Jonas
Established
Well, they are jpegs. Would love to play with a raw file or two.
He says that they are converted from DNG so send him an email and ask if you can get the DNG´s 😉
Well, they are jpegs. Would love to play with a raw file or two.
looks ok, looks equivelent to the 5D, but still 1.5 stops behind from ISO 800+ from first impressions.
looks ok, looks equivelent to the 5D, but still 1.5 stops behind from ISO 800+ from first impressions.
ISO 1600 on the church roof one - looks good
That is my impression too. And the ISO 1600 (roof of some church) ... well ... I do not know. I not overly that sure it is better than D3 or 5DMkII. But i guess that direct comparisons will be out soon ...
"get the file, downsize it to 12mp equiv and run it through a chrome noise reduction. Looks better than 5d."
Why would you want to do that? That's kinda like downsizing a 5DII file , processing it, and saying it looks like the original 5D. I guess I don't understand.
That is my impression too. And the ISO 1600 (roof of some church) ... well ... I do not know. I not overly that sure it is better than D3 or 5DMkII. But i guess that direct comparisons will be out soon ...
You sure it is good? I do not have a FF camera, just a poor EOS1000d, but to mee it is a bit noisy..
Rob.
Erik's ISO1600 shots look better than the DPReview sample but then again, Flickr compresses quite a bit.
The detail in the ISO1600 organ shot @ DPreview, to me, shows an awful lot of noise compared to what I've grown accustomed to from the 5D and, now, the D700.
The advances in high ISO really raise the bar for all camera companies (not just Leica) and therefore, you're not just going to need a really good sensor but you're going to have to balance that with good programming in the body to ensure a nice balance between detail and smoothness.
Cheers,
Dave
I am impressed but I am not all so bugged about high iso performance, I used my Ricoh GRD at 1600 all the time and that was horrible yet several gallery exhibitions later and still not complaining...much.