Canon 5D and noise

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Padu - 20 Oct 2006 18:01 GMT

Hi all,

On the last edition of popular photography, the winner of "photographer of
the year" took this picture of one of the subjects of the "Bodies..."
exhibition with a canon EOS 5D using 1/200 sec at f/7.1 and ISO 1600. The
published picture is almost 2 pages big, very low light and I can barely see
any noise.

How is that? They don't mention any noise reduction software on PP, but it
is hard to believe it was not used. Anybody here has one and care to
comment?

Cheers

Padu

Reply to this Message

Wayne J. Cosshall - 20 Oct 2006 22:09 GMT

in the testing of the 5D I did for noise:
<http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=566>
there was very low noise at 1600ISO, even with all noise reduction in
the RAW software turned off. So it may not have needed any beyond the
usual amount of noise removal most RAW conversion software dials in my
default.

Cheers,

Wayne

Signature

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

Reply to this Message

Mark² - 21 Oct 2006 01:46 GMT

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> but it is hard to believe it was not used. Anybody here has one and
> care to comment?

Those who shoot with the 5D don't find that surprising.
5D is as good as low noise gets in DSLRs.

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Reply to this Message

DD - 23 Oct 2006 13:21 GMT

> > Hi all,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Those who shoot with the 5D don't find that surprising.
> 5D is as good as low noise gets in DSLRs.

Pity it doesn't help when you're up in a tree trying to take pictures of
a hawk 6ft away and using the crummy Canon flash system. But I suppose
that might entail actually having some photographic expertise, something
that Canon, despite their best efforts, can't supply their users.

Signature

www.nikongear.com
Share, learn, win.

Reply to this Message

Frank ess - 23 Oct 2006 18:21 GMT

> In article <r5e_g.51252$nm1.2190@fed1read04>, "Mark²"
> <mjmorgan(lowest
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> expertise, something that Canon, despite their best efforts, can't
> supply their users.

You must be carrying _such_ a load of insecurities to let this kind of
crap slip into your expressive life.

Poor baby.

Signature

Frank ess
Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that
the
offense cannot reach it. -Rene Descartes, philosopher and
mathematician
(1596-1650)

Reply to this Message

Mark² - 24 Oct 2006 02:06 GMT

>> In article <r5e_g.51252$nm1.2190@fed1read04>, "Mark²"
>> <mjmorgan(lowest
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Poor baby.

I see from his echo in your post that Dallas continues his compulsion.
He apparently REALLY hates these pictures:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66716142/original
and
http://upload.pbase.com/image/69074476/original
More than a month has passed, and he's still stewing??
Weird.

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Reply to this Message

Skip - 24 Oct 2006 14:29 GMT

Taken with the "crummy" Canon flash system:
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/62026314
Dallas, that insult was as unnecessary as it was untrue.

Signature

Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

In article <r5e_g.51252$nm1.2190@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...

> Padu wrote:
> > Hi all,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Those who shoot with the 5D don't find that surprising.
> 5D is as good as low noise gets in DSLRs.

Signature

www.nikongear.com
Share, learn, win.

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 24 Oct 2006 20:37 GMT

Yes but I think you would get that washing out at the frontof the bird with
any flash unless the subject was better lit and you only used the flash for
fill.

> Taken with the "crummy" Canon flash system:
> http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/62026314
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> that might entail actually having some photographic expertise, something
> that Canon, despite their best efforts, can't supply their users.

Reply to this Message

Skip - 24 Oct 2006 21:12 GMT

> Yes but I think you would get that washing out at the frontof the bird
> with any flash unless the subject was better lit and you only used the
> flash for fill.

I actually don't feel the front of the bird was all that washed out, there's
still plenty of detail there. The front of the bird was considerably
lighter than the rest of it. But there was no light on that bird, at all,
just the flash.

Signature

Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Reply to this Message

Wolfgang Weisselberg - 31 Oct 2006 14:03 GMT

> Pity it doesn't help when you're up in a tree trying to take pictures of
> a hawk 6ft away and using the crummy Canon flash system.

Did you even look at the Canon flash system in the last 30 or
so years?

> But I suppose
> that might entail actually having some photographic expertise, something
> that Canon, despite their best efforts, can't supply their users.

Photographic expertise is needed by the guy (or gal) behind the
camera, as usual. Since others get very good results, you need
to have your gear and your photographic expertise checked.

-Wolfgang

PS: And don't expect any Flash-TTL from a magnesium filled
flash bulb, not even from Nikon.

Reply to this Message

DD - 01 Nov 2006 09:24 GMT

>
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Did you even look at the Canon flash system in the last 30 or
> so years?

Yes. I used Canon from 2001 until 2004. I had 550EX, 420EX and ST-E2
transmitter.

> > But I suppose
> > that might entail actually having some photographic expertise, something
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> camera, as usual. Since others get very good results, you need
> to have your gear and your photographic expertise checked.

Yes, I checked them into the trade-in centre at my nearest Nikon dealer
outlet.

The Canon TTL flash system was appallingly bad at getting exposure
correct.

Signature

www.nikongear.com
Share, learn, win.

Reply to this Message

Wolfgang Weisselberg - 05 Nov 2006 13:08 GMT

> In article <q6uj14-qrj.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02

>> Did you even look at the Canon flash system in the last 30 or
>> so years?

> Yes. I used Canon from 2001 until 2004. I had 550EX, 420EX and ST-E2
> transmitter.

Aha. And I get it you never understood the flash system.

Hint: It's like any other automatic system: you have to
learn how it works and then work _with_ it, not _against_ it.
Of course, you'll balk and scream at that.

If you handled the AF system the same, you'd select the worst
possible AF point and 'focus and recompose' so it only sees the
far horizon, then scream as the hawk in front of you is not sharp.
It takes quite a bit malicious ingeniuity not to get along
with Canons TTL.

>> > But I suppose
>> > that might entail actually having some photographic expertise, something
>> > that Canon, despite their best efforts, can't supply their users.

>> Photographic expertise is needed by the guy (or gal) behind the
>> camera, as usual. Since others get very good results, you need
>> to have your gear and your photographic expertise checked.

> Yes, I checked them into the trade-in centre at my nearest Nikon dealer
> outlet.

You checked your photographic expertise into the trade-in centre?
Did you even get a nickel for that?

> The Canon TTL flash system was appallingly bad at getting exposure
> correct.

The Canon TTL flash system will give you a bad exposure if
you don't use it correctly. So will the Nikon TTL flash system.

Obviously, the Nikon way of doing things is closer to whatever
_you_ think how it *has* *to* *be* *done*!!!
Or maybe you just read the manual, for once.

-Wolfgang

Reply to this Message

Padu - 23 Oct 2006 18:34 GMT

"Mark²"

> Those who shoot with the 5D don't find that surprising.
> 5D is as good as low noise gets in DSLRs.

Nice to know. I think I know what kind of camera will be my next one then ;)

Cheers

Padu

Reply to this Message