a 10D at any speed, it's a wonder Sigma and Foveon are
    still in business.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 13, 2004
    #11
  12. Brian C. Baird, Jul 13, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JD

    How do you convert a CD ISO to DVD ISO?

    JD, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    29,262
  2. Bill Smith
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    818
    DaveJ
    Aug 1, 2003
  3. Georgette Preddy

    Is Sigma's SD10 at ISO 1600 better than Canon's 1Ds at ISO 100?

    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    695
    Randall Ainsworth
    Jul 15, 2004
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Canon 1Ds Mark-II + Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens

    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    600
    John McWilliams
    Feb 5, 2005
  5. picture taker
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    525
    Hans Kruse
    Apr 7, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page