- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Phil V said:So we're in agreement then.
The only difference is I let the gear heads wind me up sometimes
And you have an old armchair
Best Canon ISO performers?
- Thread starter ajax_andy
- Start date
And you have an old armchair
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Taken on a 20D using the kit lens that came with an EOS 500 film camera. This was a rubbish lens, the later kit lenses were better and the current kit lenses are relatively stellar.
Still ranks as one of the best images I have ever taken and I think the kit I now use is possibly a hindrance rather than a help regards taking something similar.
- Messages
- 3,209
- Edit My Images
- Yes
back on this best Canon ISO performer question.
for best ISO performance, you go full frame or go home.
goes like this: 1Dx > 5D3 > 5D2. but there's less than a stop of difference between them. so I personally don't see why anyone would spend more than £1200 on a body at the moment.
no, there is no focusing "issue" for 5D2, centre point is all that's needed. full frame AF points are all packed in the centre anyway, having 100 is same as 1.
for best ISO performance, you go full frame or go home.
goes like this: 1Dx > 5D3 > 5D2. but there's less than a stop of difference between them. so I personally don't see why anyone would spend more than £1200 on a body at the moment.
no, there is no focusing "issue" for 5D2, centre point is all that's needed. full frame AF points are all packed in the centre anyway, having 100 is same as 1.
- Messages
- 935
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
So, the newer cameras don't have their focus points spread more widely in the frame?
From personal experience, if you are using the 'expose to the right technique' a 5diii at 6400iso is same as 5dii at 1600iso. So for me personally, there is a reason to upgrade.
.
Still ranks as one of the best images I have ever taken and I think the kit I now use is possibly a hindrance rather than a help regards taking something similar.
Explain please Duncan
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for getting this discussion back on track, I was just about to try and do the same as we're really getting off topic I feel.
I understand what people are saying about the photographer not the camera makes the pictures great, but surely it's best to have the right tool of the job and that if you can afford it then the best tool will always help you achieve the desired results over a lesser one.
Like I said earlier I am asking the question based purely on the fact I currently use a 7D and a 40D... The 40D is going to be replaced at some point soon and I can either get another 7D or go FF. I would prefer FF as it'll handle the noise better... noise which isn't an issue as I can remove it in PP, however if I'm upgrading and have the cash I may as well go for the best tool I can afford and reduce the amount of NR required later on.
So on that note I feel the 5D MK II is looking like the most obvious choice for me, mainly because it's an improvement over what I have in the 40D and also for the price of a MKIII I can get a MK II and a 28-70mm L lens which makes a lot of sense IMO.
Eventually I can upgrade the 7D to a MK III if business is booming, but if not I still have a very good set of bodies and lenses in which to go about my work.
Any of that sound wrong, or any suggestions on anything I've not considered / thought of?
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
<cough> someone had already done that
The straw that broke the camels back for me to sell my 5D2 was the outer focal points in lowish light (at an am-dram production). Even though I had a 70-200Lf4IS and fast enough shutter, the outer points just wouldn't focus reliably. I think that was the last time I used the 5D2 in anger before selling it in favour of a micro4/3 (Panasonic G5). At least my images are now in focus - and I can place the focus point anywhere I like on screen!
Be aware that the outer focusing points on a 40D are better than those on a 5Dmark II. If you only use centre focus point, it's not an issue, but one you should be aware of.
And before anyone says the 5D2 focusing is fine, yes it does generally, but the centre spot still misses occasionally and the outer spots are not as good as the centre spot. The focusing accuracy is not as good as my CDAF Panny (for relatively static subjects).
For a more in-depth look at this (and I think reading these 4 were really the final, final nail in the coffin for me), take a look at the Lens Rentals blog here which shows that PDAF autofocus really is a bit of a lottery (but unfortunate necessity if you shoot moving objects):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/autofocus-reality-part-4-nikon-full-frame
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
<cough> someone had already done that
The straw that broke the camels back for me to sell my 5D2 was the outer focal points in lowish light (at an am-dram production). Even though I had a 70-200Lf4IS and fast enough shutter, the outer points just wouldn't focus reliably. I think that was the last time I used the 5D2 in anger before selling it in favour of a micro4/3 (Panasonic G5). At least my images are now in focus - and I can place the focus point anywhere I like on screen!
Be aware that the outer focusing points on a 40D are better than those on a 5Dmark II. If you only use centre focus point, it's not an issue, but one you should be aware of.
And before anyone says the 5D2 focusing is fine, yes it does generally, but the centre spot still misses occasionally and the outer spots are not as good as the centre spot. The focusing accuracy is not as good as my CDAF Panny (for relatively static subjects).
For a more in-depth look at this (and I think reading these 4 were really the final, final nail in the coffin for me), take a look at the Lens Rentals blog here which shows that PDAF autofocus really is a bit of a lottery (but unfortunate necessity if you shoot moving objects):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/autofocus-reality-part-4-nikon-full-frame
Ok that may be a problem for me as I pretty much never use centre point and recompose. I shoot at f/2.8 a lot and with a shallow focal plane I find centre point and recompose to be a less than ideal way of working
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Glad I could be of help muddying the waters for youOk that may be a problem for me as I pretty much never use centre point and recompose. I shoot at f/2.8 a lot and with a shallow focal plane I find centre point and recompose to be a less than ideal way of working
I only had f4 lenses, but the number I rejected solely from focus performance was quite large when I did the am-dram production.
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't use auto select... I just choose the nearest point, but this is usually more on the outer edge than near the centre due to not composing people in the centre of the frame very often
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sensorgen seem to have found some figures that show the 60D has sacrificed some DR and low end cleanliness in exchange for winning out at 6400 and 12800 Iso levels.
7D http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_7D.html
60D http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_60D.html
Bob
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lies, damn lies and statistics
Have a look at: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/619|0/(brand2)/Canon
First thing is someone has ripped off someone elses ISO measurements as they are identical to the last digits.
Second thing is when you plot the values against the calculated ISOs the differences are pretty much nil.
I don't think you'd reliably be able to tell the difference (I'd say the measurements are probably within manufacturing tolerances anyway) and the 60D measures worse as it has a higher actual ISO than the 7D
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Did a bit of research last night in to the mark II and Mark III 5d's... seems like the mark II is kind of the 40d's big brother and the mark III the 7d's.
As I kind of hate my 40d I'm a little less convinced about the mark II... anyone found the mark II a bit naff build wise compared the the 7d?
Also very few focus points doesn't appeal to me, it wouldn't be a killer but have a horrible feeling I'd dislike the mark II in the same way I do the 40d
As I kind of hate my 40d I'm a little less convinced about the mark II... anyone found the mark II a bit naff build wise compared the the 7d?
Also very few focus points doesn't appeal to me, it wouldn't be a killer but have a horrible feeling I'd dislike the mark II in the same way I do the 40d
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's the second time mentioned in this thread, but I've not heard it before.
Got any links?
Personally - I suspect they used the same AF system from the 20D right through to the 5DII. I know there are some very subtle 'improvements' as time went on, but I can't say I ever noticed them.
Also - what's with the 5DII AF bashing - especially in a thread about ISO!
I routinely use both the 5DII and 5DIII and in the majority of shooting situations there's nowt wrong with the 5DII AF.
There are some situations where I expected a big improvement in the percentage of keepers using the 5DIII which just didn't happen, but on the other hand I've also had situations where the 5DIII AF lived up to the publicity and got far more keepers than I would have expected with the 5DII, but even then the 5DIII AF was far from perfect.
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Duncan, I think as I've narrowed it down to either the 5d Mark II or III people are just giving me the pro's and con's of each so i can make an informed decision on the best one to pick for my needs.
With regards the MK II do you use centre spot and recompose usually or the outer focus points?
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
40D and 50D have 9 cross point A/F, the 5D2 has 1 cross (centre) plus 6 focus assist points around the centre. The outer 8 points are not cross point. Have a look on Canons site if you want proof
If you are wanting high ISO, you are probably struggling for light. The outer AF points are not as good as the centre AF point in low light. If you want to use them in these conditions, that is a potential issue you should be aware of.
- Messages
- 3,209
- Edit My Images
- Yes
well, I just looked it up on wikipedia, 40D has "9 user points (cross type)" whereas I know 5D2 only has single cross type in the centre. could be wrong, and they are in fact the same system.
I'm not bashing the 5D2's AF system, but it certainly isn't up to 7D standards. I am just saying in this situation, spending more for 5D3 might be the way forward.
I'm not bashing the 5D2's AF system, but it certainly isn't up to 7D standards. I am just saying in this situation, spending more for 5D3 might be the way forward.
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
40D and 50D have 9 cross point A/F, the 5D2 has 1 cross (centre) plus 6 focus assist points around the centre. The outer 8 points are not cross point. Have a look on Canons site if you want proof
If you are wanting high ISO, you are probably struggling for light. The outer AF points are not as good as the centre AF point in low light. If you want to use them in these conditions, that is a potential issue you should be aware of.
Blimey - I stand corrected!
One has cross points and the other has AF assist points.
Having a quick read, the AF assist points are located around the centre and are primarily to assist tracking moving targets.
Every day is a school day!
From DPReview
40D
9-point TTL CMOS sensor
All points cross-type for lenses of F5.6 or faster *
Center point additionally sensitive with lenses of F2.8 or faster *
AF working range: -0.5 - 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100)
5DII
9-point TTL CMOS sensor
6 "Invisible Assist AF points"
Centre point cross type F5.6 or faster
Center point additionally sensitive with lenses of F2.8 or faster
AF working range: -0.5 - 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100)
However, both cameras should be set to centre point once the light starts falling as only the centre point benefits from f2.8 (or better) lenses.
Interestingly, even the 5DIII doesn't match up to the 40D when using f5.6 (e.g. 70-200 f4 with 1.4xTC)
All the usable cross points are in a vertical central band with none near the far edges.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/14
You are right
However, in poor light using good lenses (f2.8 or better), you should still be using the centre point to get best results.
Most of the concert and wedding photography in my Blog has been shot using centre point and recompose.
The most recent wedding set for the low light shots I used my 5DIII with 50mm f1.4 and an edge(ish) point.
It locked on solidly, even after the 5DII had given up with the centre point; but the AF was very sluggish.
Reading around for this thread has taught me that if I'd tried the centre point it could have been far more responsive.
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Blimey - I stand corrected!
One has cross points and the other has AF assist points.
Having a quick read, the AF assist points are located around the centre and are primarily to assist tracking moving targets.
Every day is a school day!
From DPReview
40D
9-point TTL CMOS sensor
All points cross-type for lenses of F5.6 or faster *
Center point additionally sensitive with lenses of F2.8 or faster *
AF working range: -0.5 - 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100)
5DII
9-point TTL CMOS sensor
6 "Invisible Assist AF points"
Centre point cross type F5.6 or faster
Center point additionally sensitive with lenses of F2.8 or faster
AF working range: -0.5 - 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100)
However, both cameras should be set to centre point once the light starts falling as only the centre point benefits from f2.8 (or better) lenses.
Interestingly, even the 5DIII doesn't match up to the 40D when using f5.6 (e.g. 70-200 f4 with 1.4xTC)
All the usable cross points are in a vertical central band with none near the far edges.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/14
You are right
However, in poor light using good lenses (f2.8 or better), you should still be using the centre point to get best results.
Most of the concert and wedding photography in my Blog has been shot using centre point and recompose.
The most recent wedding set for the low light shots I used my 5DIII with 50mm f1.4 and an edge(ish) point.
It locked on solidly, even after the 5DII had given up with the centre point; but the AF was very sluggish.
Reading around for this thread has taught me that if I'd tried the centre point it could have been far more responsive.
That's interesting as at really shallow DOF's and uber narrow focal planes I always thought centre and recompose would throw the focus off as any recomposing can mean the difference between focussing on the eyes or the nose instead?
I've never had any issues with the 7d focussing in poor light with the outer focus points... although saying that doing gigs I've used centre and recompose as the light has been pretty much nothing and found that only the centre worked... but they were extreme conditions and not the dark churches etc I usually shoot weddings in.
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I suspect the centre point and recompose focal plane problem may be dependent on focal length.
I've not done any testing to back up what I'm saying, but it's possible that the 135 f2 will never suffer
Conversely, at 17mm I'd guess it is a very real (and significant) problem.
Hmmmmm
Need to go and do some proper testing with the 50mm f1.4.
I'm hoping/expecting the result isn't significant as I've never spotted a problem reviewing my images.
Quite happy to be proved wrong because if needed I will change my technique.
Focus issues from focus/recompose are dependent on DOF (obviously), your distance to the subject and the amount you recompose. I basically ignore the issue unless I'm within a few feet of the subject with a very wide aperture. The bigger problem I've found in these cases is that it's very difficult not to move a little closer or further from the subject as you recompose.