Oh yeah, the bean counting department sees absolutely no reason to spend money on upgrading any gear I learned long ago to keep those transactions as clandestine as possible..............
Jim, you might give Chas your opinion of the ISO differences between the IDX and the R5, well, that is if it is an issue for him.
I got in a hurry for a tour of a cave in Montenegro and grabbed the R5c vs my R6. I had to run the ISO up to 12800 and 16000, so there is a little assistance from DeNoise (using Douglas' Clear method). I am still on a small screen so I can't see the detail. But I would rather not go above ISO 400 on the R5c.
Ray Swindle wrote:
Jim, you might give Chas your opinion of the ISO differences between the IDX and the R5, well, that is if it is an issue for him.
I got in a hurry for a tour of a cave in Montenegro and grabbed the R5c vs my R6. I had to run the ISO up to 12800 and 16000, so there is a little assistance from DeNoise (using Douglas' Clear method). I am still on a small screen so I can't see the detail. But I would rather not go above ISO 400 on the R5c.
Ray, so the R5 high ISO capability is limited due to the noise factor, which flows from the size and density of the pixels?
A few from the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, where every weekend is an airshow!!!
The first one is special! A 1933 Davis D1, Serial # 707. This aircraft, originally a demo aircraft owned by The Davis Aircraft Company, was flown by both Charles Lindburgh and Amelia Earhart in demonstrations for Davis.
If I understand your context I would say yes, you are correct. I am not really good at explaining this, which is why I was hoping Jim will do it when he gets time. I can use higher ISO settings in my R6 than I can with the R5c. The R6 sensor is very similar to the ID X III, 20 mp. The higher mp available in the 5DSR and the R5D attract more noise with the higher resolution, I think! I do see more noise in the larger mp cameras than the R6 at the same ISO settings.
I can tell you that I shot the 1DXII at an Oshkosh night fireworks airshow and it was noisy, but usable at 12,800. The R5C has so much moire at that ISO I do not consider it a usable file. That being said, 400/1600, even 3200 is very usable on the R5/R5C, The stabilization on both cameras also allows you to use much slower shutter speeds handheld so you don't have to go to ridiculous ISO settings in some cases. This is one of those times when we need to step back and compare what we can produce currently against what was impossible just a few years ago. I never shot above 400 and didn't like 400, now double and triple that is pretty darn good.
I think what Ray is trying to say is, the larger sensors have larger pixels and they are more densely packed, they also generate more heat which is where the bulk of the noise comes from. The 5DSR was a noisier than the 1DX by quite a bit and it's due to the increased sensor size.
A bit of perspective, remember AGFA 1000? We were so amazed by what could be captured on it, but it was literally clumps of grain in which you might be able to decipher a subject.
Speaking of the things that have changed over the years, my lab bills used to run $8,000 to $14,000 a month in the old days. Not only did film processing fees fall off a cliff with the advent of digital, the need for large display prints virtually vanished as well. I have felt badly about all that business going away, my lab is one of the best in the country and they have always performed miracles for me and my end clients. This week I have been able to give them a little boost, picking up over $4,000 worth of mounted display prints for my oilfield clients to present to their clients. Hopefully this will be just the beginning as I capture different projects for them around the country..............a good example of how "trickle down" economics absolutely does work, Duh!
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Speaking of the things that have changed over the years, my lab bills used to run $8,000 to $14,000 a month in the old days. Not only did film processing fees fall off a cliff with the advent of digital, the need for large display prints virtually vanished as well. I have felt badly about all that business going away, my lab is one of the best in the country and they have always performed miracles for me and my end clients. This week I have been able to give them a little boost, picking up over $4,000 worth of mounted display prints for my oilfield clients to present to their clients. Hopefully this will be just the beginning as I capture different projects for them around the country..............a good example of how "trickle down" economics absolutely does work, Duh!...Show more →
I hear ya on large prints being vanished, I miss it but have ran about 35 or so 20 x 30 and they are beautiful.
..
Jim, you doing prints on paper, matted and framed, canvas, metallic or acrylic ?
The same guys have printed and mounted my work for over 40 years. Together we have designed some beautiful ways to present large prints, most of which you can see hanging on the photo wall of my hangar. The treatment that I chose for my oilfield images is a mount on 1/4" Sintra with black edges, a deep protective glossy laminate, and the crowing touch is the cleat system that serves as a mount and to suspend the print 1/2" from the wall. The presentation is stunning. The 60" shot of the 457th FS F/16 that Chandler, Boydo and I did was mounted on 1/4" clear acrylic, it looks a mile deep, and the mounting system is made up of 3/4" stainless steel dots in the corners. That treatment is pretty pricey, about $1,400 at the lab. The idea, of course, is to present the imagery in a way that enhances the viewer's experience but doesn't distract from the photograph itself. We designed both of these systems to do just that. Jan Arie can tell you how good they look in the hangar, and that's with no special lighting or anything, they are killer in an office environment where you can point a spot light from above at them. I just did two metal prints mounted on 1/8" acrylic that I have yet to see, but I think that will be pretty cool too.
Ray, Bill and Jim, thanks for the advice and opinions. I very much appreciate you respective thought processes. And thanks for the kind words also. Jim, I very much appreciate your praise....it's like Michaelangelo praising your drawings!!!
Ray Swindle wrote:
Jim, you might give Chas your opinion of the ISO differences between the IDX and the R5, well, that is if it is an issue for him.
I got in a hurry for a tour of a cave in Montenegro and grabbed the R5c vs my R6. I had to run the ISO up to 12800 and 16000, so there is a little assistance from DeNoise (using Douglas' Clear method). I am still on a small screen so I can't see the detail. But I would rather not go above ISO 400 on the R5c.
chas wrote:
A few from the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, where every weekend is an airshow!!!
The first one is special! A 1933 Davis D1, Serial # 707. This aircraft, originally a demo aircraft owned by The Davis Aircraft Company, was flown by both Charles Lindburgh and Amelia Earhart in demonstrations for Davis.
Danpbphoto wrote:
Ray I too am very interested in going mirrorless but high ISO usually is not a problem. Shaking is. It seems the lenses that have IS absorb some but not all.
I see yours above and am overwhelmed at how sharp and clear they are at such gigantic ISO's.
I use NIk Dfine2 for noise but I am very upset with DXO's response to continued problems with their software.
Outstanding images Ray!!!
Dan
Dan, Topaz denoise is my best friend.. However, I set the max ISO to 10000. I am actually uncomfortable for anything above ISO 6400 if I still have to crop a lot.
Check these ISO, these images are very heavily cropped too. I got to say shooting swallows in flight is the most challenging for me in all the things I shoot.
ILCE-1FE 600mm F4 GM OSS lens600mmf/4.01/4000s10000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F4 GM OSS lens600mmf/4.01/4000s4000 ISO-1.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F4 GM OSS lens600mmf/4.01/4000s3200 ISO-1.7 EV
ILCE-1FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS lens600mmf/6.31/3200s5000 ISO-0.3 EV
ILCE-1FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS lens571mmf/6.31/3200s2500 ISO-1.0 EV
I learned long ago to keep those transactions as clandestine as possible..............
