You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Fact, photo's next to each other in raw here, plus the crap IQ
My facts would disagree with your facts. FACT.
So to put it simply, you're wrong. 😆
Fact, photo's next to each other in raw here, plus the crap IQ
Where?
Sorry I'm not having it, the A900 isn't comparable, in any ISO test.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml
At ISO 800 and higher the Canon is visibly superior, especially in the noise department.The bottom line then when it comes to image quality is that for shooting in normal conditions one really wouldn't choose one camera over the other based on IQ, but that if shooting in low light or with slower lenses is your bag, then the Canon definitely gets the nod.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2RAW.HTM
on my computer 🙄
The 7D image quality is nowhere near as good as the 5D, or 5D2.
I owned a 7D from new for over a month, and replaced it with a 5D2.
Ahh, he probably is used to consumer JPEG colours 😆
This isn't helping the OP
Stoppit you lot, you're scaring the newbies.
Sorry
Sorry I'm not having it, the A900 isn't comparable, in any ISO test.
From the same article:
Peering at the screen and looking at prints produced results which pretty much matches DxOMark's test results, as seen below. What we see is that the Sony and the Canon are essentially indistinguishable up to and including ISO 800.Below is a noise comparison graph from DxO Labs that shows what to expect. My recent three-way noise comparison test pretty much corroborates when we see here. (Please note that a numeric difference of 3 or less on DxO's measurements is visibly insignificant, and below 1 likely falls within the margin of measurement error).
[img]
[/img]
To me that's comparable with the canon slightly better.
If you consider that not to be comparable then that's fine.
Stoppit you lot, you're scaring the newbies.
Probably too late to stop now 😉
Ahh, he probably is used to consumer JPEG colours
Of course, that'll be it.
You're still wrong though.
The 7D image quality is nowhere near as good as the 5D, or 5D2.
Who's said that the 7d is better than the 5d?
I thought DxO tests were uummmm...not good?
If you scroll down a bit and read what they say instead of looking at graphs which mean nothing when the end product is a photo.....
If you've read the above you'll conclude, as we have, that the A900 offers slightly better measurable image quality results at lower ISO's (under 400) but that the 5D MKII is the clear leader at higher ISO's. It needs to be said though that the advantage that the Sony has at 800 and slower may be measurable, but frankly isn't visible. Both cameras are simply superb from 100 to 800 ISO and any differences seen in the three areas discussed are simply a quibble.At ISO 800 and higher the Canon is visibly superior, especially in the noise department.
The bottom line then when it comes to image quality is that for shooting in normal conditions one really wouldn't choose one camera over the other based on IQ, but that if shooting in low light or with slower lenses is your bag, then the Canon definitely gets the nod.
As we were on about HIGH ISO I think I win, thank you please.
I thought DxO tests were uummmm...not good?
DXO make sensor testing equipment used by camera manufacturers. What they don't do is consider resolution or IQ in their tests. You need to know how to read the data to make sense of it.
They get a bad rep because people pick out one number out of context and claim it means something that it doesn't. The problem isn't the tests though, it's lack of understanding of what they mean.
Ahh forget the OP, he can make a new thread!
Think my cold is getting worse 🙁
As we were on about HIGH ISO I think I win, thank you please.
I was using 'my' camera as a benchmark to say I was happy with high iso performance. I did that because m4/3 and other systems were being discussed then we got into more ISO vs more MP which is preferable.
The canon and sony are comparible when compared against aps-c or m4/3 cameras. Both being extremely good but not the best.
Head to head the canon is better at high iso but in the context of the conversation it's slight.
I do however bow to your mighty, and well waved, high iso willy (all one stop of it). 😉
I told you, 5000mg Vit C a day, but you dont listen because you like men.
I do however bow to you
Thats all I read 😀
😆
While all you pros are on here, does anyone do commercial product photography?
5Ds are absolutely massive though. I could never see myself using one of those bricks.
Olympus rock!
5Ds are absolutely massive though. I could never see myself using one of those bricks.Olympus rock!
Which is why my e-p2 gets used rather a lot.
No, but I know a man that does 🙂 Oh he hasn't got a 7D, he's got a 5D2 😆
don simon - Member
While all you pros are on here, does anyone do commercial product photography?
While all you pros are on here, does anyone do commercial product photography?
No, not my thing. Think MrSmith does though, and I believe he uses a 5D MK II IIRC.
No, but I know a man that does Oh he hasn't got a 7D, he's got a 5D2
I apologise for confusing you but clearly you don't have the ability to understand what I had said. If the man you know has the same lack of ability and snobbery as you, I'll pass thanks.
nmdbase - Member
actually it's as good a my old Cannon 5D
complete bollocks
Do you have both to compare?
I do, and for the sort of shooting I do at least, the nex5 generally outperforms the D5.
The dynamic range is better (see dxomark) and while the D5 supposedly has better ISO performace, in my experience this doesn't actually carry through to the real world - the nex5 does better in most situations.
Of course the 5D has some benefits like the fact it's full frame, and has a wider range of (autofocus) lenses available, but I certainly never bother carrying the D5 anywhere.
ps, I don't see why this should be surprising. The D5 is old technology compared to the nex5.
The Nex 5 has more comparable image quality to a 7D, its got nothing on a 5D with a decent lens.
As for old tech, are you serious? The 5D mk1 image quality is as good as most new cameras.
It's 5 years older, which is a lot for camera sensor technology.
And yes, the 5D is as good as many new new DSLRs (although the new ones cost a lot less the the 5D did). My point was that so are the NEXs.
They might have small bodies but that doesn't mean the contents are worse.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/734%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/737%7C0/(brand2)/Sony
(ps both these cameras score higher than the 5D)
Err, its about photos.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/page15.asp
Compare it to a 5D Mk2 on there, theres not that much difference between a mk1 & 2 so a fair comparison I would say.
The Sony is not as good in any way.
Its roughly as good as a 550D if you compare them, which is what you would expect.
Err, its about photos.
Where do you think those numbers come from?
Anyway, there's quite a lot difference between the 5D mk2 and Mk1 (and nex5): more than 50% better resolution for a start!
The resolution is what makes most of the difference in those full crop images.
Compare the higher resolution nex5n and you'll see much less of a difference (although still a bit because the 5Dmk2 is still higher res).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5n/page14.asp
I'm not saying the nex5 is as good as a 5D mk2, because it clearly isn't, but there isn't much between the nex5 and the 5D mk1.
Technology marches on 😀
That's why people sell mk2's for mk1's then 😆 You clearly know lots. Don Simon you seem a little thick to me 😉
Don Simon you seem a little thick to me
Why's that then, petal?
You misread what I write, then feel it's a good idea to try and take the pi55 based on your misunderstanding and equally misplaced superiority, and finally call me thick. Interesting.
That's why people sell mk2's for mk1's then You clearly know lots.
Thanks, I do this stuff for a living, so that's good to know. 😉
p.s. if you have a 5D mk2 , I'll happily swap for my mk1 😆
How did I misread what you wrote then?
How did I misread what you wrote then?
Apologies, wrong person. 🙄
Weaker anti alias filter on the mk1 and something about IQ, I don't mean literally swap.
While this debate is truly fascinating ( 😐 ) - does it really matter? All these cameras are capable of taking amazing pictures, and the limiting factor is likely to be the user not the camera. 😉
What do you do for a living glenh? Take pictures?
I don't know how it got to this to be honest, it started with ISO.
Grums right, it doesn't matter.
A high(ish) ISO pic (1600) with 2 sec exposure from my A55. Bear in mind I have good eyesight and could barely see the dog on the sofa in the lighting conditions.
[img] 
[/img]
God - there is some ill informed stuff on here. I almost never comment on this stuff as it's my day job and I'm on here to think about my next ride / bike etc.
Anyway I take around 100k photos a year (somewhere around 2000 a week) with a range of bodies. Including a 5d mk i and mk ii, 1Ds, 10Ds - the whole range. More expensive bodies are marginally better than others. All are good though!
If you want one body and budget is limited then compromise is called for.
For £300 a used canon body from someone you trust is a real good deal.
For someone to trust I'd go to these guys: (in Scotland, unbelieveably good advice and backup service when stuff goes wrong - eg they sent me a replacement body foc before I'd even sent the original used body back under warranty):
http://www.ffordes.com/category/Digital_Cameras/Digital_SLRs/Canon
Lastly - the things that go wrong after about 100k actuations are - 1: battery failure, 2: shutters, 3: flash activation / circuits (but we have them on all the time).
#Edit - forgot to say - Don Simon - what do you want to know about product work?
Cost. 😀
At the moment it's not a huge amount of work and I could probably do it on my trusty 20d and a homemade light box, but there is potential for more.
I've just got a couple of items that I need good pictures of, and an instruction manual that could do with some decent pictures as the current one is fifteen shades of gray...
scarterusm
@
hotmail
.com
Thanks
A high(ish) ISO pic (1600) with 2 sec exposure from my A55. Bear in mind I have good eyesight and could barely see the dog on the sofa in the lighting conditions.
You have a steady hand!
You have a steady hand!
Ha, not really - the camera was on a mini-pod on the coffee table, I'm just trying to learn settings so was having a play and wasn't worried about composition etc.
A shot from mine at ISO 6400
Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Exposure 0.04 sec (1/25)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 6400
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6059/6277834946_0a034c9250_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/61104469@N02/6277834946/ ]Pooh[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/61104469@N02/ ]J@yk@y[/url], on Flickr
What is the second hand route to camera's like?
Here's a test shot this morning with the NEX5:
[img] 
[/img]
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/KTogqIfKrvdu34Qp2qoBJEw0SFioBHx3PsBbFVjcPow?feat=directlink
Exposure 1/250s
Aperture f/1.7
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 4000
Sadly the D5 is at the office, so I can't take a shot for comparison, but suffice to say that all these cameras are good 🙂
Noise control looks pretty good for ISO 4000.
WTF is a D5 anyway? 🙂
Some nice high ISO shots there.
I've got an enlargement of an old film (remember that stuff?) iso200 shot taken in bright light. That has a level of grain that I don't see at iso6400 these days. It was completely acceptable at the time.
ISO 3200:
[img] 
[/img]
ISO 6400:
[img] 
[/img]
Hmmm, can you stop posting high ISO pics please? Seeing them makes me want a new camera body - my D80 is miles off that!
Glenh - its a 5D not a D5 😉
What is the second hand route to camera's like?
Dodgy IMO.
Last years models sell at such a massive discount it's hard to justify a used camera. If you do look at them do your homework - they may well be more expensive than buying the same camera new.
If you are looking at buying a Canon or Nikon, I doubt you get last years one cheaper than buying one 2nd hand. I have never seen one anyway.
Yeah, depends on make and model. m4/3 go from £700 to £200, despite minor improvements between generations and you often see new discounted models sell for the same or less than used.
Stumpy01 - the noise in here should make you feel better:
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6120/6241082149_e050de2271_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/6241082149/ ]tiling[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
Camera Sony DSLR-A300
Exposure 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 18 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Look at the original if you want a fright... I've just sold this camera to upgrade to an a77 though I'm hesitating until I get a better feel for what its IQ is like in real life. Most of my photography is low ISO, outdoors stuff so 16,000 capability isn't of much interest but I do expect noise-free images at about 1600.
Have you seen the a77 images on Dyxum? [url= http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/mine-a77-animalpictures_topic81102.html ]Some good ones here...[/url]
From a camera hopeless at high ISO (so they say) - ISO3200
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/5752277504_eeb8c527a2_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5752277504/ ]Coffee Family[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr
Did you leave it on iso3200 by accident?
Possibly, not sure.. dont' remember. I think actually it was a lot darker in the room than it looks there.
Ah yes, the EXIF has it at 1/15 f3.5. It really was dark. You'd never guess.
Noise at higher ISO usually shows up in the shadows
Much less noisy than my ISO 1600 shot, molgrips.
5thElefant,
Had a look at those dyxum images - nice pics but all low ISO scaled to web size so no real clue as to low-light potential. As I said, I don't do much in the way of low-light photography, but I might do more if I had a camera that was a bit more capable than the a300 (which was a great beginner's SLR, incidentally... thus the thread comes full circle 🙂
True. [url= http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/thoughts-on-a77-noise-discussion_topic81246_post942830.html#942830 ]This should be of interest...[/url]
You'll find the a77 is a stop better than your camera, so iso3200 on the a77 = iso1600 on the a300. Nice to have, but not earth shattering. You do get an extra 2 stops of dynamic range though, which is pretty damn impressive.
Oops... wrong link. [url= http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a700-a77-high-iso-comparison_topic80844.html ]This is what I thought I was linking...[/url]
Noise at higher ISO usually shows up in the shadows
Yeah.. that shot surprised me how good it looked, cos many have been poor - but I think it's because there are not many shadows in the pic.
Oh and my daughter's disastrous haircut has now grown out you'll be pleased to know. Ever tried cutting a toddler's hair?