High ISO race - Your thoughts...
- Thread starter godzilla60
- Start date
- Status
T.A.
New Member
It's more of a want than need for me.
One example could be say I'm asked to take a pic of my nephew (4yo) who's always
running around and we're having a meal in a restaurant with dim lighting. Using flash
would be quite inconsiderate to the others and I find it hard to use a prime lens to
track him so I use an f2.8 zoom lens instead.
When I turn up the ISO and it gets abit grainy, ppl kinda give comments that the pic
is noisy/grainy and rejects it I feel sad. I can't expect them to understand even tho
I tried to explain a little ppl just think my cam is crap.:cry:
One example could be say I'm asked to take a pic of my nephew (4yo) who's always
running around and we're having a meal in a restaurant with dim lighting. Using flash
would be quite inconsiderate to the others and I find it hard to use a prime lens to
track him so I use an f2.8 zoom lens instead.
When I turn up the ISO and it gets abit grainy, ppl kinda give comments that the pic
is noisy/grainy and rejects it I feel sad. I can't expect them to understand even tho
I tried to explain a little ppl just think my cam is crap.:cry:
godzilla60
New Member
that i have to agree.....grain adds certain character but depends on application....noise generally lowers image clarity....
also noise reduction usually removes details (that is what i remember...correct me if i am wrong...)
navlem
New Member
Yes it does.
dision
New Member
If they can come up with high iso & megapix sensor at the same price mark then why not. If you don't want to use it you can always set to lower mega pixels or lower iso on the camera. Anyway I've always felt that if only exposure is a concern, then having a high iso body is better then having to buy a bright lens, caus all your other lens will benefit as well. Sadly its not an apple to apple comparison in real life caus most of the time the bright lens also come with better image quality.
CaravanDuke
Member
and yes, i do believe that a camera that can deliver high ISO performance is more important than a camera that try to "out-pixel" their rivals
+1000
Leong23
Senior Member
Grain is beautiful, noise is abit sore to see.........
godzilla60
New Member
well....as usual....this is also relative.....haha
godzilla60
New Member
Seems like there is no perfect do-it-all camera......with high megapixels and high and clean ISO capability.....
or is the 5dmk2 close to achieving it? tried the 5dmk2 at the canon showroom....the noise level at iso 6400 was almost on par as my A700 iso 1000! But forgot to check if it is jpeg or raw...coz most noise suppression takes place during conversion to jpeg....
if the noise level for RAW format is that good for 5dmk2, i will say it is impressive :thumbsup:
but if the noise level is only reduced after noise suppression during jpeg conversion, i dun think it is that impressive anymore :dunno:
maybe one day, i go try to shoot in raw....or alternatively, anyone got experience?
or is the 5dmk2 close to achieving it? tried the 5dmk2 at the canon showroom....the noise level at iso 6400 was almost on par as my A700 iso 1000! But forgot to check if it is jpeg or raw...coz most noise suppression takes place during conversion to jpeg....
if the noise level for RAW format is that good for 5dmk2, i will say it is impressive :thumbsup:
but if the noise level is only reduced after noise suppression during jpeg conversion, i dun think it is that impressive anymore :dunno:
maybe one day, i go try to shoot in raw....or alternatively, anyone got experience?
like megapixels, there is a limit to when any higher is just basically useless.
For me, I just need 12 megapixels. For high ISO, with ISO6400 f2.8, I can shoot in almost any light with a stable handhold, even in underground caves lit by small artificial lighting. Maybe a clean ISO12800 can help somemore but beyond that, there is really not much point anymore.
For me, I just need 12 megapixels. For high ISO, with ISO6400 f2.8, I can shoot in almost any light with a stable handhold, even in underground caves lit by small artificial lighting. Maybe a clean ISO12800 can help somemore but beyond that, there is really not much point anymore.
I think high ISO race and megapixel count would come to a saturation point within the next year or two.
Companies are going to focus more on dynamic range, of 16-bit sensors and perhaps 3-dimensional-like imaging.
One thing I do hope to see in future SLR cameras can be found in the D5000, that is, a swivel LCD.
Companies are going to focus more on dynamic range, of 16-bit sensors and perhaps 3-dimensional-like imaging.
One thing I do hope to see in future SLR cameras can be found in the D5000, that is, a swivel LCD.
CS TAN
Senior Member
High ISO can be bad for the bottom line of lens manufacturers since people might go for f/4.0 instead of f/2.8 or lower lenses if they get a clean picture at 6400/12800. Of course, there are people who wants better bokeh so they will still go for the fast lenses.
EDIT: for me, I was thinking of downgrading my 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens to the 70-200 f/4.0 IS due to the higher ISO/cleaner pictures that I am able to get from a FF camera.
Last edited:
ortega
Moderator
there will be a time that you wish that you had that extra stop of light
since you already have it, just keep it
CS TAN
Senior Member
Agreed. At the moment, just deciding whether the money saved (and the lighter weight of the f4) is worth the difference in that extra stop of light as well as bokeh...
V
vince123123
Guest
If you don't already have the F4, just wait for the F2.8. Oherwise you will forever be nagged by the upgrade bug.
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
I think high ISO + fast lenses + shoot RAW provides you will a lot of opportunities that was previously not available. That's why I think you should retain your f/2.8 lens.
CS TAN
Senior Member
I have got the 2.8IS but is thinking whether I should downgrade to 4.0IS...
- Status
Similar threads
