1D Mk IIN and noise

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all

This might sound very wrong and snobbish even:eek::LOL: but I would like to hear the opinions of other MkIIN owners on noise.

I think I am spoiled by the sensors on my 1Ds II and 5D wrt noise and image quality as I perceive the IIN to be very noisy even in daytime shots or is it a factor of technique on my side?

I thought at first that the IIN should be very good even though only 8Mp as it has the same pixel size and density as the 5D...:shrug:

Your opinions please(y)
 
antonroland said:
Hello all

This might sound very wrong and snobbish even:eek::LOL: but I would like to hear the opinions of other MkIIN owners on noise.

I think I am spoiled by the sensors on my 1Ds II and 5D wrt noise and image quality as I perceive the IIN to be very noisy even in daytime shots or is it a factor of technique on my side?

I thought at first that the IIN should be very good even though only 8Mp as it has the same pixel size and density as the 5D...:shrug:

Your opinions please(y)
Click to expand...

What kind of factor of technique do you employ mate?
Personally for me, exposing to the right a touch when using higher ISO's is a must. My 30D & 1DmkI were better that way.
Any slight under exposure really empahasises noise.
T.
 
I used to think the 1DMkii was not bad with noise ... then I bought a 5D, and found I ended up shooting most of my weddings with that. In comparison the 1D has very 'sharp' noise vs the more refined files of the 5D.

As Tomas said, you have to expose spot on with the 1D to minimise noise, where the 5D is more forgiving.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
What kind of factor of technique do you employ mate?
Personally for me, exposing to the right a touch when using higher ISO's is a must. My 30D & 1DmkI were better that way.
Any slight under exposure really empahasises noise.
T.
Click to expand...

Cheers Tomas(y)

I was under the impression at first that I have simply not been used to 8Mp anymore...maybe I should dial in a standard 1/3 - 2/3 stop overexposure when shooting the IIN:shrug:

OK, I was shooting at 320 ISO which, in good daylight, may have worsened it a bit I suppose:thinking:

Back to the drawing board I suppose...will see if I can get a 100% crop sample up

WeddingHack said:
I used to think the 1DMkii was not bad with noise ... then I bought a 5D, and found I ended up shooting most of my weddings with that. In comparison the 1D has very 'sharp' noise vs the more refined files of the 5D.

As Tomas said, you have to expose spot on with the 1D to minimise noise, where the 5D is more forgiving.
Click to expand...

Noise is practically non-existent with the 5D innit?:D

I really thought the 5D and 1D IIN would be fairly equal in noise performance given the fact that, apart from FF vs 1.3 FOV Crop, the sensors are practically identical...

So we learn I suppose...

Cheers for the responses(y)
 
I'v never used the MkII but from what iv seen and heard from guys at work anything over 400 and its dodgy ground..
 
I think this was the result of a few things of which excessive pixel peeping might not have been the least:bonk::bonk::bonk: That and the harsh African sun must be getting to me;)

For the life of me I cannot find the images that I thought were quite noisy but I will undertake NOT to shoot ISO 320 in harsh daylight, NOT to pixel peep too much...the noise I saw/think I saw will not show up in print form anyway.

Looking back at those shots my focus was not what it should have been either.

Just goes to prove (on my planet at least) the more advanced the camera, the less forgiveness on sloppy technique one should expect:rules:
 
fraggle101 said:
I'v never used the MkII but from what iv seen and heard from guys at work anything over 400 and its dodgy ground..
Click to expand...

Which I find hard to believe / understand...

First, it is a Canon...:D

OK, seriously, the sensor's pixel density is identical (pixel size too) to the 5D, which we all will agree is a real treat in the noise department.

Sure there are other considerations too but I honestly didn't expect such great deviations in similar technology...the 5D and 1D MkIIN were launched on the same day...:cautious:

I will put it down to (my) sloppy technique for now until definitive proof to the contrary is seen.
 
I Have a mk11n and find it noisy in the blacks, even at low ISO (100) it's noticable when pixel peeping, but livable. At 400 it's really quite obvious.

I used to over expose by a 1/3 then pull back the RAW file after to reduce the problem. However in low light situations this wasn't always possible. It was also more apparent when I used flash, which I do for most of my work. The strange thing is, when I use a 70-200 f2.8 it doesn't seem quite as noticeable even at high ISO's. I almost switched to Nikon as a result, but went with the MK111 and problem resolved. I still use the mk11n, but only with the 70-200 lens.
 
I agree its strange Anton.. but the sensors just arnt the same.. the fact remains that the 5D sensor is bigger as its full frame and has 12 mp.. where as the 1D is 1.3 crop and only has 8mp.. (Is that right?) i know what you mean about the density ecyt but there are differences and im guessing they will produce different charactristics too.. :shrug:
 
:wave: Hi Nat.. :)
 
Hi Fraggle. Do you know, I was out last night, used the mk11n at ISO 640, with 70-200 natural (or artificial light). hardly any noise compared to ISO 400 blasted with flash. Yet the mk111 is great and I turn the flash down. I've not tried the mk111 yet in the same conditions.
 
Nat

As you own and work with both, how much of an improvement is the MkIII over the IIN?

AF issues on your III?
 
yeah, thats odd, its ok with one lens an not the other!! maybe its the harsh light of the flash?? natural or ambient is softer eh.. shocks the sensor.. also your MkII had the red flecks in the blacks too!! do you still get it with the 70-200? also have you noticed it on the MkIII??
 
Anton..

The MkIII rocks!!! Nuff said... ;)

Im off out to look at some Nikons.. :wave:
 
My 1dm2n is noticeably superior to my 30D for noise. I've always read that the 1d2 is superior to the 1d2s for noise as well?
I've noticed that individual samples of cameras can be noisier than others before. Wonder if yours is a bit noisier than the norm?

It's obviously not going to compete with the 5D but it should do well against 1dS

antonroland said:
Hello all

This might sound very wrong and snobbish even:eek::LOL: but I would like to hear the opinions of other MkIIN owners on noise.

I think I am spoiled by the sensors on my 1Ds II and 5D wrt noise and image quality as I perceive the IIN to be very noisy even in daytime shots or is it a factor of technique on my side?

I thought at first that the IIN should be very good even though only 8Mp as it has the same pixel size and density as the 5D...:shrug:

Your opinions please(y)
Click to expand...
 
fraggle101 said:
Im off out to look at some Nikons.. :wave:
Click to expand...

Can't believe this:eek::eek::eek:


:LOL:

Nikon have produced a few good bits lately but not nearly nice enough to make me dump Canon...yet:D

TBH, they improved since they started copying the Canon trends;)
 
antonroland said:
Nat

As you own and work with both, how much of an improvement is the MkIII over the IIN?

AF issues on your III?
Click to expand...

I almost switched to Nikon, I got the MK111 and I'm extremely pleased I didn't. I got a new body out of the affected AF issue range. I shot a gig (well 3 songs) for an agency, the light was so low, I was shooting at ISO 2000-3200, while the quality of the pictures wasn't as good as it would be at ISO 100-400, all the pictures I sent to the agency were accepted. I still have issue with movement as I was at 1/20 shutter speed, but the noise just wasn't that bad that it was a problem. I used the mk11 (with 70-200) at 1600 and it was about as good as the mk111 at 2000-3200. I was concerned about AF on one occasion, as then found the mk11n to be worse in the same situation.
The main issue i have with canon is the flash system is poor compared to the Nikon, this is partly resolved with the mk111 and I'm very happy with the picture quality from mine with the flash and in with studio set-up. In natural light or little fill flash, the mk11n is fine, and I will continue to use it for such use.

Hope that helps
 
natjag said:
I almost switched to Nikon, I got the MK111 and I'm extremely pleased I didn't. I got a new body out of the affected AF issue range. I shot a gig (well 3 songs) for an agency, the light was so low, I was shooting at ISO 2000-3200, while the quality of the pictures wasn't as good as it would be at ISO 100-400, all the pictures I sent to the agency were accepted. I still have issue with movement as I was at 1/20 shutter speed, but the noise just wasn't that bad that it was a problem. I used the mk11 (with 70-200) at 1600 and it was about as good as the mk111 at 2000-3200. I was concerned about AF on one occasion, as then found the mk11n to be worse in the same situation.
The main issue i have with canon is the flash system is poor compared to the Nikon, this is partly resolved with the mk111 and I'm very happy with the picture quality from mine with the flash and in with studio set-up. In natural light or little fill flash, the mk11n is fine, and I will continue to use it for such use.

Hope that helps
Click to expand...

Nat

Thanks that did help a lot. I have these bodies now and will work them till the day they die...they will surely become back-up bodies eventually but right now the pressing issue is one of high quality glass and lots of it.

Has the reds been addressed in the Mk III? Any red with flash has always been a problem unless the calibration thing was done properly and profiles sorted.

I must still get the Gretag Macbeth system but will need to get a decent system first...my lappie is getting on in years and I must also make the PC/Mac decision before I spend too much on upgrading my tired home desktop.
 
When I had a mk2 I often shot at iso 400 with no problems. Lets see some of the shots you think are bad.
 
malla1962 said:
When I had a mk2 I often shot at iso 400 with no problems. Lets see some of the shots you think are bad.
Click to expand...

Hi Malla

After starting this thread yesterday I hunted for those images where the noise drew my attention and when I studied the EXIF I was hardly surprised/shocked at what I did...f/2.8 and ISO 320 in harsh early morning sun and it was really a snapshot I grabbed of a mate with his 600/4 in action so technique could and should have been much better.

Have a looky here at some shots of the day I put up on photobucket...

http://s287.photobucket.com/albums/ll126/antonroland/

None of these shots are extreme crops, I think in 1 I cropped away about 1/4 of the original image...saved for web unfortunately so no EXIF.

Would like to hear thoughts on those.

Cheers
 
antonroland said:
None of these shots are extreme crops, I think in 1 I cropped away about 1/4 of the original image...saved for web unfortunately so no EXIF.

Would like to hear thoughts on those.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Those are alright mate, nice shots infact, some are a little underexposed but at that res noise doesn't leap out and assault me really.
Good shots (y)
 
I don't have a 1DIIN but I do have a 1DII and in low light (which is surely when you want to use high ISO) I find it superior to my 1DsII. I took some eagles in Norway in February and got results I am happy to print at ISO800 and are almost passable at ISO1250. Although there is noise, it is better than a 40D in a back to back comparison from the same hide. I've found Noise Ninja to be a big help in reducing noise above 400.

I am always very reluctant to use my 1DsII above ISO400 but will readily push the 1DII another stop.

What I have found is that both bodies are incredibly sensitive to getting the correct exposure. Try and pull it around in PP and the noise appears, particularly in the shadows.

Paul
 
Garnock said:
Paul, I was surprised to read that but the link below shows how right you are.
It also shows the 5D low noise superiority.

CLICKY.


.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that link Cameron. Interesting site. It does show that the 1DII is better than the 1DsII when looking at high ISO SNR. The 1DsII scores higher though - I need to check how it works. Interesting that the 1DsII has better SNR than the 40D. I'd better stop whinging!
 
grumpybadger said:
I don't have a 1DIIN but I do have a 1DII and in low light (which is surely when you want to use high ISO) I find it superior to my 1DsII. I took some eagles in Norway in February and got results I am happy to print at ISO800 and are almost passable at ISO1250. Although there is noise, it is better than a 40D in a back to back comparison from the same hide. I've found Noise Ninja to be a big help in reducing noise above 400.

I am always very reluctant to use my 1DsII above ISO400 but will readily push the 1DII another stop.

What I have found is that both bodies are incredibly sensitive to getting the correct exposure. Try and pull it around in PP and the noise appears, particularly in the shadows.

Paul
Click to expand...

Hello GB:wave:

I expected the IIN to be sort of on par with the 5D as I said earlier in this thread as the pixel pitch, size and all that is practically identical on their respective sensors...

Must follow up on your 1Ds II / 400 ISO theory though...

Cheers
 
antonroland said:
OK, I was shooting at 320 ISO which, in good daylight, may have worsened it a bit I suppose:thinking:
Click to expand...

fraggle101 said:
I'v never used the MkII but from what iv seen and heard from guys at work anything over 400 and its dodgy ground..
Click to expand...

natjag said:
it's noticable when pixel peeping
Click to expand...

I'm not having a go but, for me, pixel peeping is the biggest curse of digital photography there is. I shot an indoors event at ISO 3200 on the 1D MkII (not N) and the prints produced right up to about A4 were perfectly fine.

Nobody used to complain about the loss of sharpness and extra grain when using high speed film so why do we do it with digital?? :shake:
 
dod said:
I'm not having a go but, for me, pixel peeping is the biggest curse of digital photography there is. I shot an indoors event at ISO 3200 on the 1D MkII (not N) and the prints produced right up to about A4 were perfectly fine.

Nobody used to complain about the loss of sharpness and extra grain when using high speed film so why do we do it with digital?? :shake:
Click to expand...

Very true Dod, very true

TBH, what percentage of our pix in the film days were ever printer larger than jumbo anyway??

1-5% maybe?
 
Agree with dod.

Depending on the subject and if you get the exposure very correct you can use ISO 3200 if you need to. I use it regularly for night time football. I don't use it unless I have to but its there if you need it.

http://8by10.zenfolio.com/p365024115/h10f087d0#ha8e0e4b

Above was taken on a 30D which has poorer noise performance than 1DII, 1DIIN and 5D. I also use the 1DIIN for sport at ISO 3200 and as long as you don't have to aggressively crop then it is fine.

John
 
antonroland said:
Hello GB:wave:

I expected the IIN to be sort of on par with the 5D as I said earlier in this thread as the pixel pitch, size and all that is practically identical on their respective sensors...

Must follow up on your 1Ds II / 400 ISO theory though...

Cheers
Click to expand...

I know the 5D is better (or it was when I had one) but I guess it is actually a newer design of sensor than the 1D version, even though it is the same pixel pitch.

I've been thinking about the 1DsII issue and reckon it looks bad at 100% but if you actually down rez to the same pixel size as the 1D it looks significantly better!
 
grumpybadger said:
I guess it is actually a newer design of sensor than the 1D version, even though it is the same pixel pitch.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show, never assume... the 1D MkIIN and the 5D were launched on the same day and, in fact, the IIN's difference over the original Mk II was (among others) that it had the picture styles as found in the 5D.

Yes I assumed that, because of all this the sensors would be near identical in terms of high ISO/noise performance but clearly (a) there are other factors that have a bearing on this, (b) never assume:bonk::bonk::bonk:
 
I believe the sensor in the IIN is the same as in the II, although processing is different. It was certainly my justification for getting an original II and not a IIN

Paul
 
grumpybadger said:
I believe the sensor in the IIN is the same as in the II, although processing is different. It was certainly my justification for getting an original II and not a IIN

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul, I think you are spot on there...there was really very little between the II and the IIN...picture styles, a bigger screen and POSSIBLY a bigger buffer but I'm betting nothing on the bigger buffer.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top