I am still amazed at 1600 ISO :)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Hugo Drax, Dec 30, 2003.

  1. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    Hugo Drax, Dec 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hugo Drax

    JK Guest

    Do you have any 1600 ISO images posted on any websites?

    Hug Drax wrote:

    > Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    > lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    JK, Dec 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hugo Drax

    jean Guest

    I use 800 often on my 300D when the light levels are low and I very often
    forget to set it back and the pictures still come out good.

    Jean

    "Hugo Drax" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:bsqpb4$dja8$-berlin.de...
    > Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing

    much
    > lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    >
    >
    jean, Dec 30, 2003
    #3
  4. Hugo Drax

    Mark B. Guest

    "Hugo Drax" <> wrote in message
    news:bsqpb4$dja8$-berlin.de...
    > Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing

    much
    > lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    >
    >


    Not 'often', but here are some shots from a Foreigner concert with a D30,
    most shots at 1600, and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8:

    http://home.comcast.net/~PTfanatic/PT_cruiser/balloon_fest_03/Foreigner/index.htm

    Mark
    Mark B., Dec 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Hugo Drax

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Mark B." <> writes:
    > > Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost
    > > wide. Amazing much lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here
    > > use 1600 often?

    >
    > Not 'often', but here are some shots from a Foreigner concert with a D30,
    > most shots at 1600, and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8:


    A D30 might be quieter at 1600 than a D60, because of the D30's larger
    imaging sites (fewer pixels in the same area).
    Paul Rubin, Dec 30, 2003
    #5
  6. Hugo Drax

    DJ Guest

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:32:27 -0500, JK <> wrote:

    >Do you have any 1600 ISO images posted on any websites?


    I took one shot of a friend the other night in available light, 1/50 at 1.8 set
    for ISO1600 and I swear an A4 (8x10) print has so little noise it's barely
    noticable against his 9pm shadow. I've posted it at

    http://splatco.com/david/graeme-small.jpg (Small version, 200K)
    And
    http://splatco.com/david/graeme_big.jpg (full size jpg'd down to 2MB)

    There's _some_ noise, and also some hand-wobble (one glass of wine too many that
    night!) but I don't believe this result could ever have been obtained on film
    under the same conditions.

    dj

    >Hug Drax wrote:
    >
    >> Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    >> lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    DJ, Dec 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Hugo Drax

    Mark M Guest

    "Hugo Drax" <> wrote in message
    news:bsqpb4$dja8$-berlin.de...
    > Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing

    much
    > lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?


    Have you played with 3200 yet?
    Mark M, Dec 30, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <bsqpb4$dja8$-berlin.de>,
    "Hugo Drax" <> wrote:

    > Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    > lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    >
    >


    ISO 1600 shows severe noise filtering artifacts. Sharp details appear
    strongly while subtle details are blurred or blotchy. At least on the
    300D, ISO 400 seems the be the highest ISO that produces a quality
    image. ISO 800 and 1600 are still a very nice feature to have.
    Sometimes you simply can't control the environment enough to make a
    lower ISO work. A little distortion looks better than excessive digital
    gain or motion blur.

    It was also only a couple of years ago that noise filtering artifacts
    were showing up in many digicams at ISO 100. Trees and grass looked
    blotchy and unnatural where details were mistaken for noise.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Dec 30, 2003
    #8
  9. Hugo Drax

    Mark B. Guest

    "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mark B." <> writes:
    > > > Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost
    > > > wide. Amazing much lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here
    > > > use 1600 often?

    > >
    > > Not 'often', but here are some shots from a Foreigner concert with a

    D30,
    > > most shots at 1600, and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8:

    >
    > A D30 might be quieter at 1600 than a D60, because of the D30's larger
    > imaging sites (fewer pixels in the same area).


    This is probably true. I haven't had a chance yet to give 1600 a good
    workout on the 10D.

    Mark
    Mark B., Dec 30, 2003
    #9
  10. Hugo Drax

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >"Mark B." <> writes:
    >>
    >> Not 'often', but here are some shots from a Foreigner concert with a D30,
    >> most shots at 1600, and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8:

    >
    >A D30 might be quieter at 1600 than a D60, because of the D30's larger
    >imaging sites (fewer pixels in the same area).


    I've owned both, and IME, the pixel-level noise at 1600 ISO is similar in
    both. However, the 10D has more pixels (hence the smaller photosites), which
    means that if you are printing an image at any given size, the 10D will be
    less noisy.
    Chris Brown, Dec 30, 2003
    #10
  11. Hugo Drax

    JK Guest

    Thanks. The link to the smaller image didn't work, but the larger image
    does look nicer than what I expected. I love taking photos indoors in
    existing light. Of course using ISO 800 and especially 400 would be
    nicer, but often there isn't enough light to do so.

    DJ wrote:

    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:32:27 -0500, JK <> wrote:
    >
    > >Do you have any 1600 ISO images posted on any websites?

    >
    > I took one shot of a friend the other night in available light, 1/50 at 1.8 set
    > for ISO1600 and I swear an A4 (8x10) print has so little noise it's barely
    > noticable against his 9pm shadow. I've posted it at
    >
    > http://splatco.com/david/graeme-small.jpg (Small version, 200K)
    > And
    > http://splatco.com/david/graeme_big.jpg (full size jpg'd down to 2MB)
    >
    > There's _some_ noise, and also some hand-wobble (one glass of wine too many that
    > night!) but I don't believe this result could ever have been obtained on film
    > under the same conditions.
    >
    > dj
    >
    > >Hug Drax wrote:
    > >
    > >> Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    > >> lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    JK, Dec 31, 2003
    #11
  12. Hugo Drax

    DJ Guest

    Sorry, the hyphen should have been an underscore.

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:30:27 -0500, JK <> wrote:

    >Thanks. The link to the smaller image didn't work, but the larger image
    >does look nicer than what I expected. I love taking photos indoors in
    >existing light. Of course using ISO 800 and especially 400 would be
    >nicer, but often there isn't enough light to do so.
    >
    >DJ wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:32:27 -0500, JK <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Do you have any 1600 ISO images posted on any websites?

    >>
    >> I took one shot of a friend the other night in available light, 1/50 at 1.8 set
    >> for ISO1600 and I swear an A4 (8x10) print has so little noise it's barely
    >> noticable against his 9pm shadow. I've posted it at
    >>
    >> http://splatco.com/david/graeme-small.jpg (Small version, 200K)
    >> And
    >> http://splatco.com/david/graeme_big.jpg (full size jpg'd down to 2MB)
    >>
    >> There's _some_ noise, and also some hand-wobble (one glass of wine too many that
    >> night!) but I don't believe this result could ever have been obtained on film
    >> under the same conditions.
    >>
    >> dj
    >>
    >> >Hug Drax wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    >> >> lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?
    DJ, Dec 31, 2003
    #12
  13. "DJ" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > There's _some_ noise, and also some hand-wobble (one glass of wine too

    many that
    > night!) but I don't believe this result could ever have been obtained on

    film
    > under the same conditions.


    It stuning how far ahead Sigma is in terms of real resolution and optical
    detail at high ISOs, not to mention basic sharpness, compare...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/22627515/original
    http://splatco.com/david/graeme_big.jpg
    George Preddy, Dec 31, 2003
    #13
  14. Hugo Drax

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Hugo Drax" <> stated
    that:

    >Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    >lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?


    Yep. I do lots of nightclub & band photography with my 10D, so I mostly
    shoot 800 or 1600. If you're used to shooting fast film (or pushing
    slower film), the 10D + the 50mm/f1.8II or 28mm/f1.8 USM is like a dream
    come true. :)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Dec 31, 2003
    #14
  15. Hugo Drax

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that JK <> stated that:

    >Do you have any 1600 ISO images posted on any websites?


    Nearly all the photos currently on my website are 10D ISO 1600 & 800
    shots, if that's any help:
    <http://li.ve.ly/

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Dec 31, 2003
    #15
  16. Hugo Drax

    Mark M Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bsu91o$c08$...
    >
    > "DJ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > There's _some_ noise, and also some hand-wobble (one glass of wine too

    > many that
    > > night!) but I don't believe this result could ever have been obtained on

    > film
    > > under the same conditions.

    >
    > It stuning how far ahead Sigma is in terms of real resolution and optical


    George, please go to:
    http://helping.apa.org/find.html
    Mark M, Dec 31, 2003
    #16
  17. Hugo Drax

    Clay Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bsu91o$c08$...
    >
    > "DJ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > There's _some_ noise, and also some hand-wobble (one glass of wine too

    > many that
    > > night!) but I don't believe this result could ever have been obtained on

    > film
    > > under the same conditions.

    >
    > It stuning how far ahead Sigma is in terms of real resolution and optical
    > detail at high ISOs, not to mention basic sharpness, compare...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22627515/original
    > http://splatco.com/david/graeme_big.jpg
    >
    >


    You are joking, right?

    The "pbase" image looks like it was shot through a fish tank that should have
    been cleaned a few weeks back. Overall green/yellow cast. Color noise in the
    shadow areas. "It stunning" all right. Compare -- then run.
    Clay, Dec 31, 2003
    #17
  18. "Clay" <> wrote in message
    news:nTBIb.1383$...

    > > It stuning how far ahead Sigma is in terms of real resolution and

    optical
    > > detail at high ISOs, not to mention basic sharpness, compare...
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/22627515/original
    > > http://splatco.com/david/graeme_big.jpg

    >
    > You are joking, right?
    >
    > The "pbase" image looks like it was shot through a fish tank that should

    have
    > been cleaned a few weeks back. Overall green/yellow cast. Color noise in

    the
    > shadow areas. "It stunning" all right. Compare -- then run.


    The 10D ISO 1600 image might be the worst digital image I've ever seen, the
    difference in quality and optical resolution is nothing sort of shocking.
    Sure, ISO 800 and up is unusable for pro work using any DSLR (possible
    exception of the SD10, which is borderline), Canon's ISO 800 is absolutely
    the worst...
    https://vip.candidnet.com/go/http:/...anoneos10d_samples1/originals/CRW_8385_RJ.JPG

    The SD10 is absolutely sharper at ISO 800 then the 10D is at ISO 100 when
    both are viewed full size...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/22627246

    I've owned many prosumer digitals and I can't recall ever seeing an image
    this bad, at any ISO...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/22627515/original
    George Preddy, Dec 31, 2003
    #18
  19. Hugo Drax

    Nils Rostedt Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bsuo9d$mfl$...
    >
    > The SD10 is absolutely sharper at ISO 800 then the 10D is at ISO 100 when
    > both are viewed full size...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22627246


    A typical example of the SD10's green-gray shadow blotchiness (see
    undersides) but this time combined with interesting purple blooming in the
    highlights (see the uprights) as well as noticeable sky-noise.

    >
    > I've owned many prosumer digitals and I can't recall ever seeing an image
    > this bad, at any ISO...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22627515/original
    >

    yes, this is indeed a SD10 shot.
    Nils Rostedt, Dec 31, 2003
    #19
  20. Hugo Drax

    Guest

    In message <bsqpb4$dja8$-berlin.de>,
    "Hugo Drax" <> wrote:

    >Taking low light pictures with the 10D at 1600 ISO almost wide. Amazing much
    >lower noise than real 1600 film. anyone here use 1600 often?


    I do wildlife photography at dusk a lot. I start off at ISO 400,
    usually, and work my way up as it gets darker. I don't use 1600
    anymore, after I realized that it was just ISO 800 underexposed by one
    stop, and pushed back mathematically (data doubled). ISO 800 @ -1 EC is
    as good or better than ISO 1600, if you shoot in RAW, because you get
    more highlights that way. The better RAW converters allow you to do the
    +1 quite easily during the conversion. If you're using JPEG output,
    then you might stick with the "ISO 1600" that the camera offers.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    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:
    2,027
    Michael Quack
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. 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:
    696
    Randall Ainsworth
    Jul 15, 2004
  3. anonymous

    ISO 1600 NON SLR CAMERA

    anonymous, Aug 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,478
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Aug 23, 2004
  4. Patrick L.

    20D @ 1600 ISO !!!

    Patrick L., Sep 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    646
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    453
Loading...

Share This Page