Impress me with high ISO

[Gary Coyle]

So what happened to the friendly and helpful part?

It has been for a while but thanks for highlighting it and bringing it to the fore

 

[Gary Coyle]

Must every thread end in a nikon canon argument?

That'll be Cagey75 in post #17 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5146324&postcount=17

I shoot Nikon but think the 1DX is better :shrug:

 

[Phil Young]

Yes. People have spent money and they need to defend their choice to make themselves feel better.

Lol...I'm sure those purchases will also be sitting in a glass cabinet still in it's original packaging.

Op - are you any close to what you wanted to know???

 

[Ralphmyster]

the football image is fine but shooting in the swimming pool areas the light is nowhere near as in a football pitch. thats where the problem is being so far away when you crop the image the noise is there am trying to upload. 1.4 is to much. as you will see 1000 2.8 is a nice clean image until cropping

 

[Ralphmyster]

 

[Ralphmyster]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16589728@N07/
both where shot around 70m away

 

[Simplythebeast]

Cant really understand this Nikon/Canon thing. The products made by both manufacturers are generally more limited by the ability of the photographer than the reverse anyway. They are so closely matched that everyone ends up talking about technicalities which have very little effect or meaning in real world shooting. Lets be friends, next time I see someone with a canon Im gonna give em a hug.

 

[Gary Coyle]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16589728@N07/
both where shot around 70m away

theyre shot at Ponds Forge where the lighting particularly during race events is very good to excellent, i shot an event there not so long ago for an agency and was at ISO 1250-1600, f/2.8 and getting from 1/500th up to 1/1000th sec shutter speed

The lighting is certainally better than the vast majority of Premiership football grounds

Your issue seems to be youre cropping way too much and not so much noise

 

[Ralphmyster]

MMMMMMMM that must have been with a 400mm lens I guess ? and the light was very overcast and was very little natural light too use. i agree with the cropping as i am normally on pool side. like i say I must have been 70ms away

 

[gman]

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

Ah sorry, must have missed that but glad to have been helpful in the end! lol

 

[dave_bass5]

This was taken at ISO12800 and cropped down quite a bit. I think the 5DMKIII is very good for such a high ISO, much better than my 60D.


Christmas ball at Hayes Galleria, London. by dave_bass5, on Flickr


This is ISO10000.


Lego Starwars by dave_bass5, on Flickr

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

I read the whole thread and only a few people seem to have picked up on what I think is the major point...
Why limit yourself to ISO 1000 ? :shrug:

My rule of thumb for the 5DII is that ISO 3200 can be printed to A3 with no noise reduction.
With a midge of noise reduction, images can be extremely serviceable from higher ISO shots, even when incorrectly exposed!
Admittedly the images look noisy when pixel peeping, but when 'only printing to A3' you can get away with a surprising amount.
Here's one taken on the 5DII at ISO 6400 and lifted a whole stop in PP (it was a semi grab shot and the strong orange cast from the low wattage lighting badly spoofed the metering); I've printed this to A3+ and looks great!

Which begs the obvious question from the OP; what are you doing with your images that needs such high quality originals?
I'd recommend doing your own printing tests and deciding what you can get away with; you might be in for a pleasant surprise....

As for the 5DIII...
I've been using my 5DIII along side my 5DII since the summer.
On paper and looking at the gear tests, the difference does not look that pronounced.
But oddly, and very counter intuitively - that's not what I'm finding.
The 5DIII high ISO results have been a pleasant surprise.
Here's one from the same evening using the 5DIII at ISO 12800 and brightened half a stop in PP; I can't fault the image quality as it is plenty good enough for any use needed from this image.

The two images shown here at this size have done the 5DII a favour as they both look acceptable. The difference is that the 5DII image is just acceptable to print to A3+, but the 5DIII image is more than acceptable - period....

In summary...
- The 5DII is better than the OP gives credit.
- The 5DIII is more of a step up than most people think.
- From everything I've read (here and elsewhere), I'd love a 1DX !!!! :bonk:

 

[Phil Young]

Right! I've had a look on my laptop now (I use my phone a lot).

I don't understand why you're even asking about high ISO - you won't gain ANYTHING from an upgrade - you currently limit your ISO to a very conservative level presently.

Take this shot for example:

f4, 1/200th ISO1250.

Your maximum aperture was f2.8
Your camera will look fine at this exposure level for ISO6400.

I would be at around 1/500th here and whatever ISO I need to get me there.

Another example:

f2.8, ISO1000, 1/80th.

Again, very conservative ISO and a risky shutter speed. I'd be at 1/250th and whatever ISO I need.

What's more - you focused on the flags so it was never going to be as detailed as it should be.

Your final image in this set has very similar settings. ISO1000, 1/60th this time and f2.8

The bottom line is, you won't gain anything from upgrading because all the bodies will be the same up to around 3200 anyway.

My advice is to stop being scared of noise, especially at this exposure (which is spot on) - you won't notice it at 3200 and I doubt you even need NR at 6400.

The first thing you should be thinking of in the above shots are what shutter speed to achieve. Everything else is second to that.

 

[Cagey75]

That'll be Cagey75 in post #17 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5146324&postcount=17

I shoot Nikon but think the 1DX is better :shrug:

Grow some Gary, fend and speak for yourself for a change. How weak is looking for a scape goat?

My post only stated fact. The D4 is king to my knowledge. I didn't slag canon off in any way. Nowt wrong with canon at all. So on yer bike.

On snap sort, they are a joke. I remember looking up the D90 when it was scoring 96 on there. It's slipped a 'little' huh? because it's not new and in the now. They score whatever is new and hot higher based on ridiculous specs, like weight! or fps ...

 

[Cagey75]

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.

Maybe you would say, but numerous online tests show the D4 to be better. Maybe do more tests eh? They can't all be wrong. I don't own either, so I have no reason to opt for one over another, especially if it was true that the D3s was equal - as it can be got for much cheaper. I could buy one tomorrow.

 

[Jayst84]

Looks like you want to get a longer lens before you get a new camera if you're cropping so much that it's making noise an issue.

I shoot with a 1DIV (which isn't a great deal different to a 5DII) in horrible patchy light, don't even think about it until I'm at 12,800 ISO - even then, I've been sat at that all night before.

If you're really picky, shoot at full stops as well, ie 800, 1600, 3200. Or a third under if you like, don't shoot at a third over eg. 1000 ISO as it can slightly exaggerate the noise.

You have a camera that, until very recently, everyone was raving about how it had changed the world regarding shooting at high ISOs. You haven't even warmed it up yet.

 

[Gary Coyle]

Grow some Gary, fend and speak for yourself for a change. How weak is looking for a scape goat?

Grow some seems to be the by word round here lately, hope it makes you feel big now you got it off your chest.








.

 

[danphillips]

I think the OP should try using a D2H for a weekend and then realise how good the camera he has is!

Frankly the noise capabilities of modern cameras set against those of a few years ago look like cheating.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Does anyone else fail to see the point of 800 pixel images in a thread like this?

 

[rjbell]

If you're really picky, shoot at full stops as well, ie 800, 1600, 3200. Or a third under if you like, don't shoot at a third over eg. 1000 ISO as it can slightly exaggerate the noise.

Do you really think this is true? I've read similar comments a few times now, but from my experience it makes not difference at all.

 

[gman]

Does anyone else fail to see the point of 800 pixel images in a thread like this?

Was thinking the same, most images look great when reduced down but then I was thinking that printing tends to eliminate some noise also so perhaps reducing down may actually be a good representation of how something will look when printed? lol

 

[Jayst84]

Do you really think this is true? I've read similar comments a few times now, but from my experience it makes not difference at all.

Have seen some fairly convincing tests, especially with video. Not cared enough to check myself, if I can sell a shot taken at 12,800 ISO, I'm sure 1000 ISO will be fine.

 

[freefall]

I read the whole thread and only a few people seem to have picked up on what I think is the major point...
Why limit yourself to ISO 1000 ? :shrug:

My rule of thumb for the 5DII is that ISO 3200 can be printed to A3 with no noise reduction.
With a midge of noise reduction, images can be extremely serviceable from higher ISO shots, even when incorrectly exposed!
Admittedly the images look noisy when pixel peeping, but when 'only printing to A3' you can get away with a surprising amount.
Here's one taken on the 5DII at ISO 6400 and lifted a whole stop in PP (it was a semi grab shot and the strong orange cast from the low wattage lighting badly spoofed the metering); I've printed this to A3+ and looks great!

Which begs the obvious question from the OP; what are you doing with your images that needs such high quality originals?
I'd recommend doing your own printing tests and deciding what you can get away with; you might be in for a pleasant surprise....

As for the 5DIII...
I've been using my 5DIII along side my 5DII since the summer.
On paper and looking at the gear tests, the difference does not look that pronounced.
But oddly, and very counter intuitively - that's not what I'm finding.
The 5DIII high ISO results have been a pleasant surprise.
Here's one from the same evening using the 5DIII at ISO 12800 and brightened half a stop in PP; I can't fault the image quality as it is plenty good enough for any use needed from this image.

The two images shown here at this size have done the 5DII a favour as they both look acceptable. The difference is that the 5DII image is just acceptable to print to A3+, but the 5DIII image is more than acceptable - period....

In summary...
- The 5DII is better than the OP gives credit.
- The 5DIII is more of a step up than most people think.
- From everything I've read (here and elsewhere), I'd love a 1DX !!!! :bonk:

Personally I think the 2 shots above are excellent and make me want to push my mkII even further.

Is there any chance you can post higher resolutions please?

 

[gad-westy]

Maybe you would say, but numerous online tests show the D4 to be better. Maybe do more tests eh? They can't all be wrong. I don't own either, so I have no reason to opt for one over another, especially if it was true that the D3s was equal - as it can be got for much cheaper. I could buy one tomorrow.

Please stop!

 

[rjbell]

Have seen some fairly convincing tests, especially with video. Not cared enough to check myself, if I can sell a shot taken at 12,800 ISO, I'm sure 1000 ISO will be fine.

It's interesting, i might do my own little test on this.

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Personally I think the 2 shots above are excellent and make me want to push my mkII even further.

Is there any chance you can post higher resolutions please?

Thanks

I'm loathed to post higher resolutions because the pixels peepers will immediately point out how noisy they are and hugely derail my point!!!!
Which is that when "only printing to A3" you can get away with murder, and pixel peeping is way over the top for most image use!

Also - the images are right on the limit of what it is possible to get away with when hand holding without IS; first image is 1/100s on a 135mm f2 lens, second is 1/40s on a 50mm f1.4 lens. The reciprocal rule is only meant to give tolerably sharp images, not for images worth pixel peeping.
Additionally, both lenses were wide open! That creates problems with accurate focus, poor depth of field and softness due to imperfect lens design.
In summary - I killed the fine detail
But they still look great printed to A3!

I recommend doing your own tests to work out what is acceptable.
After a while I kinda started to be able to tell from pixel peeping whether an image has enough quality to print to A3 - but it's really subjective!

Edited to add...
I could post some 100% crops; but I'd like a little convincing first. What would they bring to this thread?

 

[Ralphmyster]

Well spending 4k on lens I am not going to the dark side
I guess I just wanted the best possible images as when I shoot in my studio the images are about as good as you can get. I would not really get the use of a 400mm but next time I will ramp the iso up and maybe stick a 1x4 on it.

HAHA like that as soon a you post a image you sure get comments LOL

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Well spending 4k on lens I am not going to the dark side
I guess I just wanted the best possible images as when I shoot in my studio the images are about as good as you can get. I would not really get the use of a 400mm but next time I will ramp the iso up and maybe stick a 1x4 on it.

HAHA like that as soon a you post a image you sure get comments LOL

You know it makes sense
I'd also recommend doing some high ISO test prints so that when you need to push the camera you have a feel for what you can get away with

 

[freefall]

Thanks

I'm loathed to post higher resolutions because the pixels peepers will immediately point out how noisy they are and hugely derail my point!!!!
Which is that when "only printing to A3" you can get away with murder, and pixel peeping is way over the top for most image use!

Also - the images are right on the limit of what it is possible to get away with when hand holding without IS; first image is 1/100s on a 135mm f2 lens, second is 1/40s on a 50mm f1.4 lens. The reciprocal rule is only meant to give tolerably sharp images, not for images worth pixel peeping.
Additionally, both lenses were wide open! That creates problems with accurate focus, poor depth of field and softness due to imperfect lens design.
In summary - I killed the fine detail
But they still look great printed to A3!

Edited to add...
I could post some 100% crops; but I'd like a little convincing first. What would they bring to this thread?

I completely understand what you mean about the pixel peepers. The issue I mostly get from high iso is washed out colours with no real "depth" to the colour and lacking in contrast. I don't often get it sharp enough at high iso which really grates on me at times. :bang:

I would totally expect wide open the focus to be out across a few people because no one would be in a perfect line. I think I should practice more and do my own indoor high iso tests on the kids.

If I get my focus that bit better at high iso it would suit me to the ground. Then I can work on achieving a nicer colour rendition in pp like I get in low iso shots with no pp needed.

 

[Phil Young]

Ralphmyster!!!

In a final bid to get you using higher ISO's I have posted some I took tonight. They were taken on my compact.

ISO800 - same level as noise your 5D2 gives at 3200.

ISO3200 - same level as noise as 16000 on your 5D2.

 

[Cagey75]

Please stop!

Please don't ever tell me what to do, cheers.

 

[Cagey75]

ISO3200 - same level as noise as 16000 on your 5D2.

His dslr must be pretty good in that case!

 

[Phil Young]

His dslr must be pretty good in that case!

I'm really trying hard to ignore you...you have a really annoying habit of getting rises out of people unnecessarily but just in case your cynical post made others think...

The finished image is determined by photography and of course PP.

I don't really see the point in showing off camera shots - we don't show these to others...?

if I posed unedited you would get exactly what you expect: noise.

Do we go to restaurants and see the ingredients or the finished meal?

 

[Cagey75]

You have zero sense of humour Phil, plus you stick your oar in on here more than any one else and you are highly irritating at the best of times. But, I jokingly pointed out that you typed 16000 instead of 1600 [or I thought] , nothing more. Get a grip.

I have no idea what the rest of your little rant is about, and frankly, I don't care.

 

[Phil Young]

You have zero sense of humour Phil, plus you stick your oar in on here more than any one else and you are highly irritating at the best of times. But, I jokingly pointed out that you typed 16000 instead of 1600 [or I thought] , nothing more. Get a grip. There's a few of you that ruin this forum with your constant know-it-all-ness and lack of any sense of fun.

I have no idea what the rest of your little rant is about, and frankly, I don't care.

lol - stick my oar in? ...Isn't this an internet forum!?

I won't bother with a lengthy reply, I don't really see the point but just so you know - your post wasn't even necessary since I meant what I said - my LX7's 3200 is equivalent to a 5D2's 16000 - yes, sixteen thousand (equivalent).

 

[Cagey75]

Well exactly, it's a forum, online, don't let it upset you And I can see I was wrong, I was only playing, thought you'd made a boo boo. I was trying to be light hearted, nothing malicious. Read it that way all you like. No skin off my nose. You think I try to get rises out of people? That's a good joke considering the way some of you post on here like you own the place. Like gad-westy's post earlier, there was no call for his telling me off. My post was perfectly ok and made complete sense. The D4 has been proven to be a bit better than a D3s in terms of ISO performance. SHould we take the word of one forum poster, or the results of extensive tests across numerous sites? And if the D3s was as good, most D4 owners wouldnt have bothered, they'd save a bundle buying used D3s or holding onto the ones they already had. i see loads of them for sale and the prices are dropping.

 

[Phil Young]

You think I try to get rises out of people? That's a good joke considering the way some of you post on here like you own the place.

I don't think so. There are a lot of people here that know what they are talking about and clearly have the portfolio to back it up. I like this forum because it is (generally) friendly and people are out to help others.

Weather it's intentional or not it doesn't matter - it's still annoying.

Girlfriend is telling me to get off TP now so going to bed.

 

[Phil Young]

The D4 has been proven to be a bit better than a D3s in terms of ISO performance. SHould we take the word of one forum poster, or the results of extensive tests across numerous sites? And if the D3s was as good, most D4 owners wouldnt have bothered, they'd save a bundle buying used D3s or holding onto the ones they already had. i see loads of them for sale and the prices are dropping.

Oh no...you're back on the D4 thing again. WHY?!?!?!?

Gad-westy, say it again please!!!

Goodnight.

 

[Cagey75]

Er, because the D4 is great with high ISO maybe? Which ties in fine with this thread ... I said it was the best camera for high ISO, simple. And of course the usual challenges on that. you keep posting your compact images eh ...

It doesn't matter what you think, we all look out for ourselves. I don't feel I need back up. It's general pompousness from some on here, nothing to do with their skill level whatsoever. I see newcomers leg it as fast as they entered here because of posts like yours and your mate gad's.

 

[kevshore]

The D4's selling point isn't only high iso. It has other benefits over the D3s, as I have already stated. Which for me, sold the camera.
I personally believe that the level of iso on the D3s or D4 or canon equivelent, is at a level now that we don't need to improve on. Where does is stop? I can focus and shoot in moonlight, should I need to and get decent focus and acceptable noise.
People get far too passionate about things like this. Just get out there and enjoy whatever set up you have.

Kev.