#Canon connect picture stylizer iso

The D850 and 5DIV are basically a wash as ISO increases despite the D850's resolution advantage, although the D850 sensor is a little newer (the 5DIV does test better at higher ISOs than the older D810). Modern high pixel count sensors are pretty good at this - the 40+MP Nikon D850 and Sony A7RIII may not quite match the 20MP Nikon D5 or 1DxII performance, but they're close (depending on how much Sony are baking their raw files), and they certainly keep the previous 16MP D4 generation honest. Additionally, the more data you're transferring off the sensor and the more sites the sensor read-out has to pass, the more likely it is that this data will be corrupted. BSI sensors (and stacked sensors) also help here. The more sensor sites you have, the more area is wasted on peripheral data.

'Gapless microlenses' help this significantly, although the reduced sensor area arguably still affects the well size. Particularly in older sensors, not all the image area is available for photon capture - an amount goes to data transfer and other logic. There are a few counters to that argument. (For example, from the Nikon world, the 12MP D700 is generally cleaner pixel-by-pixel than the 36MP D800, but the latter is significantly less noisy at the whole image level - there's more 'grain', but the grain is smaller.) Per-pixel noise is mainly useful if you're trying to work out whether an increased sensor resolution will actually allow you to crop or enlarge to a greater extent, otherwise image-level noise tends to be a more useful metric. A larger number of smaller photosites spread across the same area should capture the same total amount of light, so viewed at the image level, noise should balance out - although noise at the pixel level increases.

#Canon connect picture stylizer full

The guy who bought it was ready to go full frame, and I think he's been happy with the purchase.Ĭlick to expand.I don't believe that's entirely true.

#Canon connect picture stylizer upgrade

I decided to upgrade when I did because I could get a reasonably good deal on a new MK III, and there was still some resale value left in the 5D (unlike the XTi I have sitting at home that's perfectly operational, but worth about as much as most consumer film cameras these days). Also, although it's difficult to know for sure without objective testing, I think the focus is more accurate too. I love the built-in level in the MK III, and the faster burst rate (even if it is shorter) can be handy too. The 5D was a dust magnet, and had no auto cleaning function like the newer cameras. Of course the white balance can be tweaked in post, and I do that for any image that warrants it, but it was a little surprising that Canon got the AWB algorithm right for the 5D, but seemed to drop the ball with the MK III.Īll in all, those are rather minor complaints.

And the AWB doesn't seem as good on the MK III under less than ideal lighting conditions (dull, overcast daylight). 12 for the original (shooting RAW + small fine jpeg). I can only get a burst of 7 shots on the newer camera vs. The MK III is an improvement in almost all regards except two that stick out for me. I used a 5D as my primary camera for about 8 years, before 'modernizing' with a 5DIII. So while I wouldn't say that the 'magic color' of the pixels is a good enough reason to purchase by itself, if you are looking for a FF camera at a stunningly good price which is still capable of producing world class imagery (albeit more slowly, with a small dark (relative to modern cameras) LCD, and a sensor which requires regular cleaning) then the 5D may fit the bill. Of course ~20+ MP, they can handle a LOT more NR without looking plastic fantastic - which yields good imagery much higher up the ISO scale. Even a 6D can easily do the same, though at low to mid ISOs, the 6D, 5D2, & 5D3 RAWS all need more post to become as buttery smooth as the 5D's RAWs were right off the card.

This of course is largely a result of the larger sensor. Of course, a substantial component of that 'magic' was the shallower DOF I could accomplish, which allowed portraiture to be stunning (where as the 50D's were 'eh' - even in good light). The same can not be said for the 50D, which was frankly abhorrent (in my opinion) at anything over ~800 ISO. At low to mid ISOs, the files needed very little if any NR to clean them up before exporting. IME with the 5D (shot weddings with it for a number of years before upgrading to a 5D2), the output was quite 'magical' when compared with my 50D (I used the two together), although, in fairness, most of the 'magic' had to do with how creamy and beautiful the RAW files were - NOT any difference in color tones.