Does the 5Dmk2 have a iso sweet spot

oakfieldphotography.com

Hi all
Just a quick question here. I have read treads on sweet spots for certain Canon lenses but wondered does the Canon 5d2 have a iso sweetspot or is this myth?
Kind Regards
Patrick

Sam

oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »

Hi all
Just a quick question here. I have read treads on sweet spots for certain Canon lenses but wondered does the Canon 5d2 have a iso sweetspot or is this myth?
Kind Regards
Patrick

I have never heard of an ISO sweet spot. Your images will be cleaner at ISO 100 than ISO 1600, but if properly exposed you will be hard pressed to see a difference between ISO 100 and ISO 400 (in my opinion).

Again if properly exp;osed you can get a pretty clean image at ISO 1600 and with a small amount of noise reduction it will look very clean.

Bottom like use the ISO setting you need to get the shot.

Sam

Brett1000

oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »

Hi all
Just a quick question here. I have read treads on sweet spots for certain Canon lenses but wondered does the Canon 5d2 have a iso sweetspot or is this myth?
Kind Regards
Patrick

the Canon 5DmkII is good at most ISO levels but I'm not sure there is a "sweet spot"

oakfieldphotography.com

Thanks for clearing that matter up for me.
I am travelling to a town near where i live tomorrow to look at a Canon 24-70 F2.8 lens which is for sale second hand from a private seller.
I wanted to find out if it is a good copy or a bad one. Any advice?

Kind regards
Patrick

JimKarczewski

Well, I know for a fact (I think you can find it on DXO Labs website) ISO 160 has LESS noise than ISO 100, and if I remember correctly, same goes for 320 & 640 over the nearest lower ISO's. Someone theorized that the sensor is pulling the ISO down from 160 to 100 and that it's really based on 160 increments (160, 320, 640, 1280, etc being the "BASE" iso's) from which all others are created.

I shoot 160 when I want to shoot 100 now.. it's just second nature and I haven't noticed a ton of differences, but there is some noise diff between the two.

angevin1

JimKarczewski wrote: »

Well, I know for a fact (I think you can find it on DXO Labs website) ISO 160 has LESS noise than ISO 100, and if I remember correctly, same goes for 320 & 640 over the nearest lower ISO's. Someone theorized that the sensor is pulling the ISO down from 160 to 100 and that it's really based on 160 increments (160, 320, 640, 1280, etc being the "BASE" iso's) from which all others are created.

I shoot 160 when I want to shoot 100 now.. it's just second nature and I haven't noticed a ton of differences, but there is some noise diff between the two.

Yep! The folks at DXO have that sweet spot you asked about : http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

Matthew Saville

All I can say is DO NOT shoot at intermediate ISO's if you can avoid it. Canon has never been very good at intermediate ISO's, and especially at ISO 2000 on the 5D mk2, I just am not a fan. (I process 10,000 RAW 5D mk2 images per week for a living, for a local wedding studio, and I see a CLEAR issue with the 5D mk2 at ISO 2000.)

So, at the lower ISO's it's probably fine, but once you get to around ISO 800, I would keep things whole... :-)

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

JimKarczewski wrote: »

Well, I know for a fact (I think you can find it on DXO Labs website) ISO 160 has LESS noise than ISO 100, and if I remember correctly, same goes for 320 & 640 over the nearest lower ISO's. Someone theorized that the sensor is pulling the ISO down from 160 to 100 and that it's really based on 160 increments (160, 320, 640, 1280, etc being the "BASE" iso's) from which all others are created.

I shoot 160 when I want to shoot 100 now.. it's just second nature and I haven't noticed a ton of differences, but there is some noise diff between the two.

I remember seeing this and, if I recall, doesn't the benefit of lower ISO noise come at the cost of a little bit of dynamic range? I don't know what it was exactly, but at the end of the day I stick with the REAL numbers.

=Matt=

JimKarczewski

Matthew Saville wrote: »

All I can say is DO NOT shoot at intermediate ISO's if you can avoid it. Canon has never been very good at intermediate ISO's, and especially at ISO 2000 on the 5D mk2, I just am not a fan. (I process 10,000 RAW 5D mk2 images per week for a living, for a local wedding studio, and I see a CLEAR issue with the 5D mk2 at ISO 2000.)

So, at the lower ISO's it's probably fine, but once you get to around ISO 800, I would keep things whole... :-)

=Matt=

I shoot at 4000, 5000 and 6400 depending on light, but then again, most of my images are going to newsprint when I shoot that high, so yea, I get to cheat. Honestly, I've never really paid that much attention to 2000 specifically, I know I regularly do shoot some stuff at 1250 and as mentioned most ISO's above 4000. I'll have to check out some of that noise next time if I can get away with 2000 somewhere.

ETA-

I really dislike the ISO Sensitivity differences shown with DXO as well.. Holy crap. 6400 is really closer to 4000, what about 2/3 of a stop off actual ISO, which means H1 is closer to an actual ISO6400 than 6400 is... That's sad. check it here..

Unfortunately when they did they SNR tests, they did full stop ISOs only, not 1/3 stops which sucks.. There is no way to really tell how bad the 1/3 stop ISO's are from that chart..