# Grainy images from my 5D MK IV?



## Morlin (Dec 18, 2016)

Hi. 

Not sure if it´s just me or so but I feel that the images from my 5D MK IV are more grainy than from my 5d MKIII. Can that be correct? Can it be just a feeling I get because of the larger files that makes it possible to get closer to the fine details or can there be a quality issue or just how the files are? I also feel that they are softer than from my 5D MKIII. 

Please give me your thoughts on this. 

Regards / Johan


----------



## AdamBotond (Dec 18, 2016)

I'm not a user of any of those two. You may feel its more grainy due to MP increase over the prodecessor if you look pics at 100%. In fact however, 5D IV should be superior to 5D III by a stop or so at any given ISO. Downsampling the 5D IV images to 22 MP would make a fair comparison between the two cameras and the successor should look far better especially at mid and high iso. 

My two cents only.


----------



## LDS (Dec 18, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> I'm not a user of any of those two. You may feel its more grainy due to MP increase over the prodecessor if you look pics at 100%. In fact however, 5D IV should be superior to 5D III by a stop or so at any given ISO. Downsampling the 5D IV images to 22 MP would make a fair comparison between the two cameras and the successor should look far better especially at mid and high iso.



AFAIK actually you have to compare noise at 100%. Downsampling would reduce noise.


----------



## AdamBotond (Dec 18, 2016)

LDS said:


> Downsampling would reduce noise.


Exactly. So why not compare the high iso capabilities of two cameras with different MP count at the same resolution to make the comparison independent from MP count?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2016)

I think grain doex show a bit more whe images are underexposed, especially overcast skies.

Otherwise, I'm getting cleaner images up to about ISO 5000. From there the same.


----------



## LDS (Dec 18, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> Exactly. So why not compare the high iso capabilities of two cameras with different MP count at the same resolution to make the comparison independent from MP count?



If you downsample, you're being "artificially" removing noise from one image and not the other, due to the effects of the downsampling algorithm. So you're not comparing the sensor ISO capabilities in an "independent" way.

If you want a simpler comparison, you should shoot the same subject so it has the same size in pixels in the images, then you can compare both at 1:1 and see which one has more noise without applying any transformation to the image.

Then downsampling a large image will usually help in reducing noise also.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2016)

LDS said:


> AdamBotond said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. So why not compare the high iso capabilities of two cameras with different MP count at the same resolution to make the comparison independent from MP count?
> ...



This might be great for benchmarks in a lab, but a photographer who knows his/her equipment, has good vision, and decent software can compare shots from different cameras and decide IQ. So for real life, downsizing, etc really isn't necessary.

What is more important for an individual to judge differences is making sure that exposure is near optimal in images compared.

I'm just saying we can judge very, very well without having to count pixels, downsize, etc. Load a RAW from, say a G12 and a 5DIII, review correctly exposed images at higher ISO's, should be obvious. You don't need to down sample, etc, and if it is your money, you don't need your own perception, opinion verified by a NASA lab.

I did it with my 5DIV and 5DIII and can see that, as stated earlier, the 5DIV is slightly better up to about ISO 5000--TO MY EYES. And my eyes are the ones which count because it's my money.

But, again as stated earlier, the 5DIII appears to be slightly less grainy when an image is underexposed.

Another difference--the 5DIV images are definitely responding better to sharpening and noise reduction.

Overall, with slightly better IQ and close to drastically better AF, a very worthy upgrade for me. Plus all the nice little extra features added to the viewfinder and menus and controls.

I'm NOT dismissing the scientific, objective approach! But there are several respected websites that offer 100% comparisons with megapixel counts considered. Those are useful for helping me decide what to buy. But until I see with my own eyes, I really can't judge what suits my own tastes/needs/preferences/requirements...

For example, from the sites I saw and the specs, the 80D seemed an easy winner. But I bought one which had AF problems, then another that was working great. In both cases I was disappointed with the IQ at ISO 640 and over. Even ISO 400 had a kind of grain/noise that I found unappealing.

Mentioned the 80D so it is clear I'm not a fanboy shouting rah, rah, rah for the 5DIV. When they get it right, great, when not, too bad.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2016)

Noise is collected, like light, by area. So to make a fair comparison you need to compare per sensor area. You wouldn't compare two cars with different top speeds at those different speeds to work out a mpg figure would you?

So the only fair way to compare output is to look at same sized output of the same area of the image, not pixel numbers (if the pixel numbers are different) nor zoom percentages. So, look at full screen for both (or the same subject magnification/size on screen), or a same sized print of the same area of the frame, or down sample the higher resolution to the lower resolution to compare noise, or up sample the lower resolution to the higher resolution to compare detail and resolving power.

Now there is an easy non destructive way to compare same size on screen when looking at different pixel density. In PS go to Image: Image Size. from there select a size that will fit on half your screen 8x12 or something and make sure resample is not selected. Do this to both images. The go Window: Arrange: 2 Up Horizontally (or Vertically depending on image orientation). Then go View: Print Size in both windows. Both images will display the same and if you want to scroll both equally just click H then use the shift tab with the mouse and you are good.

Or print out two test images to the same size with the same area of the image from both cameras.

At same % magnification views the higher density pixel sensor is at a disadvantage because you are magnifying it more, the comparison is not valid.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Noise is collected, like light, by area. So to make a fair comparison you need to compare per sensor area. You wouldn't compare two cars with different top speeds at those different speeds to work out a mpg figure would you?
> 
> So the only fair way to compare output is to look at same sized output of the same area of the image, not pixel numbers (if the pixel numbers are different) nor zoom percentages. So, look at full screen for both (or the same subject magnification/size on screen), or a same sized print of the same area of the frame, or down sample the higher resolution to the lower resolution to compare noise, or up sample the lower resolution to the higher resolution to compare detail and resolving power.
> 
> ...



This makes a lot of sense! Will try.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 19, 2016)

What is your post-production workflow? Could you share a screenshot or 100% crop to demonstrate your issue?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2016)

Do a 100% view of a 10MP G12, then 100% of 5D3 or 5D4. ISO 800. Which llooks noisier?

Doesn't matter what's ''fair.''

When we sharpen or do noise reduction, we do so at 100%. And that's where we judge IQ.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 19, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Do a 100% view of a 10MP G12, then 100% of 5D3 or 5D4. ISO 800. Which llooks noisier?
> 
> Doesn't matter what's ''fair.''
> 
> When we sharpen or do noise reduction, we do so at 100%. And that's where we judge IQ.



Don't agree.

I judge IQ at the image level, it's the_ 'image'_ part of _'image quality'_. Pixel level is irrelevant because I am not outputting individual pixels, or even a screens worth of them (4-12 million), I am outputting 20-30-50 million of them into an image.

100% views are entirely fallacious unless you are so focal length limited you are outputting at 1:1, whatever the sensor size.

But you are conflating several issues. The OP speculates the 5D MkIV is 'noisier at 100% view' than the MkIII, my point is that of course it is! Because it isn't a fair/relevant comparison, look at the 5D MkIII and 5D MkIV at same sized output (an image) and the 5D MkIV is less noisy and has more detail. It is relevant to appreciate that pixel density/pixel size is relevant to best practice processing, sharpen and noise reduction at 100% (sometimes), i.e. you process a MkIII file and a MkIV file differently, doesn't impact the fact that at a fair/relevant comparison (same sized output) the MkIV has higher IQ than the MkIV in noise and detail.

The fact that smaller sensors, or a smaller sensor area, is noisier is moot and entirely irrelevant.

The fact that smaller pixels are noisier is moot and entirely irrelevant.

To be sure, you can compare a banana to a camel. But if you want to know what is going to give you better IQ then for same sized sensors you need to compare same area. For different sized sensors you need to compare entire sensor area. Preferably you will make those comparisons at similar sizes to your personal output sizes.

To put that in perspective, I have a 27" Apple monitor, it has a pixel density of 109PPI. If I look at a 5D MkIII file at 100% it is the equivalent of looking at a 53" x 35" print from 20", if I do the same with a 5D MkIV file I would be looking at the equivalent of a 62" x 41" print 20" away! That is 40% more area. As an image how often do you make those sized outputs? Again, 100% view is entirely spurious unless you are outputting at 1:1 and the only relevant IQ comparison between same sized sensors with different pixel densities is same sensor area comparisons.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Do a 100% view of a 10MP G12, then 100% of 5D3 or 5D4. ISO 800. Which llooks noisier?
> ...



Apart from the banana and camel analogy, which went over my head, I can understand what you are saying about pixel density and noise.

But what you might be not able to see is all the attempts to make a "fair" comparison are irrelevant. When I look at my wife's G12 at 100% at ISO 400 and up, I feel much better about spending the money to buy a FF camera.

My point, again, is that photographers by in large make judgments about IQ when working on an image, and we've been taught by Adobe and many pundits that sharpening and noise reduction should be done at 100%. So if you zoom in and see, gasp, a ton of noise on a new camera compared to your old camera, theory goes out the window and you wonder what you just paid for.

And if this is a "wrong" way to judge, all the better, because it has forced the industry to keep making better sensors that are cleaner at higher ISO's.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 19, 2016)

If there is no graininess at pixel level then there will be no graininess at image level. For example, in Lightroom (with appropriate "detail" settings) you can avoid sharpening image noise which is quite often the cause of images looking excessively grainy.

Look how well the grain is controlled with this image taken with the EOS 80D at ISO 16,000: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31329.msg639212#msg639212
I have no doubt that the 5D-IV can perform similarly if not better as it is a new-generation sensor with a considerably larger pixel pitch than the 80D.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 19, 2016)

When the 50D came out, there were exactly the same arguments. 
The 40D was 10MP the 50D was 15MP and this was really the start of the megapixel wars when many considered 12MP more than anyone would ever need (anyone recall Nikon saying that as a corporate statement.....until they brought out the D800?). People kept on saying 'look at them on the computer, the 50D is noisier'. And it was because the automatic thing back then was to look at them 100% on the screen and people were looking at the noise per pixel. Fools.

People who made images that had everyone saying 'WOW!' were saying 'I don't care about pixels, all I know is that the 50D makes more detailed images with noise being less visible, and with more dynamic range'. 
These were the people who were creating an image and it was the image (not the pixels) that were impressing everyone. 

Of the reviews I have seen, those who have done an image-based review (not a pixel-based review) has said that the 5DIV is better than the 5D3 by a stop or so. Notably the ones doing image-based reviews are working professionals whose livelihood depends on it. 
Guess who I am more impressed by?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Apart from the banana and camel analogy, which went over my head, I can understand what you are saying about pixel density and noise.
> 
> But what you might be not able to see is all the attempts to make a "fair" comparison are irrelevant. When I look at my wife's G12 at 100% at ISO 400 and up, I feel much better about spending the money to buy a FF camera.
> 
> ...



No you are missing my point. The only people who have an interest in 100% views are severely focal length limited shooters who are subsequently limited to very modest electronic output sizes, measurebators, fools, and people who have bought in to the ad mans crap. What difference does it make if you feel better looking at your wives files at 100% when you don't output that? You output an image.

Back in 2009 Michael Reichmman did a comparison between a then top of the range 39MP medium format Hasselblad and a Canon G10 P&S. In good light at equivalent settings nobody could reliably tell the difference in 13" x 19" prints. The size of the sensor nor the pixels was relevant, the comparison was same sized output. That is all that is ever relevant, same sized output.

Now if you want to make bigger prints, crop harder, do action shooting, high fps, use faster lenses or just have a wider lens choice, shoot in worse light, need fast AF etc etc then camera choice becomes much more nuanced. But, if you simply want to make a valid comparison between 5D MkIII and 5D MkIV _"image quality"_ the only relevant comparison is a same sized image.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 20, 2016)

Scott, I see this and agree. However, what I perceive and even dislike in myself is the tendency to want to put every shot under a microscope. For example take a bird portrait and examine the eyelashes at maybe 10 time the natural size. I'm willing to bet a lot of folk on CR are, when the files are posted large enough, doing exactly that. Likewise on landscape shots, today we expect to be able to zoom in from a mile away to see detail and this has nothing to do with print sizes that will be output. My observation is that the public will always buy into the more megapixels is advantageous hype not unlike the small cars that always creep up in size and power. Much of this is driven by bragging rights.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 20, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> But what you might be not able to see is all the attempts to make a "fair" comparison are irrelevant. When I look at my wife's G12 at 100% at ISO 400 and up, I feel much better about spending the money to buy a FF camera.
> 
> My point, again, is that photographers by in large make judgments about IQ when working on an image, and we've been taught by Adobe and many pundits that sharpening and noise reduction should be done at 100%. So if you zoom in and see, gasp, a ton of noise on a new camera compared to your old camera, theory goes out the window and you wonder what you just paid for.
> 
> And if this is a "wrong" way to judge, all the better, because it has forced the industry to keep making better sensors that are cleaner at higher ISO's.



The 100% viewing mantra was first spouted back when cameras were 8MP or 10MP, not the 30MP behemoths we have nowadays. A 5DIV image is 5760 MP across. On a screen 1920-pixels wide that is 3 screens wide and you are viewing it from no more than 2 feet away. 
I have read comments by some professional retouchers who say that viewing 100% is not only no longer necessary but can be very misleading, and they will view images from modern cameras at 50%. They may use 100% to define the amount of sharpening they need, or for very fine selections, but for actually assessing overall image quality they go no higher than 50% because image quality is not just about sharpness. I have found out myself that noise and detail are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## LDS (Dec 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> No you are missing my point. The only people who have an interest in 100% views are severely focal length limited shooters who are subsequently limited to very modest electronic output sizes, measurebators, fools, and people who have bought in to the ad mans crap. What difference does it make if you feel better looking at your wives files at 100% when you don't output that? You output an image.



You're wrong, and there's plenty of literature to show it, but given the tone of this conversation I think it's useless to even try. An insult competition is not interesting.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 20, 2016)

LDS said:


> AdamBotond said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. So why not compare the high iso capabilities of two cameras with different MP count at the same resolution to make the comparison independent from MP count?
> ...



But that isn't what you do, is it? 
When you are taking an image of a landscape, you take it from a specific location because it gives a specific perspective on the landscape, or your options to move around are limited. When I am thinking about moving from 5D3 to 5DIV I am not thinking 'how can I get the same number of pixels on the subject' I am thinking 'which will look better when viewed onscreen or in print' and 'will the higher pixel density be offset by pixel quality and noise'.

When you take pictures of wildlife your options on shooting are limited by the gear you have and how close you can get. If I want a picture of an eagle on its nest and I have a 600mm lens, my question is 'will the 5DIV image look better than the 5D3 image' not 'I have to use a shorter lens to get the same number of pixels on it'.

The next question is 'do these differences hold up at all ISOs'

Understanding pixel noise is important. But that is only one step in deciding if it is a better tool for taking the images you want.

Question: The ISO capabilities is only relevant in terms of what it does for the image. So if the 5DIV proves to have more noise at the pixel level than the 5D3 and everyone says that the 5DIV takes better images, do you say the sensor is worse or better?


----------



## SteveM (Dec 20, 2016)

Pixel peeping has undoubtedly cost me many thousands of pounds over the years. For me personally, the release of the 5D Mklll signified the end of the comparison websites (the camera is so good) and I am now far more content as a result - I now invest my 'pixel peeping' time in improving my photography.
I certainly don't advocate everyone stops 'pixel peeping' - I've spent enough time on it in the past, but for me now, I'm much happier without it.
I'm sure the MklV is a great camera, limit the 'pixel peeping' a little and enjoy photography.
For what it's worth, my favourite comparison website was 'imaging resource Comparimeter'


----------



## tron (Dec 20, 2016)

I agree about comparing per sensor area, print size etc but when I am Focal Length limited I have to compare at pixel level. Fortunately, I found out that 5DIV works very well with my 500 II and 2XIII with very nice results even at 100%. At the same time the use of 2X alleviates somehow the need to magnify at 100%. The quality is better than what I can usually get from my 7DII + 500 + 1.4XIII at most lighting conditions. I haven't compared it side to side with my 5DIII mostly because I haven't used my5DIII for birds lately. But one and a half year ago 5DIII excelled at 100% with my 100-400II. So both are very good at 100%. I just have not made a one to one comparison using same lenses, settings and lighting conditions.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 20, 2016)

And I didn't buy the 5DIV because I expected radically better low-light, high-ISO performance. What I concluded from reviews and discussions was that it would give a modest improvement in IQ generally, and higher resolution without much of a noise penalty.

The main reason I bought the 5DIV, upgrading from the 5DIII, was for the improved AF, both through the viewfinder and in LiveView. Very good move!

And what I've found is that I'm getting a more pleasing IQ for people, still life, and landscape, and that working at 100% I'm very happy with the improvement over the 5DIII--except if I've underexposed. That's where I see a little less forgiving of a noise issue, even at ISO 200 - 400! This is a circumstance that is not troubling and can be avoided, but does exist.

(I'm STILL trying to get out for some nature/birds, but work, family, and weather keep laughing at me.)

So, back to the OP's question, in my experience, the 5DIV does NOT produce grainy images compared to the 5DIII except when underexposure happens and light areas such as an overcast sky are included.

How did we wander into insults? Don't know!

By the way, PBD, do you even OWN a 5DIV? Or are you just speculating?

Mikehit, you raise an excellent point about reconsidering the practice of cleaning up noise at 100%. I'm not going to give it up going from 5DIII to 5DIV, but certainly at some point of MP inflation it won't make sense. Maybe even now, but it's working fine for prints...


----------



## LDS (Dec 20, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> But that isn't what you do, is it?



The aim of any photographer is to deliver the best image he or she could for a given *output* resolution and size. That often implies to understand the characteristics of a given *input* resolution, ISO and exposure, to decide how to process the image to deliver that best *output*.

Some authors believe *some* characteristics like noise are best evaluated at 1:1 because an image pixels maps to a screen pixel without any processing between. It doesn't tell anything of the quality of the final output image, which depends on many other factors.

It's just a way to ensure you really see what you're looking for - a single characteristic -, and nothing hides or modifies it. I think it's a reasonable approach. But of course no one is forced to use it (and really see no reason why use an offensive tone to say it).

I use to evaluate noise and sharpening at 1:1, especially for critical areas (and depending on output, an A3+ requires may require more care than an A6), then change it to a lower magnification which could give a better understanding of how it would look at the final output - which will show you other characteristics you can't see at 1:1 - and then print a proof, of course. I found I need less printed proofs following this process.

Is the IV *input* more "grainy" of the III, or is it just a a psychological effect of the higher resolution? And is that "grain" noise, and not the effect of looking at smaller details now resolved? I do not know. But it's something that can be quantitatively and objectively measured (for what is worth....), if needed - just IMHO all other parameters must be equal, or the comparison is skewed. 

Then I'm quite sure a sensor with more pixel can deliver a better image than one with less for a given size and resolution - the image will be downsampled more, or less upsampled (if ever needed). It's just like large format cameras deliver less "grainy images" because they didn't need to be enlarged much, using the same emulsion.

But if you want to compare two emulsion to evaluate their grain (not the image they produce), you would look at the film (maybe with a microscope), not get a 35mm and a 6x7 one and print them at the same size - the latter would win anyway unless really worse. And yes, these kind of comparisons are often very little useful, especially if the differences are small enough and visible only in corner cases, what matters is the final image you're able to deliver.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2016)

Wow, I'll answer a lot of the points later when I have the time, but really you guys are over the top saying this _'has been reduced to insults'_. How is including fools in a group of other well intentioned but largely misguided assessors insulting? 

Now if anybody took it personally I am sorry if I offended you, but I am not sorry for the words I wrote and I'd beg you to look at why you think that epithet was either aimed at you or feel it describes you.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 20, 2016)

Lets assess the situation. OP with few posts starts thread. OP vanishes after one post. You guys argue repeatedly. Hmmmmm


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 20, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lets assess the situation. OP with few posts starts thread. OP vanishes after one post. You guys argue repeatedly. Hmmmmm



Yes, isn't CR wonderful!  Even without Dilbert. Seriously though, each thread always provides some tidbits of useful information (if you're willing to wade through the not so useful).

Jack


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 20, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lets assess the situation. OP with few posts starts thread. OP vanishes after one post. You guys argue repeatedly. Hmmmmm
> ...



Question seemed sincere. How many posts should a poster have before posters should post posts?

As for vanishing, I don't think it was anything I posted. At least not in this thread... :


----------



## Diko (Dec 21, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> I think grain doex show a bit more whe images are underexposed, especially overcast skies.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm getting cleaner images up to about ISO 5000. From there the same.



Here is unedited RAW @ 5000 ISO... There IS grain. This is 1/4th of a 30 MP image crop.

:/

Otherwise can be suppressed but not always. Especially when the images are underexposed.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 21, 2016)

Diko said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I think grain doex show a bit more whe images are underexposed, especially overcast skies.
> ...



ISO 500 at 200% viewing - I'm not surprised you can see grain.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 21, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



He said *ISO 5000!*


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 21, 2016)

I know - my typo.


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 21, 2016)

Diko said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I think grain doex show a bit more whe images are underexposed, especially overcast skies.
> ...



You are at ISO 5000 which is likely ISO 3200 pushed or ISO 6400 pulled down. There will be grain. With the 6D and 5D III there would have been actual color noise. The color noise was easy to get rid of but grain will just be there. The grain looks like it is the actual noise in the signal. So that looks quite good. Better than my Sony A7 II. 

If you are really bothered by it you can always apply a slight Gaussian blur then down sample and sharpen. That would get rid of the noise.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 21, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


> If you are really bothered by it you can always apply a slight Gaussian blur then down sample and sharpen. That would get rid of the noise.



An interesting technique - I will give it a go.


----------



## tron (Dec 21, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


Well that's the most useful comment in this thread.


----------



## LDS (Dec 22, 2016)

tron said:


> Well that's the most useful comment in this thread.



Are you sure? That's a challenging image to reduce noise within - because of the tiny details on the Moon surface, compared to the far less detailed sky, which you would like to preserve. Today, if you use Photoshop ACR will do a good job in reducing input noise while trying to preserve detail. Otherwise I'd use layers and masks to preserve the Moon details, while maybe applying a stronger reduction to the sky noise (and avoid to re-sharpen it later).


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 22, 2016)

LDS said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Well that's the most useful comment in this thread.
> ...



And PS CC noise reduction now has a great ''by channnel'' option!

Gaussian blur is an old school hammer at this point.


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2016)

LDS said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Well that's the most useful comment in this thread.
> ...


May be it's not THE method but I would certainly give it a try even if only to test it. I realize that it might not apply to all cases but I can think of some it will. In addition just before I read that entry I was about to mention another member's - I do not remember whose - advice that had proposed to do aggressive noise reduction first and then reduce size and sharpen. 

But until your equally interesting entry of yours that specific comment was (in my humble opinion) the most useful. Now we have at least two useful comments...  

EDIT: OK At least three! I just read the previous entry!


----------



## LDS (Dec 22, 2016)

tron said:


> But until your eually interesting entry of yours that specific comment was (in my humble opinion) the most useful. Now we have at least two useful comments...
> EDIT: OK At least three! I just read the previous entry!



These may be useful advices, but the OP asked something else, yes useful, but maybe off-topic 

Anyway noise reduction needs also spawned many plug-ins with specific capabilities that may go beyond what can be achieved in Photoshop. You can even try the now free, although a bit old, Dfine 2 from Nik Collection (here a review http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/review-nik-dfine-v2 - BTW: nice new site, Keith!)


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2016)

I agree noise reduction techniques may be off topic but OP didn't compare the two cameras (5D3 and 5D4) by using same settings, subject, lighting conditions, etc.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 24, 2016)

OP still MIA after opening the thread :


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 24, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> OP still MIA after opening the thread :



Reminds me of an ex who thought putting more pressure on a guy led to improved performance...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 25, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > OP still MIA after opening the thread :
> ...


OP hasn't posted a single example of what HE MEANT after he opened the thread and you guys are already well on your way to page 4 :


----------



## Morlin (Dec 26, 2016)

Thank you all for some useful answers. 

I have been away from the site since my last post and could not have guessed the number off answers. 
Actually I have been away shooting with the camera and I really enjoy it. Though I still feel as some also have pointed that when underexposed the images can be a bit noisy. The sad part is that one of the reason (absolutely not the biggest) was the improved dynamic range. I thought it would be nice that for some occasions underexpose and then pull the shadows as many photographers do nowadays. But when having a bit off noise even before pulling shadows I might not use that technique that often. 

I also think as many answered that it´s because of viewing the picture even "closer" because of the higher mp I can see more noise. 

This is a Dropbox link where you can download an example off what I have been up to for a while in the woods. Shot with the 5D mk IV, 600mm is usm ii and a 1,4 teleconverter series iii. When properly exposed I can´t complain over the noise level but as mentioned when underexposed I still think that I could have been happier.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v9e2u9ggpodaxqq/ST3A1209%20kopia.CR2?dl=0

Thank you all.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 26, 2016)

Morlin said:


> Thank you all for some useful answers.
> 
> I have been away from the site since my last post and could not have guessed the number off answers.
> Actually I have been away shooting with the camera and I really enjoy it. Though I still feel as some also have pointed that when underexposed the images can be a bit noisy. The sad part is that one of the reason (absolutely not the biggest) was the improved dynamic range. I thought it would be nice that for some occasions underexpose and then pull the shadows as many photographers do nowadays. But when having a bit off noise even before pulling shadows I might not use that technique that often.
> ...


Thanks for providing a sample. I'm sure you'll get some very good advice/feedback/assitance soon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 26, 2016)

This 100% view is what we now consider noisy?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 27, 2016)

I do not find the amount of noise objectionable, but I would edit as follows:


----------



## Morlin (Dec 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> This 100% view is what we now consider noisy?



Sorry if I was unclear about that image. That was not an example of noise. Instead it was an example of that I actually been using the camera and not only spent time pixel peeping =) Also I thought that it could be nice for someone not owning the camera to have another raw file to play with. 
When correct exposed the noise level is pretty good I think but I will look for an example where I think that there is too much grain. Not sure if I have a good example for now but as soon as I have I will post it. 

Thank you all again for your answers. There is a lot of knowledge in this forum.


----------



## zim (Dec 27, 2016)

Thanks for the download Morlin,

As someone who doesn't own the camera (yet) it is indeed nice to have another raw file to play with.

Given the title of the topic though I'd be even more interested in a 'grainy' example, underexposed or not.

I may have missed it but what raw converter are you using? 
I really do believe in horses for courses and that images react better to some converters over others depending on subject matter. I don't think total reliance on ACR for example is particularly objective or healthy in defining the traits of a particular sensor.

But what do I know, I don't even like the notion of downscaling to compare, as I like doing large prints I think that disadvantages the higher Mpix sensor. I'd rather upscale the smaller file for a like for like comparison for my needs!


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 27, 2016)

Hi Morlin. 
I'm glad you have clarified this, I was looking at it (in PhotoRaw lite) on my iPad and thinking what a bloody good shot it appeared to be, there is no f in noise! ;D
Looking forwards to a 'noisy' shot please. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Morlin said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > This 100% view is what we now consider noisy?
> ...


----------



## LDS (Dec 30, 2016)

Morlin said:


> Sorry if I was unclear about that image. That was not an example of noise. Instead it was an example of that I actually been using the camera and not only spent time pixel peeping =) Also I thought that it could be nice for someone not owning the camera to have another raw file to play with.
> When correct exposed the noise level is pretty good I think but I will look for an example where I think that there is too much grain. Not sure if I have a good example for now but as soon as I have I will post it.
> Thank you all again for your answers. There is a lot of knowledge in this forum.



Underexposing will always decrease the S/N ratio, and will lead to more noisy images. IMHO a larger dynamic range means better and smoother details in shadows for properly exposed images, and more room to manage them in postprocessing, not a way to allow for systematic "large" underexposure, although it could help to savage some underexposed images - especially when most data are not really in the lowest levels (and having more levels helps to avoid it).


----------



## sebasan (Jan 4, 2017)

LDS said:


> Morlin said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if I was unclear about that image. That was not an example of noise. Instead it was an example of that I actually been using the camera and not only spent time pixel peeping =) Also I thought that it could be nice for someone not owning the camera to have another raw file to play with.
> ...



That's what I was thinking. "Exposing to the right" should be always the way to shoot if you want the best IQ. The increse in DR is good in some ocasions when you have a situation with some contrast, but even in really high contrast situation you should use other techniques (bracketing, filters) to get the best IQ in the final image.


----------



## LDS (Jan 4, 2017)

sebasan said:


> That's what I was thinking. "Exposing to the right" should be always the way to shoot if you want the best IQ. The increse in DR is good in some ocasions when you have a situation with some contrast, but even in really high contrast situation you should use other techniques (bracketing, filters) to get the best IQ in the final image.



ETTR works best when the image is well within the DR of the sensor, and you have enough space left to shift exposure to the right without clipping the highlights - it could help minimizing noise in the shadows. In high contrast situation, that could be very difficult, because there's no really room to shift exposure. ETTR too needs to be used carefully when it makes sense, it's not a generic way to shoot, IMHO.

That's why IMHO graduated filters may still be useful (especially if you're not a photoshop master, and/or merging different shots is not possible)


----------

