|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
More Sample Shots!
A cr fan sent me a link to his flikr site with ISO samples from the 1D Mark IV.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slvrscoobie/sets/72157622649772276/
We think ISO 65535 is actually H3 (ISO 102,400)
thanks Bruce
I only kept one
I only downloaded one sample image that I've seen on the web from the 1D Mark IV.
I'm not sure if it's irresponsible for me to post it after Canon ran around the web having them taken down, however… I never grew up… so here it is.
(This is nothing new, you may have seen it already. If you find any others, point me in their direction)
disclaimer: I'm using this without the permission of the person that took it. If you want it taken down, let me know.
cr
This is from Canon’s website
LOL, great stuff on honesty.
It looks clean.
But there’s an error, when i cheked your twit it was written “iso 12,800” (not a problem but i just wanted to notice it)
It looks pretty crappy and noisy if you’d ask me.
Yeah I fixed that afterwards.
I remember when I began using 400 speed film in color.
Now we have ISO 102,400 !!
This is truly amazing!!!!
I don’t see it on Canon’s web site.
how dark was it at lets say iso100? for comparison
Take down that picture immediately.
LOL…that was fast…
CHECK THIS OUT
http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/on-canon-taking-down-nocturne/
Gimme a Mark IV and I will.
The EXIF says it’s ISO 65535…
I wouldn’t trust the EXIF. The internet never lies.
That looks god-aweful.
This is not what it looked like in the 3″ LCD monitor on the Mark IV.
God Awful? Considering the incredibly high level of ISO, it is really not that bad. It would only be used in an emergency…Bigfoot…Loch Ness…Aliens?
It’s at an ISO equivalent of 102,400! What did you expect, for it to look as clean as the base ISO of 100? Duh.
Ck This Out and very impressive
http://www.popphoto.com/Galleries/Nikon-D3S-First-Images/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65535_%28number%29#In_computing
^– I used to encounter this back when I used to dabble in C programming. :)
Both the Canon 1D4 and Nikon D3s are exceptional cameras.
I think the target audience for both cameras are high end professionals who want to upgrade; these people know who they are. It’s not really so much for new customers.
These are professionals that have been using either the Nikon or Canon systems for years, and have acquired all the lenses, accessories, etc. They are not disposed to switch unless one has a clear advantage. I don’t believe either camera has such an advantage to where we’ll see some sort of wholesale shift in the market.
The 1D4 will pickup a lot of the indie film crowd, who have been getting the 5D2. In fact, between the release of the 7D and the 1D4, I would expect the robust sales of the 5D2 to drop a bit among the video crowd.
yep, awful, shouldn’t offer this range. Make Canon looks bad vs D3s.
Suitable for pictures of Bigfoot or Nessie. ;-)
The Nikon images look fabulous, but I am doubtful that the images weren’t processed in camera with noise reduction. “no post processing was done by Mr. Ryan ‘after’ taking the shots, so while some resizing was done to make this gallery, the images are, otherwise, as they came out of the camera as JPEGs.” I don’t believe that the 102K ISO shot could have looked that clean without serious NR in camera. Also, the shot of Bello flipping at 6400 didn’t look much better, if at all, than the Non-NR images I’ve seen released from 1D IV so far.
Just what I’d expect from a Canon P.O.S. 1D Mark IV…
Definitely! Also, I’ve converted some of the 51K and 102K ISO images to black and white, and they actually look pretty nice, even photo gallery-like. Also, the 102K looks better than 400ISO from my original sony cyber shot from just 7 years ago.
I’ll send you all my extra Mark IVs that I find along the way.
Only an ID10t would respond with such a comment. Now go back to your moms and sleep with your Nikon P&S.
The demographics that would be using the ISO at 102k would be limited but there is a legitimate use for it (TMZ and law enforcement for starters)
You should really look at the fullsize photo. Ugly.
Luminance noise could have been acceptable, but here there is way too much color noise with some pattern.
I Think with this over reaction by Canon on their testers reviews, etc.; It is time to rethink being on a waiting list to get this camera at all. It may be best to just really wait a few months this time around, its starting to feel like a MKIII again. maybe not focus this time, but something else.
Canon is getting to paranoid to be healthy to buy on round one. :(
It’s an ISO equivalent of 102,400!
….and 1Ds mark IV rumors please ??????
From what I’ve seen the d3s wins in terms of noise in 100k iso shots. (mayby it’s nikons famous NR that is doing the magic?)
BUT…
It dosen’t matter who’s “best” it’s two amazing cameras to work with, I’m sure.
I think it’s very cool to see the technical development, hope I’ll get the chance to play with both in november :) (swedish photo expo)
GO CHECK D3S at ISO 102400 DUDE!
You DON’T believe doesn’t mean it’s NOT TRUE.
More shots at high ISOs:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slvrscoobie/sets/72157622649772276/
Nikon has only released very small images of its d3s at iso 102 400. This is one is a “real” image from the field taken by someone, not an ad like the nikon shots.
Please forgive my ignorance. What exactly do most people do to post process an image in respect to noise reduction? I typically shoot in raw and only convert to jpg when I am done making changes.
Sorry, I didn’t notice the same link above :)
Some RAW converter should have noise reduction build in, but they are mostly ineffective. There are third party noise reduction program such as noise ninja, neat image, etc.
Now this is easy – 1D MK4 but with FF, slow and noisy at high iso. It will be sold as landscape and studio camera, but it doesn’t sync over 250.
I downloaded 2 of the 102400 images and applied NR in lightroom 2, and printed them at 4 X 5.3 inches. They were very noisy, viewable, but not something I would want to show to anyone unless it was of something really rare like a UFO.
I did not try any of the high end NR software on them, I probably could have brought the noise down more.
I did try lightroom 3. The color NR in LR3 really works, but luminance is disabled, so I did not bother to print them.
Of Course, but the description doesn’t mention anything specifically about him completely turning off NR, which he would have mentioned were he to get such great shots with zero NR applied in camera.
comment of the week :D
Men who whine about noise at “extended” ISO are girly men. That is all.
thats a good thing, because its the one point and shoot that you cannot buy. :)
I believe that the noise level is acceptable. I didn’t see the D3s ones, but I believe it won’t be far off without the noise production processing.
Before the books and bird files were taken down at Dpinterface.com, I saved some of them and ran the high ISO files through Noise Ninja. I concluded that 102400 was stretching things. 51200 and 25600 could be used for 4 X 6 prints. 12800 and lower ISO are great after NN.
Neither DPP or Photoshop can save this image from the hideous chroma noise. I don’t know anyone in their right mind who would use this, unless they needed to “see in the dark” which I don’t think would help anyways, since this is just underexposing a RAW shot and upping the brightness via software, if I’m not mistaken.
For ISO 102400, I think it’s incredible. On my SX10 IS (a PowerShot compact), ISO 800 (OK, maybe ISO 1600) looks like this. Nope, I’ll stick with ISO 800. (Which is why I predominantly use ISO 80.)
Or else what?
You got a go at the Mark IV?
For God’s sake, don’t send us links. Show us a D3s sample side-by-side with one from the Mark IV.
I don’t understand only one thing about the canon’s approach to noise reduction. HOW DO THEY GET SO MUCH NOISE AT EXTENDED ISOs??? 102400 is 3 stops more than 12800. Take a sample of iso 12800, apply +3 stops of exposure in any editor plus a bit of NR… and it will look much, much cleaner than the original 102400 samples.
I don’t buy those pics @ flickr… Or they were taken during an electricity shortage… I just took a pic with my own camera @ 12800 ISO, and the same settings as mentionned in the exif, with no artificial light and lots of clouds outside, and it is completely overexposed… I’m sure the exif were manipulated… So I wouldn’t rely on those pics at all, nor the camera settings (including ISO, neither camera name…
Link us to some samples.
The funny thing is that in 5 years, everyone will be complaining about how awful and noisy ISO 1,638,400 is and wishing that it were as clean as ISO 102,400 on the 1D Mark VII.
I agree, it is a Positively Outstanding System.
The Nikon D3S 102,400 ISO shots look like the Canon 1D Mark IV’s 25,600 ISO shots.
This Image Looks Like Big Ink Blotches Spread Across An Image… Its Looks Like Something You Would Find In A 3 Year Old’s Coloring Book… Nikon Crushed Canon In The Noise Aspect… Don’t Feel Badd Though I Mean At Least You Still Have Full HD To Play With Lol!!
Did I Mention How Incredibly Horrible This Crap Looks LOL!! I’m In Awe…
Too bad the Nikon lenses are so expensive and without VR.
It seems the 6400 is a real limit for it. All higher than that looks unusable for normal shooting; only for emergency and paparazzi.
and yet. take into account that all images above were taken in pretty good lighting conditions. In a low light/night, it can be even worse.
??? Nikkors are usually cheaper (or the same price) than Canons. And they have VR where Canon has its IS. BTW, VR has less faults than IS (I have both systems and can compare).
1) I mainly use 500mm f/4 for birding. The Nikon teles doesn’t have VR/IS.
2) Maybe Nikkor is cheaper in your part of the world, but where I live, it’s definitely not the case.
@ Ronald= the latest nikon 500mm f/4 have VR. it’s already launched 3 years ago. where hav u been??
yes, it’s far more expensive. but the result quality is better than 500mm L. the difference looks very clear if u use 2x TC. the result for 500mm L only acceptable when using 1.4TC.
and C is also weird to only allow the cross type focusing sensor only work with 1Dseries and lens >f/4.
that’s mean with 500mm L series you can not activate 19 crosstype AF sensor….
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.
What could I expect <a Paul Smith Belts to designs very good for me?
remember you’re comparing aps-h to full frame
of course Nikon has only released very small images at ISO 102,400 and that image would look much cleaner than this “real” image.
how about comparing this “real” image with Nikon D3S “real” image? have you checked?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/page30.asp
Canon’s 1DMkIV is ‘colorful’ and ‘artsy’ with its noise :)
while D3s quality is too realistic and boring, right?
in this comparison, both are using default NR:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/page30.asp
so it’s about which one got better NR?