A quick perusal of the Canon forums on dpreview shows once again the obssession some people seem to have with noise. Every time a new camera is released the first thing many of them jump on are sample images - one side saying how dreadful they are the other how it's all down to the subject/lighting/processing. Given how much things have improved all round I can't say that a bit of noise at 3200ISO is a major problem for me- what's wrong with a bit of grain. Of course it's nice to be able to up the ISO when you need to but I do find it odd that it seems to be the be all and end all for some - who often, if you read their other posts say they seldom shoot at over 200ISO anyway! Are we really going to see ever more mp in crop DSLRs? I see Olympus have stated 12mp is as far as they're going. Perhaps we'll all be able to afford full frame soon.
Sue I guess these moaners would never have been able to take a half decent pic in the days of film and its limited ISO. ;)
Pehaps it just me being old school and taught to use the lowest ISO possible for quality but out of 4000 digital images only 600 were taken above ISO 400 and out of those only 6 above ISO800.
A wise man once told me many years ago .." the camera that does everything teaches nothing." :)
i think noise is irrelevant i look at the bigger picture. :)
I find I often up the ISO when the lighting is actually quite good to get high shutter speeds and under those conditions most cameras are'nt too bad. 400ISO tend to be my default and as long as that's OK I'm generally happy :D I think a lot of it is the old Canon v Nikon thing - I do love some of those fanboys on dpreview :2funny: :2funny:
Something I've always maintained is that if you get the exposure right even my D200 could cope with higher ISOs, bigger problem for me is having mostly 2.8 lenses and needing to keep the \ISO down on sunny days >:(
DPR has to be viewed if only for entertainment value.
Canikon fanboys there condemned Sony's entry to the market, with reference to diluting the gear with frivolity such as video.... Hmm, nice shot there.
TBH, while I print out 6x4, 10x8 and above, I wonder if some of them gather the family around a 22" monitor, and have a group pixel peek at iso 6400.... :beer:
I'm as guilty as the next person when it comes to pixel peeping... I'm not averse to shooting at high ISOs - far from it! In fact I've even made a couple of hundred dollars out of one high ISO shot that a US magazine used last year! :)
I guess I'm quite lucky in that the 40D and 5D both cope really well with noise.
If you like what you've shot, that should be good enough.
I do keep an eye out for noise performance, I`ve had a few low light indoor shots ruined by noise although I have a feeling it was more bad technique than anything else.
As things progress though, cameras will be able to cope with situations better. They`ve moved on leaps and bounds as it is.
As I've said before, the ISO race, as such, has taken up since Nikon Brought out the D3. Traditionally Canon has had better ISO performance that Nikon. Even when exposed correctly, Nikon's have traditionally had more noise reduction which tends to soften the image - I'm not so sure that Canon now use more noise reduction!
As for my use, I will go to ISO1600 without much thought on the 5D and double that on the mkIII - with some additional software noise reduction, the MkIII will go to 12800 and still be usable images. 3200 on the 5D is ok as long as care is taken to exposure correctly (I.e. the right and RAW).
In normal use though, ISO800 is as good on the MkIII as ISO 200 on my 350D.
My experience re noise is somewhat different. At this point I should say that I have not used either of the 'god' makes of camera, neither Canon nor Nikon.
But with all the other makes I gave used noise is not a problem at any speed IF their is a decent source of light. If the lighting is dim even an ISO of 100 will create a noisy image.
As I rarely find any reason to use anything more than 400 (creature of habit, Tri-X man) and very infrequently 800 or more, I find this whole debate to be a non issue. Unless you are doing surveillance work why on earth would you need anything more?
Quote from: Tringle WP on September 14, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
Unless you are doing surveillance work why on earth would you need anything more?
Err, when your trying to do somthing like this :D
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_web_DSC5716.jpg)
3200 iso 500@ f4.0
Graham. :)
Um, ISO 800 pretty much counts as low ISO for me......
I've been using auto ISO recently and it's quite fun. Just wish you could tune it per lens and make it turn off automatically when you're shooting manual.
Quote from: Graham on September 14, 2009, 05:33:55 PM
Quote from: Tringle WP on September 14, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
Unless you are doing surveillance work why on earth would you need anything more?
Err, when your trying to do somthing like this :D
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_web_DSC5716.jpg)
3200 iso 500@ f4.0
Graham. :)
See, band surveillance ! Seriously, at university I used to take a fair few band pictures, and all we had was Tri-X. It worked, sometimes pushed a bit. If you had done that shot at 1/125 problem solved, you're down to 800, or lift one stop after the event then 400.
Jonathan - I forgot most of you live under a permanent grey sky and rain ;)
Yeah I used to use TriX as well (Wasn't it supposed to have a "T" shaped grain stucture or something?). I used to push it a bit more than a bit!
I get far more "Hits" now though, and.... they'er in colour!
Graham. :)
Quote from: Graham on September 14, 2009, 05:33:55 PM
Quote from: Tringle WP on September 14, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
Unless you are doing surveillance work why on earth would you need anything more?
Err, when your trying to do somthing like this :D
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_web_DSC5716.jpg)
3200 iso 500@ f4.0
Graham. :)
1/500s? Wuss.
You should always aim to use the slowest film and iso - they usually give the best looking picture.
But sadly not all of us shoot on a sunny day photographing a static subject.
Wedding Photographers can never have enough noise free high iso's. This would also be true for wildlife photographers and performing arts photographers or "the paps" who often catch their prey, sorry subject, during the hours of darkness. How many people have asked for help with taking pictures of amateur football matches under floodlight?
I think there is a sufficiently large enough market to warrant development of improved noise control at high iso levels - though i do think the mega pixel race is starting to calm down a bit.
I posted the comparison picture made up of 2 x 1600 iso pictures - 1 from film and 1 from digital. A point has been made that the film has not been developed as well as it could have been - and i would have to concede that.
But are you saying you would rather settle for the image on the left over the image on the right? Both were hand held using almost identical settings (the digital was shot at 1/50th instead of the 1/40th used with film).
That sums up the nature of photography for me at work - i don't have the ability to carry a tripod - i have to hand hold.
I can assure you i was as surprised as any one hence i made the composite image and posted it. I'm not new to high iso film either - in days of film i always had a body loaded with 1000 iso or above and once pushed a roll of 3200 up to 12800 just to see what the effect would be. Why 12800? Because the Canon A1 had the facility!
Talk about grainy... I'm hoping to replicate some of those pictures again this week and i'm somewhat pleased that i have the benefits of the higher iso development with me for those shots!
Absolutely right Andrew, there is nothing but good in having the ability to take noise free and sharp images at any speed they can come up with. Glad to see that the new G11 has fewer pixels than the G10 for example.
I tend to stick to the lower speeds because as a responsible parent I'm not allowed out after dark very often :) and it is often quite nice here. Also I have a couple of antique flashguns if need be.
I saw your comparison pictures and the digital image (with a camera only a lottery win would place in my hands) is on the whole better. But I was struck by the almost total absence of shadow detail in the digital image.
The problem with digital sensors is that the ISO rating is achieved by changing the gain - so although at any given higher gain there will be more noise the point I made about low light levels is pertinent - if there is little light being collected by the sensor in the first place noise is pretty much inevitable. I see this as something akin to reciprocity failure, although I don't know what the digital term for it might be. There is no doubt that the top of the range offerings available now handle low light much more effectively than hitherto, so I can only hope that the technology eventually seeps down to my price bracket. After all, every little helps, as they say.
Oh i'm sure the G14 will be using the technology from todays higher end SLR...
Quote from: picsfor on September 15, 2009, 08:14:14 AM
You should always aim to use the slowest film and iso - they usually give the best looking picture.
Hmm.....I've heard this hundreds of times and for a long time believed it. But it's not always true.
I frequently use higher ISO (or ratehr the control of ISO) to allow me to balance foreground and background lighting. Where foreground = mine and background = everyone else's light.
And you need to remember the sacred exposure triangle. Higher ISO = faster shutter speed or more DOF. And both of those are useful tools.
Quote from: picsfor on September 15, 2009, 09:10:29 AM
Oh i'm sure the G14 will be using the technology from todays higher end SLR...
Most of the tech you mention is dependent on the sensor. They would have a tough job shoe horning a DSLR sized sensor into a G form factored body.
BTW I like my G9 a lot. It can do stuff my D3 can't ;)
Quote from: Jonathan on September 15, 2009, 08:07:10 AM
Quote from: Graham on September 14, 2009, 05:33:55 PM
Quote from: Tringle WP on September 14, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
Unless you are doing surveillance work why on earth would you need anything more?
Err, when your trying to do somthing like this :D
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_web_DSC5716.jpg)
3200 iso 500@ f4.0
Graham. :)
1/500s? Wuss.
Jonathan.......My dear Jonathan!
I tend to "Shoot" aperture priority and so I can only accept partial responsibility for what my shutter is doing!
I was also spot metering of the gentleman's face, and as there were strobes, flashing lights and all manner of things going on, my shutter speed was up and down like a brides nighty!
My very best wishes to you. Graham. :D
Quote from: Graham on September 15, 2009, 05:03:31 PM
I tend to "Shoot" aperture priority and so I can only accept partial responsibility for what my shutter is doing!
Dude. Shoot auto ISO too. Then you can't even be responsible for ISO :)
Actually I'd seriously recommend it - lock off max ISO at wherever you're comfortable (3200?) and shutter speed likewise (1/100 with a 200 VR?) and set the LOWEST ISO you want (maybe 400). Then shoot AP. Your camera will set the lowest ISO that can maintain the shutter speed. If it's very dark then it will set the max iso you allow, adjust the shutter speed as necessary and blink a warning light in your eye. Awesome.
BTW - re the bride's nighty....for one horrible moment I thought you'd seen one of the pics from Saturday. It's the one I hint at but don't post near the bottom here (http://myweddingstory.co.uk/2009/09/andrea-and-mark-get-married-at-the-knowle/). You can probably work out the rest......
Quote from: Jonathan on September 15, 2009, 09:14:28 AM
Quote from: picsfor on September 15, 2009, 08:14:14 AM
You should always aim to use the slowest film and iso - they usually give the best looking picture.
Hmm.....I've heard this hundreds of times and for a long time believed it. But it's not always true.
I frequently use higher ISO (or ratehr the control of ISO) to allow me to balance foreground and background lighting. Where foreground = mine and background = everyone else's light.
And you need to remember the sacred exposure triangle. Higher ISO = faster shutter speed or more DOF. And both of those are useful tools.
Your point is well made - i hadn't really conisdered that aspect.
I was pointing out that digital high iso technology is, imho a benefit and not a misguided development
Quote from: Jonathan on September 15, 2009, 05:37:47 PM
Quote from: Graham on September 15, 2009, 05:03:31 PM
I tend to "Shoot" aperture priority and so I can only accept partial responsibility for what my shutter is doing!
Dude. Shoot auto ISO too. Then you can't even be responsible for ISO :)
Actually I'd seriously recommend it - lock off max ISO at wherever you're comfortable (3200?) and shutter speed likewise (1/100 with a 200 VR?) and set the LOWEST ISO you want (maybe 400). Then shoot AP. Your camera will set the lowest ISO that can maintain the shutter speed. If it's very dark then it will set the max iso you allow, adjust the shutter speed as necessary and blink a warning light in your eye. Awesome.
Thanks for that Jonathan. I've got a busy weekend of gigpicery comeing up so I'll give it a go.
Graham, :tup: