Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · ISO Samples From Your Camera

  
 
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


NEX-5N @ ISO 25600 with ZM 50/2 @ f/2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/_DSC1968.jpg


This is beyond the "acceptable" realm for me, but I'm very impressed with the performance non the less. Very usable when you really want to just capture a moment. I try to keep it below 1600 for results that can handle tough PP and below 6400 when PP isn't necessary.
I actually think my previous camera, the D700, was worse at 25600 but a bit better at 3200.

Edit: Please note that this is without ANY luminance noise reduction in ACR. Color noise reduction was set to "18" out of 100, which is very low.

Edit 2: And now with "50" in luminance noise reduction and a better color profile...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/_DSC1968_nr.jpg


ISO 6400 with only "15" on both luminance and color NR in ACR.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/_DSC1966.jpg


100% crop, and remember this is at f/2 and 1/40 second at a focal length corresponding to 75 mm on FF.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/_DSC1966_crop.jpg


Awesome, if you ask me! Very uniformely distributed and finegrained noise with no banding and great colors even in this terrible lighting.



Jul 09, 2012 at 02:02 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


The problem with comparisons like these is that they don't take the amount of light hitting the sensor into account. A more useful comparison would require everyone to expose at the same EV.

So, I just went outside and shot my Fuji X100 handheld at ISO 6400...at f8 and 1/4000. These are straight out of LR4 without a single slider being touched (so luminance NR is 0 and chroma is 25.)

Entire frame:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7125/7537713322_25a50df0f5_b.jpg

100% crop:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8289/7537763534_cc43626641_o.jpg



Jul 09, 2012 at 02:34 PM
LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


Here you go biff,
ISO 6400 NEX-7
ISO16000 NEX-7

Edited on Jul 09, 2012 at 09:38 PM · View previous versions



Jul 09, 2012 at 08:57 PM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


ISO2500 D700...









Jul 09, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


OM-D E-M5 at ISO 10,000:

http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/ghost_smoke.jpg



Jul 09, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


Thanks guys! So far I'd say they're all extremely "useable". This seems different from pre 2010 cameras.

Where are all the pro and semi-pro DSLRs tho? I was kinda hoping to see how the a900, 1Dx, D3s, D4, and so on, stacked up. Gary Clennan's ISO2500 D700 shot looks exceptional and a half - for example. It almost makes me wonder if he ran NR on it it's so good.

Keep'em coming guys...




Jul 10, 2012 at 08:48 PM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


You are such a buzz kill Bif! Good eye - I double checked and indeed had the NR set to a low value of 20 in LR. Here it is with no NR at all. Still pretty good I say!









Jul 10, 2012 at 10:34 PM
shinew7911
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


ISO 12800 Fuji X-Pro1 vs Sony NEX-7 vs Oly OM-D E-M5 @ 8:00 mark ->



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/398215/photos_donotdelete/xp1_nex7_omd5_12800.jpg



Jul 10, 2012 at 10:52 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


bif that flat lighting shot tells nothing about high iso performance in real world shooting, at least it never has been any predictor of how any camera i've owned would perform in actual low light with real dynamic range like gary's shot above has.


Jul 10, 2012 at 11:01 PM
LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


I'll add a couple from my 1DIII to this post later tonight.
In the past I would avoid higher ISO's and would end up with blury shots,
I've since accepted higher noise, at least more pictures are useable, and better noise qualities
just make it less annoying.



Jul 10, 2012 at 11:26 PM
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


I'll have to shoot some at 3200 with the a900 for you, bif. The highest I've got is ISO 1600. But here's one shot at ISO 1600 at 1/30 with SS on. That should have some comparative value. 0 on both luminance and color.







Jul 10, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Jason C
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


G3
f/2
iso 6400




Removed color noise in LR3


Jason C



Jul 11, 2012 at 01:56 AM
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


Here's one at 3200 from the a900 for you, Bif. This one's shot at a more reasonable 1/125 with SS on, color and luminance both at 0. I'll have to shoot some comparison shots at more similar shutter speeds, because ISO 3200 looks much better here than my previous 1600 shot, but that may have more to do with the lighting and shutter speed than the sensor's performance.

Still, I don't think anyone will ever claim that the a900 is a superb performer at high ISOs. It certainly wasn't a big factor for me when I decided to move to it. If I wanted clean or film-like high ISO performance, I would've stuck with the DsIII or moved to the Nikon D3. Bumping up the ISO is usually my last choice in an effort to keep shutter speeds higher.







Jul 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


sebboh wrote:
bif that flat lighting shot tells nothing about high iso performance in real world shooting, at least it never has been any predictor of how any camera i've owned would perform in actual low light with real dynamic range like gary's shot above has.


I find this to be untrue. Not only to be argumentative but perhaps I'm special in some way. Not! Seriously, if I see one shot without NR or post exposure compensation applied under almost any lighting conditions, I know almost instinctively what every shot will look like (noise wise) - and the exceptions are very very few. Is my brain somehow different from yours in that I'm able to see the noise patterns as a separate quality and apply them accurately across the camera's general performance at that ISO - also knowing about how it will clean up when NR is applied?

Normally I would guess not, but your remarks have me kinda wondering.




freaklikeme wrote:
Here's one at 3200 from the a900 for you, Bif. This one's shot at a more reasonable 1/125 with SS on, color and luminance both at 0. I'll have to shoot some comparison shots at more similar shutter speeds, because ISO 3200 looks much better here than my previous 1600 shot, but that may have more to do with the lighting and shutter speed than the sensor's performance.


Thanks! Yeah, blacks, shadows, especially reddish shadows, show the noise more than when any of the other primary colors are mixed or are separate (green, blue, white, etc.) - at least most cameras seem so to me so far. Blue is the second worst culprit - especially dark blues - like nearly black...


Still, I don't think anyone will ever claim that the a900 is a superb performer at high ISOs. It certainly wasn't a big factor for me when I decided to move to it. If I wanted clean or film-like high ISO performance, I would've stuck with the DsIII or moved to the Nikon D3. Bumping up the ISO is usually my last choice in an effort to keep shutter speeds higher.

It looks awesome to me. I too think not too many people base their purchases primarily on ISO performance. The general consensus seems to be: "As long as it looks OK at ISO ______ then that's good enough for me." Where the ISO value seems to change with time. Maybe 3 or 4 years ago it was 400, then 800, and more recently 3200. It seems to still be between 3200 and 6400 with no one expecting much from higher ISOs. For me this kind of thread (these kinds of comparisons) are a good proof of evolution to see where it's all at. I guess it's a help to know what's currently expectable but I don't base too much on ISO performance.

Still, I have to say that if ISO 25,600 looked as good as ISO 100 I'd be using it a heck of a lot! There are many many times I want the depth of f/16-22 on a 600 to 1,000mm (FF equiv) lens at shutters of above 1,000 but just can't get there at ISO 400 where it's still pristine - even in strong daylight. So BIFs and such require either super AF tracking (beyond my budget) or skillz of intense concentration and diligence in focus control - usually during continuous drive bursts. The later is fun of course but a little relief would be nice and a super low noise sensor could certainly offer that. IMO we're just about there now. At least from what I'm seeing in this thread so far. And if the historical procession is any indicator we will actually be there shortly!




Gary Clennan wrote:
You are such a buzz kill Bif! Good eye - I double checked and indeed had the NR set to a low value of 20 in LR. Here it is with no NR at all. Still pretty good I say!


Yup! I actually like the one without NR better. Deeper less flat looking! And thanks for checking man, very cool!





Jul 12, 2012 at 08:25 AM
CalW
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


Panasonic DMC-G3 with Pan-Leica 25mm f 1.4 DG Summilux at ISO 1600 f 1.4 1/320
(Well, I think 1600 is 'high'...)





Default Noise Ninja Applied







Unprocessed 100% Crop




Jul 12, 2012 at 08:50 AM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


FlyPenFly wrote:
I think for the first month of learning digital photography I cared about high ISO. After that, ISO performance above ISO800 seemed academic.

I really care more about DR and cleanliness at base to ISO400.


Agreed. Unless you are a wedding or event photog who really needs high ISO quality, then who the Hell cares?



Jul 12, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


michael49 wrote:
Agreed. Unless you are a wedding or event photog who really needs high ISO quality, then who the Hell cares?


Anyone living in a country where a large portion of the year is pitch black and don't want to bring a tripod all the time. Are you guys only shooting at mid day?



Jul 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


Makten wrote:
Anyone living in a country where a large portion of the year is pitch black and don't want to bring a tripod all the time. Are you guys only shooting at mid day?


I would like to express my support for this comment



Jul 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · ISO Samples From Your Camera


@ Makten,
Yup, it surprises me just how much my light meter dips just during over-cast days. And overcast is some of the very best lighting! So if 400 is the limit then wide open plus VR, AS, or whatever ya call it, is in order - unless they're going for that slurry camera-shake look.

@ All,
They don't refer to that one hour just before the Sun sets as "Golden Hour" for nothing. What then? Only tripodders need apply? Nah, ISO 400 (even 800) barely makes a difference. ISO 1,600 is a step in the right amount but of course like all good things - I want more. ISO 6,400 is more like it... 12,800... Okay, now we're talking! But I guess it will be a few years before anything but the most expensive DSLRs have an acceptable 12,800 image able to really be used in all situations - like where high detail scene resolving is wanted.

And then of course there are natural lighting macro attempts where no amount of DOF seems to be enough, always seem to occur in the shade, and always seem to need yet more cropping. Thank the camera gods for the ISO performance and the NR apps we have so far! Lemme show ya what I mean (cool! more excuses to post images! ):




F/5.6, 1/500s, ISO 1250, Massive Crop
Hiding noise the old fashion way: B&W conversion!
Still, F/8 or 11 at 1/2000 would have been preferable!
I wanted the fly OOF and the shadow in focus but not this much.






F/4.0, 1/1250s, ISO 1250, Massive Crop
I used some NR on this but didn't spend the time needed. Mostly because it wasn't deep enough to begin with.
Really F/16 or 22 at ISO 6400 would have been so much nicer - but these were less than 2mm long babies and
I shake too much for a slower SS and the noise from 6400 probably would have munched the detail even more.







f/8, 1/200s, ISO 1250, Massive Crop
No NR used besides ACR defaults. Of course f/16 or 22 at 1/2000 would have been easier on the back with
less forehead sweat too. Still not too bad considering it's a pretty massive crop. I'm glad the GH2 is lots
better than the GH1 - which probably would have recorded a fairly unusable image here with these settings.









F/4.0, 1/1000s, ISO 1250, Massive Crop
Using selective NR here. The results were much better before I had to add post exposure compensation
which brought out all the ugly noise. I'm glad the GH2 doesn't suck too bad at this ISO but I want more.
It took me about 4 clicks to get one in frame without motion blur. This is also fairly heavily cropped.






F/5.6, 1/320s, ISO 1250, Uncropped
Results are better when the whole frame is used (and scaled to web size) of course.
Not too bad for ISO 1250. Very little NR was needed here. I wanted a much deeper
shot but given the available light there was just no way without adding way too much
sensor noise. I'm glad for the low noise of the GH2 but who shooting this scene would
not want more? Oh, say, about ten stops more! Of course everyone! Saying anything
else only means you're being silly, not thinking, or don't use your camera very much.





Jul 13, 2012 at 04:25 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.