Noise,noise noise

[picsfor]

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!

[Hinfrance]

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.

[picsfor]

Oh i'm sure the G14 will be using the technology from todays higher end SLR...

[Jonathan]

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.

[Jonathan]

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

[Graham]

Unless you are doing surveillance work why on earth would you need anything more?

  Err, when your trying to do somthing like this


  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.

[Jonathan]

                                                             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.  You can probably work out the rest......

[picsfor]

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

[Graham]

                                                             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,