I just returned from a Shutterbug sponsored class featuring Monte Zucker and Eddie Tapp.
Monte is a 30+ year retired professional and a stellar photographer. (Google both of them and see) Eddie is also a great photographer and a Photoshop instructor to the stars.
My question- All through the session, Monte kept referring to routinely shooting ISO’s of 600 to 800. I know that is supposed to introduce objectionable amounts of noise, but never having tried it, What do y’all think? He WAS shooting a Canon system so that could be it! HA!
I just returned from a Shutterbug sponsored class featuring Monte Zucker and Eddie Tapp.
Monte is a 30+ year retired professional and a stellar photographer. (Google both of them and see) Eddie is also a great photographer and a Photoshop instructor to the stars.
My question- All through the session, Monte kept referring to routinely shooting ISO’s of 600 to 800. I know that is supposed to introduce objectionable amounts of noise, but never having tried it, What do y’all think? He WAS shooting a Canon system so that could be it! HA!
Bingo
I shot the indoor part of my niece's wedding at ISO 1600 and no flash a few month ago. Probably closer to ISO 3200 since the lighting was really bad and most of the shots were underexposed by a stop. It's probably not up to professional standards but everybody loved the results.
Could be Cannon.
Was on a boat earlier in the year with my Nikon D200 and also on board was a Cannon 5D. Guy with the cannon was shooting available light at ISO 400 and they looked awesome.
The D200 was 'OK' at ISO200 as long as you did not look too close or mag it up. Even now on screen I can pick out the shots taken at ISO 100 vs ISO 200 with the Nikon.
Maybe Nikon could use a bit of development here....
Paul C
I've a low end Canon (350D) and find anything higher that ISO200 dissappointing. ISO400 is bearable, but I wouldn't want to have to do anything with the output.
I have a new D80 and the high ISO performance on that is amazing (for a Nikon). I have been shooting it in the house at ISO 800-1600 and it is so much better than my D2X.
The D80 and D50 are much closer to the Canons than the other Nikon DSLRs.
See this comparison on DPReview - that shows that Nikon is closing the gap.
I routinely shoot ISO 640-1600 topside. Underwater, with all of those blue gradients, I think it would be tough...
There's been a few side-by-side 5D vs D200 ISO series posted on dpreview forums. There seem to be somewhat of a consensus, as much as is possible on dpreview, that there's a 2 stop difference. Here's one set of shots:
When I shoot above water, I now tend to give the aperture I really want top priority, then set a shutter speed that I can handle without camera shake or motion blurring by the subject, and then get the correct exposure by adjusting the ISO. I really wish Canon would put in a shooting mode that automates the priorities this way.
I routinely shoot ISO 640-1600 topside. Underwater, with all of those blue gradients, I think it would be tough...
I was just thinking the same sort of thing Eric. The smooth gradients that we see shading down to basically black are certainly areas where high ISO noise can easily show itself. However, on the upside, those gradients also take noise reduction processing very well. The only thing to watch out in this scenario then (hi ISO + NR) is watching the details don't get too smeared by the noise reduction.
By noise reduction processing I'm thinking of either the built in stuff in ACR or similar raw converters or utils like Noise Ninja or Neat Image.
Martyn
Interesting discussion. I was a little disappointed with the high ISO on the Olympus E-500. Anything above 400 wasn't very good. ISO800 was okay but above that I would consider unusable. I also posed the question the other day about high ISO underwater since every new point-n-shoot that comes out with high ISO seemed to get lot of clamoring for it. Now I'm hearing what I suspected all along is that high ISO underwater isn't used that often. Anyway, Canon has always done a great job with high ISO. The evidence between it and the D200 are the Canon are striking.
When I shoot above water, I now tend to give the aperture I really want top priority, then set a shutter speed that I can handle without camera shake or motion blurring by the subject, and then get the correct exposure by adjusting the ISO. I really wish Canon would put in a shooting mode that automates the priorities this way.
Great advice! I almost never attempt to change ISO under water; my default setting is ISO 200, and I'm not sure I would want to go over 400 regardless. However, that sometimes leaves me with apertures far larger than I'd like, so I might start using your methodology...at least once per dive when lighting conditions are significantly different...
Interesting with the dpreview noise chart for the D80 that ISO 800 has lower noise than ISO 400
I find that I get good results for my taste up to 400 with the D70 and 800 are usable.
As noise gets lower and lower I think we will see lots of creative use of ambient light. Still with the D70 I am following traditional technique of keeping the ISO low and blasting the subject with 2 DS125s. I still like black backgrounds.
I was shooting ISO 400 on D80 and found it comparable to ISO 200 on my d2x...which is what we were shooting in Guadalupe last week.. The d80 was set to auto and to shoot between 100 and 400 for proper exposure...most of the time choosing 400 or somehting close... I'd hate to think my d80 is going to replace my d2x..
M.
The D200 and D80 are apparently the same sensor, and of course the D2x is supposedly the best sensor of the lot. How much of this is firmware related? Should Nikon be able to improve the performance of the D2x and D200 with firmware upgrades?
From what I've seen with the D200, it can handle semi high ISO's fairly well. I regularly shoot between ISO 100-400. I do have to admit that some of the Canon's seem to handle it a little better, but believe alot has to do with technique and lighting. The pics below were shot at different ISO's for different reasons. All of the shark pics were shot at ISO 200 because I didn't want alot of noise in the blue channel. All the birds were shot at ISO 800 because I wanted to maintain detail in the feathers, but lighting was poor. Personally, I can't really see a difference between the pics as far as noise goes and am able to get large prints with both.
Well, something went wrong. I was trying to get rid of the thumbnails because they would take up to much space. Here is a link to a gallery where you can see what I'm talking about.
From what I've seen with the D200, it can handle semi high ISO's fairly well. I regularly shoot between ISO 100-400. I do have to admit that some of the Canon's seem to handle it a little better, but believe alot has to do with technique and lighting. The pics below were shot at different ISO's for different reasons. All of the shark pics were shot at ISO 200 because I didn't want alot of noise in the blue channel. All the birds were shot at ISO 800 because I wanted to maintain detail in the feathers, but lighting was poor. Personally, I can't really see a difference between the pics as far as noise goes and am able to get large prints with both.
Well, something went wrong. I was trying to get rid of the thumbnails because they would take up to much space. Here is a link to a gallery where you can see what I'm talking about.
Were you using a strobe or strobes in the GWhite pics? What appeture were you using ? What lens were you using? Were you using the camera in auto mode or do you preset your choices?
Thanks.
I used a single Inon strobe w/ diffuser knocked back -2/3 for the majority of the shots. The lens was a Nikon 17-35mm f2.8. I shot in aperture priority and changed aperture regularly between 2.8 for side profiles and 5.6 or 8.0 for angled or length shots. WB was shot in auto mode -2.
HA!
