jpg straight from camera, standard high ISO NR, tungsten WB
ISO 12800, 1/320sec, F1.2
1) there is banding in the dark areas, but does it matter if it's not in the main subject?
2) for both banding and grain, is it visually offensive, or mere nuisance, especially when compared to the film days?
3) I guess it would suck, if one had a dark main subject before a bright background
--
www.flickr.com/photos/helmutsteinwender/
The only way you'd not see that "slight" noise is if you printed a tiny thumbnail. I would bet money the banding would still be noticeable too, although not as bad, so maybe it's more of a "nuisance". In the end I still regard such high ISOs mostly as a gimmick, not for general use, but I'd be glad to see images to change my mind.
Dude. It was a post about ISO. Not about exposure.
And if that amount of noise bothers you, you must have never used film or barely if ever make prints. I have made prints for publication that started with more noise than this and they were very usable. To state it would have to be a thumbnail is quite over the top and in my personal opinion...ridiculous.
BTW: Concerning it being a gimmick, what is it that you actually shoot? I shoot ISO 3200 at dark sporting field events all the time and it gives me the shutter speed necessary at long focal lengths. How would you suggest shooting them at low ISOs?
I also shoot high ISO in dark events where I also use flash but want to balance it with as much ambient light as possible. I puff of flash with high ISO and fast glass makes an image (IMHO) much more desirable than a perfectly clean "deer in the headlights" flash image.
But...I'll just bow out as there is no purpose in trying to argue these points. To each their own.
apdieb wrote:
Dude. It was a post about ISO. Not about exposure.
And if that amount of noise bothers you, you must have never used film or barely if ever make prints. I have made prints for publication that started with more noise than this and they were very usable. To state it would have to be a thumbnail is quite over the top and in my personal opinion...ridiculous.
Ah. So you think you wouldn't even SEE that noise in print? Because that's what I was responding to. Have you ever printed a high ISO shot before?
Here, the noise has seriously impacted the quality of the shot. The noise reduction has blurred much of the detail away. It is of much lower quality than it would have been if shot at, say, 3200.
I didn't say the shot was absolutely unusable. What I said is that the noise would be visible in print unless printed at a tiny size. Now I will add to my statement, and say that the noise has seriously impacted the quality of this shot, and that would be noticeable compared to a lower ISO shot, unless printed at a small size, say 5 X 7. So unless the OP bought his camera to shoot family snaps, he'd be best off trying to manage his settings to make best use of the available light, and go to the highest ISOs only when dictated by necessity.
OK, high ISO shots from any camera that are badly misexposed are going to give you noise, banding, dots, and probably other ugly demons. Stupid example IMO.
It depends on the usage of the file. It can be usable in some circumstances.
For instance I would not give such a file to my customers (I do weddings). Probably the reaction would be : "these images look like taken with a mobile phone". To me the most annoying thing is the banding. Well, it's 12800. If there is no other way to get a crucial shot, it can be handy, but the amount of noise and banding is not something to write home about (especially given that it already has some NR applied).
jvarszegi
The shutter speed was not a valid point. Had it been faster, the ISO would have been lower and hence we wouldn't see what the OP wanted us to see - a high ISO shot. Maybe the faster shutter speed was needed because the subject was moving? Maybe the shutter speed was higher because they wanted a wider aperture? Or do you think perhaps the aim was to show ISO12800?
Shrink1: The noise and banding is quite noticeable, but for the purpose of the shot, ISO12800 does its job. If this was a birthday scene (blowing out candles) I don't think anyone would complain about the noise. The lay person probably wouldn't think to look, they'd just be happy you got the shot. Looking at this I wouldn't be afraid of using ISO12800.
Sahid Limon wrote:
Thanks to the OP for posting this. Feuz, just out of curiosity, do you have any sample jpegs in similar lighting conditions from the mk3 at ISO 6400? Just to compare...
Here's one from my Mark 3 at ISO 6400. Converted in PS CS4, only adjustment being a quick white balance tweak, but sharpness and everything else was set to 0. I used the Adobe Standard Beta 2 color profile.
vontom wrote:
jvarszegi
The shutter speed was not a valid point.
Yes, it was. This is a good illustration of why ISO 12800 and above are not really needed for most shots around the house, and also why it generally shouldn't be used for optimal results either, but only as a last resort. 1/320s was not needed for this stationary toddler. If the shutter speed was higher because a wider aperture was needed, the OP made a mistake (and you have no valid point): the extra light would have been better spent on a lower ISO. The OP did not state that he took this shot with the sole aim of presenting an ISO 12800 sample here, but rather just that the shot is an ISO 12800 sample, and that he wanted feedback on how much the obvious noise has impacted the quality.
I never said that ISO 12800 was absolutely useless, but this shot helps to show why it should only be used when necessary.
35L, ISO 6400...1DMKIII and 5DMkII
Shot RAW, converted in DPP with no sharpening, no Noise reduction or any other adjustments. Straight conversion. Excuse the dust on the toy train.
jvarszegi wrote:
Yes, it was. This is a good illustration of why ISO 12800 and above are not really needed for most shots around the house, and also why it generally shouldn't be used for optimal results either, but only as a last resort. 1/320s was not needed for this stationary toddler. If the shutter speed was higher because a wider aperture was needed, the OP made a mistake (and you have no valid point): the extra light would have been better spent on a lower ISO. The OP did not state that he took this shot with the sole aim of presenting an ISO 12800 sample here, but rather just that the shot is an ISO 12800 sample, and that he wanted feedback on how much the obvious noise has impacted the quality.
I never said that ISO 12800 was absolutely useless, but this shot helps to show why it should only be used when necessary....Show more →
I think you are wrong and agree with Fuez. You are right if the goal had been to take the best possible photograph, but you are totally off base when the goal is testing high ISO noise. You are detracting from this thread and I think you should refrain from further incorrect banter on the matter.
Travis Biggs wrote:
I think you are wrong and agree with Fuez. You are right if the goal had been to take the best possible photograph, but you are totally off base when the goal is testing high ISO noise. You are detracting from this thread and I think you should refrain from further incorrect banter on the matter.
Opinion noted, and it's an incorrect one. The point stands: the noise has seriously impacted the quality of this shot, and it would have been better shot at a lower ISO because it was not necessary. In the future, refrain from posting if you're only going to tell someone else not to post their opinion.
jvarszegi wrote:
the noise has seriously impacted the quality of this shot, and it would have been better shot at a lower ISO because it was not necessary.
So do you like the Noise Ninja version of this shot? (nice one mountainrivera)
Thank you both for posting the sample. Both cameras are pretty remarkable at such high ISO.
apdieb, I'm curious about the 5D2's sharpness in the 2nd image. The 1st image seems sharper than the 2nd one. I'm curious though, is this due to the megapixel downsize issue that Braniac mentioned in another thread, the 5D2's camera's performance, or because of a user focus issue when you were taking the picture?
