Impress me with high ISO

Ralphmyster

Ralphmyster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
415
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I have a 5dmkii and feel the need to upgrade, I shoot a lot of swimming and ramping the iso over a 1000 @2.8 impressed with results but want faster shutter speeds. So do i go for a 1dx or a 5dmiii ?
have you got any mega high iso images too sway me :)
thanks
 
Not used a 5Dmk2 personally, but seen many many photos shot at way high ISO's from weddings that were perfectly acceptable in terms of noise. 3200 and 6400 should clean up very nicely with a little NR in Lightroom or similar.
 
I regularly shot at 3200 or more for wildlife when I had my 5D2 and got some great shots. Now I have my 5D3 I have it set at auto iso at a max 12800, when I use it, and the files are cleaner than my 5D2 at 3200.
 
well as you may know indoor swimming pools have very poor low light But really nice a shuttter speed over 150 the stop the water .
 
I shoot with a canon 70-200L 2.8 but moving water kills images I don't really want to spend time editing noise. I would like too shoot and sell :)
 
any idea of iso to shutter speeds that give high quality images.
thanks
 
The 5D3 is only marginally better at high ISO than the 5D2. I own both. Looking at the samples, the ISO king is the 1DX. If that's what's important to you than that's what you should go for.
 
Ralphmyster said:
any idea of iso to shutter speeds that give high quality images.
thanks
Click to expand...

question doesn't make a lot of sense as shutter speed doesnt have any effect on noise

however if your askign what I think.. again depends on light and lens.. but I can shoot sport (just about all I shoot) iso 12800 on the 70-200 mkII and not have to do anyhting about noise.. depends on your thresholds and what you find acceptable.. I sell prints as well as published.. theres a perfect published picture in todays league paper.. looks really nice.. taken at iso 20000 (20 thousand) sent straight from a football match so no PP as such.. certainly no noise removal :)
 
Its not the fast lens.. its not the camera..its the light!

some pools are very dark.. as are some indoor soccer pitches.. most cameras wont even go this high iso.. and I had a f2 lens on.. yes had dust scratches and resized.....

my point is.. faster lens doesnt meran anything if you simnply havent got the light :)

max.jpg
 
KIPAX said:
question doesn't make a lot of sense as shutter speed doesnt have any effect on noise
Click to expand...


It does, it's just not phrased very well. What he means is, pushing the ISO to get faster shutter speeds is causing more noise than he desires. It's fairly obvious.

Phil, yeah, we get it, now tell him to shoot at ISO 100 because he can blow the hell out of it in post anyhow ... :bang:

Get a D4. The real ISO king.
 
Cagey75 said:
It does, it's just not phrased very well. What he means is, pushing the ISO to get faster shutter speeds is causing more noise than he desires. It's fairly obvious.

Phil, yeah, we get it, now tell him to shoot at ISO 100 because he can blow the hell out of it in post anyhow ... :bang:

Get a D4. The real ISO king.
Click to expand...

s/s does not have any direct influence on noise but in the scenario you quoted above, is does have an indirect affect. As you probably know though, adequate s/s is necessary for sharp sports shots, therefore higher ISO' s are pretty much a necessity.

Is your comment about noise king designed to provoke reaction or is there documented evidence to back up the statement
 
Probably a silly question, but does anyone have some high ISO shots from the 5D Mark III to show the OP so he can compare to his Mark II ?
 
Tugster said:
Is your comment about noise king designed to provoke reaction or is there documented evidence to back up the statement
Click to expand...
Si, dont worry mate, even this Nikon user will tell you the 1DX is better than the D3S or D4 :thumbs:

I wouldnt wind you up mate, would i.
 
Last edited:
Both the 5d2 and the 1dx are only marginally better, its a lot of money to spend and i think you will be disappointed. I would go with a faster fixed lens and bump your iso up you can go a lot more than 1000.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Si, dont worry mate, even this Nikon user will tell you the 1DX is better than the D3S or D4 :thumbs:

I wouldnt wind you up mate, would i.
Click to expand...

Hey Gary,
I'm open minded fella, just interested to read and understand for myself which is thought to have the better handling of noise at Higher ISO's.

I quite liked the post Tony made with the 135mm @f/2.0, 1/500Sec @ISO 51K2...That shows the capabillity in real life terms..even though it was slightly ETTR.

I know what the Batley crew are like for leg pulling lol
 
Reviews show em to be pretty even but Tonys' samples from real life situations show the 1DX to be better and i prefer real world examples to review samples.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Reviews show em to be pretty even but Tonys' samples from real life situations show the 1DX to be better and i prefer real world examples to review samples.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit difficult to say conclusively unless they are taking the same shot in the same scene??

EDIT:

I know it bears no relevance to the OP but here are 2 comparissons between the top of the range cameras. Both show a very SLIGHT edge in the D4.

First test

Second test.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Isn't it a bit difficult to say conclusively unless they are taking the same shot in the same scene??
[/URL]
Click to expand...
Youre correct in some respects Phil but there are other variables to consider which these "set up" reviews cant take into account, for example how about mine and Tony's situation where we have to shoot under poor light with shifting light brightness from one shot to the next due to patchy floodlighting, shifting WB temperatures caused by the type of lighting and beleive it or not floodlights even have different types of bulbs in the same stanchion, and both cameras will handle these situations differently giving different results.

For example, bloke i sometimes shoot alongside had a 1dx and under the floodlights at Headingley Carnegie which are a nice bright white even light my D3S produces cleaner high ISO images than his 1dx, but at Central Park Wigan where the lights always throw a slight yellow cast which forces you into a custon WB his 1DX blows my D3S out of the water.
 
Cagey75 said:
Has it not proven to be better? much better in fact?
Click to expand...
No, where do you get that from, if reviews are anything to go on then certainally not (i dont really take much notice of these reviews but i know many do)

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=d3s+v+d4&oq=d3s+v+d4&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i22l3.1661.5057.0.5629.8.7.0.1.1.0.211.857.2j4j1.7.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.Uvu21zH8SyQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=1bf8971734a1165e&bpcl=38897761&biw=1440&bih=712
 
KIPAX said:
Its not the fast lens.. its not the camera..its the light!


max.jpg
Click to expand...

fast lens=more light?

it's the only variable you have when you can't put in more light, your shutter has to be faster than 1/150 and you don't want to raise ISO past a certain point
I know i'm stating the obvious but it's crazy how many people don't realise the simplicity of how a camera operates

70-200 @ 135mm f2.8 6400 shutter speed=1/125 (too slow)
135 f2 6400 = 1/250 (good and same level of noise)
135 f2 3200 = 1/60 (too slow but 1 stop less noise)
135 f2 5000 = 1/200 (good shutter and 1/3 stop less noise)

so the answer is clear, get more light with a fast lens and drop the iso, or get more shutter and keep the same ISO
or does shootings indoors sports work to different laws of physics?
that's a half joking question, I don't shoot things where i'm not in control of the light (I mostly shoot models, and occasionally shoot shows and events usually with good light)

personally i'd shoot the fastest primes I could get my hands on and crop in- loss of megapixels is less of an issue than not getting a fast enough shutter to freeze motion
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
OP, how are you processing you high iso photos? This can be the one way to push your 5d2 further, presuming AF delivers what you require
Click to expand...

someone also said on another thread (which was clearly meant for this thread) that you need to get your exposure bang on with high iso
and it's true, if you underexposure at high iso you're in trouble- aim to get 1/3 stop overexposed (probably won't clip the highlights) as it gives you some room to drop the exposure in post and save some shadow detail
 
Gary Coyle said:
No, where do you get that from, if reviews are anything to go on then certainally not (i dont really take much notice of these reviews but i know many do)

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=d3s+v+d4&oq=d3s+v+d4&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i22l3.1661.5057.0.5629.8.7.0.1.1.0.211.857.2j4j1.7.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.Uvu21zH8SyQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=1bf8971734a1165e&bpcl=38897761&biw=1440&bih=712
Click to expand...


The first link via yours states the D4 pulls ahead of the D3s at 6400 and 12800

http://photographylife.com/nikon-d4-vs-d3s-vs-d3-iso-performance-comparison

May not be much of a difference, but better is still better, no matter how slight. I've seen the same said and shown on other sites. To be honest, both are simply amazing at handling higher ISO noise. The D800 is good enough for my needs, it's pretty damn good up to 6400, and still usable at 10k with little clean up. And that's not a patch on either of the big Daddies.

I wouldn't even click on snap sort ... does anyone?
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
The first link via yours states the D4 pulls ahead of the D3s at 6400 and 12800

http://photographylife.com/nikon-d4-vs-d3s-vs-d3-iso-performance-comparison

May not be much of a difference, but better is still better, no matter how slight. I've seen the same said and shown on other sites. To be honest, both are simply amazing at handling higher ISO noise. The D800 is good enough for my needs, it's pretty damn good up to 6400, and still usable at 10k with little clean up. And that's not a patch on either of the big Daddies.

I wouldn't even click on snap sort ... does anyone?
Click to expand...
Snap sorts fine but i think they copy their stuff from somewhere else as the style of the site is very familiar.
 
Cagey75 said:
Has it not proven to be better? much better in fact?
Click to expand...

I've owned the D3 and D3s and now the D4. I would say that the D4 is equal to the D3s in low light. Not better.
What is better, is the AF aquisition on the D4 in low light. It will focus on objects that my D3s would hunt on.
It was this and the fact that it will focus fast at F8 with a 2 x converter fitted that made me move over. It never misses a beat doing either.

Kev.
 
Gary Coyle said:
No, where do you get that from, if reviews are anything to go on then certainally not (i dont really take much notice of these reviews but i know many do)
Click to expand...

Maybe here but on looking at the graphs the Canon does seem to gain ground with Dynamic range at the higher ISO levels. It's all so close!
 
gman said:
Maybe here but on looking at the graphs the Canon does seem to gain ground with Dynamic range at the higher ISO levels. It's all so close!
Click to expand...
When you quoted me i wasnt even talking about the 1DX, i was replying to Cagey75 who said it had been proven the D4 was better at high ISO than the D3S, i said it wasnt and youve just backed that up
 
Talkphotography

A free photography forum, community and resource with discussion forums and chat along with a friendly and helpful atmosphere.
Click to expand...

So what happened to the friendly and helpful part?
 
Must every thread end in a nikon canon argument?
 
Yes. People have spent money and they need to defend their choice to make themselves feel better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top