Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: ashley on October 15, 2009, 11:07:53 am
-
I am probably just being old fashioned here but I don't quite understand it when I see lots of photographers always wanting the ability to work at super high ISO settings. The general message is that any camera which isn't capable of shooting completely clean noise free images at 3200 ISO is a pile of junk. For many years I shot every image on 100 ISO film and somehow always managed. The photographer I assisted worked with EPR rated at 50 ISO and pushed 1/3rd so effectively it was 40 ISO but again, somehow we always managed whether shooting 35mm, medium or large format.
Today I shoot digital like most others but the camera stays on 100 ISO and I am reluctant to work at anything higher than 200 ISO because ultimately the best quality comes from sticking to a low ISO setting, so if I have to use a tripod or flash that's fine. Perhaps others are taking different sorts of images, but unless you spend a large chunk of your time walking around in the dark I don't see the need for this big emphasis on high ISO settings in day to day practical use.
-
High ISO is certainly a boon to news and sports photographers and others who may be working in low light environments where flash or tripods are not practical.
While I don't do this for a living, I did some set photography for a small indie film and a music video. Even under movie lights you're grasping for every bit of light you can get to maintain a decent shutter speed and aperture to try to stop action and get some DOF. ISO 3200 was barely adequate.
When I shoot landscape, it's not a big deal since I normally shoot at base ISO with a tripod. But even there, clean higher ISOs can open up more creative options.
Paul
-
I am probably just being old fashioned here
Yes, you are. Not every shooting situation allows for a full-blown studio lighting setup. When shooting concerts, for example, you aren't generally allowed to use flash of any kind; you're limited to whatever stage lighting is available. If you want a reasonable amount of DOF and a shutter speed fast enough to keep motion blur to reasonable levels, a high ISO setting is mandatory. 800 is pretty much the minimum needed for consistently good results. The same is true of dance and theater productions. If you're a sports or press shooter or cover charity dinners, weddings (the actual ceremony and the reception, not the formal family portraits), and other such events, you're working with even less light, since most gymnasiums, hotel ballrooms, restaurants, and churches don't have a full-blown lighting setup for the entire venue. Using flash for such things is best limited for subtle shadow fill to avoid underexposed backgrounds, and you also run into mixed-lighting color cast problems unless you gel your flash to match ambient lighting.
Having a usable high ISO makes life much easier in many shooting situations, and in many cases makes the difference between getting a salable shot and not.
-
so if I have to use a tripod or flash that's fine.
So you don't need super high ISO, but tripod/flash isn't fine for everyone.
High ISO capability gives more options, and I'm all for more options.
-
So you don't need super high ISO, but tripod/flash isn't fine for everyone.
High ISO capability gives more options, and I'm all for more options.
I am not interested in photographing concerts etc. personally. Obviously I have no problem with more useful options but I suspect that some of those who are screaming for higher ISO settings are merely gear freaks shouting for the sake of it rather than because of real need in their day to day photography.
-
I am probably just being old fashioned here but I don't quite understand it when I see lots of photographers always wanting the ability to work at super high ISO settings. The general message is that any camera which isn't capable of shooting completely clean noise free images at 3200 ISO is a pile of junk. For many years I shot every image on 100 ISO film and somehow always managed. The photographer I assisted worked with EPR rated at 50 ISO and pushed 1/3rd so effectively it was 40 ISO but again, somehow we always managed whether shooting 35mm, medium or large format.
Today I shoot digital like most others but the camera stays on 100 ISO and I am reluctant to work at anything higher than 200 ISO because ultimately the best quality comes from sticking to a low ISO setting, so if I have to use a tripod or flash that's fine. Perhaps others are taking different sorts of images, but unless you spend a large chunk of your time walking around in the dark I don't see the need for this big emphasis on high ISO settings in day to day practical use.
I would of agreed once, after all 100 iso was the norm for me. Now being able to shoot at higher iso gives me more choice on lens aperture and night shooting for me with film was very much hit or miss with my subjects. http://www.theimagefile.com/?skin=892&...p;ppwd=dv5086mr (http://www.theimagefile.com/?skin=892&Action=_VC&id=39805650&ppwd=dv5086mr) I would love to have a nice clean 6400 iso with good colour and DR, trouble is when it arrives everyone will be doing it.
Kevin.
-
I would like a super clean ISO 400 so I don't need such powerful lights. Outside against the sun of course you still need them.
-
I am not interested in photographing concerts etc. personally. Obviously I have no problem with more useful options but I suspect that some of those who are screaming for higher ISO settings are merely gear freaks shouting for the sake of it rather than because of real need in their day to day photography.
Yup ... a bunch of geeks managed to shout loud enough to get the sensor and camera makers to add useless functionality just to annoy you ...
-
I would like a super clean ISO 400 so I don't need such powerful lights. Outside against the sun of course you still need them.
Yes, I'd certainly go along with that. It would be useful with indoor situations as well when you are balancing daylight with flash. I just wonder about those who are so quick to leap on the latest and greatest camera simply because of a supposed improvement in noise levels at the top end. When you hear them shouting on certain forums you would think the previous camera which they once loved was suddenly complete junk.
-
I just wonder about those who are so quick to leap on the latest and greatest camera... When you hear them shouting on certain forums you would think the previous camera which they once loved was suddenly complete junk.
Hey, I'm all for people leaping for the latest and greatest! This has allowed me to buy lightly used, top-end gear at a sizable discount. I shoot for pleasure, not commerce, so being one generation back is not a bad thing
Paul
-
I just wonder about those who are so quick to leap on the latest and greatest camera simply because of a supposed improvement in noise levels at the top end
Not only that some photographers do need this capability, but improvement in noise levels at high ISO goes together with lower noise level at lower ISO settings; this means greater dynamic range. That too is a capability, which is lost on many photographers.
-
Having a usable high ISO makes life much easier in many shooting situations, and in many cases makes the difference between getting a salable shot and not.
I'll definitely second this. I've shot a few weddings this year where I've not been able to use flash in some situations, like in the church, and had to shoot at 2.8 on ISO 1600 on a 1dmk3. As clean as the files from the 1d3 usually are, 1600 and beyond are really noisy.
I tested a Nikon D700 earlier this year and absolutely loved the ISO6400 shots (a good couple stops cleaner than the 1d3) but didn't like the ergonomics of the camera. High ISO like this would guarantee me more shots that I could keep and present to the client.
-
I was wondering if this was a serious post. Some thoughts:
1. High(er) ISO settings that produce acceptable images mean that the photographer can confidently cover situations where he or she needs more light, and can't use a flash set up.
2. Any improvement that allows a photographer to make an acceptable image or work more creatively is truly an "improvement."
3. The Canon 1DS MKIII is not noisy at ISO 1600 properly exposed and once you run it through a properly configured noise reduction algorithm. Moving to Nikon because the high ISO noise is cleaner is ridiculous, simply because Nikon uses more aggressive in camera noise reduction (Unless you're shooting jpgs in a fast moving environment, such as journalism
4. If you don't need high ISO capabilities surely that doesn't mean others can't and don't really benefit from it. I was looking at my mom and dad's wedding pictures from 1953 a while ago, and the photography was professional and clean. However, the guy had to use a flash, and he did the very best he could, but you could see shadows on walls (down angled as much as he could, and they were very unobtrusive), black backgrounds in many photos, and by today's standards, unacceptable light fall off around the perimeters.
5. Anything that allows photographers to increase their creativity and stretch their abilities, I would think, is a good thing. At least the history of art and photography is on my side.
-
I was wondering if this was a serious post. Some thoughts:
1. High(er) ISO settings that produce acceptable images mean that the photographer can confidently cover situations where he or she needs more light, and can't use a flash set up.
2. Any improvement that allows a photographer to make an acceptable image or work more creatively is truly an "improvement."
3. The Canon 1DS MKIII is not noisy at ISO 1600 properly exposed and once you run it through a properly configured noise reduction algorithm. Moving to Nikon because the high ISO noise is cleaner is ridiculous, simply because Nikon uses more aggressive in camera noise reduction (Unless you're shooting jpgs in a fast moving environment, such as journalism
4. If you don't need high ISO capabilities surely that doesn't mean others can't and don't really benefit from it. I was looking at my mom and dad's wedding pictures from 1953 a while ago, and the photography was professional and clean. However, the guy had to use a flash, and he did the very best he could, but you could see shadows on walls (down angled as much as he could, and they were very unobtrusive), black backgrounds in many photos, and by today's standards, unacceptable light fall off around the perimeters.
5. Anything that allows photographers to increase their creativity and stretch their abilities, I would think, is a good thing. At least the history of art and photography is on my side.
I think that is very well said and couldn't agree more.
-
3. The Canon 1DS MKIII is not noisy at ISO 1600 properly exposed and once you run it through a properly configured noise reduction algorithm. Moving to Nikon because the high ISO noise is cleaner is ridiculous, simply because Nikon uses more aggressive in camera noise reduction (Unless you're shooting jpgs in a fast moving environment, such as journalism
Urban legends never die...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am probably just being old fashioned here but I don't quite understand it when I see lots of photographers always wanting the ability to work at super high ISO settings. The general message is that any camera which isn't capable of shooting completely clean noise free images at 3200 ISO is a pile of junk. For many years I shot every image on 100 ISO film and somehow always managed. The photographer I assisted worked with EPR rated at 50 ISO and pushed 1/3rd so effectively it was 40 ISO but again, somehow we always managed whether shooting 35mm, medium or large format.
I agree with you that the best possible low ISO quality (DR, clean midtones,...) is the most important characteristic of a camera for some applications, like landscape.
This being said, clean high ISO can be valuable for most applications, including landscape:
- Need for higher shutterspeed to stop wind motion or water motion,
- Ability to shorten exposures when shooting panoramas,
- ...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Urban legends never die...
Cheers,
Bernard
Your Nikon colours are shinning brightly Bernard. I don't think anyone who shoots anything other than Nikon would dare say a bad word about a D3X for fear of getting blown out of the water by you - yet you seem to take the opportunity (even delight in it) to sideswipe Canon's truly excellent 1DSMK3 and Sony's A900 at every opportunity. Is it really necessary?
Sorry I don't mean to steer this off topic - but its getting a little tiring.
-
Your Nikon colours are shinning brightly Bernard. I don't think anyone who shoots anything other than Nikon would dare say a bad word about a D3X for fear of getting blown out of the water by you - yet you seem to take the opportunity (even delight in it) to sideswipe Canon's truly excellent 1DSMK3 and Sony's A900 at every opportunity. Is it really necessary?
Sorry I don't mean to steer this off topic - but its getting a little tiring.
Hello Josh,
I don't remember having written anything negative about the 1ds3 in the recent months Josh, and certainly not in this very post, I was only reacting to the claim that the D3 high ISO performance was mostly software based.
I believe that both are excellent cameras, and my recent posts on the A900 topic were focused on some very specific claims that were simply not inline with my observations. I didn't comment negatively on the A900 in that context by the way.
Anyway, I agree with you that all this is waste of time and will act accordingly in the coming months. A small LL break is probably the best solution.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not only that some photographers do need this capability, but improvement in noise levels at high ISO goes together with lower noise level at lower ISO settings; this means greater dynamic range. That too is a capability, which is lost on many photographers.
I'm not so sure it's quite that simple. I think some optimizations for high ISO performance can hurt low ISO performance. Maybe not in dynamic range, but in other aspects of image quality. Take the 5D2, Canon weakened the CFA's, which improved high-ISO performance relative to the 1Ds3, but actually hurt color depth slightly at low ISO, if you look at the DxO Marks. While the D3x isn't bad at moderately high ISOs, it seems like Nikon really did everything they could to maximize image quality at low ISO rather than high.
-
I think some optimizations for high ISO performance can hurt low ISO performance. Maybe not in dynamic range, but in other aspects of image quality
I don't risk to deny this generally, but I don't know of any specific example for that.
Take the 5D2, Canon weakened the CFA's, which improved high-ISO performance relative to the 1Ds3, but actually hurt color depth slightly at low ISO, if you look at the DxO Marks
I guess you are referring to the "color separation". The spectral characteristics of the filters have nothing to do with ISO. Different filter combinations have different advantages and disdvantages, equally with all ISOs.
While the D3x isn't bad at moderately high ISOs, it seems like Nikon really did everything they could to maximize image quality at low ISO rather than high
I claimed only, that good high ISO means good low ISO as well, but not the other way. For example MFDBs have very good low ISO performance, but they don't have any high ISOs at all (they are faking it), or if they do, that's not much better than faking (in this context 400 is already "high ISO").
-
Its great to see photographers opening up new ground by being able to now photograph concerts and indoor events due to higher ISO performance. It makes me wonder what happened before photographers needed high ISO??? Was there any concert photography in those days?
Or is it now the case that concert photography (as an example) will end up looking like an outdoor wedding shoot, everybody on stage regularly recorded in minute detail frozen in an instant of time? Sounds good, until you look at what you lose. Its fine having the option of high ISO performance, but most people who ask for it will use it because its the easy thing, and yet again any expression or flair or excitment that used to be generated by a skilled photographer is filtered out into boring pap. There was once a day when great concert photography couldn't be reproduced because not everybody had the flair to do it well, but now, like studio trends in family portraits, overuse of digital techniques mean that even less great work is done, and even more (very) average work is accepted as good by the populace. Its all just one more nail in the coffin of good photography, asked for and abetted by photographers because they consider it a right to make money at photography, rather than a paying outlet for skilled expression.
So, I'm just saying there is more than one way of looking at the apparent benefits of high ISO. Give the monkey a banana and whats likely to happen? Even more people demanding to be called photographers on the basis of a sharp well exposed shot, thats what. And if you can't see the critical downside to that in terms of quality photographs and what gets into the press nowadays then you haven't got a fearful bone in your body. The demise of good journalism and portrait and studio and wedding work has started, and while digital options didn't cause it, nobody is thinking about how to stop it. Its great seeing an upside to even higher ISO performance when you know you can use it skilfully yourself, but lets give a thought to the consequences in the longer term?
Steve
-
Hello Josh,
I don't remember having written anything negative about the 1ds3 in the recent months Josh, and certainly not in this very post, I was only reacting to the claim that the D3 high ISO performance was mostly software based.
I believe that both are excellent cameras, and my recent posts on the A900 topic were focused on some very specific claims that were simply not inline with my observations. I didn't comment negatively on the A900 in that context by the way.
Anyway, I agree with you that all this is waste of time and will act accordingly in the coming months. A small LL break is probably the best solution.
Cheers,
Bernard
I didn't mean that Nikon was software noise reduced Bernard. What I meant was that the 1DS MKIII can shoot as clean as the D3X after running it through a software based noise algorithm at a properly exposed ISO 1600, and shooting RAW. Do you dispute this?
I shoot Canon, but I do think the D3X is a better camera in some ways, higer MP with lower noise and reliability being two areas, since the DS MKIII had lots of problems in the beginning. I have had my PCB board replaced and several other major things that others have had also. No doubt the D3X is the current king, for sure. Credit due where is deserved. Nikon is back in the game and hitting hard.
-
Actually the D3x doesn't shoot that clean at 1600 ISO -it has grain- but it shoots sharp and has enough DR so that with Dlight all your shots are ok. I don't rate the thing well as a low light camera, I rate it as a normal-light camera that focuses well and can use decent shutter speeds so your 24MP makes sense. Hopefully, the D3Xs or whatever it will be called will be a real low light camera.
I did a set of portraits with available light in the middle of a Paris avenue, at noon, in February, and could not get a single decent shot due to low shutter speed (shake) and insufficient depth of field. The Nikon at least always works at noon in winter daylight
Edmund
I didn't mean that Nikon was software noise reduced Bernard. What I meant was that the 1DS MKIII can shoot as clean as the D3X after running it through a software based noise algorithm at a properly exposed ISO 1600, and shooting RAW. Do you dispute this?
I shoot Canon, but I do think the D3X is a better camera in some ways, higer MP with lower noise and reliability being two areas, since the DS MKIII had lots of problems in the beginning. I have had my PCB board replaced and several other major things that others have had also. No doubt the D3X is the current king, for sure. Credit due where is deserved. Nikon is back in the game and hitting hard.
-
Actually the D3x doesn't shoot that clean at 1600 ISO -it has grain- but it shoots sharp and has enough DR so that with Dlight all your shots are ok. I don't rate the thing well as a low light camera, I rate it as a normal-light camera that focuses well and can use decent shutter speeds so your 24MP makes sense. Hopefully, the D3Xs or whatever it will be called will be a real low light camera.
I did a set of portraits with available light in the middle of a Paris avenue, at noon, in February, and could not get a single decent shot due to low shutter speed (shake) and insufficient depth of field. The Nikon at least always works at noon in winter daylight
Edmund
No doubt it's a great camera. I've noticed low light focusing problems too with my 1DS MKIII. I'm not too happy with the 1DS3. I mean I like it, but if I was buying it at the same time the 5D MKII was out, I would be the owner of a 5D MKII right now, and not a 1DS III.
-
Urban legends never die...
Cheers,
Bernard
I just shot 1600iso on a 1DsmkIII in very low light and it does not need any extra noise reduction. I had a 20 x 30 inch print made from one image to check all is hunky dory and it's as smooth as a babies bum.
Kevin.
-
I didn't mean that Nikon was software noise reduced Bernard. What I meant was that the 1DS MKIII can shoot as clean as the D3X after running it through a software based noise algorithm at a properly exposed ISO 1600, and shooting RAW. Do you dispute this?
I shoot Canon, but I do think the D3X is a better camera in some ways, higer MP with lower noise and reliability being two areas, since the DS MKIII had lots of problems in the beginning. I have had my PCB board replaced and several other major things that others have had also. No doubt the D3X is the current king, for sure. Credit due where is deserved. Nikon is back in the game and hitting hard.
I think the reputation of the D3 carried over to the X version, I don't see it has any great advantage noise wise over the 1DsmkIII. I shot a 700 next to a 5dmkII and 1DsmkIII up to 1600 iso . the 700 had less noise and much less pixels. A slight brush with Noise Ninja and they all looked like the same camera.
I looked at a change to Nikon, excellent cameras they are but not such a gap to toss all the Canon into the bay, besides next month the Canon X will leapfrog the Nikon, the month after Nikon will leapfrog Canon and so it goes on. Right now Canon has the best lens range for me, fast lenses in the f1:4 range that do actually work. I would rather have the option of shooting at lower iso, as it stands Nikon need better high iso than Canon. They only have one fast lens.
These are all tremendous cameras, one camera these days covers areas we once used two or three systems to cover.
Kevin.
-
Its great to see photographers opening up new ground by being able to now photograph concerts and indoor events due to higher ISO performance. It makes me wonder what happened before photographers needed high ISO??? Was there any concert photography in those days?
Or is it now the case that concert photography (as an example) will end up looking like an outdoor wedding shoot, everybody on stage regularly recorded in minute detail frozen in an instant of time? Sounds good, until you look at what you lose. Its fine having the option of high ISO performance, but most people who ask for it will use it because its the easy thing, and yet again any expression or flair or excitment that used to be generated by a skilled photographer is filtered out into boring pap. There was once a day when great concert photography couldn't be reproduced because not everybody had the flair to do it well, but now, like studio trends in family portraits, overuse of digital techniques mean that even less great work is done, and even more (very) average work is accepted as good by the populace. Its all just one more nail in the coffin of good photography, asked for and abetted by photographers because they consider it a right to make money at photography, rather than a paying outlet for skilled expression.
So, I'm just saying there is more than one way of looking at the apparent benefits of high ISO. Give the monkey a banana and whats likely to happen? Even more people demanding to be called photographers on the basis of a sharp well exposed shot, thats what. And if you can't see the critical downside to that in terms of quality photographs and what gets into the press nowadays then you haven't got a fearful bone in your body. The demise of good journalism and portrait and studio and wedding work has started, and while digital options didn't cause it, nobody is thinking about how to stop it. Its great seeing an upside to even higher ISO performance when you know you can use it skilfully yourself, but lets give a thought to the consequences in the longer term?
Steve
Thanks for adding this very well thought out post.
-
Thanks for adding this very well thought out post.
You two should get a room.
Gimme a break ... complaining about better tools because you think 'people' don't deserve them because they aren't as 'something' as you think you are ... man ... get over yourselves ... we're all just monkeys.
-
You two should get a room.
Gimme a break ... complaining about better tools because you think 'people' don't deserve them because they aren't as 'something' as you think you are ... man ... get over yourselves ... we're all just monkeys.
I think you are taking it the wrong way Jeremy. That certainly isn't what I meant. Just because you make something simpler though doesn't mean the end result will always be better and I think that is a valid point.
-
So, I'm just saying there is more than one way of looking at the apparent benefits of high ISO. Give the monkey a banana and whats likely to happen? Even more people demanding to be called photographers on the basis of a sharp well exposed shot, thats what. And if you can't see the critical downside to that in terms of quality photographs and what gets into the press nowadays then you haven't got a fearful bone in your body. The demise of good journalism and portrait and studio and wedding work has started, and while digital options didn't cause it, nobody is thinking about how to stop it. Its great seeing an upside to even higher ISO performance when you know you can use it skilfully yourself, but lets give a thought to the consequences in the longer term?
Steve
Great thought, let's forbid selling DSLR's to non-pro's, they're killing the pro market and inhibit the selling of "real good" photographs
-
I think you are taking it the wrong way Jeremy. That certainly isn't what I meant. Just because you make something simpler though doesn't mean the end result will always be better and I think that is a valid point.
Which nobody is arguing against. Having a more capable camera (whether higher usable ISO, greater resolution, or whatever) does not guarantee a photographer will capture better images. Incompetence can trump any technological advancement. But in competent hands, a new or improved capability can be used to do things previously impossible.
The counter-argument that an enhanced capability cheapens the result by making it easier to achieve is of course bullshit. Taken to its logical confusion, we should all go back to pinhole cameras and expose our images on hand-coated glass plates like Real Photographers®. The truth is that technical advances raise the bar of what a competent photographer can achieve, and anyone who is content to merely do what he has always done the same way he always has deserves to be left behind.
-
I guess you are referring to the "color separation". The spectral characteristics of the filters have nothing to do with ISO. Different filter combination have different advantages and disadvantages, equally with all ISOs.
I'm referring to Canon's own marketing materials, which claim "a more advanced color filter that improves light transmission while retaining excellent color reproduction." To me this sounds like they weakened the CFA to allow more light to hit the sensor. They claim color reproduction is still excellent, but according to DXO Mark it's not quite as good as the 1Ds3 at low ISO's.
-
I'm referring to Canon's own marketing materials, which claim "a more advanced color filter that improves light transmission while retaining excellent color reproduction." To me this sounds like they weakened the CFA to allow more light to hit the sensor
That's all right, but I don't see how it would have to do anything with ISO.
They claim color reproduction is still excellent, but according to DXO Mark it's not quite as good as the 1Ds3 at low ISO's.
I don't see anything like that on the DxO site - not as if I regarded those evaluations as the bible.
-
That's all right, but I don't see how it would have to do anything with ISO.
I don't see anything like that on the DxO site - not as if I regarded those evaluations as the bible.
Sorry, Panopeeper, actually Canon are buying better S2N from the same light at the price of color discrimination; think of it as having non-orthogonal color filters in the interest of getting enough light on the sensor to minimize the effect of read noise. The digital backs have "very orthogonal" filters, which is one of the reasons one can get such good color out of them. The Hasselblad CEO Christian Poulson explained this stuff to me - he's actually quite technical.
Edmund
-
I'm referring to Canon's own marketing materials, which claim "a more advanced color filter that improves light transmission while retaining excellent color reproduction." To me this sounds like they weakened the CFA to allow more light to hit the sensor. They claim color reproduction is still excellent, but according to DXO Mark it's not quite as good as the 1Ds3 at low ISO's.
One such example of differences in spectral response in the red channel, likely introduced to improve global sensitivity of the sensor, is discussed in the DXO (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Color-blindness-sensor-quality) comparison of the Nikon D5000 and Canon EOS 500D.
-
actually Canon are buying better S2N from the same light at the price of color discrimination; think of it as having non-orthogonal color filters in the interest of getting enough light on the sensor to minimize the effect of read noise
I did not dispute this aspect. Jeff's claim was, that the change of the filters negatively affects the low ISO capability, in other words the effect depends on the ISO. All I am saying is, that there is no such connection.
-
I did not dispute this aspect. Jeff's claim was, that the change of the filters negatively affects the low ISO capability, in other words the effect depends on the ISO. All I am saying is, that there is no such connection.
Compare 5DII and 1Ds3 at DxOMark. Look at the Color Sensitivity detailed results. At low ISO, the 1Ds3 is better. At higher ISO's this advantage goes away, presumably because of less noise from the 5D2.
-
... improvement in noise levels at high ISO goes together with lower noise level at lower ISO settings; this means greater dynamic range.
Often but not always: increasing quantum efficiency with no change in dark noise levels or well capacity leaves DR the same: it just moves the minimum usable ISO speed up, with the higher base ISO having about the same DR as the lower base ISO did before.
Worse still, consider one hypothetical "high ISO tuning" strategy: keep the total cell size ("pixel pitch") the same, but reduce the well size within it and so reduce full-well capacity, and then use good micro-lenses to steer all the light into the smaller wells. The smaller well capacity could allow smaller amplifiers and other components with lower maximum charge/voltage/current capacity, which could reduce amp. noise (and smaller wells produce a bit less dark current noise too). At high ISO, the wells usually do not get close to full anyway, so you would have equal signal, lower dark noise, and so better S/N ratio. But base ISO speed would be higher (less highlight headroom) and at the new base ISO speed the lower well capacity would likely make IQ worse.
Maybe some sensor technology options do effectively involve this "smaller well in same sized cell" approach, like CMOS vs FF CCD.
-
High iso has opened up situations that just were not able to be photographed handheld before and is a huge help for sports, weddings etc. It is annoying that people that have never shot film post on forums whining that were is noise in their iso 3200 shots and shouldn't be because they spent £xk on their camera. Sorry, the laws of physics still apply
-
Which nobody is arguing against. Having a more capable camera (whether higher usable ISO, greater resolution, or whatever) does not guarantee a photographer will capture better images. Incompetence can trump any technological advancement. But in competent hands, a new or improved capability can be used to do things previously impossible.
The counter-argument that an enhanced capability cheapens the result by making it easier to achieve is of course bullshit. Taken to its logical confusion, we should all go back to pinhole cameras and expose our images on hand-coated glass plates like Real Photographers®. The truth is that technical advances raise the bar of what a competent photographer can achieve, and anyone who is content to merely do what he has always done the same way he always has deserves to be left behind.
LOL.
Put very diplomatically. I agree with this but would like to state it in a different manner.
First, higher ISO capability is a double edged sword: Now the photography has to think about how much light he or she needs, instead of simply not getting the image. In other words, you now have the ability to stop action in low light, but should you stop it, if not, how much blur "should" one have for a particular shot? Or, if you're shooting environmental portraits, you need to decide whether or not the shot would look better with more ambient light (higher ISO) or less ambient light and more flash. If you don't have the option of ISO then you default to flash, and you have no choice in the matter, easier yes, more creative, no.
This makes a "photographer" have to think much more about the artistic aspect of what he or she is trying to create. Most people never understand light, and the best they can do is set up a fabricated light pattern using studio lights or use auto on camera flash and point and pray. Yes, they can get good exposure and sharp images, but that's about it.
So you can see that the ISO thing cuts both ways: Amateurs calling themselves "photographers" is laughable, but so too is a photographer acting like an amateur--just in a different manner.
The same thing goes for technology, as Johnathan pointed out. When photography was created, artists thought it would put them out of business. When the 35mm was created, same thing. When auto exposure was created, same thing.
One thing that bothers me is that a really good Photoshop expert can put together a stupendous landscape shot comprised of several average shots taken in different parts of the world, composite them, and you'd never know it (such as taking the cloud structure of one shot and laying it over the dunes of another.) But I'm ok with that.
Question regarding whether or not technology cheapens the medium are legitimate, but how many people would be doing photography today if all we had was tintype? I'd suspect that some of us would just not be aroused by tintype or its process, and thus would find other ways to express ourselves.
Last, it doesn't matter what we think or want, technology will continue to change everything. Our only option, as Johnathan pointed out, is adapt to it.
-
Compare 5DII and 1Ds3 at DxOMark. Look at the Color Sensitivity detailed results. At low ISO, the 1Ds3 is better. At higher ISO's this advantage goes away, presumably because of less noise from the 5D2.
Jeff, I have seen that, however I dismissed it not ony as irrelevant, but as unreliable as well: the difference with ISO 100 is 21.9 bits vs 21.6 bits.
According to DxO, the SNR at 18% of the 5D2 is a tiny bit better than the 1Ds3, the DR measured at SNR=1 of the 5D2 is a tiny bit lower, than that of the 1Ds3, namely 11.16 EV vs 11.25 EV.
My experience with such measurements shows, that not only the measuring accuracy is the limit. Worse, two shots made by the very same camera, within seconds, may exhibit greater differences than the posted ones.
The effect of the difference of the color filters over the sensels is the same as the effect of a filter on the lens or the effect of the change in the illumination; it has nothing to do with the amplification, which occurs at a later stage.
This issue demonstrates, that one has to be cautious when evaluating such comparisons with close results.
-
Often but not always: increasing quantum efficiency with no change in dark noise levels or well capacity leaves DR the same: it just moves the minimum usable ISO speed up, with the higher base ISO having about the same DR as the lower base ISO did before.
Worse still, consider one hypothetical "high ISO tuning" strategy: keep the total cell size ("pixel pitch") the same, but reduce the well size within it and so reduce full-well capacity, and then use good micro-lenses to steer all the light into the smaller wells
I suppose there are numerous examples for such development, right?
-
Perhaps others are taking different sorts of images
Perhaps? Here's what ISO 12,800 can do for you ...
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_004b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/img/pic_004b.jpg)
-
Jeremy, this is an excellent demonstration for how good a huge, horrendeously noisy image looks sufficiently downsized (and thus ISO 12800 is really useful), but would not it be better to insert a link instead of a 6.5 MB image in-line?
-
Perhaps? Here's what ISO 12,800 can do for you ...
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_004b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/img/pic_004b.jpg)
Anything else need to be said? lol Excellent example!
-
I did not dispute this aspect. Jeff's claim was, that the change of the filters negatively affects the low ISO capability, in other words the effect depends on the ISO. All I am saying is, that there is no such connection.
Yes there is. Or rather, there is a negative impact, which is uniform across ISO. By decreasing the color selectivity of the CFA, in a converted image the colors will be desaturated (easy to see by taking the extreme limit of no color selectivity in the CFA, which yields a greyscale image). Color saturation has to be restored in the conversion to the output color space, and that saturation boost increases chroma noise. Canon seems to have made a calculation that the gain in overall photons recorded is a worthwhile tradeoff, since their "R" pixels are practically Yellow.
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that the same color selectivity issues plague Foveon technology -- that discriminating color by the absorption depth of the photon is not so accurate, and consequently the RAW data requires a large saturation boost which dramatically affects noise performance. IIRC there is a section of code in dcraw's Foveon processing that does median filtering of chroma channels in order to beat down that component of noise.
-
Yes there is. Or rather, there is a negative impact, which is uniform across ISO
You found a rather circumstantial way to express your agreement with me.
-
You found a rather circumstantial way to express your agreement with me.
Well then I'm not sure where your disagreement with my original statement lies. What I said was that Canon took steps to improve overall high ISO performance, and that there was an negative impact on color response at low ISO. I didn't specifically say there was no impact to the color response at high ISO, although I do think that the impact is pretty much lost in other aspects of the high ISO performance, which is why you get a net gain in image quality at high ISO.
You can parse words however you want, I'm just glad Nikon made the design decisions they did with the D3x, rather than the design decisions Canon seems to be making on their newer cameras.
-
Jeremy, this is an excellent demonstration for how good a huge, horrendeously noisy image looks sufficiently downsized (and thus ISO 12800 is really useful), but would not it be better to insert a link instead of a 6.5 MB image in-line?
What are you talking about? 4256x2832 pixels is the original image size. Yes, there is some noise visible, but not so much it would significantly detract from the image, especially in a print.
-
Yes, there is some noise visible, but not so much it would significantly detract from the image, especially in a print.
I printed it at 12 x 18 on premium luster and it looked pretty darn good.
Looks to me like the new 12,800 may be as good or better than 6400 was on the D3/700.
-
What are you talking about?
Originally, Jeremy inserted the image into the message instead of a link to it. When you looked at the message the first time, it downloaded that huge image and displayed it in the full size. After the downloading finished, the image got reduced to a size fitting into the frame, and the reduced one looked excellent.
In the meantime Jeremy changed the reference in a link, so you don't see it that way.
-
Originally, Jeremy inserted the image into the message instead of a link to it. When you looked at the message the first time, it downloaded that huge image and displayed it in the full size. After the downloading finished, the image got reduced to a size fitting into the frame, and the reduced one looked excellent.
In the meantime Jeremy changed the reference in a link, so you don't see it that way.
Actually, I inserted both a link and the image ... and I took out the inline image when Gabor complained it ..
I'm so used to fast internet these days I don't think twice about an image like that, but I guess some folk still have slow lines.
-
Actually, I inserted both a link and the image ... and I took out the inline image when Gabor complained it ..
I'm so used to fast internet these days I don't think twice about an image like that, but I guess some folk still have slow lines.
The point for me, which I overlooked because we were stuck on ISO 1600, is that you can't even shoot at ISO 12800 with the DS3 because it only goes to 3200. So, the point again is that it would be REALLY nice to have the option of 6400 and 12800. I've also printed noisy screen images at 12x18 and when printed, if again properly exposed, the noise disappears. On the other hand, shadow noise is more of a problem, but there are ways to get rid of that too.
I too like pretty much everything Nikon has done in the high ISO area. Better to have the option than not at all. That being said, I could care less if Nikon applies a more aggressive in camera noise reduction than does Canon, as long as I can get rid of it with software. Having the option is really the point, at least for me.
I would like to get back to the OPs original concern regarding high ISO. Let's say you could shoot at ISO 102,000 with NO visible noise. Would you use it or just pack in in and go home, given that was the only way to get the shot you wanted?
-
the point again is that it would be REALLY nice to have the option of 6400 and 12800
What for? You are shooting raw. You have no reason to use ineffective or even fake ISOs; they only reduce the DR.
For example the 5D2 goes up to 25600, but it is fake from 6400, and already 3200 is ineffective. In other words: you would be fooling yourself when using those ISO steps.
-
What for? You are shooting raw. You have no reason to use ineffective or even fake ISOs; they only reduce the DR.
For example the 5D2 goes up to 25600, but it is fake from 6400, and already 3200 is ineffective. In other words: you would be fooling yourself when using those ISO steps.
Obviously I'm talking about "effective high ISOs" -like the Nikon has at 12800.
-
The point for me, which I overlooked because we were stuck on ISO 1600, is that you can't even shoot at ISO 12800 with the DS3 because it only goes to 3200. So, the point again is that it would be REALLY nice to have the option of 6400 and 12800.
Don't be deluded by impressive numbers. There's only one real ISO and that's base ISO. Everything else is a degradation. Just because a camera doesn't specify a particular high ISO, doesn't mean you can't create that ISO with underexposure at a lower ISO. This is what MFDB shooters often do. ISO 800 is no better than ISO 100 underexposed 3 stops. With Canon & Nikon, it might be equivalent to ISO 100 underexposed 1 stop, off the top of my head. (I haven't checked DXOMark ) .
The D3s would appear to have a high ISO performance approaching the hype associated with the original D3. That shot of the bear at ISO 12,800 looks impressive because it's not overexposed. In fact, it looks underexposed to me.
[attachment=17272:D3s_ISO_...istogram.jpg]
Even with the classic 5D, remarkably clean shots can be had at ISO 3200. I hope I haven't told this story before (because there's a tendency to repeat oneself in one's old age ), but the last time I was in Bangkok, towards the end of my stay in Thailand, I visited a particular cabaret because they allowed photography. Many of them don't.
I got a good seat near the front row and went 'hell for leather' as fast as my 580Ex would recharge. After half an hour into the show, the manager approached me and requested I refrain from using flash because it was disturbing the performers. I'm a reasonable guy, so I obliged . But I sensed it might be impossible to get any decent shots thereafter. Nevertheless, I tried.
Should I set the 5D to ISO 1600 or ISO 3200? I figured that every shot would be underexposed because of the relatively high shutter speed required to at least partially freeze movement, so I opted for ISO 3200 because I could at least see the shot more clearly on the LCD screen. Perhaps not the right decision because there are one or two shotst that would have benefitted from ISO 1600, at the same exposure.
The following 4 shots show the full image first, followed by a 100% crop.
[attachment=17273:1577_ful_image.jpg] [attachment=17274:1577_100__crop.jpg]
[attachment=17275:1542_ful_image.jpg] [attachment=17276:1542_100__crop.jpg]
A D3s in this situation would have been most welcome. However, I'm still waiting for a Nikon equivalent to the Canon 24-105 F4 IS, a tremendously useful range.
-
That shot of the bear at ISO 12,800 looks impressive because it's not overexposed. In fact, it looks underexposed to me.
That's even better. ISO 12800 underexposed and still a very usable noise related image.
Try underexposing the Canon 1DS3 at ISO 1600 and see what you get. Looks like you're shooting a pile of nats.
-
That's even better. ISO 12800 underexposed and still a very usable noise related image.
Try underexposing the Canon 1DS3 at ISO 1600 and see what you get. Looks like you're shooting a pile of nats.
My shots above are all underexposed at ISO 3200. At ISO 1600 they'd be over a stop underexposed.
-
Don't be deluded by impressive numbers. There's only one real ISO and that's base ISO. Everything else is a degradation
This is BS. I suggest you to read thoroughly The Source Of Noise (http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/SourceOfNoise.htm).
Higher ISO is less noisy than lower ISO with the same exposure; however, this advantage of increasing the ISO is getting smaller and smaller with higher ISOs, up to the point, that the higher ISO creates practically the same noise as the lower step. This is 3200 with the 5D2.
-
Obviously I'm talking about "effective high ISOs" -like the Nikon has at 12800.
Which Nikon? I don't know of any such, but I don't have any raw files from the D3S.
-
Which Nikon? I don't know of any such, but I don't have any raw files from the D3S.
The shot I posted is a sample JPEG from Nikon of the D3s. It has 'real' ISO up to 12,800 ... looks like 12,800 on the new one is as good as 6400 on the D3/700.
Whatever your definition of 'effective' is, I think Nikon pushed the sticks 1 stop down field with this new one.
-
The shot I posted is a sample JPEG from Nikon of the D3s. It has 'real' ISO up to 12,800 ... looks like 12,800 on the new one is as good as 6400 on the D3/700
The D3's highest real ISO setting is 6400. However, 6400 is not better than 3200 (it does not reduce the noise compared to 3200); that's what I call "ineffective".
I am very interested for the D3S, if its sensor is really relevantly better than the D3.
-
I suppose there are numerous examples for such development, right?
First, I used the word hypothetical, to show that I was not talking about actual sensors, but illustrating one way your claim fails to be a necessary, universal truth.
Secondly, my next paragraph, which you did not quote, suggested that there could be some degree of this in the well-size difference between CMOS and FF CCD.
Thirdly, my previous paragraph [edit] illustrated a more likely real word counterexample to your claim about better high ISO equals better DR at minimum ISO: higher QE.
-
This is BS. I suggest you to read thoroughly The Source Of Noise (http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/SourceOfNoise.htm).
Higher ISO is less noisy than lower ISO with the same exposure....
Of course it is, but the purpose of using a higher ISO is to allow a shorter exposure, not the same exposure, assuming one abides by the principles of ETTR. Total read noise may be less at higher ISO, but the signal is also less by an even greater degree, resulting in image degradation.
-
That's even better. ISO 12800 underexposed and still a very usable noise related image.
This might also be a trick. It could be a full ETTR that has been pulled back in the RAW converter to make it appear as though it's underexposed.
-
Of course it is, but the purpose of using a higher ISO is to allow a shorter exposure, not the same exposure, assuming one abides by the principles of ETTR
Just the opposite. Increasing the ISO while keeping the exposure is a way to achieve ETTR, when the exposure can not be increased.
-
Just the opposite. Increasing the ISO while keeping the exposure is a way to achieve ETTR, when the exposure can not be increased.
I've never come across a situation where the exposure cannot be increased. It may not be desirable to increase it. There may be unwanted consequences, but that's different from 'can not be increased'. Any exposure less than a full ETTR at base ISO will result in some image degradation whether significant or not.
-
I've never come across a situation where the exposure cannot be increased. It may not be desirable to increase it. There may be unwanted consequences, but that's different from 'can not be increased'.
As an aspiring pedant myself, I salute your impressive contribution here.
Any exposure less than a full ETTR at base ISO will result in some image degradation whether significant or not.
That's true. Increasing ISO improves SNR in the circumstance when it is "undesirable" to increase exposure, and there is still plenty of room on the histogram.
-
I know this OT, but I use hi-iso mostly to get decent shutter and aperture for handheld shots. And I like the sharp 1600 ISO daylight shots the D3x is giving me - which I cannot get from digital MF 80% of the year (morning, sunset spring, autumn, winter). In sunny summer weather MF blows anything else away. I guess for nights I should have a D3s
Edmund
-
As an aspiring pedant myself, I salute your impressive contribution here.
That's true. Increasing ISO improves SNR in the circumstance when it is "undesirable" to increase exposure, and there is still plenty of room on the histogram.
Not with all models and makes of digital cameras. Many MFDBs will produce as good a result underexposed at base ISO as a full ETTR at a higher ISO using the same exposure. I recall Edmund once stated he was actually getting slightly better results with a P45+ when underexposing 3 stops at ISO 100 (or maybe that was ISO 50) instead of a full ETTR at ISO 800 (or 400).
However, one method of ensuring no reduction in SNR in circumstances where a fast shutter speed is required, is to sacrifice DoF and stop up, provided one is not already using maximum aperture, of course.
Juggling these 3 variables can sometimes be a problem which is why I appreciate the Nikon approach of ISO bracketing. In manual mode you set the aperture you think will produced the desired DoF, the shutter speed you think will be sufficient to freeze any movement of the subject or camera, and then bracket ISO for a perfect ETTR.
-
I use hi-iso mostly to get decent shutter and aperture for handheld shots.
Edmund
Ditto! Except with the 1DS MK III I don't like going over ISO800, underexposed one stop max.
-
Not with all models and makes of digital cameras. Many MFDBs will produce as good a result underexposed at base ISO as a full ETTR at a higher ISO using the same exposure. I recall Edmund once stated he was actually getting slightly better results with a P45+ when underexposing 3 stops at ISO 100 (or maybe that was ISO 50) instead of a full ETTR at ISO 800 (or 400).
Which means that it is the exposure and not the appearance of the histogram that is the critical factor here. Micheal's original ETTR essay (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) stressed that by exposing to the right, one made use of the increased number of levels in the upper reaches of the histogram, but the real rationale of ETTR has to do with the improved signal to noise ratio with increasing exposure which was also mentioned by Michael and explained in detail by Emil Martinec (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#ETTR). In the case discussed by Ray above, the histogram at base ISO would be to the left, but the image quality would be the same as with higher ISO where the histogram would be to the right.
With dSLRs, the situation is more complex, since readout noise is highest at base ISO and decreases as the ISO is increased, at least up to a certain point. As Emil explains, with the Canon 1D3 one gets basically the same results at ISO 1600 as with ISO 3200, and the higher ISO serves only to limit headroom for the highlights. With this camera, read noise approaches a minimum asymptotically and the curve is relatively flat beyond ISO 1600. Below that ISO, it makes sense to increase the ISO when shooting constraints prevent full exposure at base ISO. Increasing the ISO up to a certain point improves the appearance of the histogram, but the improved S:N is due to decreased read noise and the appearance of the histogram is only coincidental.
The increased readout noise at base ISO with dSLRs has to do with amplifier noise as Emil explains. With the CCDs used in MFDBs, the amplification and analog to digital conversion is done off chip by separate components and it is possible that the MFDB maker may be able to improve performance by using higher quality amplifiers and ADCs. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) of an ADC is limited by the bit depth as explained here (http://www.edn.com/article/CA419561.html). By using a 16 bit ADC at a lower readout rate (it is diffucult to design a high bit ADC that also has a high readout rate), the MFDB maker could improve performance.
-
Not with all models and makes of digital cameras. Many MFDBs will produce as good a result underexposed at base ISO as a full ETTR at a higher ISO using the same exposure.
The main noise control advantages of higher sensitivity ("ISO") at equal exposure seems to come from applying greater gain in the analog signal processing, not from a "bit shifting" brightness adjustment in the digital domain. However, I believe that many MFDB's do most or all sensitivity adjustment in the digital domain, and so miss a good part of the ETTR advantage.
One hint is that I have not seen an ISO speed range or range of usable gain factors in the spec's for Kodak and Dalsa FF CCD sensors, even though those sensors come in packages that include amplifiers. But maybe I need to read more closely.
-
The truth is that technical advances raise the bar of what a competent photographer can achieve, and anyone who is content to merely do what he has always done the same way he always has deserves to be left behind.
But this assumes photography automatically gets better each time a new camera is introduced with more features, which for anybody with half an ounce of the grey cells knows is bullshit. In fact its so much bullshit its hard to know where to start by pointing out the flaws in the 'argument'.
But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see. But if you assume photography is an art that is a measure of self expression then it doesn't matter what the latest camera can do, because you take yourself forward in whatever aspect of photography you are exploring, be it via a P&S or a 8x10. But if you assume the latest camera raises your bar, then you are only responding like a lab rat experiment, where the stimulus is the reason to act, a patsy in other words, waiting for outside impetus to activate the ability to make a photograph. Thats not being a photographer, thats waiting for orders.
Steve
-
But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see.
Are you referring to infra-red photography? If so, then that would be a feature which one would have the choice of using in circumstances where one might want to know more than one can see, or simply to create a particular 'effect'. It really has nothing to do with usurping the intellect, but rather extending the intellect. We send a Hubble Telescope into space so that we can see what we cannot see with a telescope on the ground.
I hardly think we are anywhere near being able to produce a camera so sensitive that it will record the light spectrum of normal vision in circumstances where the eye sees darkness. The eye has an adjustable pupil which dilates almost instantly to take in more detail in the darker parts of a scene, then contracts almost instantly as one's gaze shifts to a brighter part of the scene, such as a street lamp at night. The camera struggles to capture the entire scene with a fixed aperture.
However, it is very true that the camera already may capture more detail that one noticed at the time the shot was taken, which of course is different from 'more detail than one is able to see'.
The fact is, computers and computerised gadgets often have far more features than one is interested in using. Many such features are described as bells & whistles. But some features, such as high ISO capability are tremendously useful technological improvements. One should be aware of the features of one's camera and their potential use. There's no choice available if you are not aware.
-
But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see. But if you assume photography is an art that is a measure of self expression then it doesn't matter what the latest camera can do, because you take yourself forward in whatever aspect of photography you are exploring, be it via a P&S or a 8x10. But if you assume the latest camera raises your bar, then you are only responding like a lab rat experiment, where the stimulus is the reason to act, a patsy in other words, waiting for outside impetus to activate the ability to make a photograph. Thats not being a photographer, thats waiting for orders.
Well, it is a known phenomena that we, sheeps, always end up focusing on the grass that is right on the opposite side of the fence, isn't it?
Now to be fair, it is true that photographic vision should drive the content of what we do, and there are enough cameras outthere already to enable amazing creativity without waiting for the next stuff, but there are indeed valid photographic applications that do benefit from various technical enhancements.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let's not forget about how important high ISO performance is for VIDEO. The performance of Canon's high ISO for motion is probably the best performance so far at 1080P (even better now with the 1D4, but yeah, it doesn't shoot 4K video ).
In terms of stills photography, I personally have my camera locked at ISO 50 or 100, but that's because I create my own light.
There is good photography to be done with High ISOs, but I am mostly seeing blurry, detail-less images that are generally free of only CHROMINANCE noise (cough, Nikon's secret to JPG processing, cough) and are "pretty clean for ISO 100048448585483898459889. Wow!"
-
Are you referring to infra-red photography?
No.
I'm refering to such things as the new Nikon D3s with the possibility of 102,400 ISO. So if you go back and read what I wrote in the context of what I thought we were talking about (new high ISO cameras) it may be clearer for you.
At such high ISO what the human eye see's is exceeded by what the camera is able to record. True, look hard enough at a dark scene and all sorts of detail starts to be seen by the eye. But it isn't immediately avialable to the eye, which needs to become accustomed to the dark, yet the high ISO camera becomes an instant 'super-eye', able to record what we don't see. So the question is does this take the photographers art any further (other than being a snooper or in MI5 or the CIA), or is the photographer a patsy waiting for new developments in a lab to further his development in the field? Who will you be communicating with as a photographer if there is no human limitation in the photograph, other than to exhibit otherwise unseen aspects of natural history, or in surviellence work? High ISO images will be a sideline in photography just as Man Ray's solarization experiments were, because other than a technique it is devoid of human relevence, or what people really see.
Steve
-
At such high ISO what the human eye see's is exceeded by what the camera is able to record. True, look hard enough at a dark scene and all sorts of detail starts to be seen by the eye. But it isn't immediately avialable to the eye, which needs to become accustomed to the dark, yet the high ISO camera becomes an instant 'super-eye', able to record what we don't see. So the question is does this take the photographers art any further (other than being a snooper or in MI5 or the CIA), or is the photographer a patsy waiting for new developments in a lab to further his development in the field? Who will you be communicating with as a photographer if there is no human limitation in the photograph, other than to exhibit otherwise unseen aspects of natural history, or in surviellence work? High ISO images will be a sideline in photography just as Man Ray's solarization experiments were, because other than a technique it is devoid of human relevence, or what people really see.
Steve
No. You are creating problems where none exist. It's true the eye takes a while to adjust to extremes of changes in brightness, such as entering a dark room from a well-lit room, or when coming out of a theatre into bright sunlight. However, once that broad adjustment has taken place, the eye will respond almost immediately to less extreme changes in brightness within a particular scene.
The idea that a photographer would enter a dark room and feel compelled to start shooting before his eyes had adjusted to the lighting conditions simply because his camera had a high ISO facility, is absurd. If you need to take photos of scenes that are so dark you can't see what's going on, then a good, external flash unit is a better tool.
The usual processes for photographers are to shoot what they see. The high ISO capability of cameras like the D3s simply allow the photographer to get a sharper and better image when poor lighting conditions, combined with subject or camera movement, require a fast shutter speed.
The real benefit of the high ISO capability of cameras like the D3 and the D3s is not so much that one can take noisy shots lacking in detail at ISO 12,800, (then claim it's not too bad considering it's ISO 12,800) but take reasonably sharp and clean shots at more moderate ISOs of 1600 and 3200 that don't need to be excused..
The image degradation (lack of fine detail, noise on smooth skin etc) in the D3s samples at Imaging Resources, taken at ISO 8,000 and 10,000, is quite apparent.
-
But this assumes photography automatically gets better each time a new camera is introduced with more features, which for anybody with half an ounce of the grey cells knows is bullshit. In fact its so much bullshit its hard to know where to start by pointing out the flaws in the 'argument'.
Your arguing against a strawman here. Just because a camera has some new capability is no guarantee that any given photographer will use that feature or capability competently. I've said as much more than once; go back and read my previous posts again.
But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see.
I have never said or implied any such thing. High ISO capability is simply another creative tool that a skilled photographer can use to shoot under conditions that previously disallowed photography.
But if you assume photography is an art that is a measure of self expression then it doesn't matter what the latest camera can do, because you take yourself forward in whatever aspect of photography you are exploring, be it via a P&S or a 8x10.
The camera ALWAYS matters. Try capturing a dancer in mid-leap, or shooting insect macros with an 8x10 view camera. You'll quickly discover it is far from the ideal tool for the task. If your chosen artistic genre is urban street shooting at night, high-ISO capability is essential, as is fast glass. The capabilities of the equipment are an integral part of realizing the artistic/creative vision. This true of every profession that relies equipment to accomplish a goal; you don't see too many Ford Festivas competing on the Formula One race circuit. No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. And no matter how skilled the photographer, shooting insect macros with an 8x10 is not going to deliver particularly good results.
But if you assume the latest camera raises your bar, then you are only responding like a lab rat experiment, where the stimulus is the reason to act, a patsy in other words, waiting for outside impetus to activate the ability to make a photograph. Thats not being a photographer, thats waiting for orders.
You're raising more strawman bullshit here. As I've said several times, increasing a camera's capabilities increases the ways in which the camera may be used to achieve one's creative vision. But it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the photographer to use his tools' capabilities intelligently and creatively. Giving a bad photographer a state-of-the-art camera will not guarantee good results any more than giving a bad writer a word processor instead of a manual typewriter. But a good writer can express his creativity through the word processor with less hassle and frustration than the typewriter; it may only take him two days to write a chapter instead of five.
The ultimate flaw in your argument is that you have no basis for decisively defining how much camera capability is "enough". Is ISO 400 enough for a Real Photographer®, or should we draw the line at 100? Maybe 100 is too much of a crutch; should we draw the line at 25, or 10, or 1? What about viewfinder technology? Is an optical viewfinder OK, or should Real Photographers® be limited to upside-down images on ground glass? Or a rangefinder? Is film OK, or should Real Photographers® use hand-coated glass plates? What about lenses? Should they be allowed, or should Real Photographers® limit themselves to pinholes?
Then there's the small matter of who died and put you in charge of deciding which photographers need what capabilities? Who the hell are you to judge the merits of any other photographer's choice of tools, or whether they are using them effectively to achieve their creative vision?
-
"No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. " -- Jonathan
There's a concept I could get behind. I'd love to see a Formula 1 race a Ford Festiva along Sunset Boulevard from the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu around Hollywood down to the Pasadena Freeway. This could be a movie.
-
Your arguing against a strawman here. Just because a camera has some new capability is no guarantee that any given photographer will use that feature or capability competently. I've said as much more than once; go back and read my previous posts again.
I have never said or implied any such thing. High ISO capability is simply another creative tool that a skilled photographer can use to shoot under conditions that previously disallowed photography.
The camera ALWAYS matters. Try capturing a dancer in mid-leap, or shooting insect macros with an 8x10 view camera. You'll quickly discover it is far from the ideal tool for the task. If your chosen artistic genre is urban street shooting at night, high-ISO capability is essential, as is fast glass. The capabilities of the equipment are an integral part of realizing the artistic/creative vision. This true of every profession that relies equipment to accomplish a goal; you don't see too many Ford Festivas competing on the Formula One race circuit. No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. And no matter how skilled the photographer, shooting insect macros with an 8x10 is not going to deliver particularly good results.
You're raising more strawman bullshit here. As I've said several times, increasing a camera's capabilities increases the ways in which the camera may be used to achieve one's creative vision. But it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the photographer to use his tools' capabilities intelligently and creatively. Giving a bad photographer a state-of-the-art camera will not guarantee good results any more than giving a bad writer a word processor instead of a manual typewriter. But a good writer can express his creativity through the word processor with less hassle and frustration than the typewriter; it may only take him two days to write a chapter instead of five.
The ultimate flaw in your argument is that you have no basis for decisively defining how much camera capability is "enough". Is ISO 400 enough for a Real Photographer®, or should we draw the line at 100? Maybe 100 is too much of a crutch; should we draw the line at 25, or 10, or 1? What about viewfinder technology? Is an optical viewfinder OK, or should Real Photographers® be limited to upside-down images on ground glass? Or a rangefinder? Is film OK, or should Real Photographers® use hand-coated glass plates? What about lenses? Should they be allowed, or should Real Photographers® limit themselves to pinholes?
Then there's the small matter of who died and put you in charge of deciding which photographers need what capabilities? Who the hell are you to judge the merits of any other photographer's choice of tools, or whether they are using them effectively to achieve their creative vision?
Steve did none of this. You have misconstrued his original post and intent, which was a response to your comment that people who choose not to take the continuous digital upgrade path 'deserve to be left behind'. Do they not bleed when you cut them?
Mike
-
Steve did none of this. You have misconstrued his original post and intent, which was a response to your comment that people who choose not to take the continuous digital upgrade path 'deserve to be left behind'.
I never said that anyone should buy every new upgrade that comes along. My point was that as a professional, if you don't have a compelling reason to offer as to why someone should hire you instead of letting Aunt Sally handle the job with her digicam, you don't deserve to be in business. Having a camera with high-ISO capability so that you can shoot clean naturally-lit images of an engaged couple having dinner by candlelight (thus better capturing the mood of the setting than if flash was used, and something Aunt Sally probably can't offer) is one way one could make that argument to a client.
The point of my original post was that technological advances are not to blame for the decline in professional photography, it's the "640K should be enough for anybody" attitude of many professional photographers, expressed in this thread as "ISO 100 should be enough for anybody". It's a stupid and short-sighted attitude, and a perfect example of why many clients are choosing to do projects themselves instead of hiring a professional. The whole justification for hiring a professional anything is that the professional can do things that an amateur cannot. If this is not so, then there is no reason to justify paying money for the services of a professional. Photography as a profession is in the toilet is because many photographers have failed to offer their potential clients sufficiently compelling reasons for the potential client to choose the professional instead of Aunt Sally.
This is not the fault of technology; technology has offered the same degree of advancement to the professional as to the consumer. The gap in capabilities between consumer and pro gear is about the same as it always has been. What has happened is that professionals have been slower to adopt and embrace the new opportunities offered by technological advances than amateurs (the "ISO 100 should be enough for anybody" sentiment is a perfect example if this), and as a result the creativity gap between the pro and amateur has narrowed. A professional should always be looking for new tools and methods to advance the level of their work, and not merely be content to sit back and do things the way they have always been done, expecting that clients will continue to fork over their cash the way they always have. Embracing new technology is part (but not all) of the process of continuously striving to improve one's work. If the "ISO 100 is enough" crowd expended as much mental energy devising creative ways to use higher ISO as they did questioning its validity and denigrating those who use it, they'd probably attract and retain more clients.
-
... if I have to use a tripod or flash that's fine. ...
That is it in a nutshell. For some photographers in some situations, neither a tripod and long exposures nor flash are appropriate, so getting a high enough shutter speed in low light is important ... and there is still some room for useful improvement.
Which does not mean that some other photographers can do what they want entirely at low to medium sensitivities ("ISO"). I happen to be in your camp on this one: IS plus sensitivities up to 800 ISO have handled everything for me so far.
But I do not pretend that this works for everyone. I am happy if certain people stop accusing me of suppressing a secret desire for ultra high speed/low light capability in order to deny the inadequacies of my system!
-
That is it in a nutshell. For some photographers in some situations, neither a tripod and long exposures nor flash are appropriate, so getting a high enough shutter speed in low light is important ... and there is still some room for useful improvement.
Which does not mean that some other photographers can do what they want entirely at low to medium sensitivities ("ISO"). I happen to be in your camp on this one: IS plus sensitivities up to 800 ISO have handled everything for me so far.
But I do not pretend that this works for everyone. I am happy if certain people stop accusing me of suppressing a secret desire for ultra high speed/low light capability in order to deny the inadequacies of my system!
I think you've got the wrong emphasis here, BJL. ISO 800 might well provide you with a sufficiently fast shutter speed for all your purposes, but does it provide you with sufficient SNR, dynamic range and resolution?
The really useful benefit of cameras with high ISO capability is not so you can shoot at ISO 12,800 because another camera might not have such a high a setting (you can always underexpose), and not so you can take a shot at ISO 12,800 which is slightly less awful than that from another camera which doesn't boast an ISO 12,800 setting, but so you can take a shot at ISO 800 (or 400) which is perhaps technically as good as (or close to) the shot from another camera at base ISO.
You might recall that I was so impressed with the high ISO performance claims for the Nikon D3 when it was first available, I took the trouble of visiting the Nikon Centre in Bangkok to compare the camera with my 5D at ISOs of 3200 and above, underexposing the 5D to simulate the higher settings.
Whilst there was no doubt that the D3 produced slightly better results at high ISO, of the order of 1/3rd to 1/2 a stop better than the much older 5D, it was really nothing to shout about. I felt people were being duped.
However, I later discovered that the real benefits of the D3 and D700 (compared with equivalent Canon models) are their significantly better performance at more moderate ISO settings such as ISO 800.
If you compare cameras at the DXOMark website, you'll see that at ISO 800 the D700 has slightly less noise than the 5D at ISO 400, and slightly better DR than the 5D even at base ISO.
That's the truly remarkable thing. At ISO 800, the D700 has better DR than the 5D has at base ISO.
-
I think you've got the wrong emphasis here, BJL. ISO 800 might well provide you with a sufficiently fast shutter speed for all your purposes, but does it provide you with sufficient SNR, dynamic range and resolution?
Yes, it does. Partly because I only ever hit 800 for relatively rare "people in a dimly lit room" shots that have only modest DR needs, and mostly work below that. Can you offer evidence to the contrary, or explain why I am wrong about my own photographic needs, without ever having seen one of my photos, or knowing what camera and lenses I am currently using?
You seem to have missed a main theme of my post: the folly of people projecting their own needs, wants and priorities onto other photographers.
P. S. Aside: to me, "DR is the new MP": a spec. number which some people simply as "more is better" with no sense as to "how much better". That is, overlooking The Law of Diminishing Returns, which for DR sets in once one goes much past the six or seven stops that a "straight print" has any use for, into the territory of contrast flattening tone curves, dodging, burning and such. Yes each extra stop has some value, but each extra stop has less value than the previous one.
-
Yes, it does. Partly because I only ever hit 800 for relatively rare "people in a dimly lit room" shots that have only modest DR needs, and mostly work below that. Can you offer evidence to the contrary, or explain why I am wrong about my own photographic needs, without ever having seen one of my photos, or knowing what camera and lenses I am currently using?
You seem to have missed a main theme of my post: the folly of people projecting their own needs, wants and priorities onto other photographers.
Not at all. I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the 'camera doesn't matter'. If you don't need or want high resolution, high dynamic range, low noise images with excellent tonal range and color sensitivity at moderately high ISOs, that's fine by me. But judging from most of your posts on this site you seem to be very interested in such qualities.
Could we say there appears to be a distinct separation between your interest in the technology and your need or desire to use the technology when taking photos.
Even if the subject doesn't have a high SBR, you will probably find that cameras with good high-ISO performance also have lower noise, better tonality and better color sensitivity. For example, the D700 has about the same tonal range and color sensitivity at ISO 400 as the 5D has at ISO 100. Noise at ISO 400 is just slightly greater than 5D noise at ISO 100, but the difference is probably invisible on a print.
At ISO 200, the D700 has better 'everything' than the 5D at ISO 100.
-
Your arguing against a strawman here. Just because a camera has some new capability is no guarantee that any given photographer will use that feature or capability competently. I've said as much more than once; go back and read my previous posts again.
I have never said or implied any such thing. High ISO capability is simply another creative tool that a skilled photographer can use to shoot under conditions that previously disallowed photography.
The camera ALWAYS matters. Try capturing a dancer in mid-leap, or shooting insect macros with an 8x10 view camera. You'll quickly discover it is far from the ideal tool for the task. If your chosen artistic genre is urban street shooting at night, high-ISO capability is essential, as is fast glass. The capabilities of the equipment are an integral part of realizing the artistic/creative vision. This true of every profession that relies equipment to accomplish a goal; you don't see too many Ford Festivas competing on the Formula One race circuit. No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. And no matter how skilled the photographer, shooting insect macros with an 8x10 is not going to deliver particularly good results.
You're raising more strawman bullshit here. As I've said several times, increasing a camera's capabilities increases the ways in which the camera may be used to achieve one's creative vision. But it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the photographer to use his tools' capabilities intelligently and creatively. Giving a bad photographer a state-of-the-art camera will not guarantee good results any more than giving a bad writer a word processor instead of a manual typewriter. But a good writer can express his creativity through the word processor with less hassle and frustration than the typewriter; it may only take him two days to write a chapter instead of five.
The ultimate flaw in your argument is that you have no basis for decisively defining how much camera capability is "enough". Is ISO 400 enough for a Real Photographer®, or should we draw the line at 100? Maybe 100 is too much of a crutch; should we draw the line at 25, or 10, or 1? What about viewfinder technology? Is an optical viewfinder OK, or should Real Photographers® be limited to upside-down images on ground glass? Or a rangefinder? Is film OK, or should Real Photographers® use hand-coated glass plates? What about lenses? Should they be allowed, or should Real Photographers® limit themselves to pinholes?
Then there's the small matter of who died and put you in charge of deciding which photographers need what capabilities? Who the hell are you to judge the merits of any other photographer's choice of tools, or whether they are using them effectively to achieve their creative vision?
Nobody died and put me in charge. I just don't buy into your statements that a new camera is needed to do the same job that skilled photographers have done for years without mega high ISO. If you need a lesson in taking a romantic candlelit portrait thats OK, be brave enough to say so, but you don't need to wait for the latest camera to come along before you can embark on some of the more tricky skills.
But you are wilfully stubborn if you think my posts were against high ISO capability. You seem to want to talk about technique when the gist of argument is one of aesthetics. Put simply (again) for many years photographers covering concerts and theatre (or candlelit romance) have employed skill and guile to produce excellent images worthy of publication. There skills have been due to things like being in the right place at the right time and being able to capture the decisive moment. All against a typical backdrop of moody lighting and high contrast. It is a type of photography not everybody could do because not everybody had the skills to cope.
But, with the advent of mega high ISO cameras all these scenes stand the chance of looking like any normally lit daylight scene. And given the bullshit being circulated that we all need a high ISO camera or we aren't a good professional, then even the worst professionals will consider themselves experts in theatre and concert photography. Skill and making a photograph that is true to life, or expressive, will largely go out the window, and the ease of cranking up the ISO will become default for many 'photographers'. Likewise instead of capturing the speed and excitment of Formula 1, of which there is a long tradition of skill, the camera will be used to capture in perfect clarity the sponsor logo seemingly standing still while doing 200 mph. The blandness that is possible with high ISO is staggering in its implications. And don't say it won't happen, because a good example of in camera technology creating bland images is already evident in news video, where a digital filter is used to make everybody look like they have smooth glowing perfectly pampered skin.
But I will take on board your kind invitation to go back and read all your other posts, ...........when I decide enough is enough and I need an excuse to slit my wrists.
Steve
-
This is not the fault of technology; technology has offered the same degree of advancement to the professional as to the consumer.
I agree with this but for a slightly different reason.
It is a fault of technology for those photographers who built their business mainly on getting a correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style because today Aunt Sally's camera can get a "correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style" by leaving the camera auto mode, reading the Kodak site for 10 minutes on composition, and pulling the trigger. This was previously not possible.
Where I agree with Jonathan is that although this is now available to Aunt Sally, as a professional you should be offering much more than "correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style."
A case in point is that I just finished a commercial gig about saw milling. The mill owner had a "professional" photographer make images, she paid him, and the magazine said no to all but two of the images. I saw some of the images and they were "correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style."
My images will be shown in Saw Milling Magazine along with two from the previous photographer where the magazine needed two "correct exposures, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composed images."
Another case in point is a wedding I recently did. The clients loved the images, but I told them beforehand I'm not a wedding photographer and there were better people to do it. I also saw a package of images as a present for the bride and groom done by an Aunt Sally at the wedding with a digicam. I was amazed because the person who did them was an amateur and the the images were "correctly exposed, sharply focused, and a technically but redundantly composed." They were actually a little more creative than redundant, but you get the picture. She got to take pictures and I got the "job."
I want a camera that allows me to make decisions that I want to make. What I do with those decisions is why I get the job and Aunt Sally doesn't. To say that "But, with the advent of mega high ISO cameras all these scenes stand the chance of looking like any normally lit daylight scene" (25swb) is exactly what Jonathan is talking about and what I agree with and have tried to explain above. If you can't make a night shot look like a night shot, or a candle lit dinner look like a candle lit dinner, simply because you have high ISO, then you're not a professional and you deserve to "get left behind."
-
... high resolution, high dynamic range, low noise images with excellent tonal range and color sensitivity at moderately high ISOs ...judging from most of your posts on this site you seem to be very interested in such qualities.
I am interested in where the technology is going for a couple of reasons:
1. For the sake of those far better photographers than me who are willing to put far more resources (time, money, gear carried, staff, post-processing tools, practice) than me into producing works of art that I and others can enjoy viewing. I want professionals in many areas to have tools that I will never buy!
2. Because one dominant effect of these improvements is improvement in what can be done at a given format size, camera size, weight, and cost ... or to put it another way, allowing given standards of IQ to be achieved with ever smaller, lighter, less expensive gear than it used to. Even the 12MP of current 4/3 is sometimes (often?) more than needed for my purposes ... but it gives me more telephoto reach for wildlife, through heavier cropping latitude. Effectively, that is a shift to a smaller format for long telephoto. And Live View could some day make that more convenient, by showing roughly the intended smaller format image (the planned crop) with a magnified VF image.
By the way, I count 800 as a moderately high ISO, only partly because I never used film that fast even without IS.
-
... Even the 12MP of current 4/3 is sometimes (often?) more than needed for my purposes ... but it gives me more telephoto reach for wildlife, through heavier cropping latitude. Effectively, that is a shift to a smaller format for long telephoto.
.....By the way, I count 800 as a moderately high ISO, only partly because I never used film that fast even without IS.
This is why I am puzzled that you claim to have no need for high ISO and only rarely use ISO 800. You gave the impression that you generally shoot only mushrooms and still life using a tripod. But now you indicate you also shoot wildlife. What sort of wildlife? Slow-moving stationary buffalo?
Whevever I use my 100-400 IS for wildlife, I find I often struggle to get sharp images at 400mm as a result of image degradation at high ISO and/or too slow a shutter speed. I find I'm constantly juggling compromises and trades-off. On my copy of this lens, F5.6 is not as sharp as F8. F11 is virtually as sharp as F8, gives better DoF and focussing need not be as critical. However, in lighting conditions where F11 requires ISO 3200, F8 requires ISO 1600, and F5.6 requires ISO 800.
I also count ISO 800 as being moderately high. Doesn't everyone?
-
Whevever I use my 100-400 IS for wildlife, I find I often struggle to get sharp images at 400mm as a result of image degradation at high ISO and/or too slow a shutter speed. ... On my copy of this lens, F5.6 is not as sharp as F8. F11 is virtually as sharp as F8, gives better DoF and focussing need not be as critical. However, in lighting conditions where F11 requires ISO 3200, F8 requires ISO 1600, and F5.6 requires ISO 800.
Where you use your 100-400 f/4-5.6 with 35mm format (5DMkII?), I use my 50-200/2.8-3.5 at half the focal length, and for distant subjects, I am comfortable using that lens wide open for sharpness, and usually for DOF (like f/7 in 35mm format.) Where f/5.6 requires ISO 800, f/3.5 requires only about ISO 320.
And when you talk about stopping down for better DoF with 35mm format, I am of course matching the DoF at half the f-stop, and thus 1/4 the ISO speed, so your f/11, ISO 3200 is my f/5.6, ISO 800. Surely we do not need to revisit the fallacy of comparing different formats at equal ISO speeds even when usable f-stop is clearly different.
The ISO speed need difference is greater if you are going for the "sharp at 22MP" that you camera is capable of, while I am at a lower pixel count, and so have a coarser angular resolution limit anyway from the sensor. This could also be related to your need to stop down to f/8 for sharpness while I am comfortable wide open.
-
I once posted an action picture on FM of a skate jumper *upside down* in the air, taken with an AF SLR. And then all these old guys lectured me about how *they* didn't need AF to take that shot because you can preset your MF to the right place and wait. In the same way, we're getting lectured by the dinosaurs here about how *they* don't need high ISO. Well, dear old-timers, I love your lectures about composition, about beauty, about the greater meaning of life. But as regards technology, I 'll make my own calls.
Edmund
-
Where you use your 100-400 f/4-5.6 with 35mm format (5DMkII?), I use my 50-200/2.8-3.5 at half the focal length, and for distant subjects, I am comfortable using that lens wide open for sharpness, and usually for DOF (like f/7 in 35mm format.) Where f/5.6 requires ISO 800, f/3.5 requires only about ISO 320.
No, no, no! 400mm on 35mm format is not long enough for me. I use the 100-400 IS with my 50D, and even then I often can't get close enough, just as I wasn't able to when I discovered this young wallaby eating my peaches. Damn! You'd think it would have the consideration to eat my peaches in the direct sunlight so I can use a lower ISO.
To get a minimum shutter speed of 160th for a reasonably sharp image at F8, I had to use ISO 1600. Even then, the image was slightly underexposed and I would have preferred to have used ISO 3200 at, say, a 250th if the high-ISO performance of the camera were better.
[attachment=17466:3129_ISO...ncropped.jpg] [attachment=17467:3129_ISO...0th_crop.jpg]
Earlier, in more direct light of the late afternoon, I took the following group shot at F11 and ISO 800. This is fully exposed but I used a dangerously slow shutter speed of 1/125th. I think I might have leaned against the verandah post to get this shot reasonably sharp, and leaned against a tree to get the wallaby reasonably sharp. With a 640mm full-frame equivalent I'd generally prefer to use at least 1/320th with IS enabled.
[attachment=17468:lorikeet...11_125th.jpg]
I haven't bought a 5D2 yet. I feel I've been overindulging recently with the purchase of a 40D, a 50D, a D700 and the Nikkor 14-24. That's enough to keep me going for a while . What I'd really like is an upgrade to the Canon 100-400 IS.
-
No, no, no! 400mm on 35mm format is not long enough for me. I use the 100-400 IS with my 50D, and even then I often can't get close enough ...
Can't get close enough? Then you need a smaller format! (Fortunately, cropping counts as a smaller format, so long as your photosites are small enough to sustain the crop.)
So the difference is down to about one stop at equal FOV (200@f/3.5 on 4/3 vs 280mm at about f/5 on the 50D) or 1.3 stops at the long end, but then I have to crop from my mere 200mm because I would need 250mm to match the FOV of 400mm on the 50D. And then there is adjustment for different pixel counts, so in fact the pixel sizes are not much different and we could in fact get about equal pixels on the subject at about equal focal length ...
I do not feel like doing all the calculations, but the rough guideline is still that the 50-200/2.8-3.5 achieves a given shutter speed at about one stop lower sensitivity due to being able to use a lower f-stop, so 800 ISO works for me about like 1600 ISO works for you with the 100-400/4-5.6.
So out of interest, how often is sensitivity of 1600 ISO not fast enough for you with wildlife, using that kit? Your example of f/8@400mm, 1600 ISO seems to become "f/3.5@200mm, ISO 500 and crop" for me. Maybe I would benefit from more pixels or a TC.
-
Very true, but if you own some Canon models you need to go up by one stop at least in speed to stop action.
Edmund
Can't get close enough? Then you need a smaller format! (Fortunately, cropping counts as a smaller format, so long as your photosites are small enough to sustain the crop.)
So the difference is down to about one stop at equal FOV (200@f/3.5 on 4/3 vs 280mm at about f/5 on the 50D) or 1.3 stops at the long end, but then I have to crop from my mere 200mm because I would need 250mm to match the FOV of 400mm on the 50D. And then there is adjustment for different pixel counts, so in fact the pixel sizes are not much different and we could in fact get about equal pixels on the subject at about equal focal length ...
I do not feel like doing all the calculations, but the rough guideline is still that the 50-200/2.8-3.5 achieves a given shutter speed at about one stop lower sensitivity due to being able to use a lower f-stop, so 800 ISO works for me about like 1600 ISO works for you with the 100-400/4-5.6.
So out of interest, how often is sensitivity of 1600 ISO not fast enough for you with wildlife, using that kit? Your example of f/8@400mm, 1600 ISO seems to become "f/3.5@200mm, ISO 500 and crop" for me. Maybe I would benefit from more pixels or a TC.
-
Can't get close enough? Then you need a smaller format! (Fortunately, cropping counts as a smaller format, so long as your photosites are small enough to sustain the crop.)
C'mon, BJL. Get real! Whilst I'm sympathetic to the idea that the smaller format can compensate to some extent for it's lower performance regarding noise, DR, tonal range etc through use of a lower ISO setting, in conjunction with a wider aperture, to provide a shutter speed and DoF equal to that of the larger format, you seem to be forgetting that a 12mp image through a 400mm lens cannot compete with a 15mp image through a 640mm lens. The differences are huge. In fact, the differences would be more significant than the differences between a 400mm lens on the 12.7mp 5D and the same lens on the 50D, because at least the 5D has a noise, DR and tonal-range advantage over both the 50D and equivalent 4/3rds format, say the E-30.
In other words, I would rather use the 100-400 IS on a 5D than the Zuiko 50-200 on the E-30. You're better at maths than I am, but according to my calculations, a 12mp E-3 image taken with a 200mm lens, cropped to the same FoV as the 50D with 400mm lens, would result in approximately a 5mp image for the E-30, or even less depending on aspect ratio.
How can you compare a 5mp image with a 15mp image? As I said, get real!
I do not feel like doing all the calculations, but the rough guideline is still that the 50-200/2.8-3.5 achieves a given shutter speed at about one stop lower sensitivity due to being able to use a lower f-stop, so 800 ISO works for me about like 1600 ISO works for you with the 100-400/4-5.6.
We've been through these calculations before. The one stop 'equivalence' difference between the 4/3rds and Canon APS-C formats is an exaggeration. It's more like 2/3rds of a stop, but let's not quibble. A more significant concern is the much lower DR of the E-30. On equal size prints, we're looking at almost a 2 stop difference in DR at high ISO.
Here's the DXOMark results showing that huge DR difference between the E-30 and the 50D on normalised prints.
[attachment=17490:DXOMark_50D_v_E_30.jpg]
So out of interest, how often is sensitivity of 1600 ISO not fast enough for you with wildlife, using that kit? Your example of f/8@400mm, 1600 ISO seems to become "f/3.5@200mm, ISO 500 and crop" for me. Maybe I would benefit from more pixels or a TC.
Frequently, especially when I don't have a tree to lean against. I ruined lots of shots some time ago when travelling along the Daintree river in a boat, due to inadequate high-ISO performance of my 40D. When you have to underexpose at ISO 3200 to get a fast shutter speed with an APS-C camera, then forget it. Also, wide apertures with a long telephoto lens have their disadvantage with regard to focussing accuracy. Not much point in getting the bird's beak sharp when you really wanted its eye sharp. Better still, get both its beak and eye sharp at F11.
The greatest upgrade to this 100-400 IS lens I've experienced was when Canon brought out the 20D and ISO 1600 was usable for the first time in my life. Teleconverters at best provide a very marginal improvement in my experience.
-
... you seem to be forgetting that a 12mp image through a 400mm lens cannot compete with a 15mp image through a 640mm lens.
But my point was that you do not have a 640mm lens. (Real focal lengths please: I do not claim to have a 400mm lens!) and sometimes your actual 400mm is not enough, and if you try to get beyond 400mm with a 1.4x TC, you get a minimum f-stop so high that AF fails (your tried that didn't you?), and you are pushed to twice the ISO speed. And do remember, I was only explaining why I have little need for over ISO 800 when using the 50-200/2.8-5.6 not claiming that it gives equal telephoto reach to your longer, dimmer, 100-400/4-5.6!
The point that you seem to be forgetting is that the most basic ingredient in low light handling "speed" at elevated ISO speeds is how fast the camera (the lens, mostly) gathers light from the subject, in turn measured by the effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil diameter: focal length divided by aperture ratio. So within limits, a somewhat shorter lens of equal entrance pupil diameter (like 300mm f/4.2 vs 400mm f/5.6) used with proportionately smaller photosites to give the same angular resolution and used at the same shutter speed (so at suitably reduced ISO speed) will gather a roughly equal amount of photons at each of a roughly equal number of pixels over the same subject, and give roughly similar results for that subject. Lab. measures of DR are rather irrelevant at high ISO since wells do not fill (except at very extreme highlights, probably specular): shadow noise is the key, and photons gathered is the main key to that.
I did say that I might benefit from a TC and/or smaller pixels (to allow more cropping and avoid the lens brightness loss to a TC) didn't I? It would also be nice if something like the Sigma 100-300 f/4 were available in Four Thirds mount, but I see little point in getting a telephoto lens much dimmer than f/4 (like the Olympus 70-300/4-5.6) so long as the job can be done with a shorter, brighter lens used with either smaller pixels at less high ISO speed or with a TC.
-
But my point was that you do not have a 640mm lens. (Real focal lengths please: I do not claim to have a 400mm lens!) and sometimes your actual 400mm is not enough, and if you try to get beyond 400mm with a 1.4x TC, you get a minimum f-stop so high that AF fails (your tried that didn't you?), and you are pushed to twice the ISO speed. And do remember, I was only explaining why I have little need for over ISO 800 when using the 50-200/2.8-5.6 not claiming that it gives equal telephoto reach to your longer, dimmer, 100-400/4-5.6!
The point that you seem to be forgetting is that the most basic ingredient in low light handling "speed" at elevated ISO speeds is how fast the camera (the lens, mostly) gathers light from the subject, in turn measured by the effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil diameter: focal length divided by aperture ratio. So within limits, a somewhat shorter lens of equal entrance pupil diameter (like 300mm f/4.2 vs 400mm f/5.6) used with proportionately smaller photosites to give the same angular resolution and used at the same shutter speed (so at suitably reduced ISO speed) will gather a roughly equal amount of photons at each of a roughly equal number of pixels over the same subject, and give roughly similar results for that subject. Lab. measures of DR are rather irrelevant at high ISO since wells do not fill (except at very extreme highlights, probably specular): shadow noise is the key, and photons gathered is the main key to that.
I did say that I might benefit from a TC and/or smaller pixels (to allow more cropping and avoid the lens brightness loss to a TC) didn't I? It would also be nice if something like the Sigma 100-300 f/4 were available in Four Thirds mount, but I see little point in getting a telephoto lens much dimmer than f/4 (like the Olympus 70-300/4-5.6) so long as the job can be done with a shorter, brighter lens used with either smaller pixels at less high ISO speed or with a TC.
It doesn't matter. The relativities are the same. You have a real 200mm lens and I have a real 400mm lens. In FF 35mm terms, you have a 400mm equivalent and I have a 640mm equivalent. Shooting the same subject from the same distance then cropping your shot from an E-30 (if that's what you have), you end up with a 5mp image and I've got a 15mp image.
Issues of lens quality and high-ISO sensor quality must be taken into account. Zuiko lenses are generally sharper than Canon lenses, but they need to be as a result of the higher pixel density of the smaller 4/3rds sensor. In the absence of controlled 'shoot-outs' comparing both systems, we can only speculate and make reasonable deductions. I doubt that a 5mp image from an E-30 at F4.5, ISO 800 and 200mm would be as sharp and detailed as a 15mp image from the 50D at F5.6, ISO 1600 and 400mm. However, according to DXOMark, there's no doubt that the DR of the E-30 would be less in such circumstances.
If you use a 1.4x teleconverter, your E-30 image becomes 10mp, your ISO jumps to 1600, your DR goes down a stop, and your lens quality is reduced. Not a good scenario, BJL. I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
The fact that my 100-400 at 400mm and F5.6 loses autofocus with a teleconverter would be a problem if the teleconverter provided more than a very marginal advantage. But it doesn't, so it's not an issue. My teleconverter is essentially redundant. There's no substitute for a well-designed lens without teleconverter. This is particularly true in the current situation where sensors often out-resolve lenses and the clamour is for better lenses. Teleconverters make lenses worse.
I can inform Canon of my requirements for a realistic upgrade to the 100-400 IS, if they are listening. I want performance at F5.6, F8 and F11 (at 400mm) on a par with that of the 70-200 F4 IS (at 200mm). I don't need F4 because that would make the lens too heavy and I'm not particularly enthused with ultra-shallow DoF which causes focussing problems in complex environments. A 400mm lens at F11 on APS-C format provides sufficiently shallow DoF for me, although a significantly higher resolution at F5.6 would be appreciated on many occasions.
Image stabilisation in the latest lenses is also significantly improved. My 100-400 claims a 2 stop advantage. I believe up to 4 stops is now possible. That in itself would be a tremendous upgrade, but I'll settle for a realistic one stop improvement, if a 2 stop improvement is too difficult.
-
You have a real 200mm lens ...
And that is all that matters: I have a 200mm, f/3.5 lens. Do I have to repeat that I am not arguing the superiority of my gear over yours!
I was originally just explaining why, with f/3.5 at my longest available focal length, I have little need for more than ISO 800! If and when I add a TC, or a longer, slower lens, that could change.
And the second point I was making was than when the longest focal length(*) that you, or I, or anyone can justify having is not long enough to fill the frame with the desired subject, the solution is always in effect to use a smaller format, preferably with high enough resolution (small enough pixels) to give adequate detail. Maybe the smaller format is just a crop from the same sensor, but in your own case, the choice already has been a smaller format 40D body with smaller pixels than the 5D. Because, despite much speculation, the trend of smaller formats offering higher resolution in l/mm (smaller pixels) is holding up very well. (Except that DMF often offers pixel sizes as small as 35mm, like now.) For me, a DLSR format smaller than 4/3 is not an option, which is why I upgraded beyond my former 5MP when some of the crops looked ugly.
(*) "focal length", not "lens", to include possible TC usage.
-
And that is all that matters: I have a 200mm, f/3.5 lens. Do I have to repeat that I am not arguing the superiority of my gear over yours!
I see! I've misunderstood you. From the following statement, I thought you were recommending I switch to a smaller format such as the 4/3rds. To quote you from one of your previous posts:
Can't get close enough? Then you need a smaller format! (Fortunately, cropping counts as a smaller format, so long as your photosites are small enough to sustain the crop.)
Cropping is of course always an option whatever the lens and whatever the format. One does it automatically. That's so obvious I never realised that was the solution you were recommending.
Switching to a smaller format, such as the Olympus E-30, would make sense only if there were a Zuiko 100-400/F4 lens available of about the same weight as the Canon 100-400/F5.6, but better quality of course.
-
Well then I'm not sure where your disagreement with my original statement lies. What I said was that Canon took steps to improve overall high ISO performance, and that there was an negative impact on color response at low ISO. I didn't specifically say there was no impact to the color response at high ISO, although I do think that the impact is pretty much lost in other aspects of the high ISO performance, which is why you get a net gain in image quality at high ISO.
You can parse words however you want, I'm just glad Nikon made the design decisions they did with the D3x, rather than the design decisions Canon seems to be making on their newer cameras.
The Sony A900 is even closer to MFDB in color than the D3x. The D3x falls somewhere in between the A900 and the 5Dii in this regard. This requires the A900 to gain up more at high ISO, which creates its high ISO "issues."
-
The Sony A900 is even closer to MFDB in color than the D3x. The D3x falls somewhere in between the A900 and the 5Dii in this regard. This requires the A900 to gain up more at high ISO, which creates its high ISO "issues."
That's not what the DxOMark tests say.
-
That's not what the DxOMark tests say.
I'm talking about color response, not tonal range. Go back to DxO Mark and click on the color response tabs for both cameras. This tab isn't available in camera compare mode, so you have to look at the camera reviews separately. You'll see that, at over 87 in daylight, the A900 has the highest sensitivity metamerism index of any camera reviewed (ability to reproduce accurate colors.) According to Iliah Borg, who owns both cameras, the A900 has higher resolution in the greens as a result of its color separation. Apparently, Sony is using a much less "transparent" CFA than Canon, and Nikon falls somewhere in between the two. Obviously, this all results in trade offs, and, since the A900's CFA is less transparent, it requires more amplification for a given ISO, resulting in more noise outside of its native sensitivity.
-
I'm talking about color response, not tonal range. Go back to DxO Mark and click on the color response tabs for both cameras. This tab isn't available in camera compare mode, so you have to look at the camera reviews separately. You'll see that, at over 87 in daylight, the A900 has the highest sensitivity metamerism index of any camera reviewed (ability to reproduce accurate colors.) According to Iliah Borg, who owns both cameras, the A900 has higher resolution in the greens as a result of its color separation. Apparently, Sony is using a much less "transparent" CFA than Canon, and Nikon falls somewhere in between the two. Obviously, this all results in trade offs, and, since the A900's CFA is less transparent, it requires more amplification for a given ISO, resulting in more noise outside of its native sensitivity.
Interesting! On the face of it, it would seem that the D3X trumps the A900 in all departments that DXO measure. However, there's this curious specification called 'Sensitivity Metamerism Index' which is not included amongst the other headings of color sensitivity and color bit-depth, in the camera comparison modes.
It does indeed seem that the A900 has the capacity to produce more accurate colors than the D3X. Why doesn't DXO give this specification more prominence?
I see an explanation in their 'technology' section. To quote: The sensitivity metamerism index (SMI) is defined in the ISO Standard 17321 and describes the ability of a camera to reproduce accurate colors. Digital processing permits changing color rendering at will, but whether the camera can or cannot exactly and accurately reproduce the scene colors is intrinsic to the sensor response and independent of the raw converter.
In practice, the SMI for DSLRs ranges between 75 and 85, and is not very discriminating. It is different for low-end cameras (such as camera phones) which typically have a SMI of about 40. For this reason, we give this measurement as an indication but did not integrate it in DxO Mark.
-
Why doesn't DXO give this specification more prominence?
I see an explanation in their 'technology' section. To quote:
"In practice, the SMI for DSLRs ranges between 75 and 85, and is not very discriminating. ... For this reason, we give this measurement as an indication but did not integrate it in DxO Mark."
Thanks Ray! To paraphrase:
1. Not all measurable differences are significant or important in practice.
2. One should beware of people who grasp at one lab. measurement in which their favorite scores well and promote this measurement as the most important basis for discrimination between alternatives. Pixel count, extinction resolution in lines per picture height, noise levels at high ISO, DR ... and now SMI?!
-
Thanks Ray! To paraphrase:
1. Not all measurable differences are significant or important in practice.
2. One should beware of people who grasp at one lab. measurement in which their favorite scores well and promote this measurement as the most important basis for discrimination between alternatives. Pixel count, extinction resolution in lines per picture height, noise levels at high ISO, DR ... and now SMI?!
I am not grasping at one lab measurement. I was simply pointing out this lesser known fact, and I agree that the DxO result should be taken with a grain of salt. Iliah Borg can go on all day about how DxO Mark's testing procedures are less than perfect, but that is a topic that I'm not qualified to discuss. He IS qualified to discuss the differences in color separation in cameras, and he has praised the A900's color quite a bit. Regardless, I only know a few dual D3x and A900 users, not "I shot the A900 for a weekend with a couple of lenses," or vice versa, but actual owners of the cameras, and all of them attest to what Sony is doing with the color. The D3x has better DR and high ISO than the A900, and is a better camera in many instances, but the color separation of the A900 doesn't have a Nikon competitor....unless you go back to the D2x.
-
... I only know a few dual D3x and A900 users, not "I shot the A900 for a weekend with a couple of lenses," or vice versa, but actual owners of the cameras, and all of them attest to what Sony is doing with the color.
Evidence from such people like sample photos or a consistent consensus could be interesting then: a lab. measurement with no quantification of how large a difference has to be in order to be perceptible under certain viewing conditions, no.
I can intuitively see that narrowing the spectral response of eh CFA's can improve color accuracy in exchange for somewhat lower sensitivity. And I would think that for a good proportion of people interested in high (24MP) resolution, accurate colors are more important that low light handling.
After all, this site is called "The Luminous Landscape", not "The Dimly Lit Sports Venue".
-
Hi,
Having the Alpha 900 but not the competitors I'm not qualified to do comparisons. As I see it the Alpha 900 works very well up to ISO 320, at least. Now, I'm using my Alpha 900 with Lightroom 2.4, the Lightroom 3 Beta shows major gains in noise reduction on ISO 3200 and ISO 6400. The old ACR/Lightroom RAW-processing engine showed a signifiacnt "blotchiness" in high ISO images from the A900. This is gone with LR3 Beta, there is some "impulse noise" but I hope that is going to be improved in the final release.
It is interesting to see why different sensors having shared technology differ. I'm not really sure that CFA issues explain the difference. Some of the difference may depend on Nikon having a 14 bit readout while Sony has 12 bits.
Best regards
Erik
Evidence from such people like sample photos or a consistent consensus could be interesting then: a lab. measurement with no quantification of how large a difference has to be in order to be perceptible under certain viewing conditions, no.
I can intuitively see that narrowing the spectral response of eh CFA's can improve color accuracy in exchange for somewhat lower sensitivity. And I would think that for a good proportion of people interested in high (24MP) resolution, accurate colors are more important that low light handling.
After all, this site is called "The Luminous Landscape", not "The Dimly Lit Sports Venue".
-
Hi,
Having the Alpha 900 but not the competitors I'm not qualified to do comparisons. As I see it the Alpha 900 works very well up to ISO 320, at least. Now, I'm using my Alpha 900 with Lightroom 2.4, the Lightroom 3 Beta shows major gains in noise reduction on ISO 3200 and ISO 6400. The old ACR/Lightroom RAW-processing engine showed a signifiacnt "blotchiness" in high ISO images from the A900. This is gone with LR3 Beta, there is some "impulse noise" but I hope that is going to be improved in the final release.
It is interesting to see why different sensors having shared technology differ. I'm not really sure that CFA issues explain the difference. Some of the difference may depend on Nikon having a 14 bit readout while Sony has 12 bits.
Best regards
Erik
The sensor may be much the same, but the support electronics will substantively differ. It is that support electronics that accounts for the differences between the D3x and A900 at various ISO.
-
I'm talking about color response, not tonal range. Go back to DxO Mark and click on the color response tabs for both cameras. This tab isn't available in camera compare mode, so you have to look at the camera reviews separately. You'll see that, at over 87 in daylight, the A900 has the highest sensitivity metamerism index of any camera reviewed (ability to reproduce accurate colors.) According to Iliah Borg, who owns both cameras, the A900 has higher resolution in the greens as a result of its color separation. Apparently, Sony is using a much less "transparent" CFA than Canon, and Nikon falls somewhere in between the two. Obviously, this all results in trade offs, and, since the A900's CFA is less transparent, it requires more amplification for a given ISO, resulting in more noise outside of its native sensitivity.
I've never even noticed that test to be honest, probably because I'm usually comparing models. I was referring to the color depth test. The two tests have similar names but seem to measure slightly different aspects of performance - if I'm understanding the descriptions color depth is more relevant in shadows and mid-tones, color response more so in the highlights. I haven't used an a900 and won't claim to have in-depth knowledge of its performance. All I can say is working with D3x files I find the color and tonality to be better than any other DSLR whose files I've worked with or examined in-depth. However I don't think your conclusion about CFA strength is necessarily validated by the one test and not the other.
-
Shoot a wedding and your opinion may change.
For people who use a tripod on every shot, or only in a studio high iso isn't of a concern but for the rest of us that shoot weddings, pj/press, sports etc. it is kind of a big deal.
-
The sensor may be much the same, but the support electronics will substantively differ. It is that support electronics that accounts for the differences between the D3x and A900 at various ISO.
The D3x certainly has better support electronics than the A900, but the differences in CFAs between the two cameras also makes a difference in high ISO noise. The A900 requires more gain, because the CFA is less transparent. Iliah has talked a lot about this.
-
Someone knows how they differ? For instance Nikon could add external ADCs but they seem absent from the PCB. In what way is 12-bit and 14-bit readout different on the Nikon?
Best regards
Erik
The sensor may be much the same, but the support electronics will substantively differ. It is that support electronics that accounts for the differences between the D3x and A900 at various ISO.
-
Someone knows how they differ? For instance Nikon could add external ADCs but they seem absent from the PCB. In what way is 12-bit and 14-bit readout different on the Nikon?
Best regards
Erik
This is a good question that has yet to be definitively answered. There seem to be two camps on the subject. Either the D3x has actual 14bit processors on the chip, which would partly explain the higher price, or, the D3x does some kind of multi-sampling of the 12 bit data to reach 14 bits, which would explain the slower frame rate.
-
This is a good question that has yet to be definitively answered. There seem to be two camps on the subject. Either the D3x has actual 14bit processors on the chip, which would partly explain the higher price, or, the D3x does some kind of multi-sampling of the 12 bit data to reach 14 bits, which would explain the slower frame rate.
An even better question would be, "Can we please see some examples of the better color accuracy of the A900?"
I suggest that such comparisons would be meaningless because such differences in accuracy would be lost in the huge variability of RAW conversion settings.
I'm prepared to accept that there might be a useful application for scientific purposes, of the A900's greater color accuracy, if you show me the results.
-
Ray,
According to DxO-mark "Sensitivity Metamerism Index ISO 17321" is
Sony Alpha 900: 87.22
Nikon 3DX: 78.68
Under illuminant D. Figures are much closer under illuminant A, but Sony still somewhat higher.
I don't really know if this makes anyone more happy. Normally the Xrite Color Checker is used for calibration, so we either use manufacturer profiles or such based on CCC. If use CCC based profiles the question may be how well can we reproduce the CCC card after calibration.
Best regards
Erik
An even better question would be, "Can we please see some examples of the better color accuracy of the A900?"
I suggest that such comparisons would be meaningless because such differences in accuracy would be lost in the huge variability of RAW conversion settings.
I'm prepared to accept that there might be a useful application for scientific purposes, of the A900's greater color accuracy, if you show me the results.
-
Ray,
According to DxO-mark "Sensitivity Metamerism Index ISO 17321" is
Sony Alpha 900: 87.22
Nikon 3DX: 78.68
Under illuminant D. Figures are much closer under illuminant A, but Sony still somewhat higher.
I don't really know if this makes anyone more happy. Normally the Xrite Color Checker is used for calibration, so we either use manufacturer profiles or such based on CCC. If use CCC based profiles the question may be how well can we reproduce the CCC card after calibration.
Oh, I see that this discussed earlier, sorry.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
My take on the issue is that there are probably shooting situations where you need high ISO. Some other situations require high resolution. MFDBs seem to lack in high ISO performance but have plenty of resolution. If you are shooting sports or concerts you probably need high ISO but not necessarily high resolution, so Nikon D3/D700 make a lot of sense. Regarding architecture/landscape resolution is always nice to have but can be hard to utilize. We also need to print large to make the resolution visible, although there are some observations indicating that differences can be seen in small prints.
The ability to shoot higher ISO is always useful outside the studio. Subjects actually move. I recently shot landscape under windy conditions, even with a decent tripod (Gitzo GT3541LS) vibration may be a problem, especially if there is a play in the lens itself.
To sum up:
You need high ISO: use big pixel cameras like D3, D700 or Canon 1DIV
You need Megapixels: use D3X, Canon 5DII or Alpha 900 and crank up ISO if/when needed
Best regards
Erik
I am probably just being old fashioned here but I don't quite understand it when I see lots of photographers always wanting the ability to work at super high ISO settings. The general message is that any camera which isn't capable of shooting completely clean noise free images at 3200 ISO is a pile of junk. For many years I shot every image on 100 ISO film and somehow always managed. The photographer I assisted worked with EPR rated at 50 ISO and pushed 1/3rd so effectively it was 40 ISO but again, somehow we always managed whether shooting 35mm, medium or large format.
Today I shoot digital like most others but the camera stays on 100 ISO and I am reluctant to work at anything higher than 200 ISO because ultimately the best quality comes from sticking to a low ISO setting, so if I have to use a tripod or flash that's fine. Perhaps others are taking different sorts of images, but unless you spend a large chunk of your time walking around in the dark I don't see the need for this big emphasis on high ISO settings in day to day practical use.
-
Interesting article on D3s high ISO image quality. Rob sees between one and 2 stops improvement over the D3 which is nothing short of amazing considering the level already reached by the D3.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...d=7-10045-10329 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10045-10329)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting article on D3s high ISO image quality. Rob sees between one and 2 stops improvement over the D3 which is nothing short of amazing considering the level already reached by the D3.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...d=7-10045-10329 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10045-10329)
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeah, the D3s looks like a lowlight monster. Awesome work, Nikon.
-
It does seem that the D3s has about a one stop high-ISO advantage over the D3. However, I think there's something else going on which may not be confined to high-ISO performance, and that's the higher resolution of the D3s. It's particularly noticeable in the Rob Galbrath's shots from the D3s at, for example, ISO 3200 which is sharper (or slightly more detailed) than the D3 shot at ISO 3200. In fact, the D3s shot at ISO 3200 is even slightly sharper than the D3 shot at ISO 1600, but one wonders if the slower shutter speed at ISO 1600 has a bearing on this, considering the lens used does not have VR.
I get the impression from other comments that the D3s has an improved AA filter, and maybe better micro-lenses. If this is so, then one would expect the D3s to be slightly sharper and more detailed than the D3 at all ISOs.
-
I've thought of another reason for high ISO: flash throw. The more sensitive the camera is to light, the less light you need, and this equates to a flash that can throw perhaps hundreds of feet further than when using ISO 100.
I use the Canon 1DS MKIII and it's good at ISO 1600 (it's limit w/o artificial gain at 3200) if you get the exposure right. If you underexpose even one stop, it's crappy. Probably better to use ISO 800 and underexpose. I was in Vegas last week doing the SEMA car show and after I got to wander around Vegas at night. Well, to make a long story short, when shooting w/o a tripod (not allowed on the strip mall areas) and trying to shoot stop action, you really need more light. This is especially true while holding a 1DS MKII with a 70-200 f2.8 IS lens attached.
I can tell everyone here and now, if Canon's next 1DS model has a leap in high ISO performance, I'm in all the way--given that I can afford it. I'll post a couple of pictures later to show the difference in ISO 800/1600.
-
I use the Canon 1DS MKIII and it's good at ISO 1600 (it's limit w/o artificial gain at 3200) if you get the exposure right. If you underexpose even one stop, it's crappy. Probably better to use ISO 800 and underexpose.
I can tell everyone here and now, if Canon's next 1DS model has a leap in high ISO performance, I'm in all the way--given that I can afford it. I'll post a couple of pictures later to show the difference in ISO 800/1600.
It's always better to use ISO 800 than ISO 1600 if the shutter speed is sufficient at the lower ISO. One stop underexposure at ISO 800 should also be better than one stop underexposure at ISO 1600. However, a correct ETTR at ISO 1600 should be at least marginally better than the same exposure at ISO 800 (which would be one stop underexposure in relation to ISO 800).
The improved high-ISO performance of the D3s for me would result in less reluctance to use the moderately high ISOs of 1600 and 3200 where image degradation with the Canon models tends to become too obvious, especially in wildlife shots where the fine detail of feathers and texture tends to get smeared.
For this reason I'm considering the purchase of a 7D. If the 7D can produce an ETTR shot at ISO 3200 which is as good as an ETTR shot at ISO 1600 using the 50D (discounting the effects of different shutter speeds with regard to freezing of motion), then such improvement is a great bonus when added to the other improvements, such as video capability. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to resist getting a 7D, although it might be good for my character if I were to resist .
-
It's always better to use ISO 800 than ISO 1600 if the shutter speed is sufficient at the lower ISO. One stop underexposure at ISO 800 should also be better than one stop underexposure at ISO 1600. However, a correct ETTR at ISO 1600 should be at least marginally better than the same exposure at ISO 800 (which would be one stop underexposure in relation to ISO 800).
The improved high-ISO performance of the D3s for me would result in less reluctance to use the moderately high ISOs of 1600 and 3200 where image degradation with the Canon models tends to become too obvious, especially in wildlife shots where the fine detail of feathers and texture tends to get smeared.
For this reason I'm considering the purchase of a 7D. If the 7D can produce an ETTR shot at ISO 3200 which is as good as an ETTR shot at ISO 1600 using the 50D (discounting the effects of different shutter speeds with regard to freezing of motion), then such improvement is a great bonus when added to the other improvements, such as video capability. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to resist getting a 7D, although it might be good for my character if I were to resist .
Ray I've had a discussion with people on this site that say that underexposing one stop at ISO 800 is better than a correct exposure at ISO 1600. Also, if noise can be cleaned up, I have no problem with that, but like you said, with the Canon you get a smeared look if you push your luck too far. And there is no way to get rid of that. You just have a crappy image. I think I could even be happy is there was an improvement in ISO 1600. In other words, if you could use ISO 1600 like you do ISO 800 on the 1DS3, I'd be happy with that.
-
Ray I've had a discussion with people on this site that say that underexposing one stop at ISO 800 is better than a correct exposure at ISO 1600. Also, if noise can be cleaned up, I have no problem with that, but like you said, with the Canon you get a smeared look if you push your luck too far. And there is no way to get rid of that. You just have a crappy image. I think I could even be happy is there was an improvement in ISO 1600. In other words, if you could use ISO 1600 like you do ISO 800 on the 1DS3, I'd be happy with that.
Interesting! I wonder what's causing that. I could understand that the difference between ISO 800 being underexposed one stop and ISO 1600 being fully exposed might be so insignificant that it's not an issue. In such circumstances, it would generally be preferable to underexpose at ISO 800 for the sake of reducing the risk of miscalculated blown highlights.
However, that ISO 800 underexposed one stop should actually be better than the same exposure at ISO 1600, seems contradictory to DXOMark's test results which indicate the DR of the 1Ds3 at ISO800 is 10.07EV whereas the DR at ISO 100 is 9.24EV.
My reasoning would be that the DR at ISO800 underexposed one stop should be 9.07EV, which is slightly worse than the 9.24EV of a correctly exposed ISO1600.
The difference in SNR at 18% gray is equivalent to exactly one stop, ie 27.5dB at ISO1600 and 30.5dB at ISO800, a difference of 3dB being equivalent to one stop.
-
Interesting! I wonder what's causing that. I could understand that the difference between ISO 800 being underexposed one stop and ISO 1600 being fully exposed might be so insignificant that it's not an issue. In such circumstances, it would generally be preferable to underexpose at ISO 800 for the sake of reducing the risk of miscalculated blown highlights.
However, that ISO 800 underexposed one stop should actually be better than the same exposure at ISO 1600, seems contradictory to DXOMark's test results which indicate the DR of the 1Ds3 at ISO800 is 10.07EV whereas the DR at ISO 100 is 9.24EV.
My reasoning would be that the DR at ISO800 underexposed one stop should be 9.07EV, which is slightly worse than the 9.24EV of a correctly exposed ISO1600.
The difference in SNR at 18% gray is equivalent to exactly one stop, ie 27.5dB at ISO1600 and 30.5dB at ISO800, a difference of 3dB being equivalent to one stop.
I see what you mean. That's most likely correct. I was talking about shadow noise only. You get a less noisy image -1ev at ISO 800 than you do at ISO 1600 correctly exposed. Which means you are actually shooting at ISO 1600 with less noise.
-
I see what you mean. That's most likely correct. I was talking about shadow noise only. You get a less noisy image -1ev at ISO 800 than you do at ISO 1600 correctly exposed. Which means you are actually shooting at ISO 1600 with less noise.
You realize that if your claim is true, the Canon engineers are total idiots?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You realize that if your claim is true, the Canon engineers are total idiots?
Cheers,
Bernard
The last "true" ISO will often be close to a wash in this regard, no? Isn't that to be expected?
I know that on the D700, 3200 off by 1 stop and 6400 are hard to tell apart, but that's not the case at lower ISOs.
-
You realize that if your claim is true, the Canon engineers are total idiots?
Cheers,
Bernard
It's not my claim. I'm just passing information from a thread here at Luminous.
-
I see what you mean. That's most likely correct. I was talking about shadow noise only. You get a less noisy image -1ev at ISO 800 than you do at ISO 1600 correctly exposed. Which means you are actually shooting at ISO 1600 with less noise.
I'm not sure you do see what I mean. According to DXOMark, the noise at -1EV ISO800 and 18% gray is exactly the same as at 0EV ISO1600, with the 1Ds3. What differs is the dynamic range which is very marginally greater at 0EV ISO1600. Greater DR usually equates to less noise and more detail in the shadows at darker shades than 18% gray. However, since the difference in DR is less than 1/4 of a stop in favour of ISO1600, it's no big deal. The protection of highlights at -1EV ISO800 might be more worthwhile.
-
This has been covered by Emil Martinec at U Chicago here
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te.../noise-p3a.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3a.html)
It is a strange and subtle outcome that read noise should be best around ISO 1600 in many cases, and that an improved noise reduction strategy combines bi-amplified signals at ISO100 and ISO1600 in parallel. Martinec's Teddy Bear experiment shows the benefits of this.
Some has wondered whether Nikon is doing something like this in the D3x, but I've never seen a conclusive answer to that question.
-
This has been covered by Emil Martinec at U Chicago here
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te.../noise-p3a.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3a.html)
It is a strange and subtle outcome that read noise should be best around ISO 1600 in many cases, and that an improved noise reduction strategy combines bi-amplified signals at ISO100 and ISO1600 in parallel. Martinec's Teddy Bear experiment shows the benefits of this.
Some has wondered whether Nikon is doing something like this in the D3x, but I've never seen a conclusive answer to that question.
Can you point out where exactly in the paper it discusses that it is better to push than use "real" ISOs for a single capture? It is an interesting paper, but I don't think it addresses that point exactly.
-
Can you point out where exactly in the paper it discusses that it is better to push than use "real" ISOs for a single capture? It is an interesting paper, but I don't think it addresses that point exactly.
Quite true. The difference in shadow noise between ISO 100 underexposed 4 stops, and ISO 1600 at 0EV (the same exposure) is enormous. Emil concentrates on this in his image examples.
However, when comparing the noise & DR differences between ISOs that differ by only one stop, it's a different picture. The differences are far more subtle, but still in favour of the higher ISO.
I also get the impression that such differences between one ISO and another a stop higher, diminish as one goes up the ISO scale.
-
Today I shoot digital like most others but the camera stays on 100 ISO and I am reluctant to work at anything higher than 200 ISO because ultimately the best quality comes from sticking to a low ISO setting, so if I have to use a tripod or flash that's fine. Perhaps others are taking different sorts of images, but unless you spend a large chunk of your time walking around in the dark I don't see the need for this big emphasis on high ISO settings in day to day practical use.
As others have said, available light shooters are the market for the high ISO cameras. A high percentage of live music photographers are on a D3/D700 due to the ability to use 2.8 zooms and/or achieve greater DoF; whereas I am swapping primes on a MKIII @ 1600 during the 3, and usually at f2 or faster pushing the limits of 1/x and/or subject motion. The only flashes are those from the P&S in the audience... we get 3 songs, no flash. The best quality comes from using the best tools and technique to capture the moment under the circumstances at hand... if you look at the icons of the genre - they were pushing film to its limits back in the day, and are shooting High ISO digital today.
Net-net: I walk around in the dark taking pictures and each material jump in sensitivity/lower noise represents a significant improvement with respect to my needs. Would have been nice to have a sharper headstock and right arm...
ISO 3200 - 135/2 @ 1/125
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3353/3557109847_7fc9799b5e.jpg)
-
You realize that if your claim is true, the Canon engineers are total idiots?
Cheers,
Bernard
According to Iliah Borg, one shouldn't shoot past ISO 800 with either the D3x or A900, and should boost exposure in the RAW converter. ISO 1600 is where the second analog gain amplifiers kick in.
-
According to Iliah Borg, one shouldn't shoot past ISO 800 with either the D3x or A900, and should boost exposure in the RAW converter. ISO 1600 is where the second analog gain amplifiers kick in.
I have 1600 ISO set permanently on the D3x, and no complaints.
Edmund
-
I have 1600 ISO set permanently on the D3x, and no complaints.
Edmund
That is fine. ISO 1600 is certainly useable with the D3x, just not ideal. Try keeping it at ISO 800, and boosting it in RPP or RT.
-
Like I said before, higher ISO = lees light light which means your flashes can be much more efficient. At ISO 1600 I can light up evenly a HUGE house with 2 58EXs and get hundreds of flashes with 4 batteries. From a green POV that's a real advantage to saving power also. It also means you can do increasingly larger lighting jobs with less and less power.