Luna
Well-known
This forum needs more X100 - Better then "insert camera here" threads.
X100 - better than the 5D2 for low light?
- Thread starter peripatetic
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 7K
gavinlg
Veteran
sper
Well-known
Well 800 pixel wide images aren't exactly the best way to say a camera is great in low light... And anyway yeah the 5D2 is fully 'capable' of shooting in low light, but I've owned both a D700 and a 5D Mark II and I'm telling you there's a huge difference.
I'll upload some samples. One from the 5D2 showing all the noise, and even some slight banding that it exhibits at 3200. Really ruins a color photograph. And a D700 shot, AND the same D700 shot pushed 2 stops in Aperture 3. Still the D700 shot is cleaner.
You can probably find these images in my flickr if you want to find bigger versions. The girl with the corn is 5D2, the two train images are D700.
Of course you can get "Greg Ludwig from National Geographic" to come and tell me I'm wrong, but unless he can start making my 5D2 show no banding at ISO 3200, I'll continue saying that it does not live up to it's low light hype.
Attachments
sper
Well-known
*shrug* didn't realize that the attachments only let me upload 600ppi images. Doesn't really help my case, haha. Well I gotta go to work but if I remember when I get home I'll upload a big file of the picture that shows banding.
Also a big part of why I don't think the 5D2 is good in low light is the fact that you have wayyyy less latitude for over and under exposure adjustments. Particularly in trying to recover the blacks, they go straight to mushy noise, and the highlights are just gone. With even the D7000 that I borrowed from a friend I was able to bring back 2 stops of highlights from an overexposed portrait.
Spyro
Well-known
^^ I think they're both good photos, and even in small sizes I think I can see some noise in both. I guess what makes the 5D2 noise a bit more offputting in this specific photo is because it's on skin. You wouldnt mind some noise on a train would you?
FWIW I dont like the x100's high iso. All digital cameras high iso looks good in good light, but who uses high iso in good light? In tricky mixed natural/artificial light (where you most need high iso) it's another story, thats where all the weaknesses show. This is 2500 with the x100, jpeg out of the cam with NR/sharpening/DR set to minimum
Its not the noise, its the fact that there is next to no detail left in the shadows that ruins this photo. In terms of detail, to me this doesnt look much different than iso400 film pushed two stops. Which, like Pickett said, should be good enough. I should've used a slower shutter.
FWIW I dont like the x100's high iso. All digital cameras high iso looks good in good light, but who uses high iso in good light? In tricky mixed natural/artificial light (where you most need high iso) it's another story, thats where all the weaknesses show. This is 2500 with the x100, jpeg out of the cam with NR/sharpening/DR set to minimum
Its not the noise, its the fact that there is next to no detail left in the shadows that ruins this photo. In terms of detail, to me this doesnt look much different than iso400 film pushed two stops. Which, like Pickett said, should be good enough. I should've used a slower shutter.
Last edited:
Arjay
Time Traveller
I really don't think this picture is a very good argument in this discussion.
High ISO capabilities aren't a cure for incorrectly measured exposure. This picture is quite seriously underexposed if you judge it by the kid's face. If it was the kid you had wanted to make a picture of, then this shot definitely doesn't say a lot about the camera's high ISO capabilities. It also appears that the camera didn't focus on the kid's face, but on its hair, which indidentally exhibits much higher contrast, and thus is a logical result of the camera's AF operation. Do you expect to see lots of detail in out-of-focus image areas?
Auto-everything doesn't mean the photographer doesn't have to think any more when taking pictures.
High ISO capabilities aren't a cure for incorrectly measured exposure. This picture is quite seriously underexposed if you judge it by the kid's face. If it was the kid you had wanted to make a picture of, then this shot definitely doesn't say a lot about the camera's high ISO capabilities. It also appears that the camera didn't focus on the kid's face, but on its hair, which indidentally exhibits much higher contrast, and thus is a logical result of the camera's AF operation. Do you expect to see lots of detail in out-of-focus image areas?
Auto-everything doesn't mean the photographer doesn't have to think any more when taking pictures.
Spyro
Well-known
Yes I do, absolutely. Because total depth of field for a 23mm lens on a crop sensor at f2 and 2m (which was my distance from my daughter) is about 60cm. Which I'm pretty sure is much bigger than the size of her head.
As for the underexposed parts of the photo, there is such a thing in a photo as shadow detail, and this is precisely what separates good high iso performance from bad. Did the camera think "oh this is a bad photo, therefore I have every right to turn shadows into mash" ??
whatever.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
What do you use to process your photos? They don't have any exif details in them. It looks like it was light enough to lower the ISO on that shot of the girl for instance... her face is underexposed and the lighting is flat on her face - did you lift the shadows at all?
The d700 has an advantage with high ISO's, I agree, but that advantage is lost when you downsize the 21mp canon file to the 12mp nikon file size. Noise performance becomes similar and 5d2 holds heaps more detail.
Besides, noise is easy to deal with - it's much harder to get nikon's gaudy skin tones right. 😛
Last edited:
Arjay
Time Traveller
I have no intention to antagonize you, but we'd really have to look at the picture's EXIF data to resolve our discussion.
From my experience with pictures taken using a 35mm FOV lens, I'd say you might have been closer. And, there are a number of settings that can substantially increase shadow noise in this camera.
Without knowing more details about this picture, our discussion won't be very useful.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
G-zus
That amount of detail at ISO 2500 with film (specially in color) without having to think about the exposure-development combination would have been hailed about five years ago.
All this "high ISO not good enough" is certainly old hat to me now. Specially when it comes from people who do not care about doing noise post-processing. It's definitely become expected background noise. No pun intended.
That amount of detail at ISO 2500 with film (specially in color) without having to think about the exposure-development combination would have been hailed about five years ago.
All this "high ISO not good enough" is certainly old hat to me now. Specially when it comes from people who do not care about doing noise post-processing. It's definitely become expected background noise. No pun intended.
Spyro
Well-known
yeah well ok gents, I didnt say it's bad, I said I dont like it and "FWIW". Also I dont really care because I dont shoot high iso, this was an accident. Anyway I've said my opinion, may as well leave some room for others to voice theirs.
Arjay it was 2m, cant get it wrong because I was sitting on the couch and there's a long coffee table in between.
Arjay it was 2m, cant get it wrong because I was sitting on the couch and there's a long coffee table in between.
peripatetic
Well-known
I've been holding off giving any kind of strong opinion on any aspect of image quality really.
What I can say for now is that either:
1. I don't have a clue how to use Silkypix to get the best out of it. OR
2. Silkypix is utterly dreadful as a RAW converter.
The JPG images from camera are much better than I can get out of Silkypix. So I am waiting to see how it all looks when ACR provides support. I have started shooting RAW + JPG for the simple reason that I'm not 100% happy with the JPGs and am pretty sure that once we get decent RAW conversion things will get better.
My subjective impression at this stage though is that the JPGs from the X100 are about 1 stop behind the JPGs from the 5D2 when both cameras are set to standard, or both set to their lowest setting on NR.
I find I'm shooting on the edge of the camera's low light capabilities quite a lot at the moment, though of course that will change as summer comes on.
What I can say for now is that either:
1. I don't have a clue how to use Silkypix to get the best out of it. OR
2. Silkypix is utterly dreadful as a RAW converter.
The JPG images from camera are much better than I can get out of Silkypix. So I am waiting to see how it all looks when ACR provides support. I have started shooting RAW + JPG for the simple reason that I'm not 100% happy with the JPGs and am pretty sure that once we get decent RAW conversion things will get better.
My subjective impression at this stage though is that the JPGs from the X100 are about 1 stop behind the JPGs from the 5D2 when both cameras are set to standard, or both set to their lowest setting on NR.
I find I'm shooting on the edge of the camera's low light capabilities quite a lot at the moment, though of course that will change as summer comes on.
Thardy
Veteran
Wedding photographers disagree. And who is more qualified to discuss low light than them?
Matus
Well-known
Just an observation - on several places it was mentioned that the X100 is a bit soft at low on contrast at f2. So - apart from the possible issues shown above this should be taken into account when judging the ISO performance as the lens is inevitable part of the equation.
I hope that soon decent photos made with X100 will be available online - most of what I have seen so far has low contrast and very non-punchy appearance. Also - the default setting of NR seems is rather strong and and make pixel peepers unhappy as the images do get softer as the ISO grows.
I would not worry too much though - Fuji surely keeps a few trump-cards in the sleeve for future firmwares 🙂
I hope that soon decent photos made with X100 will be available online - most of what I have seen so far has low contrast and very non-punchy appearance. Also - the default setting of NR seems is rather strong and and make pixel peepers unhappy as the images do get softer as the ISO grows.
I would not worry too much though - Fuji surely keeps a few trump-cards in the sleeve for future firmwares 🙂
Luna
Well-known
Don't a majority of wedding photogs use flashes? I haven't seen a travel photog use a flash since....well, ever.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
The decent wedding photographers use flash for fill-in, but --and again, if they're decent beings-- will not during the actual ceremony. Outdoors is the best place for a good flash, in this context.
Then again, pitting a National Geographic photographer vs. a wedding photographer is...well...let's just say it's silly at best.
Then again, pitting a National Geographic photographer vs. a wedding photographer is...well...let's just say it's silly at best.
bwcolor
Veteran
I hitched my DSLR hopes to Canon in 2002. Nikon was just not up to par. Today, Nikon seems to be the low light king..queen. That said, I'm not going to carry a DSLR when I want to be shooting 35mm. I would love full frame compact fix lens 35mm with Nikon low light abilities and Leica lens qualities. For now, I'm going to try the X100. All else, film.
peripatetic
Well-known
Post updated with a few pics.
sper
Well-known
Wedding photographers have only a few hours to create great pictures under the stress time, light, drunks, family, and of course bridezillas, and there is no chance for a reshoot.
As I understand it Nat. Geo. photogs have months in a location to scout, explore, expiriement, work with their editior...etc. So yeah, it's so silly to compare...
I know some wedding photographers who bill more than advertising shooters. It is ignorant at best to dicount the wedding shooters of the world.
