ISO recommendation

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark, Oct 23, 2003.

  1. Mark

    Mark Guest

    Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    film?

    Mark
    Mark, Oct 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Mark wrote:

    > Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    > from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    > film?


    It all depends on the camera.

    DSLR's have larger sensors and are less prone to noise.

    For example..ISO 400..

    Consumer digicams with the 1/1.8 sensors are generally worse than their film
    counterparts at ISO 400.. DSLR's with APS sized sensors are generally
    better..
    Jim Townsend, Oct 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark

    Ron Recer Guest

    >From: "Mark"
    >Date: 10/23/2003 4:30 PM Central Daylight Time


    >Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    >from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    >film?


    I have not noticed noise when printing full page with border (not quite 8x10)
    of photos taken at ISO 400. I have talked to people who say they have printed
    larger size prints with no noticeable noise.

    With my G1 it is very noticeable, but not so with the 10D. I have printed some
    photos taken at ISO 1600 that don't show noticeable noise.

    Ron
    Edmond, OK
    Ron Recer, Oct 23, 2003
    #3
  4. > Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    > from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    > film?


    I keep mine on 100 and only change it if I have to for the situation.
    The other day I had to bump it up to 400 and it came out pretty sweet.
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 23, 2003
    #4
  5. Mark

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Mark"

    >Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when
    >going from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D?


    Just shoot something smooth toned at 100, 400 and 1600 asa, like a Macbeth
    Color Checker chart or even the sky, and look at it at 100%. It's very easy to
    check for yourself with digital.

    >Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm film?


    No, better.
    Bill Hilton, Oct 23, 2003
    #5
  6. "Mark" <> wrote in message
    news:6MXlb.16173$...
    > Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    > from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    > film?
    > Mark


    There's very little noise at an ISO of 400 on the 10D. Check out item 5 on my
    website for some un-processed ISO 1600 moonlight shots.

    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK
    www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
    Malcolm Stewart, Oct 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Mark

    Guest

    In message <6MXlb.16173$>,
    "Mark" <> wrote:

    >Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    >from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    >film?


    Unless you grossly under-expose the shot and have to compensate in
    software, ISO 400 on the 10D has only a tiny trace of noise, which you
    will only see inspecting the image pixel-for-pixel at 100% zoom on the
    monitor. You will not see it at normal print sizes.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 24, 2003
    #7
  8. Mark

    Guest

    In message <231020031531273768%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >> Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    >> from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    >> film?

    >
    >I keep mine on 100 and only change it if I have to for the situation.
    >The other day I had to bump it up to 400 and it came out pretty sweet.


    I used ISO 100 as default on my Sony F707. On the Canon 10D, I use ISO
    400 as default. I use ISO 100 only for special situations.

    I will turn it up to 800 without hesitation to shoot in low light and
    get reasonable depth of field and shutter speed.

    1600 with a little hesitation.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 24, 2003
    #8
  9. Mark

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:30:42 GMT, "Mark" <>
    wrote:

    >Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    >from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    >film?
    >
    >Mark
    >

    The variation of digital noise with ISO---compared to grain size with
    ISO for film--should be a fairly good analogy---but only to a point.
    The mechanisms are totally different.

    With film, what changes with ISO is grain SIZE. With digital, what is
    changing is noise AMPLITUDE. This subtlety aside, I would expect the
    effect in typical scenes to be similar---ie the higher the ISO
    setting, the more noise (grain) one sees.

    The scientist now says---Lets do some experiments. The photographer
    simply experiments and finds what works.

    Another nuance: In many films, higher ISO means higher dynamic range.
    Not sure how this works with digital. For one thing, film in
    non-linear and digital is generally linear.

    -Mark
    *****************************************
    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
    Mark Herring, Oct 24, 2003
    #9
  10. Mark

    Lionel Guest

    Word has it that on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:30:42 GMT, in this august forum,
    "Mark" <> said:

    >Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    >from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D?


    Not much. With good exposures, you have to look very close to tell the
    difference. The noise starts getting noticable from ISO 800, & starts
    getting annoying (IMO) at 1600 & 3200.

    > Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    >film?


    Not even close. It's been a few years since I last shot 800 ASA colour
    neg film, admittedly, but even ISO 3200 on the 10D looks better than the
    800 ASA film I've used. Unless you're shooting really, really demanding
    detail, I suspect you'll be very happy with how little noise there is on
    10D shots at ISO 400.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Oct 24, 2003
    #10
  11. Mark

    Lionel Guest

    Word has it that on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:39:42 -0700, in this august
    forum, Mark Herring <> said:

    >Another nuance: In many films, higher ISO means higher dynamic range.
    >Not sure how this works with digital.


    It's exactly opposite with digitals (well, at least with Canons, I don't
    know about other brands). Higher ISO = lower dynamic range.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Oct 24, 2003
    #11
  12. Mark

    SimonG Ltd. Guest

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mark wrote:
    >
    > > Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when

    going
    > > from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in

    35mm
    > > film?

    >
    > It all depends on the camera.
    >
    > DSLR's have larger sensors and are less prone to noise.
    >
    > For example..ISO 400..
    >
    > Consumer digicams with the 1/1.8 sensors are generally worse than their

    film
    > counterparts at ISO 400.. DSLR's with APS sized sensors are generally
    > better..
    >


    Mark did say "ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D?" . . . . I don't have a 10D so I
    can't comment . . . have you had a look at the review on www.dpreview.com ,
    they usually cover noise issues very well . . .

    regards, SimonG
    -------------------
    Let me know what you think . . . www.F1Album.com
    SimonG Ltd., Oct 24, 2003
    #12
  13. Mark

    Jim Townsend Guest

    SimonG Ltd. wrote:

    >
    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Mark wrote:
    >>
    >> > Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when

    > going
    >> > from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in

    > 35mm
    >> > film?

    >>
    >> It all depends on the camera.
    >>
    >> DSLR's have larger sensors and are less prone to noise.
    >>
    >> For example..ISO 400..
    >>
    >> Consumer digicams with the 1/1.8 sensors are generally worse than their

    > film
    >> counterparts at ISO 400.. DSLR's with APS sized sensors are generally
    >> better..
    >>

    >
    > Mark did say "ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D?" . . . .


    LOL.. Yea, he did.. My reading comprehension wasn't in high gear when I looked
    at his post..

    I shoot a lot of ISO 400 with my 10D.. You really have to look hard to see
    grain.. Functionally there is no difference between ISO 100 and 400.

    Here's an unedited ISO 400 shot of a building taken with my 10D and Sigma
    15-30mm lens...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/18375267
    Jim Townsend, Oct 24, 2003
    #13
  14. Mark

    Alan Browne Guest

    Mark Herring wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:30:42 GMT, "Mark" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going

    >
    >>from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm

    >
    >>film?
    >>
    >>Mark
    >>

    >
    > The variation of digital noise with ISO---compared to grain size with
    > ISO for film--should be a fairly good analogy---but only to a point.
    > The mechanisms are totally different.
    >
    > With film, what changes with ISO is grain SIZE. With digital, what is
    > changing is noise AMPLITUDE. This subtlety aside, I would expect the
    > effect in typical scenes to be similar---ie the higher the ISO
    > setting, the more noise (grain) one sees.


    The subtlety is called quantization noise and is immediately noticeably
    numerically. But how that translates to a print after editing is hardly
    discernable by the eye. This is the great advantage of digital over
    film with respect to noise/grain in the image.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
    Alan Browne, Oct 24, 2003
    #14
  15. Mark

    Alan Browne Guest

    Mark wrote:

    > Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    > from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    > film?
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >


    The increase in noise on film has to do with the relationship of grain
    size and ISO. Noise increase is unavoidable with ISO increase and
    immediatley discernable to even the untrained eye. ...the noise is
    occuring in three dimensions (x,y) grain size and (z) high sensitivity.

    In digital, the sensors remain the same size (x,y) regardless of ISO.
    The remaining quantization noise (z, amplitude) is less discernable to
    the eye (on screen or in a print) than the grain noise from film.

    At dpreview look at the charts for the 10D where they increase the ISO
    and look at the 'noise' in severely cropped details of color test charts.

    If you are printing up to 8x12, then ISO 800 is probably very safe most
    situations w/o significant grain in the final when viewed normally for
    that size print.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
    Alan Browne, Oct 24, 2003
    #15
  16. > I shoot a lot of ISO 400 with my 10D.. You really have to look hard to see
    > grain.. Functionally there is no difference between ISO 100 and 400.


    Oh, I don't know about that. Earlier in the summer I took the same
    shot at all ASA settings. You could see the difference between 100 and
    400 at higher magnifications. I always leave it at 100 unless
    conditions require something else. Same reason I always used 100 film
    unless there was a need to change.
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 24, 2003
    #16
  17. Mark

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Mark Herring <> wrote:

    >Another nuance: In many films, higher ISO means higher dynamic range.
    >Not sure how this works with digital. For one thing, film in
    >non-linear and digital is generally linear.


    On the 10D, the highlight headroom works the same at all ISOs. The
    difference is in the shadows. You can't pull up detail out of the
    shadows as well with higher ISOs, because the magnitude of the noise
    relative to the signal is too high. In RAW mode, you can pull deep
    shadows up from an ISO 100 shot. At ISO 1600, bringing up the shadows
    will bring up lots of noise.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 25, 2003
    #17
  18. Mark

    Rusty Wright Guest

    Some nice information here about ISO 400 on the Canon 10D. I just
    started shooting sports stuff at ISO 400 and am very pleased with the
    results. It was reassuring to see that others are also happy with ISO
    400.

    Also keep in mind that you can do some 3rd party post processing if
    you need to go to higher, noisier ISO; e.g.

    http://www.neatimage.com/

    It does an amazing job of removing the noise without making the
    picture softer. And if money's tight you can get the "home" edition
    for a mere $30. For casual occasional use even the demo version might
    be enough; it only reads and saves jpg.
    Rusty Wright, Oct 25, 2003
    #18
  19. On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:22:00 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <231020031531273768%>,
    >Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    >>> from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    >>> film?

    >>
    >>I keep mine on 100 and only change it if I have to for the situation.
    >>The other day I had to bump it up to 400 and it came out pretty sweet.

    >
    >I used ISO 100 as default on my Sony F707. On the Canon 10D, I use ISO
    >400 as default. I use ISO 100 only for special situations.
    >
    >I will turn it up to 800 without hesitation to shoot in low light and
    >get reasonable depth of field and shutter speed.
    >
    >1600 with a little hesitation.


    I'm curious as to why you'd have a higher, and in theory more noisy,
    ISO as default.

    On my G2 I always use ISO 100 except in rare situations.

    What would have been nice is if the ISO setting had been easier to get
    at than the "menu" system, something along the lines of the
    apature/shutter settings, this would allow me to take multiple
    adjustment shots on the 3 main settings of the camera.

    --
    Jonathan Wilson.
    www.somethingerotic.com
    Jonathan Wilson, Nov 3, 2003
    #19
  20. Mark

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Jonathan Wilson <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:22:00 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>In message <231020031531273768%>,
    >>Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Can anyone give me some data on just how much noise is introduced when going
    >>>> from say ISO 100 to 400 using a 10D? Is it roughly the same as grain in 35mm
    >>>> film?
    >>>
    >>>I keep mine on 100 and only change it if I have to for the situation.
    >>>The other day I had to bump it up to 400 and it came out pretty sweet.

    >>
    >>I used ISO 100 as default on my Sony F707. On the Canon 10D, I use ISO
    >>400 as default. I use ISO 100 only for special situations.
    >>
    >>I will turn it up to 800 without hesitation to shoot in low light and
    >>get reasonable depth of field and shutter speed.
    >>
    >>1600 with a little hesitation.

    >
    >I'm curious as to why you'd have a higher, and in theory more noisy,
    >ISO as default.


    Because it really isn't very noisy. Enough that you can find it, but
    not enough that it calls attention to itself.

    With most of the shooting I do, I tend to need all the light I can get.
    ISO 100 with a 420mm lens/converter combo (672mm in 35mm FOV) requires
    stopping the lens down a bit for sharpness and depth of field, and also
    needs at least 1/60 or 1/80 shutter speed (with IS) for me to hold the
    camera, and at least 1/250 for some of the active subjects.

    >On my G2 I always use ISO 100 except in rare situations.


    That's what I used on my Sony F707. The 10D has even less noise than
    that, though, at ISO 400.

    On my 10D, I only use ISO 100 in certain situations, such as:

    1) I am on a tripod (not common)

    2) The scene has a lot of contrast, such as directly sunlit objects and
    deep shade in the same picture. I will set the camera to RAW mode, ISO
    100, and -1 to -3 EC, so nothing blows out. The idea is to have the
    brightest parts of the scene within the range that the camera will
    record without clipping. At ISO 100, you can push the shadows up 3,
    even 4 stops before noise becomes a nuisance. Actually, when you do
    that the issue is more the posterization of deep shadows, which
    quantizes the image and the noise.

    3) I am using a wide-angle lens, and don't need any shutter speed.

    >What would have been nice is if the ISO setting had been easier to get
    >at than the "menu" system, something along the lines of the
    >apature/shutter settings, this would allow me to take multiple
    >adjustment shots on the 3 main settings of the camera.


    It would be nice if the cameras had truly programmable user modes, where
    you tell it exactly what to do, based on absolute EV. ISO might stay at
    400, for example, until a certain shutter speed and aperture can not be
    maintained, and then ISO begins increasing if the light gets lower than
    that point. Or you can weight it so that ISO increases slowly as
    shutter speed is compromised, etc. Flash fill could be set up so that
    the ambient part gets really dark when the shutter speed would need to
    get too long, etc.

    The manufacturers don't even realize that digital cameras are digital,
    yet.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 3, 2003
    #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. JD

    How do you convert a CD ISO to DVD ISO?

    JD, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    29,268
  2. Bill Smith
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    822
    DaveJ
    Aug 1, 2003
  3. Salem Derisavi

    Figuring out ISO settings in Auto ISO mode

    Salem Derisavi, Sep 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,529
    Andrew McDonald
    Sep 29, 2003
  4. 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:
    695
    Randall Ainsworth
    Jul 15, 2004
  5. cohibakid

    rebel 300d iso 100 vs nikon d70 iso 200

    cohibakid, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    572
    David J. Littleboy
    Jul 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page