PDA

View Full Version : ISO Crazy


icassell
05-04-2010, 01:32 PM
It was getting towards dusk yesterday evening and I was messing around with auto-ISO on my 7D just to see if it works (upper limit of auto-ISO is 3200). I'd never played with it before and I had never really tried the upper limits of ISO on the camera at all. A Gila Woodpecker landed on my feeder and, even though it was kinda dark, I turned off auto-ISO and cranked the ISO to 12,800 just to see what happened. I really didn't expect much.

7D Handheld, Sigma 100-300mm f/4 @ 276mm
1/640 sec @ f/7.1
ISO 12,800
A little brightening in LR2, sharpening in CS4, and noise reduction in Noiseware Pro (also a rather significant crop)


It's not beautiful, but it is ISO 12,800

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll249/icassell/IMG_3358-Edit.jpg

Just for interest's sake, here it is after cropping before sharpening and Noise Reduction

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll249/icassell/IMG_3358up.jpg

Antarctican
05-04-2010, 01:45 PM
Wow, the noisewear works well!!

And I'm such a neophyte, I didn't even know ISO 12,800 was a possibility. It certainly isn't on my camera

icassell
05-04-2010, 01:52 PM
I use Noiseware routinely on everything, but I had never tried these insane high ISO's before. I think it is only a matter of time before flash is obsolete and the camera will be useable in total darkness :p

Fox Paw
05-04-2010, 03:38 PM
Interesting, Ian. I'm curious as to the image quality at 1600 and thereabouts. About the only thing that tempts me to get a new camera body is being able to shoot above ISO 800 in low-light situations.

icassell
05-04-2010, 03:58 PM
I'll try to remember to shoot some at 1600 for you.

The higher ISO ability is what made me buy a new body. When I was in Alaska and shooting bear cubs, they were small so I had to crop them. The resulting images were too d*** noisy to use. I figured the new body was a lot cheaper than long-fast glass.

Matt Needham
05-04-2010, 05:54 PM
It's not beautiful, but it is ISO 12,800

Even cropped it looks better than 35mm Konica 3200 (the fastest color film I ever used) shot at 3200. Two stops faster and cropped it's a beautiful thing to me. Is this from jpeg or raw? ACR/LR would take care of that chroma noise with no problem from raw.

Matt Needham
05-04-2010, 06:11 PM
Sometimes it's a choice between high ISO or no shot at all. This is an uncropped shot from a 5D. I set the camera to ISO 3200 @ f/1.4 @ 1/30th, and the meter just dropped off the scale. The only light was a single lantern. In ACR I converted to BW & toned, brightened it almost 3 stops (so somewhere between ISO 12800 and 25600), and tweaked the curve. Then ran Noiseware Pro in Photoshop. I think this low res web version shows a lot more noise than a real 8"x12" print.


http://www.henrypeach.com/gallery/albums/music2008/winfield08/Winfield08_079.jpg

ann
05-04-2010, 09:10 PM
several years ago there was a rumor that Kodak was working on a sensor that would be so sensitive flash would become a thing of the past.

I have tried a few on my d700 at 6400 1/10 sec at 2.8 and the results were amazing. It was in a situation similar to Matt, a very dark bar, so dark in fact to order a drink one had to use a flashlight. It was shocking how bright the image was right out of the "box".

icassell
05-04-2010, 10:37 PM
Even cropped it looks better than 35mm Konica 3200 (the fastest color film I ever used) shot at 3200. Two stops faster and cropped it's a beautiful thing to me. Is this from jpeg or raw? ACR/LR would take care of that chroma noise with no problem from raw.

I shoot everything in RAW. I couldn't get the chroma noise down any more in ACR/LR2/CS4, but I'm no pro.

Matt Needham
05-05-2010, 08:24 AM
I shoot everything in RAW. I couldn't get the chroma noise down any more in ACR/LR2/CS4, but I'm no pro.

Yeah, it's probably the crop. You said "severe". Or maybe the in-camera processing. ACR/LR keeps the noise reduction pretty simple so i don't think you need to be a pro to figure it out. :) I just got a 5DII, and haven't tried the top ISOs yet, but in older cameras that offered the in camera push (the ISOs labeled "H" instead of with a number) I've found I get cleaner results underexposing at the top actual ISO, and then doing the push myself in ACR. Then again I often convert to BW when I'm pushing it beyond what reasonable people should expect, which is the most effective way of dealing with chroma noise. ;)

Matt Needham
05-06-2010, 08:12 AM
I did some quick testing last night. I shot the same scene with 5DII (all noise reduction off) set to H1 (12800), H2 (25600), 6400-1 pushed in ACR, and 6400-2 pushed in ACR. ACR (set between 25-50) got rid of all the chroma noise in the 6400-1 shot. It couldn't do much for the 6400-2 shot chroma noise. Overall I was impressed with the in camera push. It seemed to be as good as I could do, although I don't think I've got the 5DII processing nailed down yet. I did not see the noise/artifact difference I see with the old 5D comparing 1600-1 pushed in ACR to H (3200).