# Another crappy question about 5D mk2 iso performance...



## LewisShermer (Aug 3, 2013)

So I bought a 5Dii as a back up camera for weddings but I've never shot with it as I don't trust the ISO performance. I'm spoilt with the 5Diii by the fact I trust it to 3200 and not having that much grain or sharpness lost. I used to shoot weddings 90% with a 50mm 1.4 and just swap to the 24-105 when I was doing groups. but now I have a 35mm and I'm comfortable doing 99% of the day with that, just putting the wide on for the biiiig groups but I kinda miss the detail shots I'd be able to do with the 50 a little. I swapped it now and again to make sure I got what I needed last wedding but I wish I had slightly more of people done on the 50. The 35mm is ace for the ceremony BTW, if anyone's reading this far...

Anyway, the crux of the matter is that I want to double cam on my next wedding, 50mm on the 5Dii and 35mm on the 5Diii... I'm not using flash and shooting at 2.2, what ISO can I feasibly get away with shooting at on a 5Dii with out making a mess of everything?

P.S. no crappy "shoot at what you need to to get the shot" answers. just what I can actually trust the camera to deliver professional standard photography to discerning customers.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 3, 2013)

To be on the safe side, I'd stick to ISO 1600. That gives you the leverage to increase the exposure in post if necessary, without the penalty of too much shadow noise appearing. Given correct exposure it's possible to push the ISO a little more, let's say 1/3rd to 2/3rd of a stop but I'd shy away from ISO 3200 and use that only when absolutely necessary (ie I'm almost never really satisfied with ISO 3200 shots).


----------



## LewisShermer (Aug 3, 2013)

thanks


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 3, 2013)

You haven't said what work ( if any ) you're doing on the mkiii files at ISO 3200.

For me, on the mkii, 320 is tops to be discerning, without NR work. At 640 I see significant deterioration in data.

The mkiii, 6D etc are in a different league to the mkii at high ISO as you'll find.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

At anything above ISO 200, the files are just crap. Maybe ISO 100. Seriously, don't bother. The cheapest entry level APS-C Nikon camera does better, and as a bonus you could use a 35mm lens on both cameras, so as not to get confused. 

</sarcasm>


----------



## agierke (Aug 3, 2013)

For weddings the farthest I would push the mk2 is 2000 iso. For this type of work it's fine with a little NR. If I get an under exposed shot at high iso I will just covert it to b&w and add photo grain in my Nik suite and any noise disappears entirely.

I do use a flash with a 2nd light (ab800) during receptions though so I'm usually shooting between 800 and 1600 iso max. Church ceremonies is the only time I find myself pushing to iso 2000 and I'm typically maxed at F2.8 on the 70-200mm.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 3, 2013)

Much also depends on what size the image is going to be viewed at. I've shot ISO 3200 on the 5D2 in a pinch and frankly, they look pretty damn good at the size that would be viewed in a small format, like part of a collage of images on an album page or a 5X7-size print. It's fine to declare "don't tell me to shoot whatever I need to get the shot" but that in fact is what you have to do sometime. I would much rather have a well exposed shot that doesn't suffer from camera shake but has some digital noise in it, than completely miss the shot or have something badly underexposed that has to have the exposure pushed too hard. I can turn the former in to something useful, not so much the latter.


----------



## noisejammer (Aug 3, 2013)

IIRC, the 5D II produces the same noise at 1200, 1600 and 2000. I believe this is an effect caused by their being two programmable amplifiers in the signal chain. Whether it's real or imagined, astrophotographers try to exploit the knowledge to optimise performance. 

I'm scratching here but I think the source was Roger Clark's site - http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/index.html

Personally, I'd invest in first rate noise reduction software (I'm using Noiseware at the moment.) For imaging in extremely low light levels, it's common to try to profile the noise pattern that the camera produces. When done with care, this is at least half a stop more effective than the noise reduction Canon offers.

More than noise floors, I'd be somewhat concerned about the 5D II's ability to autofocus in low light - the 6D may be a better choice here. I'd also be cautious about focus shift when using fast glass... make sure the MFA is optimised at the aperture you plan to use.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 3, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> More than noise floors, I'd be somewhat concerned about the 5D II's ability to autofocus in low light - the 6D may be a better choice here. I'd also be cautious about focus shift when using fast glass... make sure the MFA is optimised at the aperture you plan to use.



That's an excellent point. The ability of the 5D2 to lock AF in low light is pretty bad.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 3, 2013)

Lewis,

Only you can answer this question because only you know what *you* consider professional standard photography. What size output are you thinking? Prints? Web galleries? Albums?

Fortunately it is very easy to set up a test, just go to a similar EV room and run some shots at different iso's, make sure you have some detail in there too. Software makes a huge difference as well, I hate the NR in Lightroom, it is junk, but take a file into PS or Topaz DeNoise3 and you will realise you can get away with much more than most people think. But again, only you can say what you are happy with.

I use 1Ds MkIII's, so essentially the same sensor as the 5D MkII it maxes out at a native 1600 iso native H is just 1600 pushed one stop in post. So I did a series of tests, here is the camera exposed three stops under at 1600iso, an effective 12,800 iso, then I raised the exposure three stops in post and did NR in Topaz. 

Are the results junk? I depends, I have printed it to 8"x11" and the results are surprisingly good, it isn't a 1Dx  But I know what I'd get if I *had* to do it. You need to do similar tests for your own satisfaction.

P.S. I never shoot above 800iso, that is my comfort zone.

Shot 1, full image shot at 1600iso and -3 EV for effective 12,800iso
Shot 2, 100% crop of imported file
Shot 3, 100% crop of exposure adjusted image
Shot 4, 100% crop of exposure and NR adjusted image


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 3, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> So I bought a 5Dii as a back up camera for weddings but I've never shot with it as I don't trust the ISO performance.



I don't mean to be smarmy here... but you're shooting professionally, for money, providing services and products for clients.

You bought it, you've not shot with it. Let me give you a bit of a hint: Why don't you go test it yourself and it see if it performs to your liking?

What you said is true about the 35mm focal length. For 95 percent... its all you need. After that, if I was shooting in 2.4x3.6 format, I think you could worse than the 24-105 zoom. I have little need for anything much wider than 35mm, but the occasional longer lengh comes in handy for a few shots.

And.... broken record that I am... I'll say again, that controlling the lighting is the photographers job. Never let the light control you.


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 3, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> So I bought a 5Dii as a back up camera for weddings but I've never shot with it as I don't trust the ISO performance. I'm spoilt with the 5Diii by the fact I trust it to 3200 and not having that much grain or sharpness lost. I used to shoot weddings 90% with a 50mm 1.4 and just swap to the 24-105 when I was doing groups. but now I have a 35mm and I'm comfortable doing 99% of the day with that, just putting the wide on for the biiiig groups but I kinda miss the detail shots I'd be able to do with the 50 a little. I swapped it now and again to make sure I got what I needed last wedding but I wish I had slightly more of people done on the 50. The 35mm is ace for the ceremony BTW, if anyone's reading this far...
> 
> Anyway, the crux of the matter is that I want to double cam on my next wedding, 50mm on the 5Dii and 35mm on the 5Diii... I'm not using flash and shooting at 2.2, what ISO can I feasibly get away with shooting at on a 5Dii with out making a mess of everything?
> 
> P.S. no crappy "shoot at what you need to to get the shot" answers. just what I can actually trust the camera to deliver professional standard photography to discerning customers.



I use 5D2 exclusively for my company and had no problem with it. I'm somewhat a second shooter and I use a fill-in on-camera flash most of the time as it takes away most of the noise in the shadow areas. I use something like Gary Fong's lightsphere but from a third party. With a 5D2 and a flash, I'm comfortable with it even @ ISO 3200 or 6400 (denoised using LR). I use a 50mm F1.4, 28mm F1.8 and a 24-105. I use off-camera flashes and/or reflectors when I'm tasked to do pre-nuptials.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2013)

I used my 5D MK II at ISO 6400, and now I use my 5D MK III at 12800. No issue with large prints.
It all depends on what you expect.

5D MK II ISO 6400


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 3, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I used my 5D MK II at ISO 6400, and now I use my 5D MK III at 12800. No issue with large prints.
> It all depends on what you expect.
> 
> 5D MK II ISO 6400



That's gotta be a Sherlock Holmes play with the revolver and pipe. Taken a bit of licence with the secretary though. Don't think Arthur Conan Doyle had the house keeper looking like that. 

Like you say, high ISO on the mkii depends upon your expectations. If the OP has bought one as backup but hasn't had the 'confidence' to use it then maybe a 6D would have been better.


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 3, 2013)

You really are spoiled using the 5D III.
5D Mark II was crazy good 4 years ago but now it's clearly previous generation.

I use the 1DX now and i get cleaner files at ISO 3200 than ISO 400 on 5D II.


----------



## And-Rew (Aug 3, 2013)

As per previous comment - "you earn money off photography, bought a 5D2 for back up and have NOT tested it yet?"

So, that one off my chest, I'll come back to a constructive comment.

The only thing that the 5D2 has ever suffered from is poor AF feature set.
ISO was up there just behind the D3(s) and 1D4 until the 1Dx & 5D3 turned up.

Until that point, the 5D2 was more than accepted as a wedding togs camera of choice.
Mine always followed me to work and I had no qualms about shooting at ISO 6400. I agree, it's not 1DX in final image output, but then nor is it in the same price band...

Go and try the 5D2 out and get some test shots to see what you can get - and remember, it is not a requirement for every shot to be absolutely noise/ grain free. 

Some times, a picture can even be improved with a touch of grain/ noise. I would post some sample images - but some one has beaten me to it.


----------

