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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 8, 2007, 1:52 AM   #11
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

From the user or wannabee users comments on many forums it would seem everybody is going to become a sports photographer, not to mention shoot at 10fps, with higher quality ISO and other camera 'improvements'. In reality every 'wants', andvery, veryfewmany people 'use'. To answer the original question, I couldn't care less so long as 50 or 100 ISO work OK.
OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2007, 6:15 AM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

OCD wrote:
Quote:
In reality every 'wants', andvery, veryfewmany people 'use'. To answer the original question, I couldn't care less so long as 50 or 100 ISO work OK.
I'd have to disagree here. I'd sure hate to be limited to ISO 50 or 100.

Heck, I wouldn't want to be limited to ISO 50 or 100, even if I were using a tripod shooting landscapes in early morning or late afternoon lighting, just to make sure my shutter speeds were fast enough to keep from having blurred leaves from the wind blowing, especially if I were stopping down the aperture for greater depth of field.

I sometimes take photos as close to sunrise as possible on the Ogeechee River, and I rarely use anything lower than ISO 400 (and often go to ISO 800 if I'm trying to capture people in the image, too.

Ditto for walks through the woods with lots of shadow areas where the sun doesn't penetrate the dense cover.

Also, think of school plays, dance recitals, live music or anywhere a flash may not be allowed, or may not be practical.

Even outside in dim lighting (early morning, late afternoon), you can easily need higher ISO speeds to prevent motion blur from subject movement.

Not everyone shoots perfectly still subjects in great outdoor lighting.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2007, 8:48 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

this just in, doesnt have an EXIF, very little apparent NR in the 1.06Mb image Im looking at. I have to push it to 120% to detect NR at all. Hair detail holds very well, and the image sharpens very well too. It could be a conversion from RAW

heres the link http://radikal.ru/F/i004.radikal.ru/...c5674.jpg.html


Riley
Attached Images
 
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2007, 6:10 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi Riley

Rob thanks for the link to that pic - it loosk good altough her skin looks a bit plasticky or is it just me??

It looks as if ISO800 is pretty good indeed and ISO1600 is going to be fairly usable with the E3. Check out these ISO1600 flower shots and also the ISO800 and its 100% crop which looks very clean to me and if thats not been NeatImaged I'd say it was great:

http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/s...ad.php?t=18384

Regards clean high ISO, I think it definetly is going to be an essential criteria for any camera manufacturer and its something a lot of newcomers and upgraders will have high on their list of must haves.

Cheers

HarjTT


HarjTT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2007, 1:40 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
How important is high ISO for your next camera ?
Like chokolate: more is better. Very important, but not important enough to change to another brand and/or heavier and far more expensive cameras like Nikon D3 or Canon 5D.

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2007, 3:07 AM   #16
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
I'd have to disagree here. I'd sure hate to be limited to ISO 50 or 100.


I would hate to be limited to 50 or 100 ISO as well. I'm just saying I wouldn't buy a cameraassuming the higher ISO quality was a panacea for 'better' photographs if I wasn't a sports photographer, which I'm not. AndI take your point about the ability to stop the trees moving in the wind. Technical progress has to be made, but it is possible that the ISO debate becomes as meaningless as the 'image quality' debate that pixel peepers use, you know the one, whereimage quality in acamera has to be the highest possible to 'win' the debate, and in so doing they conveniently forget that a digital medium format camera still knocks any DSLR into the weeds for 'quality'.


I do have an E3 on order, why? Because it is splash proof. I couldn't give a monkey what thehighest ISO performance is, andwhen I do use it, which I undoubtedly will one day, I will treat it in exactly the same way as I treated image 'quality' when film needed push processing, I'll expect something different, and enjoy something different.

The way people talk about all the technicalfeats that cameras canperform nowadays is akin to believing that it wasn't possible to produce a photograph before you could crank the ISO up to 6400. And people buy them without any idea of 'what' they are going to photograph at 6400 ISO, just the certain knowledge that if they ever find it then it will hopefully look exactly like thephoto they could normally take at 50 ISO.

So call me a Luddite and I'll happily accept the title, but all I see in 'more of this and more of that'included ina cameraspecification is a laughable blandness creeping in to photography. It'll be 'look, no hands!' next.

OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2007, 12:34 PM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Just want to know how everyone feels about having clean high ISO files and what would you be happy with in your next camera ? Reviews of the E3/L10 final production cameras should show us how good the new NMOS Pana sensors are and how well they fare against the current APS-C sensors. from what I can tell the new Sony sensor in the A700/D300 looks very good.
It's OK (I recently bought a Sony A700). It will do ISO 3200 with the right exposure for 8x10's. ISO 6400 is a little "iffy" from my point of view (Sony is using a bit too much noise reduction by default with this model at anything over about ISO 1600, and the noise reduction algorithms are not the best, so shoot raw for best results).
Oops. My bad. It appears to better than OK. :-)

I'll have to try the updated Sony software shooting raw and see what I get out of this camera. I've never even installed Sony's raw conversion software for the A700, much less updated it with the new fixes they released (raw converter software updates were released along with new version 2 camera firmware). lol

I haven't converted any raw files shot at ISO 3200 in dimmer lighting with the new Version 2 firmware yet either, even with third party converters.

Take a look at this ISO 3200 image shot in very low light with a Sony DSLR-A700 wearing a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT Autofocus lens at 35mm, with the aperture wide open at f/4.5, using a 1/20 second shutter speed (this are the links to Novak Rogic's images, not mine).

Downsized to 1200 pixels wide:
http://www.cityideas.com/A700/jeff-small.jpg

Full Size (4272 x 2248 pixels):
http://www.cityideas.com/A700/jeff.jpg

That ISO 3200 photo was taken by Novak Rogic and his Sony DSLR-A700 was updated with firmware version 2, using the new Sony software to convert from raw.

He told me to feel free to post it (I was so impressed with how nice this looked for ISO 3200 that I asked him via e-mail if I could show it to forum members here).

EDIT:

Here it is at 800 pixels wide (smaller than Novak's downsized image I posted a link to, so that I don't impact thread readability for most members).

Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2007, 12:16 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
d-sr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Abilene. TX
Posts: 1,486
Default

I'd love to have a very good 3200 ISO. I'd be in heaven with that. Of cource, if it went higher I'd force myself to take it I guess. I would notchange from the 4:3rds system to get the higher ISO.

DonR
d-sr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2007, 12:20 PM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

OCD wrote:
Quote:
So call me a Luddite and I'll happily accept the title, but all I see in 'more of this and more of that'included ina cameraspecification is a laughable blandness creeping in to photography. It'll be 'look, no hands!' next.
I'm with you as well...

Many people buy the Oly for its other benefits and high ISO is on the bottom of my list as well considering I'm from the Canon camp and 99% of my shots are below ISO400!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2007, 11:22 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

3200ISO, S-AF, f2, 1/640 Auto WB, NR Filter set to low. The images have been post processed, reduced and sharpened for web viewing
Attached Images
 
Rriley 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 5:04 AM.