Category Archives: Photo Gear

High ISO Noise Comparisons

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

I had an opportunity earlier this month to shoot along with a Nikon user (Dave Chudnov) that had a D800e. I also was able to put my new 5D mark III to use shooting high ISO scenes.

This is a quick comparison of three cameras at ISO 3200. Both the 5D cameras (mark II and mark III) are mine. All shots were taken at about the same settings using the same lens (A Canon 24mm f/1.4L II on the 5D’s, and a Nikon 24mm f/1.4 on the D800e). Dave sent me some of his RAW files so that I could process them along with my files and make a good comparison.



click to see larger

The samples are all 100% crops from about the same area on the photo. The overall photo for each of the samples is basically the Milky Way on a dark clear night in Big Bend National Park.

Each row has a different level of noise reduction. The top row has no noise reduction applied at all. The bottom row has a little noise reduction applied in RAW processing (ACR for the Nikon file and DPP for the Canon files), and then a final run of noise reduction using the Neat Image plugin in Photoshop.

Also, just for comparison, is a reduced, side-by-side comparison of the 5D mark 3 and Nikon D800e:



click to see larger

The Conclusion?

This test attempted to keep the variables the same per shot, but there are some slight differences. And there’s the obvious difference in resolution amongst the cameras: 21MP for the 5DII, 22MP for the 5DIII, and 36MP for the D800e.

My take on it is, after considering the final output and real world applications, there’s not much difference between any of them regarding high ISO noise performance.

This is a little disappointing considering the two Canon models. I’d hoped that the sensor in the 5D mark 3 would have had better noise performance than the 5D mark 2. What I’m seeing in files between the two cameras is that they’re essentially the same at ISO 3200 in a 25 second exposure (ignoring the obvious color balance differences between shots).

I had expected a significant improvement. Canon had about 4 years between models, and they did not increase the pixel count by much. Following the general trend in sensor technology, you could easily assume that the 5D mark 3 would have much better high ISO performance than the 5D mark 2. But this has turned out to be false.

The jump between the original 5D and the 5D mark 2 was a significant improvement. The mark 2 had nearly double the megapixels, and the high ISO noise performance was at least 2 stops better!

I don’t know what Canon has done (or NOT done) in sensor technology going from the mark 2 to the mark 3. Perhaps the advancement is mainly with the video side (something I don’t do).

I’ve also had a chance to inspect my other photos from the 5D mark 3- my daylight landscape photos shot mostly at ISO 100. What I expected here was an improvement in dynamic range. It’s not that the 5D mark 2 had poor DR. I was pretty happy with it. It’s just that the general trend in sensor technology lately has seen increases in the DR capability of sensors at their base ISO settings, and I expected that the mark 3 would have a bit more DR than the mark 2. This is not so. Both cameras seem about the same.

My conclusion is that I’m very disappointed, and if I’d known the mark 3 was going to perform at this level, then I wouldn’t have bought the camera. I’m, however, quite impressed with the upgrades to the body, AF system, menus, etc., but it’s not worth it to me considering the lack of improvement in sensor performance.

Considering the high megapixel count of the Nikon D800e, I’m very impressed with its performance. The noise is no worse than the 5D 2 or 3, yet it accomplishes this with 60% more pixels.

I flirted with the idea of switching to Nikon. However, I don’t think the improved performance of the D800 is enough to justify the switch, especially considering the substantial investment that I’ve made in Canon-mount lenses and the amount of money I’d lose in switching systems.

The Audio Learning Curve

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Earlier this summer I bought an H2 Zoom digital audio recorder.



It’s somewhat small (pocketable, if you have big pockets and don’t mind a substantial bulge in the side of your pants). I bought a protective silicon jacket for it. It’s not smooth and that makes it easy to grip and hold, but it’s rubberiness makes it a pain to slide in and out of your pockets.

I’ve made several recordings of ambient sounds. Capturing sound with this device is fairly easy (i.e. it’s an intuitive and simple device) but as with anything, there’s a learning curve.

I’m far away from being a novice at sound recording, but here are some things I’ve learned so far:

- The H2 has sets of microphones, each set is suited for a particular application and the rear set captures a field at 120° – this is about right for what I’ve been recording.
- The Low/Med/High microphone gain switch is very important – “High” is necessary to get ambient noises such as birds and insects at a somewhat decent level. This switch is very easy to accidentally bump and change.
- The recording levels flash on-screen in real time. These need to be considered when attempting to get a recording at an acceptable sound level. It’s a lot like looking at the histogram on a digital camera.
- The recorder is very sensitive to handling noise. My cleanest recordings have come from setting the thing down somewhere and not touching it while it records.
- It picks up everything, especially when it’s in high sensitivity mode. Distant planes and vehicles plus any movement I make (footsteps, breathing, sniffling, etc.) get captured.

I’ve had fun with it and enjoy the results, and I’ll keep on going up the learning curve, hopefully. And maybe I’ll use it for recording my own thoughts on photography ;-)

(Hope that answers all Kent’s questions :-) )

Canon G11 Likes and Dislikes

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

My primary tool on my “photo walks” in the Addicks Reservoir is a Canon G11. It’s small, versatile, and relatively good amongst point-n-shoot type digital cameras.

But I’m about to throw the damn thing in a creek. I’m developing a dislike for it.

Dynamic Range

My primary complaint is dynamic range, or lack thereof. The camera does indeed have a good DR for a point-n-shoot, but it (like any other digital camera and also film) has limits to DR.

The resulting problem is that when shooting the G11 and highlights blow out, they’re toast. There’s little to no highlight recovery when processing the raw file. This is unlike a typical DSLR where you usually have SOME highlight recovery.

This problem is exacerbated by the camera’s exposure metering always wanting to over expose. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the meter, I just think it’s a trend among camera manufacturers now to default to a brighter exposure because folks, in general, dislike a dark, underexposed image.

More often than not, I’ve got -1 to -2 exposure compensation dialed in to keep the highlights from blowing out. Even if they’re just shy of being blown out, they still look bad. They’re rough looking and “digital” in appearance in the photo.

Autofocus

Another issue with the G11 is the autofocus. It’s “course” as compared to a typical DSLR, but the camera’s generally huge DOF makes up for this coarseness.

The issue really is that it won’t focus on small objects. This becomes problematic when shooting a small flower or insect or spider. A spider on a web, for example, is almost impossible to focus on using the autofocus. The AF only locks onto background objects (even with macro mode enabled).

The camera does have manual focus, but using it is very cumbersome and relies on the LCD screen, which isn’t always easily viewable especially in broad daylight. It’s fine for tripod use on a still subject, but using it hand-held on, for example, a spider sitting on its web and moving around in the breeze is really impossible.

Other Options

I have two other cameras (both DSLRs) that I’d consider taking with me on my walks, but they’re much larger and heavier. I’ve actually done one walk with my 5DII and it was awkward. I could get used to carrying it, I’m sure, much like I got used to carrying the G11 (which was awkward at first too whereas previously I carried nothing with me on my walks).

Looking at the sensor performance of my digital cameras (from DxOMark), you could conclude that the G11 isn’t all that bad particularly at base or low ISO settings.



This kind of goes off a tangent, but dynamic range test results like this are a load of bullshit. After my EXTENSIVE use of all three of these cameras in practical applications, I would never guess that the G11 rates like this as compared to the other two.

What I believe is going on with these tests is that they are a “laboratory test” of DR and do not represent “usable, practical” DR. I.e. these tests show what DR is theoretically possible when you squeeze every paltry, near-negligible data off the sensor. What they do NOT show is that data is crap, er… not photo-quality.

The G11′s performance at the low and high end of its dynamic range is impressive considering “data”, but it makes a poor looking photo.

The Good Stuff

I hate to complain and rant only, so here are the good points to the G11 and why I keep using it:

- relatively small considering the features
- relatively cheap considering the features
- the features: full manual control, IS, awesome LCD screen, big sensor (for a p-n-s), etc. (there’s a bunch)
- great battery life
- fast performance (for a point-n-shoot)

I will keep using it, albeit within it’s limitations. I just have to realize that it can’t shoot every scene that I want to photograph. It’s the same with any camera; every photo-imaging device has its limits.

Canon 50D and the Megapixel Race

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Canon has just announced the new 50D. I suppose I’m a little bitter about this – I bought a 40D less than one year ago, not too long after its introduction. For once in my photo life, I wanted a new camera with fresh technology (as opposed to buying an older and/or used model like I usually do). Oh well, you can’t keep up with technology unless you want to constantly spend money :-)

The 50D’s 15 MP (megapixels) jumps the count up from the 40D’s 10 MP. I thought the megapixel race was over or at least slowing down because manufacturers were finally coming to their senses. I guess not.

Canon claims that the 50D’s microlenses occupy nearly 100% of each photosite (as opposed to microlenses of previous models which presumably didn’t fill up each photosite). Because of this, the 50D’s sensor should not suffer from increased noise levels at high ISOs (the typical result when you cram more MP’s into a given sensor area thus making each photosite smaller). In fact, Canon claims the noise levels to be approximately 1.5 stops better than the 40D. Their claim is reflected in the ISO settings of the 50D – the highest (in expanded mode) is 12,800. The highest on the 40D is ISO 3200.

As my grandfather was famous for saying, “We’ll see…”

Interestingly, if you take the 50D’s pixel density and apply it to a full frame sensor, you get a 39 MP chip. Whoa…

DIY Camera L-brackets

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

About two years ago, I figured out how to make a simple L-bracket that was compatible with the Arca-Swiss style quick release system. You can buy professionally made L-brackets that are extremely well made and very nice, but they’re expensive (especially when you change camera bodies every year or so, therefore requiring a new L-bracket each time :-) ).

Since then, I’ve made two others. I’ve created an article detailing how they were made (download it here – PDF file).



I like doing stuff myself and working with my hands and tools. I buy things or pay for repairs only when I cannot do it myself. Believe me, there are many things in my house that have been fixed with duct tape, super glue, or clothes-hanger wire :-)



Now, if I could just figure out how to make a home-made ballhead… ;-)

Macro Fun

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

A while back I bought a 58mm filter thread reversing ring that will attach two lenses together: filter threads to filter threads. The reversed lens acts like a magnifying glass.

A few weekends ago, I got to playing around in the backyard with our bumper crop of Amaryllis. First, here’s the rig:



Now, a photo from that setup:



click for larger pic
The above photo is roughly a 50% crop of the original. This shows you how narrow the DOF is, even with the main lens stopped down to f/8. I shot this hand-held (used ISO 800). I wanted to get a shot of these tiny, fast-moving bugs crawling on the Amaryllis. So I sat on the ground, braced my elbows against my legs, and gently rocked to bring the focus in and out. When I saw a bug in the viewfinder, I “chased” the bug with the point of focus and fired on burst mode. (I didn’t use the flash for these bugs-on-the-move photos)



click for larger pic
The above is a non-cropped shot of the flower’s anther. For this shot, the camera was mounted on a tripod and MLU was engaged. I also used an off-camera flash and a white reflector underneath the flower for fill-in light (the main light was the sun coming from an angle behind the flower). I swapped the old 55mm lens with a Canon 50mm f/1.4. I also added a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter. I focused on the front fibers of the anther and waited for one of the bugs to crawl past.



click for larger pic
This heavily cropped shot is of a very small ant (“sugar” ant, or some type of ant slightly smaller than a typical fireant). I found this guy deceased and placed him on a white sheet of paper. The light is from a single florescent blub placed at close range (custom WB done on the paper). This shot was done inside my house (too much wind outside!) with the camera on a tripod and MLU engaged. I again used the Canon 50mm reversed (instead of the old 55mm lens) with the 1.4x teleconverter AND added 68mm worth of extension tubes. The great part about shooting static subjects indoors is that it allows you to use very long shutter speeds (i.e. you don’t need great amounts of light). I set the ISO on 200, used a small aperture, and let the shutter speeds be what they needed to be (several seconds).



click for larger pic
The shot of the fly was done with my “normal” macro set up: extension tubes and a Canon 70-200 f/4L. This shot was made handheld (these bugs don’t stay in one place for very long) and I used the off-camera flash. The funny thing was seeing the fly jump at every flash. When it popped, the fly would jump up and then land almost in the same spot as it was before the flash.

Butterfly and the Cheap Lens

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

A while back, I bought a Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM lens to use casually. I wanted a beater lens that was cheap, light, and small, and that I could haul around for snapshots. I wasn’t too concerned with optical quality, but I did choose this lens because it seemed to be given better reviews than some of the other consumer (non-L) Canon zooms.

The 28-105mm is very light and small compared to my other lenses. It has USM and focuses without hesitation or complaint. For what it is, this lens is well built and solid. Coupled with my 5D, the package is very portable and somewhat unobtrusive (just see what kind of attention you get hauling around a large and heavy Canon L lens!).

Optically, it has surprised me again and again. In the past couple of months, I’ve taken to shooting more seriously with this lens.



click for larger pic

The 28-105mm does lack the bite that the more expensive lenses provide. There is a slight loss of sharpness. The colors and contrast are a little bit subdued. But with careful RAW processing and editing in Photoshop, I’ve been able to snap things back to what I’m used to from the heavier, higher quality lenses. Well, almost.

At the short end (28mm), there is some softness that just cannot be corrected in post work. But, it’s not terribly bad. I’ve seen much worse :-) I’m quite comfortable making 8×10 or 11×14 prints of photos taken with this lens.

Canon 40D – Worth Getting?

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

This year, Canon has announced several new camera bodies, including the 40D. The 40D comes along in the 10D – 20D – 30D – series of DSLR bodies. Dpreview has finally reviewed it (I love and value their reviews). Jump to the conclusion page and you’ll see why I’m excited.

So I now find myself pondering this camera and whether or not to ditch my aging 1D mark II. I love the 1D. It’s a substantial piece of equipment. Beautifully crafted, nearly bullet-proof, and heavy as a lead brick. It is both a sports car and a tank. If I were to drop it on my toe, I’d surely break it (the toe, not the camera).

I’d stick with the 1Dm2, but since I use a 5D most of the time, the 1Dm2 becomes a lot of weight to lug around as a back-up camera. It uses huge Ni-MH batteries that require a huge battery charger. (These things remind me of the old heavy NiCAD battery-powered RC cars I had back in the late 80′s.) Replacing the 1D’s batteries (with Canon brand) is expensive – $120 a piece. Replacing the charger is an exercise in highway robbery. $320 for a battery charger? Are you f’n kidding me?

The 40D uses the same batteries as the 5D. The 40D is about the same size as the 5D. The 40D is physically very much like my old 20D, which served as a fine backup camera.

The only problem is that I’ll miss the 1D. I’ll miss the indestructable, take-me-anywhere exterior. I’ll miss the well-built solid feel against my fingers. Handling the thing leaves you with the impression that it’s made of solid metal, although you know otherwise. There’s a dense packing of hardy electronics that work flawlessly to deliver high quality images. You can count on the 1D to perform.

I guess my hesitations are based more on my romance with the 1D than feasible matters. The 40D is the more practical camera for my needs. We’ll see…