June 19, 2013, 03:42:11 AM

Author Topic: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?  (Read 6632 times)

xthebillx

  • Guest
5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« on: April 16, 2012, 06:18:22 PM »
Hello!

I know that with the 5D2, ISOs 1/3 stop below the native ISOs are cleaner due to a digital "pull", primarily with video (but I've read that it pertains to RAW as well). Conversely, ISOs 1/3 stop above the native ISOs (125, 250, 500 etc) are noisier because they are achieved by a digital "push" over ISO 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.

Does anyone know if the the same is true with the 5D3?

canon rumors FORUM

5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« on: April 16, 2012, 06:18:22 PM »

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 765
  • Canada
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2012, 06:25:30 PM »
iso 64/125/250/500/1000 are native stops, or am I incorrect?
5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100 macro | 200/2L

Viggo

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2012, 06:28:53 PM »
I thought that varied from model to model?

My 1d4 was cleaner at 160, 320, 640 etc, but the 5d2 looked better at 100, 200, 400....
1d X, 24-70 L II, 35 L, 50 L, 70-200 L II.

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2012, 06:48:02 PM »
I've never seen a real-world difference. Sure, you can shoot the inside of your lens cap and run some sort of meaningless statistical calculation and come up with a number that says there's a difference, but I've yet to see a print where you could tell the difference in a third of a stop of ISO.

If you're really shooting something where a third of a stop of ISO noise will actually make a difference, I'd strongly suggest doing some real-world tests in the actual shooting conditions where you'd be deciding which to use, and basing your decision on your own evaluation of the results you get.

Me? I pick whole number ISO settings because it makes the math easier for me.

Cheers,

b&

JR

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2012, 07:25:35 PM »
I cant see much difference from my own shots.  Though i will admit my eyes may not be well trained for this!  Getting old!

1DX, 24mm f1.4L II, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L II, 135mm f2L, 24-70mm f2.8L II, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II :  D800, D4, 24 1.4G, 35 1.4G, 50 1.4G, 85 1.4G, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR II

LetTheRightLensIn

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2198
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2012, 08:49:03 PM »
Hello!

I know that with the 5D2, ISOs 1/3 stop below the native ISOs are cleaner due to a digital "pull", primarily with video (but I've read that it pertains to RAW as well). Conversely, ISOs 1/3 stop above the native ISOs (125, 250, 500 etc) are noisier because they are achieved by a digital "push" over ISO 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.

Does anyone know if the the same is true with the 5D3?

For stills RAWs the 160,320,640 are the same as 200,400,800, they are the exact same thing only the camera meter over-exposes the 1/3 below the main ISO 1/3 stop.

For video or jpg with baked in processing perhaps they could be better since jpg and video are said to chop off some high-end DR anyway so maybe you lose nothing?

LetTheRightLensIn

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2198
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2012, 08:55:37 PM »
iso 64/125/250/500/1000 are native stops, or am I incorrect?

No, in fact they have less dynamic range than 1/3 stop below and 1/3 AND 2/3 stops above.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2012, 08:55:37 PM »

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2012, 12:17:22 AM »
Tests like OP is searching for (which are only useful if done in real world conditions) vary greatly if you are testing the low light performance of a higher ISO, or if you are testing that same ISO in adequate light and using it specifically to buy yourself a faster shutter speed/smaller aperture, etc..

My suggestion for testing is just shoot as you normally would with what ever you are testing, try to get good pictures, and if time allows, take the same picture multiple times with a wide variety of settings.  EXIF data will tell you which is which when you get them back to your computer, and other than that, just try to keep extra variables like camera shake and focus, etc., consistent so that your tests are more useful.  After you do this quite a bit, you will know how to best use the camera + lens you are testing and get the best out of it and that is really a big key to getting great pictures before the editing stage begins. 

Everyone, myself admittedly included, worries so much about non-real world details and it's a mind killer.  Just use what you got/buy what you can afford/you know you can profit from, and learn to test/use that to it's best, then go rent/try any new equipment and test the hell out of it before you buy it.  If the upgrade is worth it to your art or is clearly a worthy investment, then you don't have to worry so much.  I say this as a persevarate endlessly about which lens I'm going to sell and which one I'm going to buy next or if I'm selling a lens at all or buying a lens at all, if I need another camera body......  Decisions, decisions.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 12:20:11 AM by Jettatore »

spinworkxroy

  • EOS M
  • ****
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2012, 12:55:00 AM »
I used to shoot at ISO160/320/640 etc because tests have shown those are cleaner than ISO100/200/400
However, that was on a Crop camera.
I believe the 5D3 is so castly superior at low ISO that up to maybe ISO800, you won't notice any difference whichever ISO you use. I do believe that even an ISO 400 is the same as ISO100 on a 5D3.
maybe at higher ISOs it will matter but if you're giong to shoot at that high ISO, most likely you're more concerned about shutter speed instead of ISO values. But yes, whole numbers are so much easier to remember so i'm using that now instead
http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm
Check out that "test" if you really want to see "noise" in detail…as i mentioned..ISO100-800 looks identical on the 5d3

naterz

  • Guest
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2012, 02:12:35 AM »
Here is a very unscientific test I just did in my Kitchen as I was very interested in this as well.  It runs out when shooting RAW, staying in multiples of 160 definitely pays off.  I purposely underexposed the shot, shot it in RAW, and then pushed it 5 stops in LR to bring out the noise.  These are 100% crops with ISO 320 showing considerably less noise than ISO 250. 

Viggo

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2012, 03:44:46 AM »
Oh, well, I might be accused for this and that, but I see the difference in all shadows. Seems the mk3 is the same as the 1d4, 320-640-1250, looks better...
1d X, 24-70 L II, 35 L, 50 L, 70-200 L II.

wockawocka

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
    • Wedding Photography
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2012, 05:13:26 AM »
Theroetically the basinc stop multipliers should be the cleanest.

100, 200, 400, 80, 1600 and so on.

Anything else, 320, 640 aren't supposed to be as they boosted by software. (i.e. 200 is pushed to 320)

This is different from hardware amplification which goes from 100-200. I never have expanded ISO available.
1DX, 5D3 and Hasselblad H Series owner.

Viggo

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2012, 05:41:50 AM »
Theroetically the basinc stop multipliers should be the cleanest.

100, 200, 400, 80, 1600 and so on.

Anything else, 320, 640 aren't supposed to be as they boosted by software. (i.e. 200 is pushed to 320)

This is different from hardware amplification which goes from 100-200. I never have expanded ISO available.


can't 320 be an underexposed 400?
1d X, 24-70 L II, 35 L, 50 L, 70-200 L II.

pz-photography

  • PowerShot G15
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2012, 06:31:04 AM »
Exactly, ISO 320 IS an underexposed ISO 400, thats the reason why it seems "clearer".
If you want more info check this out ;) http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/
5D Mark III | 7D | 1V HS | 14 2.8L II | 35 1.4L | 50 1.2L| 85 1.2L II | 100 2.8L IS | 24-105 4.0L IS| 70-200 2.8L IS II | EF 2x III

naterz

  • Guest
Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM »
Whether it's native or not, the multiples of 160 definitely look better in videos and stills.  So that's what I'm going to stick with.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D3: ISO 160, 320, 640 etc cleanest ISOs?
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM »