Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: More 5DII RAWs  (Read 2952 times)

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1772
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 06:37:06 am by marcmccalmont »
Logged
Marc McCalmont

HickersonJasonC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
More 5DII RAWs
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2008, 07:27:57 pm »

What raw processor are you using to edit these? I can't find anything that works. Can these be converted to DNG and imported into LR?
Logged

HickersonJasonC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
More 5DII RAWs
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2008, 01:32:39 am »

OK, LR2 was not importing the converted DNGs. Seems to have fixed itself.

What I see from these real-world RAW images is that, at least up to ISO 400, there is no useful difference in IQ between the new 5D II and my years old 20D with the exception of maximum printable size. I'm not saying the 5DII isn't a superior camera, just that I don't see a compelling reason to invest.

Attached are a couple of ISO 400-500 screen grabs comparing the 5D II and 20D noise characteristics. No noise reduction applied, default settings, screen grabs from compare view in LR2. Can anyone tell the difference?
100% pixels
[attachment=10195:100__20D_vs_5DII.png]
400% pixels
[attachment=10196:400__20D_vs_5DII.png]
400% pixels
[attachment=10197:400__20D_vs_5DII_2.png]

Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • yet
More 5DII RAWs
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2008, 07:03:01 pm »

Quote from: HickersonJasonC
OK, LR2 was not importing the converted DNGs. Seems to have fixed itself.

What I see from these real-world RAW images is that, at least up to ISO 400, there is no useful difference in IQ between the new 5D II and my years old 20D with the exception of maximum printable size. I'm not saying the 5DII isn't a superior camera, just that I don't see a compelling reason to invest.

Attached are a couple of ISO 400-500 screen grabs comparing the 5D II and 20D noise characteristics. No noise reduction applied, default settings, screen grabs from compare view in LR2. Can anyone tell the difference?
100% pixels
(...)
I don't understand why you think that comparing relatively uniform areas on-screen will give you a good idea about "noise characteristics" in a camera.

Even if you're correct that the per-pixel noise is similar, the clue seems to be:

maximum printable size

However, DxOMark appears to have come to a similar conclusion regarding signal/noise at 18% grey, based on analysis of the raw files. It's just that there are other parts of the 5D MkII that work better...
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 07:03:34 pm by jani »
Logged
Jan

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
More 5DII RAWs
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2008, 08:52:14 pm »

Quote from: jani
I don't understand why you think that comparing relatively uniform areas on-screen will give you a good idea about "noise characteristics" in a camera
Actually, this the only way to compare noise characteristics, although "comparing" should be done by "measuring" the noise, not "judging" it.

Example: shots with the Canon 40D, once @ ISO 200 and once @ ISO 400, with the same exposure, i.e. the same amount of light has been captured. An area has been selected and the noise measured on the noisiest channel, which happens to be the red in the illumination of that setup.
 
Of course, the initial intensity in the ISO 400 shot is twice as high as in the ISO 200 shot. Actually, the red channel is 1.09 EV higher (9.90 vs. 8.81).
 
The noise in the ISO 200 shot is 48.2%, while in the ISO 400 shot it is only 33.4%.
 

 


Don't you think, that this is an objective measurement of the noise? It does not depend on the scenery (only that the measured areas have to depict smooth, unicolored, evenly illuminated surfaces), nor on the color, nor on the actual illumination, nor on the exposure, nor on the lens, etc.

Quote
Even if you're correct that the per-pixel noise is similar, the clue seems to be:

maximum printable size
Is that an objective, comparable measurement? Like measuring something in nanotechnology with a carpenter's measure tape?
Logged
Gabor

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • yet
More 5DII RAWs
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2008, 06:31:32 am »

Quote from: Panopeeper
Actually, this the only way to compare noise characteristics, although "comparing" should be done by "measuring" the noise, not "judging" it.
Quite so, the clue here is "comparing ... on screen".

The rest of your post also appears to come from a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.
Logged
Jan

HickersonJasonC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
More 5DII RAWs
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2008, 11:17:39 am »

Quote from: Panopeeper
Actually, this the only way to compare noise characteristics, although "comparing" should be done by "measuring" the noise, not "judging" it.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I've never framed a mathematical analysis of a camera and hung it on a wall and I don't know anyone else who has, either. I think "judging" is the only way to compare two images. Have we lost the ability of our eyes to see? Why are we relying on computer analysis to tell us what looks good?

Whether 13x19" prints from these two cameras would exhibit the same or different noise at ISO400, I'm not in a position to test at the moment, so I can't say. Perhaps the downsampling of the 5DII image to this print size would give it an edge over the 20D. My point was that there has been a lot of talk and heaps of expectation about the low noise capabilities of the current crop of high-end cameras, but from what I have seen so far, the major improvement has been a significant increase in megapixels, which can then be downsampled before print to achieve a slight decrease in visible noise, maybe.

I think we reached the point of really usable cameras a few years ago. And I for one am content to work with what I have for a while longer.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up