Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 5, 2010, 12:59 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,196
Default

Most cameras make photos with "unusable" 1600 or more ISOs.

With cheapest cameras you can take "satisfying" pictures with 400 or even 800 ISO.

For ME this makes no sense ... okay I don't fotograph sports or motorbyke racings or Formel I racings (nice :-( if people die ... isn't sport for me - stupid accelerate on the gas and drive 20 times in a circle )

Last edited by DonalDuc; Apr 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM.
DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2010, 2:00 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Certainly the reduced version of the 10MP image you posted is different from the reduced version of the 18MP image that waoldrifleman posted. And certainly the 100% crop that you posted is different from the 100% crop that waoldrifleman posted.

But the lack of sharpness in his is a result of something very different from the lack of sharpness in yours. And that's presuming you didn't make use of Noise Ninja or Neat Image, or even the noise reduction capability of the camera.

No one is talking about racing. This is about an image of a little girl performing gymnastics, and comparing it to an image of a little girl sitting quietly at a table.

The gymnastics shot is devoid of detail because of the noise AND because it's a 100% crop of an 18MP image. Yours is devoid of detail for some other reason or reasons, none of which are quite clear.

All by themselves, there's little to compare between the two except they were shot at high ISO settings, and factors that have nothign to do witht he ISO settings make the comparison difficult.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2010, 2:00 PM   #23
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonalDuc View Post
For ME this makes no sense ... okay I don't fotograph sports or motorbyke racings or Formel I racings
What is it that makes no sense to you? The idea that some people benefit from high ISOs in their photography? Or something else?

Is it anything above iso 800 that makes no sense to you? Anything above ISO 3200? What?

Sure sports benefits from high ISO. But so do other things. Here is a shot of my niece at a church choir. F2.8 ISO 1600 and 1/40 at 186mm. I'm not posting 100% crop because I'm not making a quality argument here. Merely trying to illustrate other situations where high ISO is beneficial. Now, improvements in high ISO performance can allow a photographer to take this same shot with an f4 lens (at ISO 3200). Such a lens weighs less and costs less than a 2.8 lens with the same reach. Lots of people have children in school events. The ability to make an 8x10 print from a shot like this is very desirable to many parents.


Or just available light portraiture - lots of people love this. Again, shot at ISO 1600 which is often necessary. People move and tripods or anti-shake don't help with that:


Now - I'm a big proponent of tripods and flash use. Don't get me wrong. But good clean high ISO performance is a great tool to have in the kit that gives photographers flexibility. But everyone is different. You may not shoot anything that benefits from high ISO. Nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing wrong with people who DO benefit from it. And in certain cases (like some sports, like certain church activities) you can't always use a flash so it's either high ISO or no shot at all.

And in the case of youth sports, the ISO 6400 barrier is a very important one. It allows parents to photograph their children using zoom lenses rather than short, expensive prime lenses. A 70-200 2.8 costs a whole lot less than a 200mm 1.8 / 2.0.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2010, 2:05 PM   #24
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Also,

I will add this to the OP: Noise is only part of the problem. The quality of light matters as does the subject. Little girls gymnastics shots are TOUGH. Besides the lighting being poor in many of those gyms, the girls themselves are so small and smooth skinned there isn't a lot of detail tobegin with. For example, my ISO 6400 shots of girls gymnastics look a LOT worse than my 6400 shots of HS girls volleyball. Same ISO, but the difference in the lighting and the difference in the subject makes the overall quality difference very recognizable.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2010, 3:07 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Also,

I will add this to the OP: Noise is only part of the problem. The quality of light matters as does the subject. Little girls gymnastics shots are TOUGH. Besides the lighting being poor in many of those gyms, the girls themselves are so small and smooth skinned there isn't a lot of detail tobegin with. For example, my ISO 6400 shots of girls gymnastics look a LOT worse than my 6400 shots of HS girls volleyball. Same ISO, but the difference in the lighting and the difference in the subject makes the overall quality difference very recognizable.
Yeah, I am learning that. Another thing that is making it real tough is the angle that I have to shoot from (viewing area 20ft above floor). Thats cool I get plenty of practise at trying to overcome the issues, I just mark all of the shots as practise. Trying to decide on an indoor lens. The 200F2.8 is cheaper, but no zoom for about 500 more I can get the 70-200F2.8 non IS. will have to ponder it for a couple (or more) months!
waoldrifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2010, 7:30 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,196
Default

Sorry, JohnG - your (nice) pictures include no EXIFs :-(
DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2010, 7:39 PM   #27
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

well part of the reason it may look a little noisier is related to what john was saying. as you can see at least in the first picture the main subject is in a bit of shadow without much light on the front of her. you will notice more noise in a shadow versus a perfectly lit environment.

i wouldnt worry about your camera. just tough lighting conditions making your 6400 look a little noisier than it would if you had at least some direct light on the face and front of your subject.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2010, 9:47 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
well part of the reason it may look a little noisier is related to what john was saying. as you can see at least in the first picture the main subject is in a bit of shadow without much light on the front of her. you will notice more noise in a shadow versus a perfectly lit environment.

i wouldnt worry about your camera. just tough lighting conditions making your 6400 look a little noisier than it would if you had at least some direct light on the face and front of your subject.
Thanks, I am starting to love the camera, I like the control layout.
waoldrifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2010, 6:25 AM   #29
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonalDuc View Post
Sorry, JohnG - your (nice) pictures include no EXIFs :-(
Yes - my hosting site (smugmug) does not include exif in downsized images. If you doubt my assertioin the shots are as specified that's your problem.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2010, 1:53 PM   #30
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waoldrifleman View Post
Ok so either my copy is not up to snuff or I really don't understand how to crop, or my skill set at taking pictures is really bad, or any combination of the three. Did a poor hold affect it, or what, any ideas? I can understand a focus issue as it was indoors without IS, but my speed was up there.
Looking at your shot settings, I would try to lower that iso since I saw in the second shot your 1/1000s of a second and the other 1/640 I think? Maybe you could get away with 1/400 and 3200 or even less iso, I don't know, just a shot. If you were just testing the high iso then sorry disregard my post.
__________________
Mike-
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM.