20D @ 1600 ISO !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Patrick L., Sep 24, 2004.

  1. Patrick L.

    Patrick L. Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only

    available
    > light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a

    big
    > file.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    >
    > 1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO
    >
    >




    What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?. Find
    some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600 or
    ISO 3200.

    Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
    ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore, only
    such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.


    Patrick
    Patrick L., Sep 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Patrick L.

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Sep 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Patrick L.

    Mark M Guest

    "Patrick L." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only

    > available
    > > light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still

    a
    > big
    > > file.
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    > >
    > > 1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.


    >Find
    > some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600

    or
    > ISO 3200.
    >
    > Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
    > ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,

    only
    > such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.


    Huh?
    I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of field
    in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
    this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
    been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light AND
    allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE benefit,
    and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
    camera's ability to avoid noise.
    Mark M, Sep 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Patrick L.

    ThomasH Guest

    Mark M wrote:
    >
    > "Patrick L." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only

    > > available
    > > > light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a
    > > > big file.
    > > >
    > > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    > > >
    > > > 1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO
    > > >

    > >
    > > What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

    >
    > > Find some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600 or
    > > ISO 3200.
    > >
    > > Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
    > > ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
    > > only such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

    >
    > Huh?
    > I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of field
    > in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
    > this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
    > been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light AND
    > allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE benefit,
    > and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
    > camera's ability to avoid noise.


    And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
    this 20D has a damn good sensor.

    Thomas
    ThomasH, Sep 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Patrick L.

    Mark M Guest

    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Mark M wrote:
    > >
    > > "Patrick L." <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >
    > > > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
    > > > available
    > > > > light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's

    still a
    > > > > big file.
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    > > > >
    > > > > 1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

    > >
    > > > Find some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and

    ISO 1600 or
    > > > ISO 3200.
    > > >
    > > > Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to

    use
    > > > ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
    > > > only such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

    > >
    > > Huh?
    > > I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of

    field
    > > in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
    > > this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
    > > been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light

    AND
    > > allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE

    benefit,
    > > and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
    > > camera's ability to avoid noise.

    >
    > And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
    > this 20D has a damn good sensor.


    It is especially impressive given the fact that it's packing another 2
    million pixels into the same size as the 10D. This usually leads to more
    noise, but Canon seems to have manage LESS noise, or at worst...the same
    amount. It looks like less to me.
    Mark M, Sep 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Patrick L.

    HooDooWitch Guest

    "Mark M" <> somehow managed to
    post:
    >
    >"ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
    >> this 20D has a damn good sensor.

    >
    >It is especially impressive given the fact that it's packing another 2
    >million pixels into the same size as the 10D. This usually leads to more
    >noise, but Canon seems to have manage LESS noise, or at worst...the same
    >amount. It looks like less to me.
    >


    It is quite impressive, but the nature of the fur, which makes up 90%
    of this shot, masks a lot of the noise. I'd like to see a shot of some
    smooth coloured glass or plastic under similar circumstances.

    --
    HooDooWitch (NaCl - Gratis)

    http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/51251.html
    HooDooWitch, Sep 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Patrick L.

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that HooDooWitch <>
    stated that:

    >It is quite impressive, but the nature of the fur, which makes up 90%
    >of this shot, masks a lot of the noise. I'd like to see a shot of some
    >smooth coloured glass or plastic under similar circumstances.


    You can see the noise quite clearly in the eyes & sclera at a 100% view,
    & it jumps right out at you at 200%. (BTW; notice how the image is
    losing chroma on the dark skin of the eyelids - an effect I've also
    noticed on my 10D in similar shots.) That said, the noise in that shot
    is amazingly low for ISO 1600, & would be invisible at any sane print
    size. Reduce the scale down to 50% (equivalent to a 200 DPI print on my
    screen), & you wouldn't be able to spot the noise without already
    knowing it was there.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    , Sep 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Patrick L.

    Atreju Guest

    On 24 Sep 2004 03:50:52 GMT, (Annika1980) wrote:

    >Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only available
    >light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a big
    >file.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    >
    >1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO
    >


    Sweeeeeeeet. REALLY nice image considering 1600 ISO. There is a little
    noise, but you can easily clean that up.

    VERY nice shot.


    ---Atreju---
    Atreju, Sep 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Patrick L.

    Skip M Guest

    "Patrick L." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only

    > available
    > > light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still

    a
    > big
    > > file.
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    > >
    > > 1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

    Find
    > some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600

    or
    > ISO 3200.
    >
    > Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
    > ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,

    only
    > such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.
    >
    >
    > Patrick
    >
    >

    Depth of field and sharpness of image are both very good reasons to shoot at
    f11 and 1/25. Most lenses are not at their best wide open, f8 and f11 are
    usually better choices, if you can do it. And, of course, depth of field is
    greater at f11 than it is at f2.8.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Sep 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Patrick L.

    Skip M Guest

    "HooDooWitch" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > >

    >
    > It is quite impressive, but the nature of the fur, which makes up 90%
    > of this shot, masks a lot of the noise. I'd like to see a shot of some
    > smooth coloured glass or plastic under similar circumstances.
    >
    > --
    > HooDooWitch (NaCl - Gratis)
    >
    > http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/51251.html



    How about a daytime sky? Fast shutter and aperture, but there's a wide
    expanse of sky for noise to show up in.

    http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My 20D images&picture=4

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Sep 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Patrick L.

    Alan Browne Guest

    Patrick L. wrote:

    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only

    >
    > available
    >
    >>light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a

    >
    > big
    >
    >>file.
    >>
    >>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    >>
    >>1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?. Find
    > some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600 or
    > ISO 3200.
    >
    > Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
    > ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore, only
    > such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.


    I (and others?) asked Bret to post shots at higher ISO's in order to see the noise.

    Low light shooting, further, does not _demand_ a sacrifice in DOF either.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    Alan Browne, Sep 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Patrick L.

    Guest

    In message <QeY4d.34216$aW5.2999@fed1read07>,
    "Skip M" <> wrote:

    >How about a daytime sky? Fast shutter and aperture, but there's a wide
    >expanse of sky for noise to show up in.
    >
    >http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My 20D images&picture=4


    How much of a crop is that?

    If it is not a crop, why are you demonstrated noise with an image that
    is downsampled? That would only show how well the noise downsamples.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 1, 2004
    #12
  13. "Skip M" <> wrote in message news:<FbY4d.34215$aW5.6014@fed1read07>...

    > Depth of field and sharpness of image are both very good reasons to shoot at
    > f11 and 1/25. Most lenses are not at their best wide open, f8 and f11 are
    > usually better choices, if you can do it. And, of course, depth of field is
    > greater at f11 than it is at f2.8.


    Increasing ISO will never increase overall optical quality, even if
    the lens performs a little better stopped down.
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 2, 2004
    #13
  14. (Annika1980) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only available
    > light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a big
    > file.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original
    >
    > 1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO


    Wow that looks like a P&S.
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Patrick L.

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Georgette Preddy wrote:
    > "Skip M" <> wrote in message news:<FbY4d.34215$aW5.6014@fed1read07>...
    >
    >
    >>Depth of field and sharpness of image are both very good reasons to shoot at
    >>f11 and 1/25. Most lenses are not at their best wide open, f8 and f11 are
    >>usually better choices, if you can do it. And, of course, depth of field is
    >>greater at f11 than it is at f2.8.

    >
    >
    > Increasing ISO will never increase overall optical quality, even if
    > the lens performs a little better stopped down.


    More idiocy from a familiar source.
    Phil Wheeler, Oct 2, 2004
    #15
  16. Patrick L.

    S. Guest

    "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message
    news:X8r7d.1181$...
    >
    >
    > Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >> "Skip M" <> wrote in message
    >> news:<FbY4d.34215$aW5.6014@fed1read07>...
    >>
    >>
    >>>Depth of field and sharpness of image are both very good reasons to shoot
    >>>at
    >>>f11 and 1/25. Most lenses are not at their best wide open, f8 and f11
    >>>are
    >>>usually better choices, if you can do it. And, of course, depth of field
    >>>is
    >>>greater at f11 than it is at f2.8.

    >>
    >>
    >> Increasing ISO will never increase overall optical quality, even if
    >> the lens performs a little better stopped down.

    >
    > More idiocy from a familiar source.
    >


    Haven't you all killfiled him yet? If you all didn't respond, I would have
    less noise.

    S.
    S., Oct 2, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Yip Yap

    Canon 10D shot at ISO 1600

    Yip Yap, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    121
    Views:
    2,004
    Michael Quack
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. Hugo Drax

    I am still amazed at 1600 ISO :)

    Hugo Drax, Dec 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    955
  3. Georgette Preddy

    Is Sigma's SD10 at ISO 1600 better than Canon's 1Ds at ISO 100?

    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    680
    Randall Ainsworth
    Jul 15, 2004
  4. you know who maybe

    Better ISO 1600: 1D MkII or 20D?

    you know who maybe, Dec 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    257
    Jon Pike
    Dec 7, 2004
  5. Giulia

    20D Grey Highlights At ISO 1600

    Giulia, Apr 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    452
    Lionel
    May 1, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page