p.2 #1 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
I would also love to see more. For those who are curious of the application and need for high ISO photography, wedding receptions or dark churches...
I would personally relish the ability to use this at a wedding. Provided I always try to keep my ISO down, but I have been in some venues which, while very nice, were lit in such a way to create a certain ambiance (i.e. dark dark dark) this means even with a 2.8 or faster lens I've been shooting ISO 12,500 and 1/50 sec. The OPTION to be able to use this ISO just opens up so many creative possibilities!
These guys are absolutely stopped in their tracks while running and falling at 1/2000 with a lens of equivalent to yours. Also, your camera is full frame, while the camera used in the above is 1.3, putting yours at at even greater advantage as far as telephoto shake is concerned. I'm with Francois, this could have been done at 1/500.
I also understand that is not the point of this test, and find it amazing that 51.2k isn't far off from being usable in print, and definitely usable for web with some post.
These guys are absolutely stopped in their tracks while running and falling at 1/2000 [...] I'm with Francois, this could have been done at 1/500.
After seeing Rob's shot, I disagree. Do the math...
Rob's shot is sharp enough for nearly any intended usage. But it's definitely (even at the larger web size posted) not as perfectly sharp as it would have been if the subjects were standing still, so there is some motion blur; and the math says the same thing my eyes tell me. A flat-out run in football probably means 5 meters per second or more, but those 5 m/sec mean 2.5mm of motion in 1/2000 sec. Not enough to "matter", and I'm certainly not nitpicking... but it's not "absolutely stopped", it's stopped enough to get the desired results.
Circus performers are often diving from high altitudes or flying through the air in trapeze acts. I estimate that some of those free-falls have "hang times" of more than 2 seconds, but let's look at just 1 second for this example. After one second, gravity will have accelerated the diver or trapeze artist to 9.8 m/s. And since they always have some forward motion, a nice round number of 10 m/s is conservative. To get the same sharpness that Rob got (2.5 mm of motion) with the subject moving at twice the speed, you would obviously need 1/4000.
Once you combine the forward motion of trapeze artists with free-fall hang times that may approach 2 seconds, it's entirely realistic to have motion vectors well in excess of 20 m/s. I see absolutely no reason to question the need for 1/5000 shutter speeds in some circus settings. Obviously not all shots will require that kind of speed... but I do think that some will.
p.2 #7 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
my headache began as I thought about it, vision blurry, smoke coming outa my ears, and my shutter finger twitching, maybe it was time to hope you got it right
p.2 #11 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Thanks, Joe! But the big question then becomes: is the analysis valid, or have I missed something somewhere?
Paiz,
The way I did the math was to go to Ellis's website and look at his list of clientele. Answer = he knows what he is doing and I'll take his word (since none of us were there).
p.2 #12 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
After seeing Rob's shot, I disagree. Do the math...
Rob's shot is sharp enough for nearly any intended usage. But it's definitely (even at the larger web size posted) not as perfectly sharp as it would have been if the subjects were standing still, so there is some motion blur; and the math says the same thing my eyes tell me. A flat-out run in football probably means 5 meters per second or more, but those 5 m/sec mean 2.5mm of motion in 1/2000 sec. Not enough to "matter", and I'm certainly not nitpicking... but it's not "absolutely stopped", it's stopped enough to get the desired results.
Circus performers are often diving from high altitudes or flying through the air in trapeze acts. I estimate that some of those free-falls have "hang times" of more than 2 seconds, but let's look at just 1 second for this example. After one second, gravity will have accelerated the diver or trapeze artist to 9.8 m/s. And since they always have some forward motion, a nice round number of 10 m/s is conservative. To get the same sharpness that Rob got (2.5 mm of motion) with the subject moving at twice the speed, you would obviously need 1/4000.
Once you combine the forward motion of trapeze artists with free-fall hang times that may approach 2 seconds, it's entirely realistic to have motion vectors well in excess of 20 m/s. I see absolutely no reason to question the need for 1/5000 shutter speeds in some circus settings. Obviously not all shots will require that kind of speed... but I do think that some will....Show more →
My apologies, I didn't know the subject was in the middle of a trapeze act, I missed that one, oops!
Also, what did you reference against to know that there were 2.5mm of motion in Rob's shot? I didn't see a reference point reliable enough to get down to the half millimeter. Is it the football? The football is the only thing I see where you might be able to Google its dimensions, but with it being at an unknown angle in the photo, my math abilities start to fade!
I shoot lots of MX with a 1.3 crop body, 400mm lens, no IS, at 1/1000 and achieve shots with sharpness similar to Rob's, but then again they aren't spinning in circles so fast my eyes can't keep up.
Your post makes me rethink the situation for sure, but unless that guy is falling and spinning, I'm still of the same opinion. No matter, thanks for forcing me to think a little more three dimensionally.
p.2 #13 · 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.
My experience has been different, I find the D700 and D3 prints stunning at ISO 6400.
p.2 #15 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
corndog wrote:
My apologies, I didn't know the subject was in the middle of a trapeze act, I missed that one, oops! [...] Also, what did you reference against to know that there were 2.5mm of motion in Rob's shot? I didn't see a reference point reliable enough to get down to the half millimeter.
Thanks, corndog, but you give me too much credit. Since there was a discussion about whether 1/1000 or 1/2000 was enough to truly freeze motion in some cases, I merely created reasonable numbers to use as examples. If you go through my previous post again, you'll note that I said things like "it would be reasonable for a rugby/football player to run at X speed," and then I created the analysis based on those numbers.
I didn't want to pretend that I could analyze those images with precision, so I completely made up the examples instead. They were intended to be realistic and conservative, but they were not intended to sound like they were an actual analysis and measurement of those images.
p.2 #16 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
Actually, I did not see where the OP mentioned that the subject was part of a trapeze act either. In any case, the RG example had the athletes running more-or-less to camera, so less apparent motion than the side-on image of the OP, if that image was capturing someone on a trapeze—while swinging (there are many 'still points' in trapeze acts, just like dance).
OTOH, I have shot expert gymnasts on the horizontal bars and rings, freezing fast movement at 1/1,000 of a second, so without knowing more, I am going to say that 1/5,000" probably want not *needed* in the OP's image; but this is beside the point:
the image is very very good in terms of noise and sharpness (especially for an essentially unprocessed image) and IMHO, definitely usable.
I have auto ISO set to 6400 too; I find all images acceptable, even if there is a bit of 'grain'. Of course, I am an ex film guy!
p.2 #18 · Nikon D3s @ ISO 51,200: additional sample
Fascinating. Guy posts an image showing attaninable performance at the limits of a brand new camera. Shows a neat image, helps us see what the quality and defects are, lets us see whether we might want to do this in some kind of extreme circumstances. Other guys gripe that the quality isn't good enough for their gallery landscapes and their baby photos. Not good enough, coulda been done different, never use it myself.
