• XENNEC Camera Bags GIVE AWAY - SHARE & TAG your Friend to WIN one XENNEC Stylish bags. Visit this thread thread for more information.

DNP0i$onou$ Clubh0us3 - TCSS Thread XVII


ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#63
Bro... you talking double french... LX3 or the real LX3? :bsmilie:
hahahah I'm talking about my real LX3... noise is pretty bad at anything > ISO400.
Haven't tried specialized noise removal software like noise ninja etc...

But on the LX3 that 'rox', I think the max in the normal range is 6400 :)
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#64
hahahah I'm talking about my real LX3... noise is pretty bad at anything > ISO400.
Haven't tried specialized noise removal software like noise ninja etc...

But on the LX3 that 'rox', I think the max in the normal range is 6400 :)
How is 3200 then? Have you tried it?
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#67
tried to shoot SOOC JPGs @ ISO 3200 during testing time. Looked good provided exposure was biased to slight over-, and no real dark areas (like black sky, etc)
That means you shouldn't shoot it in places that requires a high dynamic range isit? (from super bright to super dark)
 

Last edited:

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#68
That means you shouldn't shoot it in places that requires a high dynamic range isit? (from super bright to super dark)

aiyoh, scared to answer this type of question... :sweat:
No la, not that you SHOULDN'T, just be prepared to accept a bit of noise in the shadow area la...
You want great dynamic range and no noise at all even in high ISO, is asking for a bit much with present technology I feel.

Just as an example, I mistakenly shot a night scene (like 930pm) of Marina Bay last weekend @ ISO1600. The noise in the black sky is noticeable, though probably can be greatly reduced with appropriate software.
But if taking portraits at 3200 in dimly-lit environment, I think the outcome is totally acceptable. Just over-expose slightly and bring down the exposure in PP, should be pretty all right.
 

ClemC

New Member
Jun 12, 2010
721
0
0
Within myself
#69
That means you shouldn't shoot it in places that requires a high dynamic range isit? (from super bright to super dark)
aiyoh, scared to answer this type of question... :sweat:
No la, not that you SHOULDN'T, just be prepared to accept a bit of noise in the shadow area la...
You want great dynamic range and no noise at all even in high ISO, is asking for a bit much with present technology I feel.
Bros... must put in prespective la... considering the analogue days when you cant shoot any reasonable (noise-free) pictures above ISO800 (some may even go lower).. IT IS ALREADI A BIG ADVANTAGE LA...

Me have no issue with current "High ISO performance" tecnhology + BIG aperature lens :) .. very happy alreadi :) :)
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#70
Bros... must put in prespective la... considering the analogue days when you cant shoot any reasonable (noise-free) pictures above ISO800 (some may even go lower).. IT IS ALREADI A BIG ADVANTAGE LA...

Me have no issue with current "High ISO performance" tecnhology + BIG aperature lens :) .. very happy alreadi :) :)
ya lor ya lor :)
totally spoilt by modern technology.

anyway Kriegs, I spoke to the pre-press manager in my ex-company. I asked him if a 12MP image was sufficient to print magazine quality A3 size. He seemed to do some quick mental calculation and they scoffed it off with an "off course enough!" though said that the JPG must be saved in Fine resolution.

so I kinda left it at that. Didn't think it was appropriate to prolong the conversation coz he seemed a bit busy.
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#71
ya lor ya lor :)
totally spoilt by modern technology.

anyway Kriegs, I spoke to the pre-press manager in my ex-company. I asked him if a 12MP image was sufficient to print magazine quality A3 size. He seemed to do some quick mental calculation and they scoffed it off with an "off course enough!" though said that the JPG must be saved in Fine resolution.

so I kinda left it at that. Didn't think it was appropriate to prolong the conversation coz he seemed a bit busy.
Wah, thanks for the kind help bro! Treat it as enough for the local context then. Agreed, asking further into details is brimming on interrupting into his busy schedules. Appreciate your help!
 

Last edited:
Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#72
No lah, I wasn't saying one shouldn't expect noise at 3200. But given that you've used D90 before, how is that compared to D700's 3200? A bit hard to determine for sure, just wondering. Reason being, I've shot at 3200 using D90 and the details are pretty bit lossy... Wondering how great an improvement is D700 on that.

I threat 3200 as D90's maximum ISO acceptability - not be used all the time but only when necessary. I gather D700's and D7000's 6400 is the max, but the halfway mark (3200) should be pretty acceptable. Whereas, 1600 (1/2 of 3200) on D90 is pretty acceptable to me. Hence my asking.
 

ClemC

New Member
Jun 12, 2010
721
0
0
Within myself
#73
Bro.. got it...

For me personally, my take is that the whole ISO rating provided is usable.. I have tried H1 or H2 rating with wide-open 2.8 (while on a boat crusing).. it is a shot that most people will say CMI.. but for me it is aOK.. acceptable (and it carry my memories)..

If I could have taken the shot on land (with a tripod), I would have done it to make it a CanMI shot.. maybe even bring the ISO down to 100 (or lower)... guess what I'm saying is use a low ISO when possible, if not just pump up to the necessary ISO level and shoot...

I quite like the grainy effect of the TriX400 B/W film, so I think there are also agroup that dont mind the noise at high ISO because it is afterall more "natural"...

Bro.. not trying to do a fist-fight.. just chat-chat with own pt-of-view.. PEACE, Bro Kriegs,,,
 

Last edited:
Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#74
Since when we're even into a fist fight?? Maybe I need to add smilies to all my posts... :bsmilie:

No lah... far from any arguments... just talking openly...
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#75
Noise level acceptabilities are pretty much based on individual preferences... For me, I keep thinking of magazine acceptability... :bsmilie: But on the personal level, I cap it at 1600 (for D90), if die die wanna have sharp image in a dark area, then 3200 and above... otherwise, use flash...
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#78
Wah, thanks for the kind help bro! Treat it as enough for the local context then. Agreed, asking further into details is brimming on interrupting into his busy schedules. Appreciate your help!
You're welcome...! You also piqued my curiosity. Maybe one day I catch up with him for lunch or something, then can chat further on this topic. This whole business of DPI/PPI, and (with regards to commercial printing) terms like 'dot gain', 'screen', etc are rather interesting.

No lah, I wasn't saying one shouldn't expect noise at 3200. But given that you've used D90 before, how is that compared to D700's 3200? A bit hard to determine for sure, just wondering. Reason being, I've shot at 3200 using D90 and the details are pretty bit lossy... Wondering how great an improvement is D700 on that.

I threat 3200 as D90's maximum ISO acceptability - not be used all the time but only when necessary. I gather D700's and D7000's 6400 is the max, but the halfway mark (3200) should be pretty acceptable. Whereas, 1600 (1/2 of 3200) on D90 is pretty acceptable to me. Hence my asking.
you mean 'treat', right? Not 'threat'... :sweat:
dun threaten me!! :angel:

hehehe I dunno about D700/D7000, but my LX3 seems all right @ 3200. Ok gimme some time and I try to do some tests for your reference. I'm bad at this testing stuff... see how my 'YN460II' review kinda ground to a halt. Wanted to do some controlled tests, but couldn't find a suitable venue.
 

Top Bottom