Question Re: Very fast ISO's

[Altair]

I've been looking at photos here of dark rides and was amazed to see how well they came out, many times brighter than in person. So I looked up the properties of some and saw extremely high ISO numbers, such as 12800 or higher. My question is, do these photos show lots of noise out of the camera and you fix them with editing, or do they come out decent and only need a little editing? I'm assuming most are shot RAW, but can you take them JPEG and get decent results?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[annnewjerz]

The quality of an image at a high ISO really depends on your sensor/camera. An older SLR (like maybe the Canon XTi) may only have crisp looking results up to ISO 800, whereas a new full-frame SLR (like the 5DMarkII) might have great looking results at ISO 6400.

I have a Nikon D90 (consumer level SLR) and took the photo below at the max ISO it offers, which is ISO 6400. It isn't a dark ride, but the same circumstances surround the photo...moving subject, poor lighting, no external flash, etc.

When it came out of the camera, it was a bit noisy, but not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. After some noise redution, I find it's definitely good enough to use for web-posting and if I wanted to, I could probably be fine making a small(ish) print from it. Would I blow it up to 16x20? Nope! But for what I wanted from it I'm pleased with the results.

 

[Groucho]

Like Ann said, it depends on the camera. 12,800 is still relatively exotic and even the high ISO performance champs (Nikon D3s and similar Nikon 12mp full-frame DSLRs) show noise there.

You can get usable 12,800 ISO out of cheaper cameras but ideally you'd want to run it through a noise reduction program and expect some loss of detail, but when viewed at a web-friendly size (say, 1024 pixels wide), it will generally still look pretty good. It's also helpful to use a fast lens - F1.4 or even F1.2.

If you're looking for your ultra-high-ISO options, the current high-ISO performance bargain is the Pentax K-x for $550, which goes to 12,800 with usable results. A higher-line DSLR with similar noise performance is the Canon 7D, $1,700. From there, you'd need to go with a full-frame DSLR, generally over $2,000 - the best bargain being the Nikon D700.

You can still get good results at ISO 6400 on dark rides with many other DSLRs though, especially using a fast lens.

As for Raw vs jpg -this comes up from time to time but ultimately - if you want the best image quality, you really have to shoot raw. There's no way around it. Your images will be sharper and you'll have much more latitude for post-processing. There's little downside to shooting raw, especially with memory cards being so cheap.

 

[GrillMouster]

Additionally, when photos are down-sized for posting on the web the noise is less visible.

 

[zackiedawg]

If you're looking for your ultra-high-ISO options, the current high-ISO performance bargain is the Pentax K-x for $550, which goes to 12,800 with usable results. A higher-line DSLR with similar noise performance is the Canon 7D, $1,700

Don't forget the Sony A550, which makes the sensor in the Kx...it also goes to ISO12800 with about the same usability and noise levels. It is priced in the $800 arena, so not quite the same bargain as the Pentax, but cheaper than most other options with that high of an ISO setting.

You can still get good results at ISO 6400 on dark rides with many other DSLRs though, especially using a fast lens.

Exactly - the lens makes a very big contribution...most of the dark ride shots I've seen, besides using ISO3200 or more, almost all involve a lens of F1.8 or bigger. Even a camera with a fairly clean ISO 6400 may still need the extra few stops from a true low light lens like an F1.8 or F1.4 to get a fast enough shutter speed to shoot on those rides.

 

[ukcatfan]

I'm assuming most are shot RAW, but can you take them JPEG and get decent results?

I have been shooting RAW + JPG since upgrading to my K-x. This shot is a JPG straight out of the camera at ISO 8000. Only a crop and resize was done. On this one, I don't think I could do much more with it in RAW, so I would probably not even try. I will still not stop using RAW though.

 

[Groucho]

Don't forget the Sony A550, which makes the sensor in the Kx...it also goes to ISO12800 with about the same usability and noise levels. It is priced in the $800 arena, so not quite the same bargain as the Pentax, but cheaper than most other options with that high of an ISO setting.

Well, it is a different sensor (12mp on the K-x vs 14mp on the A550) and unsurprisingly that makes a difference. If the graphs at DPReview are to be believed, the K-x has a fairly clear edge. They don't do direct comparisons, but the closest match is the Nikon D5000 (which may have the same sensor as the K-x but with a stronger AA filter which means less detail, also maxes out at 6400)... in the graph on this page, the D5000 has the edge over the A550 and on page, the K-x beats it. Also worth noting is that the A550 appears to be doing more NR on the raw files even when turned down to the lowest setting. But hey, my K-7 is the worst overall on those graphs and I think it's still pretty darn good, so it's not like we're talking about poor results here. Plus the higher resolution helps mask the noise levels a little more.

They've been keeping pretty tight lids on who makes the sensors nowadays... I haven't heard anything definitive on who makes the K-x sensor, though I would guess that it's Sony.

 

[zackiedawg]

I won't agree or disagree...but while I'm a long-time and very regular dpreview member, I can't say that the results they came up with were what my results are in real world use. Why? I have really no idea - theories abound by the conspiracy folks that Dpreview's general dislike of Sony products (actually, a few reviewers, not the entire staff) skewed the results, or that they used a bad lens, or whatever. I figure there are differences from camera to camera, and sometimes you get a lemon and sometimes a gem. I just know that I can shoot ISO6400 with no NR in JPEG mode and get extremely low noise and high detail, even printable large, and I couldn't get that with a whole lot of cameras. But that's an issue for that other forum...I think the Kx probably is a bit better at detail retention at extreme ISO levels than the A550, and I'd pretty much consider the Canon 7D & Nikon D5000 are close enough to the A550 to not really be anything in it...I don't go by Dpreview, but by my own experience and tests, shooting real life low light scenes. The Kx seems to be right at the top, with at least one model from Nikon, Canon, and Sony basically tied just below in the entry-to-mid level price range.

My personal opinion is that many of these cameras are a realistic draw - Canon 7D, Sony A550, Nikon D90/D5000, Pentax Kx - when it comes to high ISO. Pixel-peeping down to the 100% viewable level and comparing 3% differences in shadow noise to declare one better than the other doesn't really seem to do anything but provide fodder for brand wars. While the fact may be that one is better than the others, the amount that they are better than any of the competitors can be so small as to be unnoticeable by 95% of all users in 95% of all shots and situations...yet once word gets out on the message boards, suddenly the narrow gap becomes a yawning chasm, and my brand crushes your brand blah blah blah.

Most of the new batch of cams by all the manufacturers are several orders better than the models they replaced in high ISO performance...so that's a great trend, and means generally that fans of ALL manufacturers should be able to find a sweet-performing high ISO camera in their preferred mount. Besides, on the price comparison, not much is going to touch the Kx - bang for the buck, it's killer! Just wanted to assure the Sony, Nikon, Canon folk that they have some solid high ISO options available too, that are also new gen DSLRs that raise the high ISO bar with better detail, less noise, and better NR algorithms.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

Gotta echo the sentiments about shooting in RAW for better quality, especially at low ISO. I'm not sure what psot processing, if any, that you're using, but I used Adobe CS4 camera raw and it automatically edits out a lot of the noise on my high ISO photos. Every now and then I have to do some extra work, but it takes care of it pretty well.

Just for reference I shoot a Canon 40d and its highest ISO is 3200. I've never had anything published from that ISO, but for online media it works alright.

 

[Groucho]

Most of the new batch of cams by all the manufacturers are several orders better than the models they replaced in high ISO performance...so that's a great trend, and means generally that fans of ALL manufacturers should be able to find a sweet-performing high ISO camera in their preferred mount. Besides, on the price comparison, not much is going to touch the Kx - bang for the buck, it's killer! Just wanted to assure the Sony, Nikon, Canon folk that they have some solid high ISO options available too, that are also new gen DSLRs that raise the high ISO bar with better detail, less noise, and better NR algorithms.

No disagreements from me on any of that.

 

[Icemann]

I have a dumb question about raw verse jpeg.If i shoot in raw and fine tune it to were its just right,when I convert to jpeg will their be a noticeable loss in quality of the picture.I'm a newbie and I look to the disboards pro's for help and answers from time to time.Thanks in advance

 

[GrillMouster]

A a high quality jpg saved straight from the RAW file would have not show noticeable degredation.

 

[TinksDH]

A a high quality jpg saved straight from the RAW file would have not show noticeable degredation.

To expand further on what GrillMouster said, a jpeg straight from the camera will have little degradation as well, assuming you're shooting in Large/Fine (or whatever the largest size and highest resolution is on your camera) and you are nailing your white balance and exposure. It's when you get into post-processing that you really begin to see the differences. The RAW file just gives you so much more latitude to work from in your post-processing.

 

[SelfEmployedDebtFree]

It's also helpful to use a fast lens - F1.4 or even F1.2.

Please dont beat me up too bad, but I have a newbie question:

I'll admit most of this thread is WAAAAY over my head, but I'm studying DSLRs for my next big purchase, and I pick out little things to try to understand as I see them. How can a lens be fast??? Can anyone explain that in dummy terms?

 

[ukcatfan]

Please dont beat me up too bad, but I have a newbie question:

I'll admit most of this thread is WAAAAY over my head, but I'm studying DSLRs for my next big purchase, and I pick out little things to try to understand as I see them. How can a lens be fast??? Can anyone explain that in dummy terms?

By fast, they mean that it has a large aperture (i.e. F/1.4, F/1.8, etc). By letting more light in, it allows faster shutter speeds to be used to get the same exposure that you would compared to a lens with a smaller max aperture (i.e. ~F/3.5-F/5.6).

 

[disneyboy2003]

Please dont beat me up too bad, but I have a newbie question:

I'll admit most of this thread is WAAAAY over my head, but I'm studying DSLRs for my next big purchase, and I pick out little things to try to understand as I see them. How can a lens be fast??? Can anyone explain that in dummy terms?

Just a warning: there's a bunch of logic to follow along (ie. if a, then b, then c, etc). But in the end, larger aperture lenses = smaller f-number = faster lenses.

You probably already know this: the smaller the f-number, the larger the aperture. Also, the aperture is the opening of the lens.

When you have a large aperture, you let more light into the camera. Letting more light into the camera allows you to use faster shutter speeds. That's why large-aperture lenses are also known as "fast lenses." Sports photographers specifically look for fast lenses.

Here are some made-up numbers. Let's say your kid's playing soccer outside, and it's late afternoon / early evening. Let's say that the scene in front of you requires a shutter speed of 1/30 and an aperture of f/5.6. That's a pretty slow shutter speed for sports. If your lens' maximum aperture is f/5.6, then you're gonna be cursed with blurry images during the game, unless you increase the ISO. Thus, a lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 would be considered a "slow lens".

If you've been reading about exposure, you'll know that there are equivalent settings you can use to achieve the same exposure. If you use a larger aperture (letting more light into the camera), you can use a faster shutter speed to achieve the same exposure. Conversely, if you use a smaller aperture (letting less light into the camera), you'll have to use a slower shutter speed to achieve the same exposure.

So in the above made-up example, equivalent exposures could be achieved with the following settings:

Shutter Speed:                   Aperture:
      1/30                              f/5.6
      1/60                              f/4
      1/125                             f/2.8
      1/250                             f/2
      1/500                             f/1.4

As you can see, if you have a lens that has a large maximum aperture, you can use faster shutter speeds. So the 50mm f/1.4 lens would be considered a "fast lens" because you can use larger apertures and, thus, faster shutter speeds.

Like I said earlier, there's a lot of logic involved. Hope that all made some sense.

 

[SelfEmployedDebtFree]

It makes perfect sense! Thanks!!!

 

[Altair]

Thanks for the information everyone.

How can a lens be fast??? Can anyone explain that in dummy terms?

Keep in mind, the "faster" a lens is the more it is going to cost. Say, for example a 50mm f/1.8 lens is $100, a 50mm f/1.4 would be around $350 and a50mm F/1.2 around $1400.

So the free option is to raise the ISO. The higher the number the more sensitive the "film" is. ISO 200 is twice as sensitive or one stop faster than 100 ISO. ISO 400 is twice as sensitive as 200 or one stop and two stops faster than 100 and so on.

So this brings us back to the reason for my question.

 

[Groucho]

Keep in mind, the "faster" a lens is the more it is going to cost. Say, for example a 50mm f/1.8 lens is $100, a 50mm f/1.4 would be around $350 and a50mm F/1.2 around $1400.

Those are Canon OEM prices. There are other options. Most manufacturers have older manual-focus F1.2 lenses that can be had for much cheaper (usually under $500), and I recently switched from a third-party to an OEM F1.2 lens. They are available.

If you are using a camera that can get adapters to use lenses from other cameras (Olympus/Panasonic are the best at this, followed by Canon; the worst is Nikon with little ability to use anything but their own lenses), that opens up that many more options to you. Again, you'll be manually focusing, but there are options. Note that nailing focus at F1.2 is tough!