ISO 50 or 100 with my new 1Ds mkII?

HIMUPNORTH

HIMUPNORTH

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,178
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
I am off on holiday to the alps on Saturday morning (Yay!) and hope to take some landscape shots as well as usual aerial/bike stuff.

My question is should I use the extended ISO feature of the Ids and set the camera to ISO 50?

I have read conflicting advice and the two samples that Canon give (ISO 50 or ISO 100) suggest a much warmer tone at 50 although a smaller file size (not sure why).

The times I will care about this are early and late and slow would be better but just want informed opinions on the pros and cons of my choice. Make sense?

Anyway your input would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Gary.
 
Now, this is an interesting one.

I had always thought that the lower the ISO, the lower the noise. When ISO 50 is native this is true; when it is a custom fiunction and an 'expanded range' option, for some reason, it is not.

On the 5d and the 1ds mk2, ISO 50 generates more noise than ISO 100. I dont understand really why, but it does. maybe it requires more power as it's not native, resulting in hotter sensor, etc :shrug:

Also true is that there is less dynamic range available in ISO 50 than ISO 100. I cant say i'd honestly be able to see the difference, I dont have a lab and its grendels turn with the anorac so i can't demonstrate any of this. I have turned off the custom function though and ISO 100 is the slowest i use ;)
 
ISO 50 is a custom function for all Canon cameras that have it (not sure about 1D3 though) and you will get more noise and less dynamic range with this setting then ISO 100. For this reason the lowest usable ISO on these cameras is actually ISO 100. If you need lower shutter speeds or apiture, then I would sugest using an ND filter.
 
The "expanded iso's" ie iso3200 and iso50 arnt true iso's but just under/overexposed versions of the iso1600 and iso100 then processed by the camera. Thats why they represent a fair drop in quality. iso50 is there if you need to bump the shutter speed down without minding a small drop in quality.
 
I use ISO 50 as my default setting, therefore 95 % of my landscapes are at this setting, as an ex-velvia user, I tend to think at ISO 50, it's my comfort zone.
I have read all the opinions about higher noise/lower dynamic range at this setting, and don't believe one word of it.

When I first heard of it, I did comparitive shots at ISO50/100 and even blown up to whatever size you wanted, I couldn't tell any diffference, so I sent the files to a few other photographers, and they couldn't tell any difference.

Therefore , my advice is shoot away at ISO 50, or ISO 100, whatever the situation demands.
 
I've always understood that the 50 ISO setting gained no benefit whatsoever, but this is the first I've heard of it having an adverse effect. I did try it a couple of times but could see difference from 100 ISO.
 
For what its worth all my Flying Legends shots at Duxford were taken @ 50 ISO.:shrug:
 
Im only regurgitating what I read about the 1D on luminous landscape, If it is an underexposed iso100 it is very unlikely to be any actual worse than iso100 in practice. Perhaps in a lab there might be differences.
 
I agree with Les - I use ISO 50 and 100 when I can - not much difference - basically suck it and see - if it works for you fine :)
 
i use ISO50 when the need arises and find no adverse effects from using it at all.
 
mole2k said:
Im only regurgitating what I read about the 1D on luminous landscape, If it is an underexposed iso100 it is very unlikely to be any actual worse than iso100 in practice. Perhaps in a lab there might be differences.
Click to expand...


That's a valid point, but I think one of the problems (and I'm not suggesting you are part of the problem), is that on occasion one or possibly two regarded sites come out with a test result that somehow becomes gospel, even though individual photographers own experience may suggest otherwise.

As an example, if I'd been a novice, and just joined this site, and said I was wanting to take landscapes, and that I would be shooting at ISO50, and at f22 for the majority of the time. I would have been inundated with advice to shoot at ISO100/200, and at f8 or F11 or whatever sweet spot the lens has, because that is the perceived wisdom.

It's only because I have a little bit of experience, and my shots (hopefully) show that you can shoot with these settings and still produce satisfactory results that I don't get the broadsides.

It's not that I don't take the various tests seriously, I do.
I remember the concerns regarding the 24-105 F4L and vignetting at F4 at 24mm. Because of the results I'd seen in tests, I thoroughly tested the lenses I had, and sent the first copy back to Canon because there was obvious vignetting wide open. Without the published test results I would probably be not as thorough checking the lens out.
Anyway, enough of my rant :)
 
Everything is always very subjective, you see contrasting tests all the time. Things like diffraction meaning you shouldnt shoot more than f11 or your images will be very soft yet there is quite a number of pictures out there, your's inclusive that prove otherwise.

I think a lot of it comes down to tests done in lab settings which show that one method is technically inferior to another method doesnt mean the other method in practice wont be better. Lab style tests are great but they dont measure things in real world situations a lot of the time.
 
I'm inclined to trust LL as time and again the advice is proved to be correct. To me. An honest review detailing the techniques used is important to me ~ fakers annoy the hell out of me. Additionally there is ALWAYS the caveat that a lab test has not been conducted on the basis there is no substitute for a field test.

At the end of the day I only want to be limited by my own ability.
 
Jonnyreb said:
I'm inclined to trust LL as time and again the advice is proved to be correct. To me. An honest review detailing the techniques used is important to me ~ fakers annoy the hell out of me. Additionally there is ALWAYS the caveat that a lab test has not been conducted on the basis there is no substitute for a field test.

At the end of the day I only want to be limited by my own ability.
Click to expand...

I agree, LL gives some excellent reviews, but it's only one side of the coin, there are just as relevant and respected reviews that give conflicting advice.

This is a sample from Steve's Digicams review of the 1Ds MKII

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/1dsm2_pg7.html

The Mark II's image quality at high ISO is very good. The image noise appears more like the effect of film grain than the imager noise of lesser cameras. ISO 50 produces images that set a standard for what "noise-free" should be. Traces of noise appear at ISO 400 in shadow areas. At ISO 800, a barely-perceptible amount of noise begins to affect highlight areas. At ISO 1600, noise becomes noticeable in shadows and perceptible in highlights, but the images are quite usable. ISO 3200, a sensitivity that is to be avoided on most digicams except when it's the only way to get the shot, produces noticeable noise throughout the image, but it is similar to film grain in appearance; ISO 3200 is a usable sensitivity on the Mark II, especially with RAW images post-processed with the Luminance smoothing tool available in the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in.


So I think my point is, yes read and absorb what respected reviewers are saying, but it costs nowt to check things out yourself, and challenge perceived assumptions.
 
Can I say a big thank you for the input on this one.

This thread will probably attract a few others that will ask the same qusetion at some point. For me it came with a holiday approaching and a new camera that i am keen to understand better.

Some of the "conflicting advice" I referred to is referred to in this thread and you understand my conundrum. With more time on my hands I would try some sample shots (and may still do so) but wanted a practical lead from someone with the camera. Which I got - thanks!

After the 20D the lack of high ISO noise in my 5D was amazing. Perhaps I will feel the same way with the low ISO setting in my new brick. Hopefully opportunities to try it out will present themselves.

Cheers! :thumbs:

Gary.
 
It is amazing how a bad review once written can become an irreversable natural law.

If I'd taken notice of most of the reviews of the Canon 2XTC I'd never have bought one. Seeing some of the images produced with it on the web make you wonder who was doing the tests? :thinking:
 
:agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:
CT said:
It is amazing how a bad review once written can become an irreversable natural law.

If I'd taken notice of most of the reviews of the Canon 2XTC I'd never have bought one. Seeing some of the images produced with it on the web make you wonder who was doing the tests? :thinking:
Click to expand...

:agree: :agree: :agree:
 
Les - i couldn't agree with you more regarding conflicting reviews and, indeed, advice. Your final argument is much more compelling than your first ;)

Gary - one word of caution - the 5d is slightly better at high ISO than the 1d (possibly flirting with pandora's box again with that point, but it is a truth from my own humble opinion)

CT - agree 100%. I shied away from the x2TC for so long. What a joke to find the IQ is still cracking. Thats definately an example where the field wins over the lab!!!

My final thoughts on this subject: search long and hard enough on the web and you will find conflicting views and advice on any subject. However, empirically, only one party can be right ;)
 
HIMUPNORTH said:
After the 20D the lack of high ISO noise in my 5D was amazing. Perhaps I will feel the same way with the low ISO setting in my new brick. Hopefully opportunities to try it out will present themselves.
.
Click to expand...
aside from the obvious weight gain have you had a chance to compare images from both 5D and 1ds yet? and since we're chatting about it here comparable noise from each...?

on the subject of ISO I think I read somewhere that 100 is the native setting for cameras (well, 100 or 200) and the expansion of the ISO to 50 (or 3200) is not so much a fixed setting like 200,400,800 etc. but an internally processed setting. again I forget the terms used but essentially the reason its an 'extra' is because its not a native/normal setting for the camera to have due to the extra processing required...or something. hence why some may have considered it noisey (iso50) as processing artifacts appeared.
 
shiato storm said:
'extra' is because its not a native/normal setting for the camera to have due to the extra processing required...or something. hence why some may have considered it noisey (iso50) as processing artifacts appeared.
Click to expand...

What about Raw in comparison, 50 vs 100?
 
Jonnyreb said:
I'll take this challenge up over the weekend :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Would love to hear your verdict and see results if there is a great difference!

Cheers!:thumbs:
 
Watch this space :thumbs:
 
It's absolutely peeing down outside, so having nothing better to do, I tried a comparison.

Stuck a 70-200 on the camera, opened the front door, set it up on a tripod, aperture at f8, underexposed from average by one stop to try and generate noise. Two RAW shots, one at ISO 50 and one at ISO100.
Opened the images up in Adobe raw viewer (CS3), applied no processing, took screen-grabs of two areas of image where noise would be expected, first at 100% magnification and second at 300 %

Original image (screen-grab of image in exifpro), red arrows show sample areas

ISOtest.JPG


First ISO50 at 100%

ISO50.JPG


ISO100 at 100%

ISO100.JPG



ISO50 at 300%

ISO50-2.JPG


ISO100 at 300%

ISO100_2.JPG
 
Dunno if I am seeing right but I sure don't see THAT much of a difference.

If this is anything to go by I honestly prefer ISO 50!

:thumbs: Thanx for the effort Les:thumbs:
 
If anything it appears everso slightly sharper at 100 but also smoother at 50 in transitional area to top right. From this example there seems very little to split.

May I also add my thanks Les. :thumbs:
 
Your example certainly suggests ISO 50 is preferable. Is this with the 1ds mk2 Les? Can you reproduce with a 5D?
 
Jonnyreb said:
Your example certainly suggests ISO 50 is preferable. Is this with the 1ds mk2 Les? Can you reproduce with a 5D?
Click to expand...

Make me a present of your 5D and I'll try and replicate ;)
 
Jonnyreb said:
Your example certainly suggests ISO 50 is preferable. Is this with the 1ds mk2 Les? Can you reproduce with a 5D?
Click to expand...

Pushing it just a bit aren't you?:bat:


:lol:
 
Anton Roland said:
Pushing it just a bit aren't you?:bat:


:lol:
Click to expand...

Moi? :D

Honestly, if you want a thing done.........! Sorry, Les, that was very ungracious. I'll do a side by side test but at the moment ISO 50 is the winner in the noise stakes
 
add my 2p
I often shoot at ISO 50 as I dont like noise in my pics... the shutter speeds take a huge hit (much slower) than you would imagine

but I think the difference in minimal to say the least...
but where do the arguments stop
some people say MLU is so minimal its waste of time.. (I disagree) really top photographers go that little bit extra to get the best pictures they possibly can

another example is Landscape photographers - they would rarely be seen out in normal daylight hours as the light is far too harsh
but 99% of the landscapes posted on the many forums are not taken on a tripod and are usually taken on a sunday afternoon

so I take my hat off to the guys who use all the help they can get ie using everything available ISO/Tripods/correct time of day/filters I could go on and on, but I wont bore you folks anymore with my twaddle
Chris
 
interesting points, thats a bit of a sweeping generalisation to say 99% of shots are posted folowing a sunday afternoon jaunt! MLU is as you point out an almost necessity in the pro's armoury, especially macro shots...

...oh and torches too, given the stupid hours we find outselves out in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top