Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: allegretto on October 29, 2014, 06:30:17 pm
-
Over the past 5 yrs one of the things that has spun my head around has been the high ISO performance of modern bodies from numerous manufacturers. We see pixels that have bushel basket capacities as in the D4s, A7s and 1DX that are easily capable of mid 5-digit functional ISO's that are certainly cleanable in post.
So while the maxi-MPx units work better up to the 400-800 ISO levels, they are left gasping for DR and noise at these dizzying ISO's. Of course this leap has trickled down to other models in the line and everyone has benefitted from the improvement
What I'd like to know is; how many stops do you gain now vs. what you were doing 5 yrs or so ago? I realize that some of you always shot low ISO and still do, so if its meant nothing to you, that's good too. Shooting family and children at play the difference has been enormous. Had a D4 and it was killer at this but just too heavy. Going to audition an A7s next, but my 6D ain't too shabby at all.
In any case, has it affected your shooting and if so, how much?
Thanks in advance...
-
With the D600 I now feel comfortable turning on auto ISO<=3200 for low light. I used to strain to get the image under ISO400. Now I don't fret. Shoot, move on.
-
I've been a high-ISO guy since film days. Tri-X and HP5+ pushed to EI 1600, Delta 3200 used anywhere from EI 1250 to 12500, Fuji ISO 1600 color neg, etc. The earliest D-SLRs were actually a step down in this regard…the patterned noise above ISO 800 or so was pretty ugly, at least with the Canon 10D & 20D I used c. 2003–4.
I love film grain. I like non-patterened luminance noise too and frequently boost ISO to get more of it. Chroma noise I'm not so crazy about, but it can be easily mitigated. Not that you'd know anything about it from browsing LuLa forum topics, but there are plenty of folks who deliberately incorporate high levels of noise into their photographic styles. To me it's just the visual equivalent of overdriving a guitar amp.
-Dave-
-
To me it's just the visual equivalent of overdriving a guitar amp.
-Dave-
Oh man... now yer talkin'...!
How many stages of gain (overdriven) have you used on-stage... after a stomp box....?
-
... In any case, has it affected your shooting and if so, how much?
It's been quite liberating.
I am now using auto ISO most of the time, allowing the camera to go up to 6400, and I've made quite a number of great shots at that speed. Portraits, cityscapes, both commercial and personal work. And mind you, I am using a lowly 60D, from a brand that is now a synonym for the worst sensor on the planet ;) It allows me to think about the shot and not whether I should have brought a tripod with me. I am definitely past the point where I would say "Nah, I am not going to shoot this as it requires ISO above 400," as I hear some here are saying.
-
How many stages of gain (overdriven) have you used on-stage... after a stomp box....?
;D I like clean amps in a live setting, a Fender Bassman or Showman (blonde or blackface) or Vox AC30 with the volume kept reasonable, with a set of pedals supplying the oomph. Looking at my board right now I've got, in ascending gain order, a Visual Sound Open Road (imagine a Tube Screamer without the bass cut or midrange boost), a fairly new DOD 250 Overdrive (great upper-mid grind!) and an early '90s DOD FX52 Classic Fuzz (a terrific & way underrated take on the "ram's head" Big Muff). A Little More, A Lot More & WTF! :) At home I crank a Vox AC4 (the current handwired version) or Fender Champ (tweed or blackface…got one of each) and control volume & breakup from the guitar. For loud-ish & clean at home I have an Ampeg Super Echo Twin, from 1963, a gorgeous sounding amp.
Way off-topic…ahem. ;)
-Dave-
-
It is certainly making my tripod feel unloved.
Excellent (virtually) noise-free images with superb tonal gradation and dynamic range at ISO 6400 are an everyday reality with the D810 whereas, only a few short years ago, I would have been reaching for the tripod if an ISO in excess of 400 was indicated for a hand-held shot.
-
Twin 10" cabinets?
;D I like clean amps in a live setting, a Fender Bassman or Showman (blonde or blackface) or Vox AC30 with the volume kept reasonable, with a set of pedals supplying the oomph. Looking at my board right now I've got, in ascending gain order, a Visual Sound Open Road (imagine a Tube Screamer without the bass cut or midrange boost), a fairly new DOD 250 Overdrive (great upper-mid grind!) and an early '90s DOD FX52 Classic Fuzz (a terrific & way underrated take on the "ram's head" Big Muff). A Little More, A Lot More & WTF! :) At home I crank a Vox AC4 (the current handwired version) or Fender Champ (tweed or blackface…got one of each) and control volume & breakup from the guitar. For loud-ish & clean at home I have an Ampeg Super Echo Twin, from 1963, a gorgeous sounding amp.
Way off-topic…ahem. ;)
-Dave-
-
Each morning, before going to work, I kneel down and thank the Gods of Photography for the gift they have given me to use, a clean high-ISO DSRL. I can not understand how I managed to make a living with 100 and 400 ASA color reversal films and early digital cameras.
-
I am tempted to stay out late at night to photograph the Milky Way and other objects / events (meteor shower, eclipse).
-
Twin 10" cabinets?
The Ampeg? No, it's two 12" speakers (and, actually, two separate amps as well) in a single cabinet, though you can use extension cabs if you want. With reverb it has a sorta stereo mode: dry signal from one speaker, reverb signal from the other. A unique sound. I'm not aware of any modern copies or digital emulations.
Getting back to high ISOs, I regularly use my Oly E-M1 at ISO 6400 and the A7r at 12800. With the M8.2s I don't like going above ISO 1250…too much patterned noise. But the Leicas let me get grainy/noisy in relatively bright conditions, and their IR sensitivity lets me shoot in IR handheld with the sun out.
-Dave-
-
I think that the real killer is the combination of better high ISO image quality with Auto ISO.
Being able to set speed and aperture in M mode, and then to let ISO play freely is genius, so is the ability to link automatically in A mode the minimal shutter speed to the actual focal length of the [zoom] lens being used.
Even on lenses without stabilization, I don't remember the last time I opened a file at 100% in C1 Pro and thought... argh... hand shake induced blur...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For landscapes, it hasn't changed anything in my workflow.
For everything else, I set auto-ISO to 1600 in my EM-1, no problem. That, plus image stabilization, is indeed liberating.
-
I pretty much shoot only ISO 100 to 200.
-
Me too. You've hit the nail squarely...!
I don't use it much for DoF control, but I can see that some would if that suits them.
I think that the real killer is the combination of better high ISO image quality with Auto ISO.
Being able to set speed and aperture in M mode, and then to let ISO play freely is genius, so is the ability to link automatically in A mode the minimal shutter speed to the actual focal length of the [zoom] lens being used.
Even on lenses without stabilization, I don't remember the last time I opened a file at 100% in C1 Pro and thought... argh... hand shake induced blur...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Over the past 5 yrs one of the things that has spun my head around has been the high ISO performance of modern bodies from numerous manufacturers. We see pixels that have bushel basket capacities as in the D4s, A7s and 1DX that are easily capable of mid 5-digit functional ISO's that are certainly cleanable in post...
What I'd like to know is; how many stops do you gain now vs. what you were doing 5 yrs or so ago? ...
In any case, has it affected your shooting and if so, how much?
For me, the breakthrough was six years ago when I got my first Nikon D3. A year before, I had defected to Canon, but thankfully kept all my Nikon lenses. A year or so after I got my D3's, I made these images, which I'd never have been able to do before:
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/_D322175.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/_D321037.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/_D322672.jpg)
The D3 and the D3s also let me do this series: http://www.kasson.com/galleries/staccato.php (http://www.kasson.com/galleries/staccato.php)
Jim
-
For anything I am going to print, I won't shoot over ISO 800 with the D800E, above that I am losing too much detail. I can clean up the noise, yes, but don't like the look. I admit I am not the best when it comes to noise reduction, though.
-
Over the past 5 yrs one of the things that has spun my head around has been the high ISO performance of modern bodies from numerous manufacturers. We see pixels that have bushel basket capacities as in the D4s, A7s and 1DX that are easily capable of mid 5-digit functional ISO's that are certainly cleanable in post.
So while the maxi-MPx units work better up to the 400-800 ISO levels, they are left gasping for DR and noise at these dizzying ISO's. Of course this leap has trickled down to other models in the line and everyone has benefitted from the improvement
What I'd like to know is; how many stops do you gain now vs. what you were doing 5 yrs or so ago? I realize that some of you always shot low ISO and still do, so if its meant nothing to you, that's good too. Shooting family and children at play the difference has been enormous. Had a D4 and it was killer at this but just too heavy. Going to audition an A7s next, but my 6D ain't too shabby at all.
In any case, has it affected your shooting and if so, how much?
Thanks in advance...
Considering we are getting more resolution and less noise (film grain), yeah it has changed how I shoot. It is still a balance between shutter speed, aperture and ISO though. But it all depends on the target output, subject, setup and needs. But, in general, I do things at ISO 1600 - 3200 I never would have done with film. In the studio, I'll crank the flash up and not the ISO. Shooting landscape, I might extend the shutter speed before ISO, but there are times a little bump from 100 to 200 or 400 makes a shot possible in a way it might not otherwise be executed. Basically, it provides more creative freedom!
Personally, I see the launch of so many f/4 constant aperture lenses, partly a function of high ISO performance combined with VR/IS.
-
Working as a media photographer at the 2012-2013 America's Cup in San Francisco it was a revelation bouncing on the water in the media boats following
foiling 70 foot catamarans flying at 40 plus knots while using my Canon 5D2"s with a 400 mm F5.6L and 24-105 mm F4 lenses in RAW format at 800 ISO. Using back button focus and 3200 th of second exposure assured clean sharp images printed to 20x30 inches. The 400 mm was especially exciting to use since it was so sharp wide open at F 5.6. Outstanding lense. The optimal f stop for the 24-205 mm was f 8. Back button focus setup saved the day since the Canon 5D2 is not known for great auto focus. Most photographers were making images in RAW format at 400 ISO, 1000-2000 of a second shutter speed but I'm sure they were able to push it much faster when needed. Since my work always goes to print I tested and decided that 800 ISO worked best for me so long as I could sustain the stop action images I needed. I have no doubt I could have pushed the ISO further if needed. It truly is a new world for those of us who depended on a tripod and mirrow lockup for our image sharpness.
-
This image is a better example of what I was talking about in my prior post.
-
Working as a media photographer at the 2012-2013 America's Cup in San Francisco it was a revelation bouncing on the water in the media boats following foiling 70 foot catamarans flying at 40 plus knots…
I really like that first photo you posted. Well seen!
-Dave-
-
I really like that first photo you posted. Well seen!
-Dave-
I agree. Great!
-
+1
-
Thanks for your positive responses. It always means a lot coming from outstanding photographers like yourselves.
Michael
-
Speaking about liberating... would a shot like this be possible even a few years ago? When I saw the way a late afternoon sun, just about to set behind horizon, is illuminating my daughter's face, sitting on the floor, in a New York high rise with windows floor to ceiling, I just grabbed my camera and got a few frames before it disappeared for the day. I had my 70-200/4 on the camera (60D), so f/4, 1/60 of a second (for the effective focal length of 112mm - thank you, image stabilization), and... ISO 6400!!!
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3484/13024580505_2e5ba9cbc1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/kQWo1R)
Taking a Selfie (https://flic.kr/p/kQWo1R) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
-
I use very low flash power now!
-
Slobodan,
Having a son in his Junior year at the University of California, Davis I celebrate and congratulate you on being Dad to such a beautiful daughter.
Michael
-
Hey, thanks, Michael, appreciated!
You are about 3-5 years early, though. :) She is 15 now (14 in the picture).
-
(60D) and... ISO 6400!!!
Thanks for the reminder that I need to take another look at higher ISO on my "lowly" α35 (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-35-versus-Nikon-D60___716_196).
-
Thanks for the reminder that I need to take another look at higher ISO on my "lowly" α35 (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-35-versus-Nikon-D60___716_196).
Your "lowly" isn't so when compared to my 60D. It has one more stop of dynamic range, and almost the same optimum ISO level. Which brings us to another topic, how absolute are those DXO numbers. As I said in another thread, those numbers a accurate, except they do not tell the whole story. They can be especially misleading for newbies, who see, for instance, that my 60D (and your camera) has optimal max ISO at around 800 ISO and come to a (wrong) conclusion that they should never shoot above that.
My point is that you should always acquire an image, and worry about quality later. If the content matters, the rest will fall in place.
-
… 60D (and your camera) has optimal max ISO at around 800 ISO and come to a (wrong) conclusion that they should never shoot above that.
Do you have a comparison between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 +3EV in Lightroom?
My point is that you should always acquire an image, and worry about quality later.
In darkened rooms I still take the photographs, but at f2 1/40th-1/80th ISO400-800 and then increase EV in RawTherapee.
-
Interesting question/thread....relating to the new lease on photographic life I will be buying this month....
....These are my first shots ever taken with a Nikon dSLR (I've been a Canon guy from the start of my digital age)
....taken this week "test-driving" the Nikon D610....
They are in fact my first shots ever taken with ANY dSLR over ISO 1600 and these are very (dare I say stunningly) impressive @ 2500
...and they are nothing more than Nikon default settings...SOOB... with some minor tweaking in PS
...taken at BBuy with MF Vivitar Series1 28-90/2.8-3.5
I don't crop a lot...I'm not a pixel peeper...but I've included the full frame and cropped the shots here as I would expect to in real-world shooting....the forum's resizing does damage/degrade them a bit but "you get the picture", right?
Here's a link to their original uploaded file size:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1329119
To OP's question...the sensor's ability at allow me to shoot at less than wide open apertures (here F4 and 5.6 vs 2.8/3.5 ) for "just enough" DoF to "get the shot" and at a shutter speed fast enough (1/100 and 1/60) to freeze my old shaky hands and the action....
I'm getting the D610 not just to add to my photography, but to add years to my photography....with practice, a lot of practice with Nikon machinery...
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/UQxJlJ.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/901/5v3k9s.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/537/WkuzlC.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/745/OioUfD.jpg)
-
Do you have a comparison between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 +3EV in Lightroom?...
I wouldn't mind seeing one, but I do not care that much about a potential difference to do the test myself.
-
Do you have a comparison between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 +3EV in Lightroom?
In darkened rooms I still take the photographs, but at f2 1/40th-1/80th ISO400-800 and then increase EV in RawTherapee.
Good question
Will do just that and let ya know, unless you beat me to it
My impression with fooling around in LR is that to a point it's gonna look similarly. It's just a matter of what "point" you can take it. 3 stops is lot already. Not sure LR can expand that linearly... but will find out...
-
Taken with a D3 on a very black night between rain showers, now all I have to do is convince editors that just because its dark doesn't mean to say it's not a worthy image.
-
Do you have a comparison between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 +3EV in Lightroom?
I wouldn't mind seeing one, but I do not care that much about a potential difference to do the test myself.
f/4, 1/60s, 85mm APS-C, Sony SLT-α35.
Center-crops: 6400, 800+3EV, 100+6EV (RAW processed with RawTherapee).
-
f/4, 1/60s, 85mm APS-C, Sony SLT-α35.
With NR: 6400, 800+3EV, 100+6EV (RAW processed with RawTherapee).
-
Thanks, Isaac, for doing this.
To my eyes, there is little, if any, difference between 6400 and 800+3 shots. 100+6 however is visibly noisier.
Question: I do not know much about your camera (a35)... is that one of those ISO-less cameras or...?
Question #2: is there any reason to shoot 800+3 instead of 6400?
-
To my eyes, there is little, if any, difference between 6400 and 800+3 shots. 100+6 however is visibly noisier.
Yep.
Question: I do not know much about your camera (a35)... is that one of those ISO-less cameras or...?
You mistake me for someone who knows what they're talking about, we'll have to ask Jim Kasson ;-)
-
You mistake me for someone who knows what they're talking about, we'll have to ask Jim Kasson ;-)
Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the a35.
Jim
-
I've been a high-ISO guy since film days. Tri-X and HP5+ pushed to EI 1600, Delta 3200 used anywhere from EI 1250 to 12500, Fuji ISO 1600 color neg, etc. The earliest D-SLRs were actually a step down in this regard…the patterned noise above ISO 800 or so was pretty ugly, at least with the Canon 10D & 20D I used c. 2003–4.
I love film grain. I like non-patterened luminance noise too and frequently boost ISO to get more of it. Chroma noise I'm not so crazy about, but it can be easily mitigated. Not that you'd know anything about it from browsing LuLa forum topics, but there are plenty of folks who deliberately incorporate high levels of noise into their photographic styles. To me it's just the visual equivalent of overdriving a guitar amp.
-Dave-
I've mentioned doing similar myself, but the whole idea of wanting grain/noise seemed to really upset some people. :o
Kodak Tri-X at 1600 and Kodak Recording film at 3200 in Acuspeed were combos I liked to use.
-
but the whole idea of wanting grain/noise seemed to really upset some people. :o
It's getting noise without wanting it that's upsetting to me, because I wanted the detail.
-
For my media work, it's a game changer. It's nice to be able to go on a police raid at midnight into a very dark area and be able to shoot without flash, I have a flash on my second body for faster moving things.
-
Question: I do not know much about your camera (a35)... is that one of those ISO-less cameras or...?
After looking through Guillermo Luijk's post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60031.msg483914#msg483914) and Dx0 Mark measurements (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/SLT-Alpha-35---Measurements) (click "Dynamic Range"), I guess the answer is yes and no :-)
Between nominal ISO 800 through 6400 there's a 1 stop loss of DR for every extra stop of measured ISO -- so yes.
Between nominal ISO 100 through 800, there's less than 1 stop loss -- so no.
All other things being equal, I guess that means up to ISO 800 it's better to increase ISO.
Question #2: is there any reason to shoot 800+3 instead of 6400?
See Determining if a sensor is "ISOless" (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60031.msg484008#msg484008)
-
I wouldn't mind seeing one, but I do not care that much about a potential difference to do the test myself.
I have tried to do this test myself, but it is hard (for me) to get right. One would expect (from measurements, theory and claims from those who have studied the subject) that raising ISO has some advantages (shadow noise for Canon cameras) up to a point (e.g. ISO1600 or ISO3200), and some disadvantages (highlight clipping).
The wildcard is that your raw developer (Lightroom in my case) might not do +4Ev in the straightforward way.
-h
-
I am now using auto ISO most of the time, allowing the camera to go up to 6400, and I've made quite a number of great shots at that speed. Portraits, cityscapes, both commercial and personal work. And mind you, I am using a lowly 60D, from a brand that is now a synonym for the worst sensor on the planet ;)
I believe that Canon receive critique for their DR at _low_ ISO. At high ISO settings, I believe that they are state-of-the-art.
-h
-
Do you have a comparison between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 +3EV in Lightroom?
I wouldn't mind seeing one, but I do not care that much about a potential difference to do the test myself.
The difference in the shadows will be none. The difference in the highlights when proper processing is applied can be up to 3 extra stops of highlight information (very interesting when strong light sources enter the frame such as the sun, lamps, reflections, shiny surfaces, fire,...).
In brief: ISO800+3EV in pp will always produce equal or better quality images than ISO6400 when shooting in RAW, never worse (same aperture and shutter is assumed).
-
Thanks for making that clear.
-
The difference in the shadows will be none. The difference in the highlights when proper processing is applied can be up to 3 extra stops of highlight information (very interesting when strong light sources enter the frame such as the sun, lamps, reflections, shiny surfaces, fire,...).
In brief: ISO800+3EV in pp will always produce equal or better quality images than ISO6400 when shooting in RAW, never worse (same aperture and shutter is assumed).
Just to clarify: that holds true for ISO-less sensors only? I mean, my Canon files do not behave like that. Or, in other words, my Canon files at 6400 are visibly better in shadows and not worse in highlights than 800+3. Or, in the case of the attached example ISO 5000 vs. ISO 500 +3 ⅓.
-
In brief: ISO800+3EV in pp will always produce equal or better quality images than ISO6400 when shooting in RAW, never worse (same aperture and shutter is assumed).
To add to Slobodans comment:
Your statements seems to rely on the camera being so-called "ISO-less" (or at least ISO-less in that particular range) AND your raw editor behaving in a certain way (lineary multiplying raw camera channels).
Practice trumps theory. If this works for you, then good. If not, then the theory must be restricted.
-h
-
Correct. Since most sensors behave ISOless from ISO1600-3200, that holds true for (nearly, the A7S seems a counterexample) any camera from ISO1600-3200.
I.e. ISO1600-3200 produces equal or better images than any superior ISO, never worse (assuming the same aperture and shutter).
Practice trumps theory. If this works for you, then good. If not, then the theory must be restricted.
It doesn't work for me since I mostly shoot RAW+JPEG and expose with JPEG in mind (well not in mind, in the EVF :D ).
-
Correct. Since most sensors behave ISOless from ISO1600-3200, that holds true for (nearly, the A7S seems a counterexample) any camera from ISO1600-3200.
The D810 is another counterexample, although this may be due to in-camera raw processing:
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/d810rnvsiso.PNG)
Test protocol: Image pairs, subtracted and divided by 1.414 for standard deviation, added and divided by 2 for mean. FWC and RN sum of squared error fitted by ISO, using Nelder-Mead downhill simplex. Points under SNR = 2 discarded.
Jim
-
Jim, what are we seeing in that graph? This time, English please :)
-
Jim, what are we seeing in that graph? This time, English please :)
It's the noise floor of a raw image (all 4 raw channels plotted) vs in-camera ISO setting. You can see that something happens between ISO 2500 and ISO 3200 that causes a discontinuity in the curve, with the background noise dropping suddenly at that point.
Therefore, if you're going to boost the dark parts of the picture a lot in post, and you're trying to decide between setting the camera to ISO 2000, 2500 or 3200, you might want to pick 3200. Or not, depending on how Nikon is accomplishing this.
Is that clear? Is it at least in English?
Jim
-
I am confused. Whatever the graph represents, it seems to be the best at ISO 64, from which it gradually declines (getting worse) and then suddenly drops at 3200 (i.e., getting much worse). So, my layman conclusion is not to set the camera to 3200 or more, but to stick to up to 2500. That appears to be the opposite of what you are saying. I am sure I must be wrong, but where?
-
The graph is noise. Less noise is better, yes?
Is that the Nikon black point chop off that annoys some astronomy types? I have read in some forums Nikon clips the black. I have also read that there is a firmware fix for people that want that data. Of course for regular photography the clipping is usually fine.
-
The graph is noise. Less noise is better, yes?..
Less is better, of course, but the graph seems to show that the worst noise is at ISO 64, which, again, seems counterintuitive.
-
Less is better, of course, but the graph seems to show that the worst noise is at ISO 64, which, again, seems counterintuitive.
This is noise measured at the sensor. If it would help, I can compute the curves for noise measured after the in-camera amplifier whose gain the ISO knob controls. That would be the noise that you'd see in the raw file. Would you like me to do that?
Jim
-
The graph is noise. Less noise is better, yes?
For most people, most of the time, yes.
Is that the Nikon black point chop off that annoys some astronomy types? I have read in some forums Nikon clips the black. I have also read that there is a firmware fix for people that want that data. Of course for regular photography the clipping is usually fine.
The D810 has an entirely different black point algorithm than its predecessors.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6783
My way of computing the read noise gets around the in-camera black point fiddles almost entirely.
Jim
-
Less is better, of course, but the graph seems to show that the worst noise is at ISO 64, which, again, seems counterintuitive.
Considering the noise as measured at the sensor is appropriate if you're trying to decide whether to crank up the ISO or push in post, since you're going to take the same amount of gain one way or the other. The graph shows that you're just about as well off pushing in post from say, 800 to 2000 and 3200 to 6400. Pushing in post has advantages in highlight recovery, especially with modern versions of Lightroom.
A caveat: however important it is in some circumstances, read noise is not the entire noise story, and the technique that I used cancels out the component of read noise that is the same shot-to-shot.
Jim
-
This topic prompted me to spend Thanksgiving with the 24-70mm f/2.8 on the D7100 to test it out. Shot all day using only a little on camera flash for fill in some shots. It was very enlightening. The camera was set to Auto ISO with a min shutter speed of 1/50th. Shots ranged from ISO 200 - 6400.
Observations:
1. The D7100 has really decent ISO performance for a 2 year old, DX size sensor with 3.9 micron pixels.
2. f/4 proved sufficient for DoF for most candid shots even though in normal shooting the camera would be trying for f/5.6
3. Except in situations with really bad backlighting, lack of flash was not a big issue.
4. Seemed that highly saturated colors suffered most from the higher ISO.
-
The 7100 was my last Nikon
Did not like it above 1600
Very red/orange skin tones
Not a "bad camera" just not a fun one for me.
-
The 7100 was my last Nikon
Did not like it above 1600
Very red/orange skin tones
Not a "bad camera" just not a fun one for me.
I normally shoot it in RAW or Neutral Picture Control. It does struggle with over-saturation in yellows and oranges. But every camera needs 'tamed' or semi calibrated in some way.
-
Hi Solobodan,
It is a question about signal vs noise. What you see is that noise goes down at higher ISO settings, but signal is also going down when exposure os decreased. In Jim's example noise is reduced from say 6 electron charges to 3 electron charges when going from 100 ISO to 1600 ISO, but signal would decrease 16-times.
So, 100 ISO would have something like 8X better signal noise ratio than 1600 ISO.
Best regards
Erik
Less is better, of course, but the graph seems to show that the worst noise is at ISO 64, which, again, seems counterintuitive.
-
Before going to sleep last night I was sitting on my bed, strumming & picking my namesake guitar, when I noticed that it looked quite nice in the muted light (I have a multi-bulb fixture controlled by a dimmer, which was backed off from maximum). So I stopped playing, grabbed my Oly E-M1 with 12–40mm lens along with a clean bath towel and took some pics. I snapped away for ~40 minutes, all photos in the ISO 2500–6400 range with the lens wide open—f/2.8—after which I processed some of 'em on my iPad. Just the JPEGs since this was a spur-of-the-moment thing. I like the results. There's some noise, which I made no attempt to minimize…I think it adds a pleasant texture. There's no way I'd have done such a thing prior to current tech. In particular using the m43 format let me shoot at a relatively fast aperture while still providing enough depth-of-field for reasonable definition in OOF areas. There are no exhibition images in the lot, nor anything I'm likely to print, but that wasn't the intent. I acted on impulse, had fun doing it and as a result now have an iPad Photos folder containing more pics of my favorite musical instrument than I'd taken of it during the past 20 years. :)
-Dave-
-
I often read that cheap lenses suffer on FX sensors...but.....I just got the D610 and have learned yet another lesson....
The quality of the 610 sensor's IQ @ 3200 make it possible to use F8 with a nice fast shutter speed in cloudy situations getting the most out of such lenses...
It's nice that I can meter with them on the Nikon, and it's nice that the 610's LED confirm focus works well too...also nice that I can view/focus wide open while the aperture is set for a smaller aperture....
I just shot this with the really cheap manual focus Tamron Adaptall-2 70-210mm/F3.8-4....ISO 3200....@ F8.
This is full frame and 2 crops, center and corner...
These are not 100% crops because that isn't how I shoot..
However, these are 3200 pixels wide crops reduced to 1600 wide, crops I may have to resort to, and are posted here as examples of how well the 610 works with such a "low-rent" lens....Of course, the less cropping the better.
...I've had the 610 for only a week and I'm very impressed with how much I can get out of my lenses....most are Nikkor primes, but the Vivitar Series1 zooms I have and this Tamron are surprisingly good...
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7525/15869488686_a33d037103_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qbkh6U)70FF (https://flic.kr/p/qbkh6U) by kitaflix (https://www.flickr.com/people/49563933@N07/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7544/15707800688_32401ee523_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pW3zTN)70C32u42 (https://flic.kr/p/pW3zTN) by kitaflix (https://www.flickr.com/people/49563933@N07/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7555/15273032804_6e1458cf6a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pgChxN)70Cc32u42 (https://flic.kr/p/pgChxN) by kitaflix (https://www.flickr.com/people/49563933@N07/), on Flickr
-
... It is a question about signal vs noise. What you see is that noise goes down at higher ISO settings, but signal is also going down when exposure os decreased. In Jim's example noise is reduced from say 6 electron charges to 3 electron charges when going from 100 ISO to 1600 ISO, but signal would decrease 16-times.
So, 100 ISO would have something like 8X better signal noise ratio than 1600 ISO.
Thanks, Erik.
I did faintly remember that I read something along those lines before, but now that you spelled it, it makes sense again.
-
It is a question about signal vs noise.
Exactly why SNR is what gets measured. Having a number for noise is pointless in itself. Why we are concerned with the shadow regions isn't because the noise is worse there, but because the signal is so much smaller there and gets overcome by the noise! The key is can I find the signal within the noise. I work military imaging systems of all types. Target discrimination goes a step further trying to determine what is signal (target) versus noise (other attributes) in the image itself.
-
:-)
Thanks, Erik.
I did faintly remember that I read something along those lines before, but now that you spelled it, it makes sense again.
-
I got myself a full-frame camera recently (Canon 6D)... I almost feel like a real photographer now. ;)
Took it for a spin to the holiday-lights lit streets of Chicago, with my daughter as the model. Put a little hot-shoe flash (Canon 220ex) in its place and put ISO to 3200. Why so high? To capture the holiday lights behind and to provide for a more pleasing combination of direct flash and ambient light. The lens was 24-105/f4 L at 105mm and f/4. Here is the result:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7492/15996713946_1feb609cd8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qnzkJS)
Sandra, Holiday Lights (https://flic.kr/p/qnzkJS) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
And then there is this portrait with a meager restaurant light, shot at ISO 16,000 (no, not 1,600), at 50mm, 1/40s handheld, no flash. Not a particularly nice facial expression, it was around 10-11pm, she was already tired as she worked that morning from 7am. But still, it was ISO 16,000!!! Yes, there was some Lightroom processing and noise reduction, but sharpness and detail remained nevertheless.
-
I got myself a full-frame camera recently (Canon 6D)... I almost feel like a real photographer now. ;)
Took it for a spin to the holiday-lights lit streets of Chicago, with my daughter as the model. Put a little hot-shoe flash (Canon 220ex) in its place and put ISO to 3200. Why so high? To capture the holiday lights behind and to provide for a more pleasing combination of direct flash and ambient light. The lens was 24-105/f4 L at 105mm and f/4. Here is the result:
And then there is this portrait with a meager restaurant light, shot at ISO 16,000 (no, not 1,600), at 50mm, 1/40s handheld, no flash. Not a particularly nice facial expression, it was around 10-11pm, she was already tired as she worked that morning from 7am. But still, it was ISO 16,000!!! Yes, there was some Lightroom processing and noise reduction, but sharpness and detail remained nevertheless.
Slobodan,
It might be interesting to run that image through DXO's latest version, to see what their PRIME noise reduction would do with it. I've had petty amazing results from that with my 6D at high ISOs.
-
Slobodan,
It might be interesting to run that image through DXO's latest version, to see what their PRIME noise reduction would do with it. I've had petty amazing results from that with my 6D at high ISOs.
Right, might give it a try. I did not do much in Lightroom, just Noise Reduction Luminance to +40 and Sharpening Amount to 55 (the rest are from the LR Faces preset, i.e., Radius 1.4, Detail 15, Masking 60)
-
I have to say that I use the 6D for night sky photography at ISO 1600 to ISO 3200, single-shot mode (no stacking), and get really good results with very little chrominance noise at ISO 1600 at least. I don't like to smooth out chrominance noise in Lr because it also smooths out star colors. The subtle star colors are part of the charm of a night sky landscape photograph. It is a nice camera.
-
I got myself a full-frame camera recently (Canon 6D)... I almost feel like a real photographer now. ;)
Took it for a spin to the holiday-lights lit streets of Chicago, with my daughter as the model. Put a little hot-shoe flash (Canon 220ex) in its place and put ISO to 3200. Why so high? To capture the holiday lights behind and to provide for a more pleasing combination of direct flash and ambient light. The lens was 24-105/f4 L at 105mm and f/4. Here is the result:
Nice! Same here. Been shooting APS-C since leaving film and recently got a D810. Took it for a spin an rekindled my passion for photography all over again. Shot some basketball up to ISO6400 and the D810 quality blew me away. I always tried to stay under 1600 with my D7100 which is where it comes down to the 7DmkII quality level based on test data and ISO 800 with my D300.
-
Hi,
I don't feel high ISO bodies matter much for me. I have a few shots at 6400 ISO and some at 1600 ISO, but mostly I am a 50 ISO shooter.
That said, it is a good thing to be able to shoot a horse jumping at 6400 ISO and still end up with acceptable A3 size prints. Raising ISO can also be useful in windy situations.
Best regards
Erik