p.1 #6 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
E-Vener wrote:
And you'd have gotten a blurred image. That is indeed one of the points I am making.
wwo, not sure about the usefulness of this pic for anything except gee whiz. I am missing the point with these new capabilities. The pics are just about unusable, but would come in handy in a emergency situation where no other option was available, I suppose. ISO 102K and unusable, real impressive. But is costs less than the D3X, that is something!
p.1 #7 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
E-Vener wrote:
And you'd have gotten a blurred image. That is indeed one of the points I am making.
That's new to me...I shoot weddings and I shoot down to 1/60 of second whenever I can to keep the noise down. I would go up to ISO 12,800 but not above that with the D3s. Right now, I am hesitant to go to 6400 on the D700. The reason is that it is great on the computer but not in an album.
p.1 #8 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
tuannie wrote:
That's new to me...I shoot weddings and I shoot down to 1/60 of second whenever I can to keep the noise down. I would go up to ISO 12,800 but not above that with the D3s. Right now, I am hesitant to go to 6400 on the D700. The reason is that it is great on the computer but not in an album.
In the specific situation I shot this photo in you'd have blur.
p.1 #9 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
jamach wrote:
wwo, not sure about the usefulness of this pic for anything except gee whiz. I am missing the point with these new capabilities. The pics are just about unusable, but would come in handy in a emergency situation where no other option was available, I suppose. ISO 102K and unusable, real impressive. But is costs less than the D3X, that is something!
Great work!
Thank you. But you've got to be kidding about these photos not being usable.
p.1 #10 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
I'd definitely suggest switching to lossless compressed for your NEF. Kind of throws a wrench in the works of an otherwise very careful process.
What do you think the minimum usable speed would have been? I have trouble imagining that 1/2000 (@ ISO 20K or so) would be too slow, but what's your experience?
For the critics who are calling it "unusable", remember that this image has specifically not been cleaned up at all. Plus, it needs a little reduction in exposure and more contrast. And while I'm not sure how good the finished image here would be, I'm pretty certain it would look a lot better than it does currently, and might be good enough for many uses, even though not all. This also means that ISO 6400 (3 stops below this) is one hell of a lot better, and we didn't even have these options a couple of years ago. Having "unusable" ISO 51K is still better than not having it at all.
p.1 #14 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
For the critics who are calling it "unusable",
It's obviously not okay for landscapes, but for newspapers, and artistic natural light shots, or even in situations where light is low and extra lighting not possible, it is more than usable.
p.1 #16 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
jamach wrote:
no negativity intended - how would you use these ultra high ISO pics that are lacking detail and noisy?
Thanks.
They would be more than acceptable for low light reception work, nighttime street photography, PJ, etc. Exceptional detail is not critical for all types of photography, and I would venture a guess that these would look spectacular after BW conversion and/or some noise reduction.
I won't be replacing my D700 any time soon, but I do like knowing that my next camera upgrade down the road will give me results like this in low light.
To the OP: Thanks for posting. I'd like to see more.
p.1 #17 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I'd definitely suggest switching to lossless compressed for your NEF. Kind of throws a wrench in the works of an otherwise very careful process.
What do you think the minimum usable speed would have been? I have trouble imagining that 1/2000 (@ ISO 20K or so) would be too slow, but what's your experience?
For the critics who are calling it "unusable", remember that this image has specifically not been cleaned up at all. Plus, it needs a little reduction in exposure and more contrast. And while I'm not sure how good the finished image here would be, I'm pretty certain it would look a lot better than it does currently, and might be good enough for many uses, even though not all. This also means that ISO 6400 (3 stops below this) is one hell of a lot better, and we didn't even have these options a couple of years ago. Having "unusable" ISO 51K is still better than not having it at all....Show more →
+1
Absolutely, decrease the exposure a little, apply a little NN and viola I am sure that would be a very usable shot.
By the way Ellis its nice to see you posting on FM.
p.1 #18 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
andreavaccaro wrote:
The image is very good to be at 51,200 ISO.
But I would have tried 1/1250th at 12,800 ISO, or maybe even lower. Without getting a blurred image.
You'd have asked a very active circus performer in the middle of a routine to move slower? I didn't have that luxury. They were going through a full dress / tech rehearsal and we were allowed to shoot it, not direct it. Among other things flash was forbidden.
p.1 #19 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
Erik Moore wrote:
To the OP: Thanks for posting. I'd like to see more.
You're welcome but I have to get back to working for jobs for clients. I didn't quite realize this was going to eat up the better part of a couple of days.
p.1 #20 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
E-Vener wrote:
You're welcome but I have to get back to working for jobs for clients. I didn't quite realize this was going to eat up the better part of a couple of days.
The secret is to just get on here when you've got some time to kill, just blow everyone off if you've got real life stuff to do
