high iso 7D

David Stallard

David Stallard

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,279
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Yesterday was the first time I have shot anything over iso125 with the 7d / 100-400 combo - due to the light I stuck the camera into auto iso and to say I'm quite impressed with the results, see for yourself

#1 - iso 3200
BSB-Brands-Hatch-08-10-11-538-L.jpg


#2 - iso 3200
BSB-Brands-Hatch-08-10-11-546-L.jpg


#3 - iso 2500
BSB-Brands-Hatch-08-10-11-532-L.jpg


.DAVID.
 
Pretty good for 3200 ISO!

I was at a rally a couple weeks ago, and had my 20D on 800 ISO which surprised me alot too!

Perhaps ISO values aren't as bad as we all think :lol:
 
There's been a lot of talk about the 7D being noisy and I guess if you did 100% crop you'd see a reasonable amount of noise but in the real-world, we just don't look at pictures that way!

Cracking images!!!
 
thats in pretty decent light though and I can see the noise in the OOF areas in that size lol

Russ77 said:
There's been a lot of talk about the 7D being noisy and I guess if you did 100% crop you'd see a reasonable amount of noise but in the real-world, we just don't look at pictures that way!

Cracking images!!!
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
thats in pretty decent light though and I can see the noise in the OOF areas in that size lol
Click to expand...
Yup agreed, that light is really good which doesnt show noise, try shooting ISO 3200 at a night time footy match with the 7d
 
6 stops dimmer than bright sunshine is considered "good light"? How dark does it have to become before it reaches the threshold of "bad light"?
 
tdodd said:
6 stops dimmer than bright sunshine is considered "good light"? How dark does it have to become before it reaches the threshold of "bad light"?
Click to expand...

Well certainally #1 and #2 are clearly shot in good light as the bikes are producing pronounced shadows, #2 is even to the blind shot in very good light, by the way good light needn't mean bright sunshine, bright sunshine to many is bad light.
 
Interesting observation about the shadows. I was looking at EXIF and noting how the exposures compared to a "Sunny 16" exposure. Those shadows certainly don't correspond with conditions as dim as 6 stops below bright sunshine - more like 2-3 stops I would estimate. That's a bit of a puzzler. Maybe there was an ND8 over the lens. :thinking:

I also agree that direct sunshine is not necessarily good light, but as the topic is about high ISO I assumed the quantity of light was a significant factor, and an exposure for light levels 6 stops below "Sunny" suggests to me that there was not a lot of light reaching the sensor - even if an ND filter was part of the reason.

EDIT : And addressing #2 specifically, blind as I apparently may be, at 1/400, f/5 and 3200 ISO that is an exposure for conditions 6.3 stops dimmer than bright sunshine. So either we're having our chains yanked or there is more going on than meets the eye. My guess is that the light was 2 stops down, there was an ND8 over the lens and the shot was overexposed at capture and pulled back. Or maybe I am blind and stupid.
 
Last edited:
Don't understand what most of you are on about in 'techy' terms.

As most of the other guys that went to Brands on the Saturday for qualifying will tell you - it was a very 'odd / dark' day, since owning the 7D I have shot at iso 125 for just about everything with no problems, on this day however the shots were way too dark so I chose 'auto iso' (which I have never done especially with the old Sony gear) and I was just stating how pleased 'I' was to see that the higher iso shots are still usable - yes you can see a little noise if you want to be really pedantic but on the whole I was surprised.

No filter on the lens at all but maybe I should have removed the hood from the 100-400 but then again I'm not prepared to have the lens unprotected.

tdodd: I am def NOT "pulling your chain"

.DAVID.

almost sorry I started the topic now
 
Sorry, David, no offence intended. It's just that the QUANTITY of light and the QUALITY of light don't seem to match up. You don't see shadows like that without a fair degree of directionality to the light. But with that much directionality you would expect the conditions to be brighter than the EXIF suggests. The shadows are not long, so it seems the sun was still reasonably high in the sky. To me at least it is all a bit puzzling.

Please don't be sorry you posted. It's opened up an interesting discussion, at least if anyone can explain the apparent paradox.
 
No offence taken.

Not sure if you know Brands or not but 'clearways' where we were stood for these is 'almost' a tunnel of tree's, basically we are under the tree line with a line above the track open to the sky which is why the shadow is almost under the bike at 4:35pm (first shot) which in itself is odd as the end of the day the sun was almost setting.

Thanks

.DAVID.
 
Thanks for the explanation. That all seems to make sense then. The "tunnel" was preventing light filling in the shadows from the sides and leaving a somewhat directional light from above(ish). Due to the time of day and the obstruction of direct light from the sun you would indeed have had low levels of light. Whether that make for good light or bad light is another matter, but certainly the light levels were low and that's why you were at high ISO and that's what this thread is all about. And yes, the picture quality is very nice. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top