low light

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ipy2006, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. ipy2006

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Scott W" <> writes:
    > And the DSLRs just keep getting better, our 20D does very well at 1600
    > and is very usable at 3200, but I have seen test shots from the 1D
    > mark 3 at 6400 that just blow me away.


    I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
    that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon noise.
     
    Paul Rubin, Mar 8, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. ipy2006

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:26:44 -0800, Scott W wrote:

    > On Mar 8, 6:23 am, ray <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:47:20 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> > ray <> wrote:
    >> >>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> ray <> wrote:
    >> >>>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:

    >>
    >> >>>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >> >>>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >> >>>>> Thanks,
    >> >>>>> Yip

    >>
    >> >>>>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >> >>>>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >> >>>>what is available with film.

    >>
    >> >>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    >>
    >> >>I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >>
    >> > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    >> > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
    >> > http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
    >> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml

    >>
    >> > The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
    >> > true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
    >> > at high ISOs.

    >>
    >> Interesting references. Only problem is that they seem to be addressing
    >> what might be achieved under optimal conditions rather than addressing
    >> high ISO - low light action shots. I'm still not convinced

    > One of the real delights in using a DSLR is being able to get indoor
    > shots with available light that I could never get before. The scans I
    > have seen of even ISO 400 film have looked pretty bad, I don't want to
    > even think about how bad ISO 1600 color print film would be.


    That's another point that the OP failed to mention: is the ultimate
    objective to have an image in the computer to manipulate or just to have
    some good prints? That, IMHO, would make a difference.

    >
    > And the DSLRs just keep getting better, our 20D does very well at 1600
    > and is very usable at 3200, but I have seen test shots from the 1D
    > mark 3 at 6400 that just blow me away.
    >
    > Scott
     
    ray, Mar 8, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. ipy2006

    Scott W Guest

    On Mar 8, 7:37 am, Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> writes:
    > > And the DSLRs just keep getting better, our 20D does very well at 1600
    > > and is very usable at 3200, but I have seen test shots from the 1D
    > > mark 3 at 6400 that just blow me away.

    >
    > I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
    > that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon noise.


    The 1D III has a larger sensor then the 20D, and they have impoved the
    fill factor
    on the 1D III, less dead space between pixels.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 8, 2007
    #43
  4. ipy2006

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, ray
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>>>>> what is available with film.
    >>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
    >>>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
    >>> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
    >>>
    >>> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
    >>> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.

    >>
    >> I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
    >> I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
    >> surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
    >> light levels.

    >
    > Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
    > and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
    > digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
    > repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
    > aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
    > stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).
    >
    > Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
    > sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
    > pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
    > own comparison tests.


    Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
    my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
    with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are. I also have my trusty
    old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
    - particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
    that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
    enough. The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
    would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
    could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other. BTW - I've produced
    shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
    - but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.

    >
    > If you in fact care, of course; you may have strong opinions but not
    > actually *use* high ISO so you don't really care. In which case it
    > might be better to just drop the discussion.


    I don't often use high ISO - I hope, as I said, to do some shooting in
    that area as time permits.
     
    ray, Mar 8, 2007
    #44
  5. ipy2006

    Scott W Guest

    On Mar 8, 7:38 am, ray <> wrote:

    > That's another point that the OP failed to mention: is the ultimate
    > objective to have an image in the computer to manipulate or just to have
    > some good prints? That, IMHO, would make a difference.

    My own experience has been that I can get far better prints by
    scanning my own negatives and printing from the image files rather
    then just sending the film to a lab.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 8, 2007
    #45
  6. ipy2006

    UC Guest

    On Mar 7, 1:31 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > UC wrote:
    > > On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <> wrote:
    > >> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    > >> best DSLR for this purpose?
    > >> Thanks,
    > >> Yip

    >
    > > None. You need light to do photography, you moron.

    >
    > Troll.


    Moron.
     
    UC, Mar 8, 2007
    #46
  7. ray wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <>, ray
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>>>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>>>>>> what is available with film.
    >>>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
    >>>>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
    >>>> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
    >>>>
    >>>> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
    >>>> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.
    >>> I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
    >>> I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
    >>> surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
    >>> light levels.

    >> Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
    >> and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
    >> digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
    >> repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
    >> aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
    >> stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).
    >>
    >> Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
    >> sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
    >> pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
    >> own comparison tests.

    >
    > Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
    > my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
    > with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are. I also have my trusty
    > old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
    > - particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
    > that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
    > enough. The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
    > would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
    > could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other. BTW - I've produced
    > shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
    > - but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.


    "Good enough" (or fine enough) is an extremely important milestone in
    the development of a technology, definitely.

    I've got at least 5 8x10 prints from a 2 megapixel Epson 850Z camera
    framed and on the walls in the house here; that's less than 150 pixels
    per linear inch, and they "shouldn't" look that good. My examples are
    also "best case" situations, and I couldn't count on 2mp for 8x10 reliably.

    I don't expect you to buy the equipment you think won't work too well
    just to run tests, not; that wouldn't be reasonable.

    I will tell you, as a matter of personal experience, confirmed by LOTS
    of paper and online writers, that DSLRs perform *much* better than the
    P&S cameras. Sensor size is a key factor in image quality.

    There are a LOT of high-ISO pictures in my online snapshot album from my
    old Fuji S2 and my current Nikon D200, with the full EXIF data so you
    can tell what ISO they're shot at (and what camera, there are a couple
    other digital cameras contributing too). I'd be willing to send you the
    camera original of a modest number of them (your choice) for careful
    comparison and analysis, and use in a web page or article if you want to
    take the trouble to write up your results carefully. (The S2 was
    2003-spring 2006, when I got the D200; the root of the snapshot album
    site is at <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/>.).

    This one from a wake for a good friend, last October, was only ISO 800,
    but I gotta say that for me, TRI-X at 400 doesn't look this good.

    <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-170>

    Or if you prefer color,
    <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-180;IPTC=no;EXIF=yes>.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 8, 2007
    #47
  8. ipy2006

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Scott W" <> writes:
    > > I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
    > > that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon noise.

    > The 1D III has a larger sensor then the 20D, and they have impoved the
    > fill factor on the 1D III, less dead space between pixels.


    Oh, both good points, though I thought the 1D3 uses a CMOS sensor
    which used to mean that there was some penalty because of digitization
    circuitry using up some of the active area that was somehow kept
    available for light collection with CCD sensors.
     
    Paul Rubin, Mar 8, 2007
    #48
  9. ipy2006

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray
    <> wrote:

    > Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
    > my own comparison tests any time soon.


    digital slrs start around $500ish.
     
    nospam, Mar 8, 2007
    #49
  10. ipy2006

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:11:20 -0800, nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, ray
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
    >> my own comparison tests any time soon.

    >
    > digital slrs start around $500ish.


    Right. With a fast short lens and a good 400mm lens.
     
    ray, Mar 8, 2007
    #50
  11. ipy2006

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:05:30 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article <>, ray
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>>>>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>>>>>>> what is available with film.
    >>>>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
    >>>>>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
    >>>>> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
    >>>>> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.
    >>>> I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
    >>>> I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
    >>>> surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
    >>>> light levels.
    >>> Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
    >>> and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
    >>> digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
    >>> repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
    >>> aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
    >>> stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).
    >>>
    >>> Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
    >>> sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
    >>> pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
    >>> own comparison tests.

    >>
    >> Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
    >> my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
    >> with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are. I also have my trusty
    >> old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
    >> - particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
    >> that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
    >> enough. The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
    >> would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
    >> could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other. BTW - I've produced
    >> shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
    >> - but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.

    >
    > "Good enough" (or fine enough) is an extremely important milestone in
    > the development of a technology, definitely.
    >
    > I've got at least 5 8x10 prints from a 2 megapixel Epson 850Z camera
    > framed and on the walls in the house here; that's less than 150 pixels
    > per linear inch, and they "shouldn't" look that good. My examples are
    > also "best case" situations, and I couldn't count on 2mp for 8x10 reliably.


    I would certainly concur with that.

    >
    > I don't expect you to buy the equipment you think won't work too well
    > just to run tests, not; that wouldn't be reasonable.
    >
    > I will tell you, as a matter of personal experience, confirmed by LOTS
    > of paper and online writers, that DSLRs perform *much* better than the
    > P&S cameras. Sensor size is a key factor in image quality.


    I've come to the same conclusion. My current requirements evolve much more
    around portability and long lenses than getting the ultimate performance.
    When I'm hiking (or snowshoeing) for several miles, I want to keep things
    pared down as much as possible. When that phase of my requirements change
    significantly, I will be looking with more emphasis on sensor size than
    number of pixels.

    >
    > There are a LOT of high-ISO pictures in my online snapshot album from my
    > old Fuji S2 and my current Nikon D200, with the full EXIF data so you
    > can tell what ISO they're shot at (and what camera, there are a couple
    > other digital cameras contributing too). I'd be willing to send you the
    > camera original of a modest number of them (your choice) for careful
    > comparison and analysis, and use in a web page or article if you want to
    > take the trouble to write up your results carefully. (The S2 was
    > 2003-spring 2006, when I got the D200; the root of the snapshot album
    > site is at <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/>.).
    >
    > This one from a wake for a good friend, last October, was only ISO 800,
    > but I gotta say that for me, TRI-X at 400 doesn't look this good.
    >
    > <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-170>
    >
    > Or if you prefer color,
    > <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-180;IPTC=no;EXIF=yes>.


    Thanks for the references - I'll have a look at your shots.
     
    ray, Mar 8, 2007
    #51
  12. ipy2006

    Scott W Guest

    On Mar 8, 7:45 am, ray <> wrote:
    > Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
    > my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
    > with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are.

    The Kodak may be able to produce a good looking image but it will not
    come
    close to the ISO performance that a DSLR will have, its sensor is just
    too
    small for that. It would be a mistake to judge what a DLSR is capable
    of based on a point and shoot digital. The point and shoot cameras
    that I have are pretty much limited to ISO 100 or less.

    To see just how much better a DSLR is first look at how the P850 does
    at ISO 400
    <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakp850/page11.asp>
    Now look at how the a number of DLSRs do at ISO 800 and 1600
    <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page27.asp>


    >I also have my trusty
    > old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
    > - particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
    > that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
    > enough.

    The reality is that a DSLR is far better at getting the good shots
    when conditions are not idea, it is far better in low light and it is
    far better when white balance might be tricky.

    >The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
    > would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
    > could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other.

    Does not matter if you are going for prints or files a DSLR will do
    way better in low
    light.

    > BTW - I've produced
    > shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
    > - but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.


    I have never gotten a 8 x 10 print from a 1 MP camera that I really
    liked, they always looked really soft to me.


    > I don't often use high ISO - I hope, as I said, to do some shooting in
    > that area as time permits.- Hide quoted text -


    If you use either film or your point and shoot you will likely get
    frustrated pretty fast,
    unless you do B/W and really like grain, some people do.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 8, 2007
    #52
  13. ipy2006

    John Sheehy Guest

    John Sheehy <> wrote in
    news:Xns98ECB22A838F1jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196:

    > So. all told, the practical noise floor
    > is 1.1 stops higher with the XTi, for the same real (not metered)
    > exposure.


    I made a distinction there, but in this specific case, both meter about the
    same, anyway.

    > The XTi seems to be a better imager at ISOs 100 and 200, though, with
    > more pixels and less read noise.


    This is in the sense that the XTi has a lower noise floor than any Canon
    DSLRs except the 1-series at ISOs 100 and 200, relative to maximum signal.

    If you let the camera meter the scene without an extra 1/2 stop of EC,
    there will be more noise in the shadows in the XTi. Fortunately, the -2
    contrast setting in the XTi recognizes this extra headroom, and rolls it
    well into the JPEGs, so a white or green highlight clips in the review and
    histogram just barely below where the RAW data does, so you can use the
    histogram to feel out white and green RAW highlights.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 8, 2007
    #53
  14. ray <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:47:20 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
    >>>
    >>>I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >>
    >> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    >> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
    >> http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml
    >>
    >> The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
    >> true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
    >> at high ISOs.

    >
    >Interesting references. Only problem is that they seem to be addressing
    >what might be achieved under optimal conditions rather than addressing
    >high ISO - low light action shots. I'm still not convinced.


    You do have to actually *read* them, not just scan them. The do
    each address it specifically, though some in less detail than
    others. The point in the number of cites was merely to
    demonstrate there is a consensus. For specifics you can't do
    better than the discussion by Roger N. Clarke.

    Regardless, you've made it quite clear that you are not
    interested in definitive analysis of the question; and won't
    accept anything that disturbs your current bias.

    I don't have the time to waste with detailed discussion of the
    above reference under those circumstances.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 8, 2007
    #54
  15. ipy2006

    John Sheehy Guest

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote in
    news::

    > I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
    > that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon
    > noise.


    It is a widely held belief that current cameras are limited mainly by
    photon noise, and Roger Clark's work is often quoted and referenced to
    support it, but I, for one, don't believe it. I believe that photon noise
    is a relatively pleasant-looking noise, and it is ruined by patterned read
    noises (both blackframe offset, and scalar illumination noises), which have
    much more visual power than the randomly-distibuted poisson shot noise.

    Take any Canon RAW file underexposed by several stops, and push it, What
    do you see? Bands of color running horizontally, sometimes vertically.
    This is not shot noise that is ruining the shadows. Look how high read
    noise is in electrons, at the lowest ISOs - it is incredibly high, and
    trashes the excellent shadows captured in the sensor wells. Shot noise is
    the least of our digital imaging problems, IMO, especially with large
    sensors.

    That said, Canon does claim less wasted space on the sensor (higher fill
    factor) over the mkII, and greater quantum efficiency, so, ISO 50 may be
    able to have full DR, unlike the mkII, *and* more photons may be collected
    for the same real-world absolute exposure.


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 8, 2007
    #55
  16. ipy2006

    Lionel Guest

    On 7 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, "ipy2006" <> wrote:

    >I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >best DSLR for this purpose?


    Canon EOS 1Dmk2, or the new 1Dmk3, if you are willing to wait for it.

    --
    W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
    . | ,. w ,
    \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Mar 8, 2007
    #56
  17. ipy2006

    Lionel Guest

    On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:53:05 -0700, ray <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
    >
    >> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >> Thanks,
    >> Yip

    >
    >I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >what is available with film.


    ROTFL! Nice troll, Ray.

    The EOS 10D produces far better images at ISO 1600 than any ISO 800
    colour print film I've ever seen, & the EOS 1Dmk2 is better at ISO
    1600 than any ISO 400 colour print film I've ever seen.

    At ISO 800 & upwards, the better DLSRs have been thrashing film for a
    long time.

    --
    W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
    . | ,. w ,
    \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Mar 8, 2007
    #57
  18. ipy2006

    Lionel Guest

    On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:14:30 -0700, ray <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, ray
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> >>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>> >>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>> >>what is available with film.
    >>> >
    >>> > Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
    >>>
    >>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >>
    >> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
    >>
    >> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
    >> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.

    >
    >I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
    >I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
    >surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
    >light levels.


    *snort*

    EOS 10D at ISO 1600, pushed about 1.5 stops (~ISO 4800) in processing:
    <http://lo.ve.ly/gallery/CarmillasApril16th2005/CRW_6630?set_fullOnly=on>

    Same as above, but pushed about 1 stop:
    <http://lo.ve.ly/gallery/Golgotha2005-04-24/CRW_6735>

    Both images are suffering from being pushed, but I don't know of any
    colour film that's even in the same ballpark at those speeds.

    --
    W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
    . | ,. w ,
    \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Mar 8, 2007
    #58
  19. "John Sheehy" <> wrote:
    >
    > Take any Canon RAW file underexposed by several stops, and push it, What
    > do you see? Bands of color running horizontally, sometimes vertically.
    > This is not shot noise that is ruining the shadows. Look how high read
    > noise is in electrons, at the lowest ISOs - it is incredibly high, and
    > trashes the excellent shadows captured in the sensor wells.


    In the 5D and 1Dmk2, the ISO 100 read noise looks to me to be dominated by
    quantization errors; the bit depth of the A/D converter is two bits shy of
    what's needed, maybe three. The dynamic range at ISO 100 to 400 is simply
    consistent with a 12-bit A/D converter. It's only at ISO 800 and above that
    other noise sources intrude.

    That's why the D200 has the same ISO 100 dynamic range as the 5D.

    > Shot noise is
    > the least of our digital imaging problems, IMO, especially with large
    > sensors.


    I'm not seeing pattern noise in pused images. Here's a 5D ISO 3200 file
    pushed 3 stops. Straight from Lightroom with noise reduction (and
    sharpening) turned off.

    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75374090/original

    This is seriously amazing stuff. At ISO 6400, the 5D is producing images
    competitive with the dreck 35mm users get with Tri-X in Rodinal (ISO 400).

    Here's what you get with noise reduction and a touch of sharpening.

    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

    > That said, Canon does claim less wasted space on the sensor (higher fill
    > factor) over the mkII, and greater quantum efficiency, so, ISO 50 may be
    > able to have full DR, unlike the mkII, *and* more photons may be collected
    > for the same real-world absolute exposure.


    ISO 50 will remain problematic, since the well depth is inadequate.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 9, 2007
    #59
  20. ipy2006

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    > I'm not seeing pattern noise in pused images. Here's a 5D ISO 3200 file
    > pushed 3 stops. Straight from Lightroom with noise reduction (and
    > sharpening) turned off.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75374090/original


    You mean this is at 25,600? Pretty cool. I've seen TMZ pushed to
    that speed and maybe the grain isn't worse, but the TMZ has no
    tonality to speak of with that much pushing.
     
    Paul Rubin, Mar 9, 2007
    #60
    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. Mike O.

    How low is "low light"?

    Mike O., Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    600
    Michael Meissner
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. ishtarbgl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    549
    ishtarbgl
    Apr 1, 2004
  3. D

    Sony HC5E low frame rate in low light

    D, May 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    620
  4. low end digital / low light and macro ?

    , Jun 27, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    636
    Chris Malcolm
    Jul 11, 2008
  5. Brian
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,139
    Bob Larter
    Jun 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page