1D Mk IV high iso sports examples anyone?

bigrob

bigrob

Messages
4,225
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just looking at Gary's examples here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=285229 of rugby league.

He starts at 4000 and goes up to 25600. They are pretty damn impressive.

I wondered if any Mk IV shooters have examples on line we can look at that show it's performance at high ISOs.

I assume Gary was using his 300/2.8.

Thanks
 
Thanks Gary

I was hoping Tony was going to post some photos or links to save me wading through his site.
 
heyup give us chance :)

I have loads at 6400 and I ahve used 8000 but cant recall where.. I havent had the need to go any higher to be honest... When I first got the mkIV I did some test ice hockey at high iso but didnt keep

I dont think the mkIV is as good as the nikon at very high iso.. but its as good up to 6400 I reckon .. However its still usable higher

I got my mkIV to use high iso.. not for the real high.. but for better quality at 3200 and above.. its twice as good as the mkIII
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
I got my mkIV to use high iso.. not for the real high.. but for better quality at 3200 and above.. its twice as good as the mkIII
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony
 
bigrob said:
Thanks Tony
Click to expand...

For me it was worth the upgrade just for ISO and a few more MP..i dont do noise reduction on 3200 :) iso 3200 can easy be used for distance shots..one end of pitch to other.... 6400 is very good but not really for distance.. anything higher i have used for fuller frame shots such as cage fiights... done some football with higher but only if fill the frame...
 
spooky.. today I end up shooting inline hockey in one of the darkest indoor venues I ahve seen in a while.. was shooting iso 6400 but only getting 320 or 400 in bright parts shutter.. so i did some 8000 and some 12800

first nitcable difference is .. over exposing makes them worse.. while lower iso a slight over expose helps IMHO

Just got home so will do some examples tommorow :)
 
It was destined Tony.

Looking forward to the examples.
 
scottthehat said:
this will be interesting, the d3s is a monster, and what makes it even more better is that gary shoots jpegs.
Click to expand...

eh ??? jpgs have less noise than raw on any camera mate...I only shoot in jpg btw.

The general opinion is that the mkIV and d3s are on a par to around iso 6400 then the d3s is better at higher iso.. I ahve no illusions about that.. its not a willy swinging contest :) the mkIV has better af and other bits.. but I am thinking probably only on paper :)
 
KIPAX said:
The general opinion is that the mkIV and d3s are on a par to around iso 6400 then the d3s is better at higher iso.. I ahve no illusions about that.. its not a willy swinging contest :) the mkIV has better af and other bits.. but I am thinking probably only on paper :)
Click to expand...
Hmmm, dunno where "the general opinion" bit comes from Tony but as far as im aware and ive owned every pro model from both camps but the MKIV is probably on a par with the D3 and the D3S is 1 to 1 1/2 stops better than the D3, i would ask those who have switched camps, Rovers Andy will tell you, Rogan and me were both discussing how much better the D3S is over the D3 and he's more inclined to say 2 stops better.
 
OK heres a fair old zoom with a prime 135 lens.. iso 12800 and f2.8 in very badly lit indoor thingy...so the subjects are quite small... will do closer up subjects as I come to them..

first is original out the camera..

secons is a 100% crop.. exactly how you would see it out the camera



#1 original but resized
12800_orig_1.jpg



#2 original but cropped nothing done
12800_crop_1.jpg
 
Gary Coyle said:
Hmmm, dunno where "the general opinion" bit comes from Tony but as far as im aware and ive owned every pro model from both camps but the MKIV is probably on a par with the D3 and the D3S is 1 to 1 1/2 stops better than the D3, i would ask those who have switched camps, Rovers Andy will tell you, Rogan and me were both discussing how much better the D3S is over the D3 and he's more inclined to say 2 stops better.
Click to expand...

no idea what your talking about.. i saw d3s and just put that.. what i mean is the nikon equivelant.. could be called the nikon dc56 for all i know.. i really havent a clue..
 
Rubbish mate :LOL: bear in mind Tony the overwhelming majority of that file is "white" and we all know that white never shows noise.

The MKIV is seriously let down with colour and luminance noise, well thats not true really, its still a staggering tool in the right hands just not as good as the D3 or D3S

This is a good comparrison, look at the second set of samples http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/01/23/high-iso-comparison-canon-1d-mark-iv-nikon-d3s-canon-7d-nikon-d300s/
 
I was asked to show examples of the mkIV high end noise and I am doing

I am not showing them to say how good it is.

I am not showing them to compare with a nikon as I already conceded the nikon is better at the higher iso range..


I am showing them on request..
 
You can make anyhting look half decent wiht a touch of PP .. this is iso 12800

12800_proc_1.jpg
 
Tony - thanks for the examples - much appreciated.
 
Probably not much point with a straight out the box iso 12800 pic anyways.. Unless your going to present them to your customer without PP then its not the original.. its what you do with it..

These 4 are iso 12800 and NONE are fill the frame shots so all had to be cropped... filling the frame makes beter pics but was impossible on a prime at hockey :)


At the end of the day you have a mkIV .. this is what you can do with sports at iso 12800 IMHO (others may get better results) and this is a better answer to your question surely?

BTW I didnt set the white balance because everyhting went pink everytime i tried so colours are dependant on what wave of poor light was on the player at the time.. believe me this is a dark dank place THAT NEEDED HIGH ISO .. I could give you BETTER EXAMPLES taken in a well lit place with higher shutter and better aperture and high iso that wasnt needed.... these examples are real as they are required...

All shot in JPG... NO Noise reduction software used... I use photoshops DUST/SCRATCHES on its lowest setting ie 1 ... auto contrast and shadow/highlists tool where appropriate.

1-4 iso 12800
12800_001.jpg



12800_002.jpg



12800_003.jpg



12800_004.jpg
 
Last edited:
Heres one at iso 8000

8000.jpg
 
Doesnt matter if nikon is better.. you ahve a canon as do I .. would you be happy with the above? I am and my customer is :) Would I like better? of course and I will buy the next canon when it comes out :)
 
Tony your ISO 12800 shot is cleaner than I'm get at 6400 with my 1D IV. I presume it's something I'm doing wrong in getting the best out of it, any tips for high ISO shooting. ;) or is it time to send mine in for service and checking :(

R7_47.jpg


R7_47crop.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
whiteflyer said:
Tony your ISO 12800 shot is cleaner than I'm get at 6400 with my 1D IV. I presume it's something I'm doing wrong in get the best out of it, any tips for high ISO shooting. ;)
Click to expand...

Is that the one straight out the box pic?

High iso i always over expose by 1/3 and I try to fiill the frame.. good glass is a must as I can tell the difference if not using a prime L glass.. sorry to play the equipment snob card :( but the simple truth is I can...

theres less noise on my 135l f2 than on my 85mm or nifty50 or 35mm f2
(or is that an optical illusion.. I am not a techie.. I can only report what I see.. so dont take anything i say as gospel :) )

whats your iso 3200 like? I dont even do any noise reduction on mine :)
 
Last edited:
KIPAX, what strength do you set your in camera NR to ? I normally set mine to off or low and fix in post
 
i normally have it on standard or low.. dont trust strong.. iflick about to see whats best... to be honest I ahve no idea which these where on..
 
The image is straight from the camera to DPP and then convert to jpeg from the original RAW. So shooting in RAW there is absolutely no NR.

Looking at the histogram

Screenshot2011-01-11at123901.jpg


Shot using a 70-200 f2.8 L IS ISM,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
whiteflyer said:
The image is straight from the camera to DPP and then convert to jpeg from the original RAW. So shooting in RAW there is absolutely no NR.

Shot using a 70-200 f2.8 L IS ISM,
Click to expand...

theres a lot less noise in a jpg than a raw :)
 
whiteflyer said:
The image is straight from the camera to DPP and then convert to jpeg from the original RAW. So shooting in RAW there is absolutely no NR.

Looking at the histogram

Screenshot2011-01-11at123901.jpg


Shot using a 70-200 f2.8 L IS ISM,
Click to expand...

Try shooting JPEG, looking at the histogram you have a little manouvre to expose to the right, perhaps half a stop if you can do with the slight change in shutter speed but theres deffo some room to over expose, i think a full stop is too much and will only introduce noise but thats totally dependant on the colours and blacks/greys in the image, shooting predominantly white and you can go a full stop as theres never any noise in white, however a little shift up the colour spectrum to lets say cream will show noise.
 
Last edited:
Hi Mark are these taken to test the DIV's high ISO? if so could you post a full size version of the pic taken (cropped as indicated) for examination & converted to Jpeg as said by Gary!. If these where taken "per say" & not for experiment, why such a high shutter speed for runners comming towards you?, wouldn't a shutter speed of 1/400th be sufficient & hence a way lower ISO?. Kind regards Graham.
 
This is my point... i dont care for high iso tests in conditions that dont need high iso... its false IMHO and has no use..test high iso in conditions that require it... thats a proper test :) min f2.8 i would say as well for high iso tests
 
Bluesman graham said:
Hi Mark are these taken to test the DIV's high ISO? if so could you post a full size version of the pic taken (cropped as indicated) for examination & converted to Jpeg as said by Gary!. If these where taken "per say" & not for experiment, why such a high shutter speed for runners comming towards you?, wouldn't a shutter speed of 1/400th be sufficient & hence a way lower ISO?. Kind regards Graham.
Click to expand...

Good spot G, never noticed the SS, 1/500th is good enough for subjects running directly towards you, therefore ISO 3200 would have been all that was required.

EDIT

Never understood the need to shoot Raw for anything other than a wedding, to me RAW just messes about with noise.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Never understood the need to shoot Raw for anything other than a wedding, to me RAW just messes about with noise.
Click to expand...

Can I ask a quick side question about that, as I am just starting to move back to Jpeg?


Do you set a manual WB and then readjust as the light changes, or rely on Auto - which seems a touch risky?
 
DemiLion said:
Can I ask a quick side question about that, as I am just starting to move back to Jpeg?


Do you set a manual WB and then readjust as the light changes, or rely on Auto - which seems a touch risky?
Click to expand...

Cant speak for gary.,.but as i shoot jpg not raw as well.. personally its auto WB outdoors and set the WB manually indoors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top