Do you need a really high ISO?

[lo lite]

The PRIME noise reduction feature would reduce the noise somewhat more but then those images really start to look unrealistic. Another thing you don't see that much in those pictures is a purple spot in the lower right corner of the images and that famous banding jrista is always talking about. Those are sensor quirks which are much more visible in the JPEGs, DxO did a pretty good job here.

cheers from Hamburg!

I have had similar experiences, but if you use the Advanced (or whatever they're called) sliders under the PRIME adjustment, you can bring it back to more a more natural looking image.

I have found that the results from the 1D X are considerably better than the 5DIII once you go over ISO 6400 especially in terms of color retention and less patterned noise. If Canon can come close to matching the 5DIII or 6D with the 7DII up to about ISO 3200, I think that would be a big improvement.

Sadly the 1D series is out of my financial reach. I waited several month after the release of the 5DIII for the prices to come down (I got it for € 2650 including VAT in october last year).

Is the 1D X that much better? How does it compare to the 6D in high ISO?

It took me a long time to buy the 1D as well so I completely understand. I don't know about the 6D, but comparing real-world results (not DxOMark measurements and such), I'm pretty happy with the 5DIII results (with DxO PRIME) up to about ISO 6400 where it's pretty similar to the 1 DX. With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!

Today I took some time to fiddle around with PRIME. I set the luminance (the only control there) to a very low value of 10 (out of 100) and I am still getting splotchy results that look somewhat like a water color painting. I guess PRIME is not for me or not for totally noisy images (like the ones you get at 102400 ISO on the 5DIII). Hence I decided to go no higher than 12800 ISO (except for the exceptions ).

I don't think any camera (other than maybe the new Sony) is going to look very good at 102,400, PRIME or not.

I did some more experiments and it seems to depend on the content of the picture if PRIME is appropriate or not. Right now when I am writing this I am going to create a testshots set on flickr where I can show you my findings. PRIME seems to be better when there is high contrasty detail in the picture (like in that bright tree in the left half) but subpar when there are subtle contrasts that the human eye still sees in a sea of noise but get eaten by PRIME. I'll post the shot in a minute.

 

[Besisika]

With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!

+1
I shoot ISO 6400+ 75% of the time. I had 5d MK III and kept on disappointing my clients/friends. That changed when upgraded to 1DX. I shoot at f2.0

Can you post some high ISO examples of the 1D, preferably higher than ISO 12800? And I assume you're shooting with prime lenses when you say you shoot at f/2.0, right?

I have a shoot this week-end. I didn't visit the site yet so I can't say what the ISO would be.
Yes, I am at 1/640s f2.0 and whatever ISO the ring gives me (lens 85mm 1.2). I will try to use both 1DX and 5D3 for comparison. If I won't forget, I will take some 12800 shots as well (my head will be on the fights so forgive me if I forget the very high ISO).

 

[helpful]

Absolutely.

It would be impossible for cameras ever to reach a point where a still higher level of ISO sensitivity would no longer be useful/needful for me.

 

[lo lite]

The PRIME noise reduction feature would reduce the noise somewhat more but then those images really start to look unrealistic. Another thing you don't see that much in those pictures is a purple spot in the lower right corner of the images and that famous banding jrista is always talking about. Those are sensor quirks which are much more visible in the JPEGs, DxO did a pretty good job here.

cheers from Hamburg!

I have had similar experiences, but if you use the Advanced (or whatever they're called) sliders under the PRIME adjustment, you can bring it back to more a more natural looking image.

I have found that the results from the 1D X are considerably better than the 5DIII once you go over ISO 6400 especially in terms of color retention and less patterned noise. If Canon can come close to matching the 5DIII or 6D with the 7DII up to about ISO 3200, I think that would be a big improvement.

Sadly the 1D series is out of my financial reach. I waited several month after the release of the 5DIII for the prices to come down (I got it for € 2650 including VAT in october last year).

Is the 1D X that much better? How does it compare to the 6D in high ISO?

It took me a long time to buy the 1D as well so I completely understand. I don't know about the 6D, but comparing real-world results (not DxOMark measurements and such), I'm pretty happy with the 5DIII results (with DxO PRIME) up to about ISO 6400 where it's pretty similar to the 1 DX. With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!

Today I took some time to fiddle around with PRIME. I set the luminance (the only control there) to a very low value of 10 (out of 100) and I am still getting splotchy results that look somewhat like a water color painting. I guess PRIME is not for me or not for totally noisy images (like the ones you get at 102400 ISO on the 5DIII). Hence I decided to go no higher than 12800 ISO (except for the exceptions ).

I don't think any camera (other than maybe the new Sony) is going to look very good at 102,400, PRIME or not.

I did some more experiments and it seems to depend on the content of the picture if PRIME is appropriate or not. Right now when I am writing this I am going to create a testshots set on flickr where I can show you my findings. PRIME seems to be better when there is high contrasty detail in the picture (like in that bright tree in the left half) but subpar when there are subtle contrasts that the human eye still sees in a sea of noise but get eaten by PRIME. I'll post the shot in a minute.

Took a bit longer than expected, the uploads were failing. But here is the comparison


"traditional" DxO NR:

larger: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/14699123138/in/set-72157647492489522/

You see details in the dark area on the right side


"PRIME" DxO NR, luminosity set to 0 (gives the best results for that particular image):

larger: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/15025345118/in/set-72157647492489522/

You see finer details in the tree on the left but blotchy spots in the dark area

 

[lo lite]

With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!

+1
I shoot ISO 6400+ 75% of the time. I had 5d MK III and kept on disappointing my clients/friends. That changed when upgraded to 1DX. I shoot at f2.0

Can you post some high ISO examples of the 1D, preferably higher than ISO 12800? And I assume you're shooting with prime lenses when you say you shoot at f/2.0, right?

I have a shoot this week-end. I didn't visit the site yet so I can't say what the ISO would be.
Yes, I am at 1/640s f2.0 and whatever ISO the ring gives me (lens 85mm 1.2). I will try to use both 1DX and 5D3 for comparison. If I won't forget, I will take some 12800 shots as well (my head will be on the fights so forgive me if I forget the very high ISO).

Thanks for your efforts!

 

[Besisika]

With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!

+1
I shoot ISO 6400+ 75% of the time. I had 5d MK III and kept on disappointing my clients/friends. That changed when upgraded to 1DX. I shoot at f2.0

Can you post some high ISO examples of the 1D, preferably higher than ISO 12800? And I assume you're shooting with prime lenses when you say you shoot at f/2.0, right?

I have a shoot this week-end. I didn't visit the site yet so I can't say what the ISO would be.
Yes, I am at 1/640s f2.0 and whatever ISO the ring gives me (lens 85mm 1.2). I will try to use both 1DX and 5D3 for comparison. If I won't forget, I will take some 12800 shots as well (my head will be on the fights so forgive me if I forget the very high ISO).

Thanks for your efforts!

I put on Google drive some JPGs. I shot raw+JPG for fast hand-over that day.
Link is below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9-bWPVk3E7OZDBCS2ZOaDFNMkU/edit?usp=sharing_eil
Let me know if you can download them. They are straight from camera, unchanged (and exceeded the limit size of CR).

 

[lo lite]

With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!

+1
I shoot ISO 6400+ 75% of the time. I had 5d MK III and kept on disappointing my clients/friends. That changed when upgraded to 1DX. I shoot at f2.0

Can you post some high ISO examples of the 1D, preferably higher than ISO 12800? And I assume you're shooting with prime lenses when you say you shoot at f/2.0, right?

I have a shoot this week-end. I didn't visit the site yet so I can't say what the ISO would be.
Yes, I am at 1/640s f2.0 and whatever ISO the ring gives me (lens 85mm 1.2). I will try to use both 1DX and 5D3 for comparison. If I won't forget, I will take some 12800 shots as well (my head will be on the fights so forgive me if I forget the very high ISO).

Thanks for your efforts!

I put on Google drive some JPGs. I shot raw+JPG for fast hand-over that day.
Link is below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9-bWPVk3E7OZDBCS2ZOaDFNMkU/edit?usp=sharing_eil
Let me know if you can download them. They are straight from camera, unchanged (and exceeded the limit size of CR).

Hi Besisika,

downloading worked like a charm. Great captures btw!

I had a look at the noise which seems very well controlled. Although it's a bit hard to tell how the 1D X behaves in really extreme situations from those images. Everything below 6400 ISO is also very good on the 5DIII with which I am trying to compare here. Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements). So I limit my maximum ISO to this. Unfortunately the only shot with ISO 12800 from you is scaled down so it's a bit hard to compare for me but I would say the noise is lower than in my ISO 12800 shots. You can have a look at some of them here for instance (not all are on ISO 12800, some are just ISO 1600 and everything between since I used Auto ISO): https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/sets/72157645603164131/

 

[Marsu42]

Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements).

No surprise, iso 128k on the 5d3 is just 6400 with a digital push - you can simply underexpose the latter to get the same result.

Although the 1dx very like uses about the same sensor gen as 5d3/6d, the premium model's image pipeline if much more fine-tuned (see the dynamic range curve 5d3/6d vs 1dx). The pipeline several analog and digital stages, and the Magic Lantern devs are currently working on backporting this to the lesser cameras. The first result is a (internal beta) module that boots your dynamic range by about 1/3-1/2 stop, just like that. Canon only bothered to put that much work into the 1d.

 

[lo lite]

Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements).

No surprise, iso 128k on the 5d3 is just 6400 with a digital push - you can simply underexpose the latter to get the same result.

Although the 1dx very like uses about the same sensor gen as 5d3/6d, the premium model's image pipeline if much more fine-tuned (see the dynamic range curve 5d3/6d vs 1dx). The pipeline several analog and digital stages, and the Magic Lantern devs are currently working on backporting this to the lesser cameras. The first result is a (internal beta) module that boots your dynamic range by about 1/3-1/2 stop, just like that. Canon only bothered to put that much work into the 1d.

That's interesting indeed. I wonder if Magic Lantern work will affect Canon's honor so they come up with a firmware update that addresses just that. Btw. where can I see those curves and which ISO are native and not just a digital push?

 

[mackguyver]

Can you post some high ISO examples of the 1D, preferably higher than ISO 12800? And I assume you're shooting with prime lenses when you say you shoot at f/2.0, right?

I don't have access to all of my files but here's one from the other day at ISO 16,000 - f/2.8 1/160s with the 50L. As you can see it's a little soft, but still a very workable file and one that hasn't been sharpened:

Full size:

100% crop (as attachment below):

 

[mackguyver]

And another with the 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III at ISO 12,800 f/5.6 1/160s:

Note that neither photo has really been processed much (other than using PRIME) as these aren't photos I'd consider selling. I would definitely fine tune them if they were, but as minimally processed photos, they are good examples for this purpose of this discussion.

 

[Besisika]

Hi Besisika,

downloading worked like a charm. Great captures btw!

I had a look at the noise which seems very well controlled. Although it's a bit hard to tell how the 1D X behaves in really extreme situations from those images. Everything below 6400 ISO is also very good on the 5DIII with which I am trying to compare here. Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements). So I limit my maximum ISO to this. Unfortunately the only shot with ISO 12800 from you is scaled down so it's a bit hard to compare for me but I would say the noise is lower than in my ISO 12800 shots. You can have a look at some of them here for instance (not all are on ISO 12800, some are just ISO 1600 and everything between since I used Auto ISO): https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/sets/72157645603164131/

If Google drive works for you I can put the CR2 files there tonight for two scenarios:
1DX 12800 on 200mm f2.8
5D MK III 6400 (or 5000 - I don't remember by heart) on 200mm f2.0
then you can decide whether to go with a better body or better lens. Remember though, 200mm 2.8 is a no match for the 200mm 2.0. Shooting 1DX with 200mm 2.0 is a pure definition of pleasure.

I like your environmental story telling.
I shoot low light events as well but I do mainly fusion and when shooting the photo part, I use bounce flash in order to focus on someone's expression (I use Einstein), while the video part to tell about the environment so I don't use any additional light at all. Unfortunately, I cannot post these due to customer requirements, I can post only self-assigned stuff.
Your scene is not really that dark. Using a 1.4 aperture you can go down to ISO 3200 (or I prefer 2500 on 5D) and the 5D III can handle that very well.
I have shot videos at 1/60th, ISO 6400 and 1.2 on 1DX and they are very useable, if the distance from you and the subject is far enough (environmental like your shots) the dof is good enough. That is what I call low light.
The good news is that literally, yours is the only video that the customer can use. Uncle Bob's is useless.

I use ISO 12800 mainly when shooting fast-paced sport, like volleyball where the shutter speed is at least 1/1000. Most of the time 6400 is the standard for me. Since I am not a sport pro I rarely have access to better ISO, at least here in Montreal.
What I am saying is that shooting above 12800 is not really necessary (unless you desperately wants 2.8), while camera with 1600 useable ISO is not low light in my opinion.

 

[lo lite]

And another with the 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III at ISO 12,800 f/5.6 1/160s:

Note that neither photo has really been processed much (other than using PRIME) as these aren't photos I'd consider selling. I would definitely fine tune them if they were, but as minimally processed photos, they are good examples for this purpose of this discussion.

Looks really great but we both know what PRIME is capable of. So this tells more of your skills to use the right tools in the right way than of the 1D X sensor. I'd rather see some unaltered JPEGs

 

[mackguyver]

And another with the 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III at ISO 12,800 f/5.6 1/160s:

Note that neither photo has really been processed much (other than using PRIME) as these aren't photos I'd consider selling. I would definitely fine tune them if they were, but as minimally processed photos, they are good examples for this purpose of this discussion.

Looks really great but we both know what PRIME is capable of. So this tells more of your skills to use the right tools in the right way than of the 1D X sensor. I'd rather see some unaltered JPEGs

I honestly didn't do much to these photos, but I'll try to remember to do some comparison RAW+JPEG shooting at high (and really high!) ISOs next time I'm out shooting. It may be a week or so before I can do it, at least with real-world stuff. I could do some simple stuff around the house in the next few days, though.

 

[lo lite]

If Google drive works for you I can put the CR2 files there tonight for two scenarios:
1DX 12800 on 200mm f2.8
5D MK III 6400 (or 5000 - I don't remember by heart) on 200mm f2.0
then you can decide whether to go with a better body or better lens. Remember though, 200mm 2.8 is a no match for the 200mm 2.0. Shooting 1DX with 200mm 2.0 is a pure definition of pleasure.

That would be really great! Thanks a lot, so I can finally get an idea what 1D X high ISO raws are like!

I like your environmental story telling.
I shoot low light events as well but I do mainly fusion and when shooting the photo part, I use bounce flash in order to focus on someone's expression (I use Einstein), while the video part to tell about the environment so I don't use any additional light at all. Unfortunately, I cannot post these due to customer requirements, I can post only self-assigned stuff.
Your scene is not really that dark. Using a 1.4 aperture you can go down to ISO 3200 (or I prefer 2500 on 5D) and the 5D III can handle that very well.
I have shot videos at 1/60th, ISO 6400 and 1.2 on 1DX and they are very useable, if the distance from you and the subject is far enough (environmental like your shots) the dof is good enough. That is what I call low light.
The good news is that literally, yours is the only video that the customer can use. Uncle Bob's is useless.

I use ISO 12800 mainly when shooting fast-paced sport, like volleyball where the shutter speed is at least 1/1000. Most of the time 6400 is the standard for me. Since I am not a sport pro I rarely have access to better ISO, at least here in Montreal.
What I am saying is that shooting above 12800 is not really necessary (unless you desperately wants 2.8), while camera with 1600 useable ISO is not low light in my opinion.

Thanks for your kind words! I was shooting with the 16-35/2.8, sometimes just from my hip. I had packed my flash to but decided not to use it to preserve the atmosphere and to be less invasive. There where other photographers at the event, shooting with flash: http://bit.ly/1qBI8Ij , the first pictures on that page are from http://www.claudiahoehne.com/ , she used a bounce card, while the other guy (which I don't know by name) was using direct flash (the darker pictures further down are his). Since I don't have a fast wide angle prime and I like the flexibility of zoom lenses I am limited to f/2.8 but this is not so bad since this way I retain at least some depth of field. I have the Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG (not the new ART version) but I use it rarely.

 

[Besisika]

Thanks for your kind words! I was shooting with the 16-35/2.8, sometimes just from my hip. I had packed my flash to but decided not to use it to preserve the atmosphere and to be less invasive. There where other photographers at the event, shooting with flash: http://bit.ly/1qBI8Ij , the first pictures on that page are from http://www.claudiahoehne.com/ , she used a bounce card, while the other guy (which I don't know by name) was using direct flash (the darker pictures further down are his). Since I don't have a fast wide angle prime and I like the flexibility of zoom lenses I am limited to f/2.8 but this is not so bad since this way I retain at least some depth of field. I have the Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG (not the new ART version) but I use it rarely.

Judging from the photos, the ceiling is actually ideal for bounce flash. It is white (or close to it) and approx 3-4 higher than people's size (which is not too high, nor too low). If you put your flashes at the same distance as the ceiling height (or further), you should get loop lighting (instead of office lighting). Gel the flash to match the ambient. Then make it powerful enough so that the main contributor is the flash, which will freeze the motion.
If you use an on-camera flash (but bounce to the ceiling) then use a telephoto, otherwise you would receive raccoon eyes (as your distance from the subject needs to be minimum the ceiling height).
Advantages are: low ISO, easy white balance and less evasive (your flash is far from you and you don't hit people straight into their face) - besides after few shots they are going to be used to it. But most of all, if you gel it properly you preserve the ambiance of the background.

As for your lens, I am not familiar with Sigma lenses but 50mm at 1.4 if sharp enough should do the trick in low light.

 

[tcmatthews]

One thing that hasn't changed is that size matters. The low-light CMOS sensor you linked is FF...the 7DII/X won't be.

The 'affordable body for low-light shooting' is called the 6D – you can buy one today at retailers everywhere!

Neuro hit the nail on the head if you want high ISO buy full frame.

That said I really need usable ISO 3200 in a crop sensor for wildlife use. I simply cannot afford the big whites for full frame use. The 7D2 should be close for my purpose. I will settle for ISO 1600 and 2/3 stop boost in post.

Without radical change in sensor tech ISO 3200 usable on crop is probably the best we can expect.

 

[Richard8971]

In daylight shooting, I have gone as high as ISO 3200 for super high shutter speeds (1/4000s ~ 1/8000s) with my 7D to capture hummingbird wings in flight and the photos have been fine with a little post processing. Usually though, I rarely go over ISO 1600.

I have shot indoors with poor lighting and not being able to use a flash and I used a friends 5D mark 2. I shot at ISO 6400 and the photos were VERY usable, very clean. I could have NEVER pulled that off with my 7D.

A professional photography friend of mine showed me some wedding shots she got with her 5D3 at ISO 102400 and they looked amazing in print. I would have never guessed they would have been so good.

It all depends on what you shoot and when. For the most part, I shoot wildlife in decent lighting so my 7D works just fine 99% of the time.

D

 

[Besisika]

That would be really great! Thanks a lot, so I can finally get an idea what 1D X high ISO raws are like!

Here is a link from last week-end fights. It took place at "Ali Nestor Academy" in Montreal - Canada. Lighting at the academy was good, I cannot complain.
Please do not use outside of CR, these are customer files.
They are at ISO 3200, 6400 and 12800; 1/800s, resp f2, 2.8 and 4, shot with 85mm 1.2.
Let me know if that is what you are looking for.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9-bWPVk3E7OZUNjRWd2cWZETzA/edit?usp=sharing_eil

 

[tomscott]

I have my 5DMKIII set to max at 6400. At weddings indoor shooting in venues this is fairly norm.

I have shot up to 12,800 but just don't like the results I get.