First Production Mark IV images

[Fabs Forns]

[quote=Arthur Morris;410840]

December 07, D3, actual pixels, ISO 6400, no processing. I call this usable.

Fabs, Is the Great Blue Heron image at 100%?

Yes, Maestro, 100%. He was fluffing the neck, that's why the feathers don't look that good (1/640). The rest of the feathers look good to me.

[Fabs Forns]

Here's the full frame, re-sized, noise reduction and sharpening.

[Ken Watkins]

Who will use these high ISO's and will the AF work in the dark?

I am just interested in getting a decent image at 1600 or perhaps 3200.

Most of my images are taken in relatively light settings but hand-held, if high ISO can get me a faster shutter speed with reasonable noise I would be happy.

I might change my mind if I ever get the opportunity to take an Aardvark image!

[Arthur Morris]

Doug, You say that the image in Pane #17 was "processed." Was there any noise reduction applied in DPP or elsewhere?

[Arthur Morris]

Jay my purpose was not Canon vs Nikon debate...

Arash, When someone writes "When Nikon claims it has "ISO 12,800" it means business and something usable." it sounds pretty much to me as if they are engaging in a Canon vs Nikon debate no matter what system they are using...

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, When someone writes "When Nikon claims it has "ISO 12,800" it means business and something usable." it sounds pretty much to me as if they are engaging in a Canon vs Nikon debate no matter what system they are using...

Agreed Artie that was a comparative statement, but the intended purpose was to show high ISO is useful for birding too, as Fab's sample demonstrates better than mine. Performance is a relative term so it is natural for people to compare MKIV to similar products that are available on the market which in this case is the D3(S).

BTW, now that the camera is officially released and available for purchase (in some places at least) can you post your samples to shed more light on the camera's field performance? I remeber you mentioned you made a few high ISO photos that you liked.

Best,

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Arash,

re:

Agreed Artie that was a comparative statement, but the intended purpose was to show high ISO is useful for birding too, as Fab's sample demonstrates better than mine.

There are several problems there: you are comparing apples and oranges....

BTW, now that the camera is officially released and available for purchase (in some places at least) can you post your samples to shed more light on the camera's field performance? I remember you mentioned you made a few high ISO photos that you liked.

I will try to get that clarified after the holidays. Canons's position has been unfair and pretty much unexplainable and indefensible but I have been reluctant to bite the hand that feeds me.

On the other hand Canon's treatment of top professionals as part of the Explorers of Light program (that has been in existence for more than 14 years I believe) shames Nikon's (or lack there-of) by any comparision.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Arash,

re:

Agreed Artie that was a comparative statement, but the intended purpose was to show high ISO is useful for birding too, as Fab's sample demonstrates better than mine.

There are several problems there: you are comparing apples and oranges....

BTW, now that the camera is officially released and available for purchase (in some places at least) can you post your samples to shed more light on the camera's field performance? I remember you mentioned you made a few high ISO photos that you liked.

I will try to get that clarified after the holidays. Canons's position has been unfair and pretty much unexplainable and indefensible but I have been reluctant to bite the hand that feeds me.

On the other hand Canon's treatment of top professionals as part of the Explorers of Light program (that has been in existence for more than 14 years I believe) shames Nikon's (or lack there-of) by any comparision.

You mean MKIV and D3(S) are apples and oranges or the posted samples were apples and oranges?

[Jan Wegener]

Isn't it a strange world, where people with a new camera only post files above ISO 6400 !?
Is high ISO the only thing that matters?

Did anyone discover real world ISO 200 to 800 files?

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Isn't it a strange world, where people with a new camera only post files above ISO 6400 !?
Is high ISO the only thing that matters?

Did anyone discover real world ISO 200 to 800 files?

Exactly my thoughts, I still have to see something in this range from production models. I can see why everyone is interested in high ISO images but I would also like to compare images ranging from ISO 400-1600 since this is what I use most.

[Jay Gould]

Isn't it a strange world, where people with a new camera only post files above ISO 6400 !?
Is high ISO the only thing that matters?

Did anyone discover real world ISO 200 to 800 files?

Hi Jan, I am not sure your definition of the "real world" is the real world any longer for BIF photography. I believe that the desire for higher shutter speeds and greater DOF is moving the real world towards 1600 ad 3200.

Today, I am shooting generally at 800 and 1600 - too much noise at 1600 with the 7D.

My .02 cents on ISO.

[Roger Clark]

Fabs,
This and the 100% pixels look very impressive, and a very good illustration of the light collection of large pixels. I skipped the 1D Mark III because I didn't feel the jump from 8 to 10 megapixels was worth it. I wish the 1D Mark IV was a full frame sensor for that better high ISO performance like the D3.

I'm also impressed by your noise reduction. Would you please tell us what software and what kind of settings you used.

Merry Christmas (I'm the only one up so everything is quite--for the moment)
Roger

[Fabs Forns]

Merry Christmas back to you Roger, and to everyone else :)

I use Noiseware Pro, as suggested by David Thomasson, who is a pro re-toucher, and a good one at that. It has a bunch of settings including night photography and you can fine tune it really well, on a pic by pic basis. In this case I used the default, with a tiny bit of sharpening and contrast added. You can see the 100% version and adjust it to taste. I understand Andy Rouse uses that too.

I know what you say about FF cameras, but unfortunately for me, I was always short for bird photography, reason why I'm back to Canon.
(Got the 5d2 too)

[Ed Cordes]

Merry Christmas morning to everyone. Here is a link to some additional samples. I can't translate the words, but the pictures are self explanatory.

http://blog.fotogobbi.ch/2009/12/24/...k-iv-test-iso/

Of course, as mentioned in previous threads, low res images on the web are not the same as full res on your own computer. However, to my eye on this computer up to ISO 6400 appears usable with noise reduction and 12800 may be acceptable.

[Doug Brown]

Yes that image is processed Artie.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Doug. Sorry for the confusion. Was NR applied?

[Doug Brown]

NR was applied.

[Don Lacy]

Hi Jan, I am not sure your definition of the "real world" is the real world any longer for BIF photography. I believe that the desire for higher shutter speeds and greater DOF is moving the real world towards 1600 ad 3200.

Today, I am shooting generally at 800 and 1600 - too much noise at 1600 with the 7D.

My .02 cents on ISO.

If all you shoot is BIF but real world to me is ISO 200 to 800 I rarely shoot BIF and even when I do 800 is normally enough. Seeing the amount of cropping in most of the BIF images posted DOF should not be and issue at the wider apertures needed for higher shutter speeds. The Mark IV is going to produce it's best files at 200-400 and I am interested in seeing what it's best looks like:)

[Jan Wegener]

If all you shoot is BIF but real world to me is ISO 200 to 800 I rarely shoot BIF and even when I do 800 is normally enough. Seeing the amount of cropping in most of the BIF images posted DOF should not be and issue at the wider apertures needed for higher shutter speeds. The Mark IV is going to produce it's best files at 200-400 and I am interested in seeing what it's best looks like:)

my words :)

[Arthur Morris]

You mean MKIV and D3(S) are apples and oranges or the posted samples were apples and oranges?

Arash. Not to be a wise guy, but did you see any pictures of apples or oranges? I didn't.

What I meant is that when comparing the image that Fabs posted and the image that Doug posted the comparison was of an image created at ISO 6400 and processed by Fabs who went on to state that she used an excellent NR program and an image created by Doug at ISO 12800 and processed by Doug using the MRFs noise reduction.

That's what I meant by apples and oranges, folks comparing two different things.

[Arthur Morris]

This thread is typical in that many folks are more concerned with various technical aspects of photography involving the latest greatest camera bodies than they are with learning to create artistic, technically perfect images. I have only rarely been concerned with noise in an image. I have never once had a buyer call and say, "That image is too noisy for us to use."

When I was first testing the MIII I had an amazing opportunity to photograph an alligator swallowing a Brown Pelican. There was a huge crowd and hand-holding was the only option. Not only was the sun down but the gator was in the shade of the boardwalk. I was using the 100-400 IS L lens. First I cranked the ISO up to 3200 and then, when my shutter speeds fell below something like 1/400 or 1/320 sec. I raised the ISO to 6400. By necessity. Without thinking anything about noise. This is the shutter speed that I need so I will set the ISO so as to provide me with that shutter speed (at the proper exposure compensation). Make the image and worry about noise later.

The image here was one of that series. It was created at ISO 6400. It is part of the Corbis collection and made it to the final round of judging in the last two BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competitions.

[Desmond Chan]

I raised the ISO to 6400. By necessity. Without thinking anything about noise. This is the shutter speed that I need so I will set the ISO so as to provide me with that shutter speed (at the proper exposure compensation). Make the image and worry about noise later.

I see an excellent advice here ! :) Thanks Artie !!

I always do not understand why some people are not willing to raise the ISO to get an adequate shutter speed. Personally, even during the film days, noise was never my concern until somebody pointed it out to me that it could be :o

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash. Not to be a wise guy, but did you see any pictures of apples or oranges? I didn't.

What I meant is that when comparing the image that Fabs posted and the image that Doug posted the comparison was of an image created at ISO 6400 and processed by Fabs who went on to state that she used an excellent NR program and an image created by Doug at ISO 12800 and processed by Doug using the MRFs noise reduction.

That's what I meant by apples and oranges, folks comparing two different things.

Agreed Artie, I do know what "apples and oranges" is :) just wanted to confirm if you thought MKIV and D3 are intrinsically not comparable cameras or that the posted samples were not comparable.
Fabs samples and mine were just to show what is possible and "usable" obviously not a side by side A to B comparison to Doug's sample.

BTW, DPP actually does very good NR (propitiatory Canon algorithm), for high ISO I use chroma NR of 13-14 and luminance NR of 1-3, not bad at all, not as many settings as third party but good enough in most cases.

Here is a 100% 18 mpixel GBH photo made with the 7D at ISO 1600 actual pixels processed only with Canon DPP not bad for 1600 IMO.

Your photo also shows the advantage of using high ISO, this is what I have been saying too, ISO 6400 IS useful/necessary for wildlife photography too, in some conditions.

Merry Xmass to you and best wishes

[Harshad Barve]

For wildlife photography , when we are looking for GOLDEN light of morning or evening , How many times we will be using such high ISO , :confused:

[Doug Brown]

I'm with you Harshad. For me there's a balance to be struck between camera features. Full frame is cleaner but requires more glass for the same FOV as a 1.3 crop body. The Nikon doesn't really have the pixel density to crop significantly. If the Mark IV gives me a clean ISO 1600-3200, that's all I really care about. Higher ISOs are icing on the cake, but I'm not going to be earning a living at ISO 12,800. Birds look their best in good light. I'm not a wedding photographer forced to do indoor photography without a flash in extremely low light. There is an inevitable loss of fine detail as the ISO creeps up. We're much less forgiving of bird photos that lack plumage detail than we are of images of people that are similarly lacking in detail. For all of these reasons, I'm looking forward to my 1D Mark IV.

[Harshad Barve]

Same thoughts here Doug , I would like to see ONE body which have FFor Crop sensor , very very clean at 1600ISO and 25MP , As I am without kit now but would love have such one soon , D3X is there but to buy that I will have to sell some thing big , steal or beg which I dont want to do;):D

ps , 7D is very close but I dont know about ISO performance

[Jay Gould]

For wildlife photography , when we are looking for GOLDEN light of morning or evening , How many times we will be using such high ISO , :confused:

Harshad, and Doug too ;), is that almost a contradiction?

Golden light of morning depending upon the direction and location of the bird in relation to the light - isn't it generally lower light than the light later in the day? By definition aren't we going to need higher ISOs to keep up the SS early in the morning and later in the afternoon?

Aren't we praying for a sensor that produces reasonably low noise images at 1600 and 3200?

I rarely shoot BIF at less than f/5.6 (my 300 f/2.8 + 2.0x OR my future :eek: 500 f/4 + 1.4x). As a newbie I would like to keep the SS at 1/1600 or above.

Harshad, why the 25mp?

7D: I love the camera HOWEVER I think it is pretty noisy OOTB at ISO 1600. I still use it at 1600. In fact since I saw the image of Artie with the camera and his 70-200 slung over his back while using a tripod with one of his monster lenses, I have decided to keep the 7D even after I finally get the 1D4. The 1D4 will be the workhorse for my 300 and general walk around body. If I have to give up one body it just might be the 5D2 since the 1D4 is 1.3 crop which is close to the FF. As Artie is always pointing out, this is digital, think digital, and take two shots to cover more than the FF area and stitch.

[Harshad Barve]

Harshad, and Doug too ;), is that almost a contradiction?

May be

Harshad, why the 25mp?

Will offer you much cropping ability while not loosing on print size , I have printed few of my 12.5 MP D300 images in 30 x 20 size and they look good. My primary interest is in less than 15cm birds ( As far as bird photography ) With 600mm lens and 25MP body , I think I will have great chance of prodcuing images which can be printed in big size. I have not yet nailed 7D as I am not getting that body on rent here and neither I found a guy who can confidently say it works great at 1600 ISO

[Pao Dolina]

Could a test of someone running towards the camera be conducted?

[Arthur Morris]

Pao, I do not understand the purpose of your post as you did not list the techs: camera? Lens? ISO? Shutter speed??? Did I miss something?

[Pao Dolina]

Sorry Artie. My mind was towards the AF of the camera body on how much of an improvement Canon done with the IV's AF system. As BIF would take longer than a person running towards a camera I'd like to ask if a test could be done.

[Arthur Morris]

re:

I do know what "apples and oranges" is :) just wanted to confirm if you thought MKIV and D3 are intrinsically not comparable cameras or that the posted samples were not comparable.

Sorry for misunderstanding but all cameras (and all images from all cameras) are comparable.

Fabs samples and mine were just to show what is possible and "usable" obviously not a side by side A to B comparison to Doug's sample.

Again, appples and oranges. And, Doug's posted image looks more than usable to me (that at ISO 12,800).

BTW, DPP actually does very good NR (propitiatory Canon algorithm), for high ISO I use chroma NR of 13-14 and luminance NR of 1-3, not bad at all, not as many settings as third party but good enough in most cases.

I will check it out. Thanks. What third party NR do you use?

Here is a 100% 18 mpixel GBH photo made with the 7D at ISO 1600 actual pixels processed only with Canon DPP not bad for 1600 IMO.

I was unable to access that link but would love to.

Your photo also shows the advantage of using high ISO, this is what I have been saying too, ISO 6400 IS useful/necessary for wildlife photography too, in some conditions.

Agree.

Merry X-mas to you and best wishes.

Thanks and ditto.

[Doug Brown]

Could a test of someone running towards the camera be conducted?

I'm sure many will be done. I frankly am not all that interested in those types of focus tests. I'm not a big fan of BIF images where the bird is coming right at you.

Again, it all boils down to picking the right tool for the type of photography that you like to do.

[Doug Brown]

Harshad, and Doug too ;), is that almost a contradiction? Golden light of morning depending upon the direction and location of the bird in relation to the light - isn't it generally lower light than the light later in the day? By definition aren't we going to need higher ISOs to keep up the SS early in the morning and later in the afternoon?

I don't think it's a contradiction at all. What I said was that all I'm really interested in is pushing the usable ISO into the 1600-3200 range. Once you get into the light that requires ISOs greater than 3200 in bird photography, in the vast majority of cases the birds just aren't going to look all that great.

[Arthur Morris]

I'm sure many will be done. I frankly am not all that interested in those types of focus tests. I'm not a big fan of BIF images where the bird is coming right at you. Again, it all boils down to picking the right tool for the type of photography that you like to do.

Agree about any attempts at AF testing, but disagree on the birds flying right at you comment; those images can be spectacular. My successes there are very few limited for sure in part by operator error, but I think that that may be a great weakness in various AF systems.

There is always the speeding car on the highway test but even that does not come close to having a bird flying right at you at 40-60 or more mph at point blank range...

[Doug Brown]

disagree on the birds flying right at you comment; those images can be spectacular.

I don't disagree with you Artie. But when it comes to AI Servo performance, I'm most concerned about speed and accuracy of target acquisition and tracking against varied BGs. The vast majority of my flight images are taken with the bird moving mostly from one side of the frame to the other, and that's where I want AF to shine. I'll add that judging by the advances made by the 50D and the 7D, I think the Mark IV should be able to handle birds flying right at you without much of a problem.

[Roger Clark]

Same thoughts here Doug , I would like to see ONE body which have FFor Crop sensor , very very clean at 1600ISO and 25MP , As I am without kit now but would love have such one soon , D3X is there but to buy that I will have to sell some thing big , steal or beg which I dont want to do;):D

Harshad,
This is quite predictable, as I illustrated earlier in this thread. A 25 megapixel sensor, full frame would be 24,000 x 36,000 square microns, so each pixel would be 24000*36000/25000000 = 34.56 square microns (5.9 microns square). The Signal-to-Noise ratio (S/N) on an 18% gray card, ISO 1600 would be about sqrt(260 * 34.56 * 200/1600) = 33. which is a little low but not bad. You will see some noise but people have different tastes as to what is acceptable. The crop sensor would be worse by the crop value, so S/N = 33/1.6 = 21. (There is room in the technology to improve these numbers by about a factor of square root 2, or 1.4x, but not likely 2x).

But I agree with Art. An image is about the lighting, composition and subject first, shutter speed and aperture second, and I would put noise at the bottom. While I do study noise in cameras, I do so mainly for two reasons: 1) I started noise studies to find the best astro camera where light levels can be so low, less then one photon/pixel comes in every 10 seconds, so I need to compute the lens and exposure I need to get the subject. 2) As a physicist, I became fascinated by how good the performance of consumer digital cameras has become.

But in the field doing wildlife photography, I don't worry about noise; I concentrate on lighting, composition and subject. I set the aperture, shutter speed and ISO I need to capture the scene and freeze action. I will bias my result to lower ISO's but not at the expense of blurring the action.

More info on sensor performance for those who want to get into the details:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/

And some low light examples (up to ISO 3.8 million):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...t.photography/

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

I'll add that judging by the advances made by the 50D and the 7D, I think the Mark IV should be able to handle birds flying right at you without much of a problem.

I hope so. Then I will only have to worry about operator error :)

[Arthur Morris]

Roger, Thanks for your informative post. And it's nice to see a scientist agree with me :) That does not happen often!

[Doug Brown]

Check out this Mark IV gallery for AF on a dog coming right at the photographer.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Check out this Mark IV gallery for AF on a dog coming right at the photographer.

Looks very good for a 50% crop at ISO 1000 as far as I can tell. It's a bit hard to judge the sharpness of the images where the dog is relatively far away, though.

I just read the entire thread over at DPR. As for high ISO, he says that the Mark IV is at least one stop better than the Mark III. He used center point with surrounding assist points and lowered the tracking sensitivity one step. Sounds promising to me.

Thanks for sharing the link, Doug!

[Blake Cook]

Check out this Mark IV gallery for AF on a dog coming right at the photographer.

Unacceptable test, the dog must be wearing a white "T" shirt for it to be a valid AF test:):)

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Unacceptable test, the dog must be wearing a white "T" shirt for it to be a valid AF test:):)

You mean some kind of doggie snow camo suit that only shows eyes and nose? :)

[Jim Fenton]

Personally, I'll be looking hard at MKIV examples.

While there are times I'd like to be at higher ISO or as required in the example Artie gave, my main concern in IQ at base ISO to probably 1600 for the most extensive use.

I agree fully with Doug that Nikon currently doesn't offer a FF camera with enough pixel density, especially for where I shoot and what I shoot without using something a heck of a lot longer than my current 500 VR and TC's.

The MKIV is going to be a big temptation!

[Don Lacy]

Golden light of morning depending upon the direction and location of the bird in relation to the light - isn't it generally lower light than the light later in the day? By definition aren't we going to need higher ISOs to keep up the SS early in the morning and later in the afternoon?

What shutter speeds do you need, for years wildlife photographers shot film rated at 50 to 200 ISO. I just looked at the tech info in Andy Rouses's Concepts Of Nature there is only one image created at ISO 800, every image of Art Wolfs the Living Wild was made on slide film with the majority of shutter speeds under 1/250 and looking thru Arthur's last 6 BAA"S again only one image made at ISO 800. It seems to me that new photographers who are learning on digital are using the technology to compensate for poor technique in the field and are not reaching the full potential the new technology is capable of. The best work from the Mark IV at 1600 to 3200 ISO's will be produce by the photographers who already know how to get amazing images at 100 to 400 ISO.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Another Mark IV test, the gull with the house in the BG is interesting. It looks as if lots of Scandinavian and Dutch kids have to run this weekend :) http://www.robjelsma-imagebank.nl/Di...10759541_UUbRf

[Michael Wolf]

Could a test of someone running towards the camera be conducted?

I found this one earlier today...just as you requested!


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849276

[Doug Brown]

What shutter speeds do you need, for years wildlife photographers shot film rated at 50 to 200 ISO. I just looked at the tech info in Andy Rouses's Concepts Of Nature there is only one image created at ISO 800, every image of Art Wolfs the Living Wild was made on slide film with the majority of shutter speeds under 1/250 and looking thru Arthur's last 6 BAA"S again only one image made at ISO 800. It seems to me that new photographers who are learning on digital are using the technology to compensate for poor technique in the field and are not reaching the full potential the new technology is capable of. The best work from the Mark IV at 1600 to 3200 ISO's will be produce by the photographers who already know how to get amazing images at 100 to 400 ISO.

I have to take exception with your first statement about high ISOs Don. Just because technology improves doesn't mean that those advances are destined to become a crutch for poor photographers. I'm sure Artie embraces modern technology just like the rest of us (feel free to chime in here Artie). As a hand held BIF photographer, where would I be without ISO 800 and image stabilization?

I'm sure that there were plenty of times that Artie, Andy, and Art wished they had more shutter speed or DOF when they were shooting at ISO 200. A usable ISO 3200 gives us an extra 4 stops of light to play with.

Think of the photographic worlds that were opened up when ISO 400-800 became usable. We are now on the cusp of ISO 1600-3200 becoming available to bird and wildlife photographers. Imagine what great images we'll be seeing with the help of new technology!

I do however agree with your last statement that the best images will continue to come from the best photographers.

[Pao Dolina]

I'm sure many will be done. I frankly am not all that interested in those types of focus tests. I'm not a big fan of BIF images where the bird is coming right at you.

Again, it all boils down to picking the right tool for the type of photography that you like to do.

True. :) Can I assume you shoot with a 1Ds? If I wasn't after birds in motion it would be my choice of camera. Full frame, larger pixels, modern ISO noise reduction and better AF than the 5D series at the expense of size, weight and price.

[Desmond Chan]

Think of the photographic worlds that were opened up when ISO 400-800 became usable. We are now on the cusp of ISO 1600-3200 becoming available to bird and wildlife photographers. Imagine what great images we'll be seeing with the help of new technology!

Agreed. I wonder how some people just cannot see the new opportunities that come with the new technologies.