Andrew Eubanks , Oct 29, 2009; 09:40 a.m.
Does any one out there in camera land have any ISO samples they can post. Something like the one posted for the" Nikon D3s ISO samples " in the home page of the net. I am torn between 5DmII & the 7D. I'm torn between the 7 fps & the ISO performance. I might go as big as 16*24 poster. I would like to use fast shutter speed in low light, indoor dark room with lite stage type shooting. but also fast shutter speed on outdoor kid sports. I'm like everyone else I would love to have both but untill I win the Lotery I will have to settle for only one. I am not a " PRO " but Striving to have the same Quality Pic's. Not that the camera makes the pic, I know it is the man (or woman) that makes the difference. Where does the 5D start to out perform at high ISO in the 16"x24" or smaller range. Let me rephrase at what point can the average human eye start to see the difference.
Thanks everybody,
I love this site INFO INFO INFO and wilingness to help
Andy
David Stephens , Oct 29, 2009; 10:35 a.m.
www.dpreview.com
I own the 5D2 and the 7D. The 5D2 is excellent up to ISO 3200 and the equivalent noise in the 7D comes around ISO 1600. I use the 7D for macro and birding and the 5D2 for everything else. My lenses are f4 and f5.6, so if you have faster lenses on the 7D, you can offset the small ISO performance deficit.
I think that your decision should henge around do your need a crop-sensor more or will you use the advantage of FF more. Crop is great for macro and tele, where it increases the reach 60%. FF is superior for scenics, portraits, archetecture and most use with lights.
When you talk about "the average human eye", I'm talking about my eye looking at 100% crops. It's pretty easy to see the difference. Using the 7D for sports and fast wildlife (or low light, like dawn and dusk) you'll still need noise reduction, even at ISO 1600. We're still not beyond that yet, but we're getting close. The same is true of the 5D2 at 3200. Neither need it for internet sized images, but on a 16"x24" print, you'll want NR.
Having both is best, but a luxury, I admit. (Bodies are way less expensive than super-tele lenses), but if you must chose one, then look at the advantages and disadvantages of crop vs. FF sensor, not ISO performance.
Dave
William Kahn 
, Oct 29, 2009; 10:46 a.m.
Nothing definitive or scientific here, but I shot this a couple of weeks ago at Colonial Williamsburg in VA, 5D Mk II, ISO 1600. It's easier to tell on the original TIFF image, but there's no sign of noise even in the dark areas. I love this camera.
Tommy DiGiovanni , Oct 29, 2009; 10:56 a.m.
David Stephens , Oct 29, 2009; 11:02 a.m.
William, could you link us to full sized image? At 1600 on the 5D2 we'll need to see the 100% crop for any touch of noise to show up in that light.
Andrew, noise is low, but not non-existant with the 5D2. That DPReview link shows it pretty clearly. If you took William's example at dawn, with no direct light on the subject, the noise would be more apparent. High ISO performance is a positive trait of the 5D2, just don't get the idea that it'll never be a problem, BUT it's very serviceable at even 6400, with NR applied.
David Stephens , Oct 29, 2009; 11:17 a.m.
Tommy, that's a great image, that really challenges the camera. Is that with the internal NR left on?
Tommy DiGiovanni , Oct 29, 2009; 11:19 a.m.
Thanks, I believe its off. I always thought the NR will make you loose sharpness.
David Stephens , Oct 29, 2009; 11:25 a.m.
I tend to leave the internal NR on for high ISO shots and haven't found it to interfere with full light landscapes and such. However, I've not done any with/without comparisons of my own. Still, I believe you're right that NR will impact sharpness.
Dave
William Kahn , Oct 29, 2009; 11:30 a.m.
Tommy DiGiovanni , Oct 29, 2009; 11:30 a.m.
That shot is not super sharp but it was shot at F2 so that probably has more to do with it. Not sure why I used F2, I was on vacation and I had just gotten the camera.
