1DS3 and ISO 800.

[dwdallam]

Recently I did some location shots of people, and I shot using ISO 100 to 800. I've noticed the files from the 800 are noticeably more flat than the 100 and 400 settings, due to grain, and the tones on skin are more harsh. They're usable, but you can definitely see a large drop in smoothness and tone transition, and even in some colors of skin tones not reproducing nearly as well as 400. On the other hand, the plant life around the subjects looked nice.

Has anyone else experienced this?

[kevinwilson]

Recently I did some location shots of people, and I shot using ISO 100 to 800. I've noticed the files from the 800 are noticeably more flat than the 100 and 400 settings, due to grain, and the tones on skin are more harsh. They're usable, but you can definitely see a large drop in smoothness and tone transition, and even in some colors of skin tones not reproducing nearly as well as 400. On the other hand, the plant life around the subjects looked nice.

Has anyone else experienced this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

TBH, I find the files pretty useless quality wise around 800, having said that film at 800 wasn't too hot.
In comparison, the Nikon D3 blows the 1DS 3 away at high iso. But I still prefer the colour from the Canon.
Kevin

[Josh-H]

In comparison, the Nikon D3 blows the 1DS 3 away at high iso.

No offence intended.. but I REALLY despise statements like this.

Firstly - its simply not the case - download a sample RAW file from each at ISO1600 - the 1DS MKIII is REMARKABLE considering its twice the resolution with virtually NO more noise than the D3. The D3 most certainly does NOT blow away the 1DSMKIII.

Secondly.. blanket statements like this serve no more purpose than the spread of minsinformation. They are not helpful and not accurate.

*gets off soapbox*.

[oeleke]

Hi still work with the markII, and found out that i can sell very good work up to 1600!
I didn't dear to do this in the beginning, but more and more i feel that this files look very good.
For me as a pro shooter its much more important to got the right picture with maybe a bit more grain, then to miss the shot.
AND if you don't look your histogram and don't shoot in raw you can be in troubles.
So i look only at the histogram, i prefer a bit more over exposed (hi recovery tools).
And my files look good.

Last day i was in a very dark cafe with brown walls and seelings, no way to bounch of my flash (i never ever use direct flash, the trick for me is to use flash but its forbidden to see it :-) i know i'm crazy).
So i put the camera on 1600 used a bit of flash, clolors looked very bad, almost no way to get it good, so i put all the files into black and white with a bit warm tone (hi splittoning), and made a small booklet with prints not bigger then 20x30 cm, and client was soooooo happy that i now have to do his wedding of his daughter soon.

So stop, i mean a bit, the discussion about a bit of grain/noise, learn to work with your tools, now days we can do sooooooo many more in a much easier way, and with very good results, only if you dare and now how to use it right.

i sound like an old teacher, well 41 years with more then 20 years pro shooting....

regards, raoul

[dwdallam]

TBH, I find the files pretty useless quality wise around 800, having said that film at 800 wasn't too hot.
In comparison, the Nikon D3 blows the 1DS 3 away at high iso. But I still prefer the colour from the Canon.
Kevin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not liking the way the reproduce, but I'm not sure they are useless. It's a comment to think about though. With portraits, I can get rid of that through skilled post RAW processing by skin smoothing and blending happening modes etc. Just don;t think I'll shot with 800 again unless I can do a real test to see how they stack up. I'm sure someone else has done that already?

[dwdallam]

Hi still work with the markII, and found out that i can sell very good work up to 1600!
I didn't dear to do this in the beginning, but more and more i feel that this files look very good.
For me as a pro shooter its much more important to got the right picture with maybe a bit more grain, then to miss the shot.
AND if you don't look your histogram and don't shoot in raw you can be in troubles.
So i look only at the histogram, i prefer a bit more over exposed (hi recovery tools).
And my files look good.

Last day i was in a very dark cafe with brown walls and seelings, no way to bounch of my flash (i never ever use direct flash, the trick for me is to use flash but its forbidden to see it :-) i know i'm crazy).
So i put the camera on 1600 used a bit of flash, clolors looked very bad, almost no way to get it good, so i put all the files into black and white with a bit warm tone (hi splittoning), and made a small booklet with prints not bigger then 20x30 cm, and client was soooooo happy that i now have to do his wedding of his daughter soon.

So stop, i mean a bit, the discussion about a bit of grain/noise, learn to work with your tools, now days we can do sooooooo many more in a much easier way, and with very good results, only if you dare and now how to use it right.

i sound like an old teacher, well 41 years with more then 20 years pro shooting....

regards, raoul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with everything you said, and as I process through the images at 800, I find myself doing just as you do--finding ways to manipulate the file to look acceptable, especially when it was one that was a good image, but needed more light--and not more flash. I can;t convert any of these to B&W though because the color was part of the shoot itself.

[budjames]

I just got my 1DsMkIII this week. I shot a bunch of shots yesterday at my 10 yr old son's baseball game. I used ISO 800 at about f7.1 on my Canon 100-400 IS lens. It was a cloudy day, so I had image stabilization turned on too.

The images are very clean and virtually noise free as the contrast was low. I processed them in LR and punched up the contrast and saturation a bit. They looked pretty good.

Later today I'll be shooting my 13 yr old daughter's orchestra performance at a local Catholic church. The church is magnificent so I'm looking forward to getting some great available light shots. I'll probably use my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS and 24-70 f2.8 L lenses.

I'll let you know how they turn out.

Bud James

[jeffok]

Recently I did some location shots of people, and I shot using ISO 100 to 800. I've noticed the files from the 800 are noticeably more flat than the 100 and 400 settings, due to grain, and the tones on skin are more harsh. They're usable, but you can definitely see a large drop in smoothness and tone transition, and even in some colors of skin tones not reproducing nearly as well as 400. On the other hand, the plant life around the subjects looked nice.

Has anyone else experienced this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have been shooting with my 1Ds3 for 5 months, often at high ISO and I have not had your experience, nor have I seen anyone else make this comment about the 1Ds3 on this forum or anywhere else for that matter. "Flat" due to grain does not make any sense to me. At 800, there is still barely perceptible noise in most cases but I have never noticed a loss in depth, contrast or color tone transition.

[203]

I have shot a bit at 800 and it looks fine in terms of noise, especially considering the size of the file. I mean, how large are you printing?
Here is one hand held at ISO 500, the file at full-size looks very clean!:

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/97531247/original

[sojournerphoto]

Recently I did some location shots of people, and I shot using ISO 100 to 800. I've noticed the files from the 800 are noticeably more flat than the 100 and 400 settings, due to grain, and the tones on skin are more harsh. They're usable, but you can definitely see a large drop in smoothness and tone transition, and even in some colors of skin tones not reproducing nearly as well as 400. On the other hand, the plant life around the subjects looked nice.

Has anyone else experienced this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've been surplsingly pleased with mine - coming from a 5D, which I still have as a backup. Here's a shot and 100% crop at iso 100 with plus 0.8 in raw conversion.

Mike

[dwdallam]

I don't have any shots that are the same in light and contrast, but I'll post the one I do have. I'll post a 100% piece of the file from a 100 and 800 ISO RAW file.  Maybe it's something else I'm seeing then. Does teh 1DS3 saturate things more than a 5D? Maybe that's it. I'll know more after I take a look. Can't do it right now. I have PS processing about 300 RAWs.

[kevinwilson]

No offence intended.. but I REALLY despise statements like this.

Firstly - its simply not the case - download a sample RAW file from each at ISO1600 - the 1DS MKIII is REMARKABLE considering its twice the resolution with virtually NO more noise than the D3. The D3 most certainly does NOT blow away the 1DSMKIII.

Secondly.. blanket statements like this serve no more purpose than the spread of minsinformation. They are not helpful and not accurate.

*gets off soapbox*.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Josh,
I have a right to my opinion, pleasedo not patronise me. I base my thoughts on shots taken at a wedding environment.

Yes, you may find them of some use when all else fails.
Kevin

[Mark D Segal]

TBH, I find the files pretty useless quality wise around 800, having said that film at 800 wasn't too hot.
In comparison, the Nikon D3 blows the 1DS 3 away at high iso. But I still prefer the colour from the Canon.
Kevin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you read my feature article posted on this site this evening you will see that what you are saying here does not cohere with my findings. The D3 is an excellent camera, but it does not "blow" the 1Ds3.

[Mark D Segal]

Recently I did some location shots of people, and I shot using ISO 100 to 800. I've noticed the files from the 800 are noticeably more flat than the 100 and 400 settings, due to grain, and the tones on skin are more harsh. They're usable, but you can definitely see a large drop in smoothness and tone transition, and even in some colors of skin tones not reproducing nearly as well as 400. On the other hand, the plant life around the subjects looked nice.

Has anyone else experienced this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doug,

Skin tones, as for skies, can be delicate in terms of revealing noise and under low-light conditions at high ISO can look a bit "grainy" if not properly exposed. With adequate exposure the Canon 1Ds3 should give you smooth results at ISO 800 and above. My sense from what you describe here in terms of graininess, flatness and rough tonal transititions is that you may be dealing with the effects of under-exposure rather than the higher ISO setting. Also, are we talking raw captures or camera-baked JPEGs - that could make a huge difference. And what are your Camera Raw settings if these were raw files?  

Mark

[dwdallam]

Doug,

Skin tones, as for skies, can be delicate in terms of revealing noise and under low-light conditions at high ISO can look a bit "grainy" if not properly exposed. With adequate exposure the Canon 1Ds3 should give you smooth results at ISO 800 and above. My sense from what you describe here in terms of graininess, flatness and rough tonal transititions is that you may be dealing with the effects of under-exposure rather than the higher ISO setting. Also, are we talking raw captures or camera-baked JPEGs - that could make a huge difference. And what are your Camera Raw settings if these were raw files? 

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you are right actually. I do shoot exclusively in RAW, but some of the images had to be really pushed, +1/5 EV in ACR. Just off the top of my head, I think those are the ones I was seeing this in. So tell me, does underexposing greatly increase the grain in digital when using higher ISOs, not so much linear but geometrical in affect? In other words, when you under expose at ISO 800 will you see more grain than if you underexpose at ISO 100, and what is the multiplication factor?

[Josh-H]

Sorry Josh,
I have a right to my opinion, pleasedo not patronise me. I base my thoughts on shots taken at a wedding environment.

Yes, you may find them of some use when all else fails.
Kevin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed everyone is entitled to an opinion - but the comment was not made as an opinion - it was presented as a statement of fact. At least thats the way I interpreted it.

As to being patronising - this was not my intention - I began my post with 'no wish to offend' and I meant it. I just read your comment as a statement of fact and not an opinion. Anyway.. probably no more need be said in this regard. If your ok - lets leave it at that and get back on topic.

Back on topic - I have looked at a few more D3 High ISO 800 samples compared to 1DS MKIII samples at ISO 800 and really- if the difference is there, its very subtle to my eye. Perhaps more importantly.. the extra resolution of the 1DS MKIII makes it a no brainer on which I prefer.

[dwdallam]

Doug,

Skin tones, as for skies, can be delicate in terms of revealing noise and under low-light conditions at high ISO can look a bit "grainy" if not properly exposed. With adequate exposure the Canon 1Ds3 should give you smooth results at ISO 800 and above. My sense from what you describe here in terms of graininess, flatness and rough tonal transititions is that you may be dealing with the effects of under-exposure rather than the higher ISO setting. Also, are we talking raw captures or camera-baked JPEGs - that could make a huge difference. And what are your Camera Raw settings if these were raw files? 

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

After upgrading to ACR4.4 I found that in Bridge the sharpening was set to all instead of preview only. Also, I probably need to set Zero out sharpening in ACR itself when doing portrait type stuff. Do you think that would have any affect?

BTW I read your article and was glad to see the results. It is also what I assumed, that underexposing will exacerbate noise at higer ISO settings. Good stuff.

You also say that using ETTR that ISO 1600 should be usable, but what about for skin tones?

[Mark D Segal]

After upgrading to ACR4.4 I found that in Bridge the sharpening was set to all instead of preview only. Also, I probably need to set Zero out sharpening in ACR itself when doing portrait type stuff. Do you think that would have any affect?

BTW I read your article and was glad to see the results. It is also what I assumed, that underexposing will exacerbate noise at higer ISO settings. Good stuff.

You also say that using ETTR that ISO 1600 should be usable, but what about for skin tones?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doug, thanks. Yup - zeroing the sharpening in ACR is a good thing to do unless you are also reducing noise in ACR as well. The last thing we need on skin and in skies is sharpened visible noise. I think ISO 1600 is usable even with the presence of skin tones provided they are well-enough exposed, but if one does see a bit more grit than desired it is easily handled with gentle noise-reduction as I explained in the other thread. I say gentle because one usually doesn't want to wipe out natural skin texture completely.

[Mark D Segal]

I think you are right actually. I do shoot exclusively in RAW, but some of the images had to be really pushed, +1/5 EV in ACR. Just off the top of my head, I think those are the ones I was seeing this in. So tell me, does underexposing greatly increase the grain in digital when using higher ISOs, not so much linear but geometrical in affect? In other words, when you under expose at ISO 800 will you see more grain than if you underexpose at ISO 100, and what is the multiplication factor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doug, the results in the article (Figure 12 columns A, B, C, G) indicate higher noise values as ISO increases for the "exposed-to-the-left" images. and to a lesser extent the ETTR images from the original Canon 1Ds. I didn't - and wouldn't - try to fit equations to these numbers, but one can see that the results in columns A and C (for exposeed-to-the-left) do look more "exponential "than do all the others. I found it also VERY interesting comparing columns D versus G and E versus H, supporting the hypothesis that exposure is really the key to in-camera noise control.

[dwdallam]

Doug, the results in the article (Figure 12 columns A, B, C, G) indicate higher noise values as ISO increases for the "exposed-to-the-left" images. and to a lesser extent the ETTR images from the original Canon 1Ds. I didn't - and wouldn't - try to fit equations to these numbers, but one can see that the results in columns A and C (for exposeed-to-the-left) do look more "exponential "than do all the others. I found it also VERY interesting comparing columns D versus G and E versus H, supporting the hypothesis that exposure is really the key to in-camera noise control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199544\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Mark.