High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

Robert Brace wrote:

If you don't expose properly you get noise. If you do expose properly,
it's just not a factor.

But ... sometimes there is not enough light to expose
"properly". Sometimes even with the f/2.8 super lens, wide
open, there is not enough light at a shutter speed short
enough to get rid of subject movement.

Then sensor noise matters. You get a seriously underexsposed
picture, but you can of course post-process it to get the
shading "right" ... and you get noise. Effectively, this is
like setting the camera at ASA 30000 or more. Both CCD and
CMOS are linear at low light levels, so it actually works
well ... noise excepted, of course.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald wrote:
Robert Brace wrote:

If you don't expose properly you get noise. If you do expose properly,
it's just not a factor.

But ... sometimes there is not enough light to expose
"properly". Sometimes even with the f/2.8 super lens, wide
open, there is not enough light at a shutter speed short
enough to get rid of subject movement.

That's what the
24mm f/1.4L
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4L or f/2
50mm f/1.2L[1] or f/1.4 or f/1.8
(or f/1.0, if you find it, have the budget and want to go crazy)
85mm f/1.2L of f/1.8
100mm f/2
135mm f/2
are for ...

I imagine Nikon has a similar product palette.

-Wolfgang

[1] Yep, it's a new one, but you'll have to wait a few more months.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...ode lid=14259
(and the 70-200mm f/4 IS is to be found there too.)

But ... sometimes there is not enough light to expose
"properly". Sometimes even with the f/2.8 super lens, wide
open, there is not enough light at a shutter speed short
enough to get rid of subject movement.

That's what the
24mm f/1.4L
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4L or f/2
50mm f/1.2L[1] or f/1.4 or f/1.8
(or f/1.0, if you find it, have the budget and want to go
crazy)
85mm f/1.2L of f/1.8
100mm f/2
135mm f/2
are for ...

True, but:

a) not everyone has the resources to own these lenses
b) the DOF at apertures below 2 is so shallow that this might not yield
acceptable pictures of some scenes

Not that you were claiming otherwise, and I've lost track of exactly
what the point was suppsoe to be here, but since in another context,
there was argument over the value of high ISO settings compared to
faster lens, I thought this is worth mentioning. I can understand some
poeople not caring about high ISO for themselves. But to argue that
others should have reason to care, well, that's just foolish.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

Marc Sabatella wrote:
But ... sometimes there is not enough light to expose
"properly". Sometimes even with the f/2.8 super lens, wide
open, there is not enough light at a shutter speed short
enough to get rid of subject movement.

That's what the
24mm f/1.4L
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4L or f/2
50mm f/1.2L[1] or f/1.4 or f/1.8
(or f/1.0, if you find it, have the budget and want to go
crazy)
85mm f/1.2L of f/1.8
100mm f/2
135mm f/2
are for ...

True, but:

a) not everyone has the resources to own these lenses
b) the DOF at apertures below 2 is so shallow that this might not yield
acceptable pictures of some scenes

He did mention 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8, which are very affordable,
very good quality, adequate DoF, and still 1 stop faster than much more
expensive f/2.8 zooms.

Not that you were claiming otherwise, and I've lost track of exactly
what the point was suppsoe to be here, but since in another context,
there was argument over the value of high ISO settings compared to
faster lens, I thought this is worth mentioning. I can understand some
poeople not caring about high ISO for themselves. But to argue that
others should have reason to care, well, that's just foolish.

Both ISO 1600 and f/2 primes are very useful.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Marc Sabatella wrote:

But ... sometimes there is not enough light to expose
"properly". Sometimes even with the f/2.8 super lens, wide
open, there is not enough light at a shutter speed short
enough to get rid of subject movement.

That's what the
24mm f/1.4L
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4L or f/2
50mm f/1.2L[1] or f/1.4 or f/1.8
(or f/1.0, if you find it, have the budget and want to go
crazy)
85mm f/1.2L of f/1.8
100mm f/2
135mm f/2
are for ...

True, but:

a) not everyone has the resources to own these lenses

$90 for the 50mm f/1.8 is certainly not to high for
multi-hundred $ DSLR owners. And you _can_ rent lenses (and
bodies and flashes), too.

b) the DOF at apertures below 2 is so shallow that this might not yield
acceptable pictures of some scenes

True, but it WILL help focussing (manually and AF) even in the
dark. And "What did you expect? Sshooting in available darkness
usually means a shallow DOF and low contrast and sharpness
wide open!"

And if high ISO and fast lens won't be acceptable, pushing doesn't
help and flash or more light is impossible, tripods not being an
option due to moving objects ... well, then you are out of luck;
you'll have to re-create the setting in a studio or where more
light is available.

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote :

$90 for the 50mm f/1.8 is certainly not to high for
multi-hundred $ DSLR owners.

Probably not. But a whole collection of them at different focal lengths
may well be.

And if high ISO and fast lens won't be acceptable

I never said high ISO wouldn't be acceptable; on the contrary, I'm
trying to argue it is necesary and indeed often preferable. As I said,
I kind of lost track of the various points being made in this thread,
but it *appeared* your lens listing was trying to demonstrate that high
ISO wasn't necessary - just spend a few thousand dollars and carry
around huge bag of lenses. That's probably not what your point really
was, but it kind of came off that way to me.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Marc Sabatella wrote:
But ... sometimes there is not enough light to expose
"properly". Sometimes even with the f/2.8 super lens, wide
open, there is not enough light at a shutter speed short
enough to get rid of subject movement.

That's what the
24mm f/1.4L
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4L or f/2
50mm f/1.2L[1] or f/1.4 or f/1.8
(or f/1.0, if you find it, have the budget and want to go
crazy)
85mm f/1.2L of f/1.8
100mm f/2
135mm f/2
are for ...

True, but:

a) not everyone has the resources to own these lenses

$90 for the 50mm f/1.8 is certainly not to high for
multi-hundred $ DSLR owners. And you _can_ rent lenses (and
bodies and flashes), too.

b) the DOF at apertures below 2 is so shallow that this might not yield
acceptable pictures of some scenes

True, but it WILL help focussing (manually and AF) even in the
dark.

I have a lot of AF error with 50/1.4, while 50/1.8 AF much better.
Under good conditions, the 50/1.4 AF fine, so the lens is not
defective. I think it is because AF is done at wide open, and 50/1.4
wide open at f/1.4 is softer than 50/1.8 at f/1.8. The softer image
makes it more difficult for AF sensors to work correctly.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

"AaronW" wrote:

He did mention 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8, which are very affordable,
very good quality, adequate DoF, and still 1 stop faster than much
more
expensive f/2.8 zooms.

True, but still, I don't see the existence of these as a substitute for
good high ISO performance. That's a limited range of focal lengths.
Once again, I'm not sure that Wolfgang *intended* to suggest the
existence of these lenses made high ISO performance irrelevant, but
taken somewhat out of the context of the rest of thread, it appeared
that way.

Both ISO 1600 and f/2 primes are very useful.

Absolutely!

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

Marc Sabatella wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote :

$90 for the 50mm f/1.8 is certainly not to high for
multi-hundred $ DSLR owners.

Probably not. But a whole collection of them at different focal lengths
may well be.

True, but start with a cheap, optically good lens and see what
you need and if it appeals to you.

And if high ISO and fast lens won't be acceptable

I never said high ISO wouldn't be acceptable; on the contrary, I'm
trying to argue it is necesary and indeed often preferable.

High ISO is always preferrable to digital pushing (unless the
camera does aught than digital pushing itself and you don't
need any off-the-camera JPEG).


but it *appeared* your lens listing was trying to demonstrate that high
ISO wasn't necessary - just spend a few thousand dollars and carry
around huge bag of lenses.

I was responding to Doug McDonald: "Sometimes even with the f/2.8
super lens, wide open, there is not enough light at a shutter
speed short enough to get rid of subject movement."
(Message ID: )

I was trying to show that f/2.8 was _not_ the lower end at all.
And by extension: if you find yourself often in places where a
f/2.8 is too slow, consider a faster lens of matching focal
length! (there are many that are cheap compared to your
average zoom lens.)

-Wolfgang

AaronW wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Marc Sabatella wrote:

b) the DOF at apertures below 2 is so shallow that this might not yield
acceptable pictures of some scenes

True, but it WILL help focussing (manually and AF) even in the
dark.

I have a lot of AF error with 50/1.4, while 50/1.8 AF much better.

I have no AF problems with the f/1.4, even in very low light.

Under good conditions, the 50/1.4 AF fine, so the lens is not
defective.

Good conditions != wide open?
Maybe you are experiencing a shift in focus with closing the
aperture (and that helps you) or a smaller aperture increases
the depth of field, hiding inaccuracies.

Or maybe yours is a lemom.

I think it is because AF is done at wide open, and 50/1.4
wide open at f/1.4 is softer than 50/1.8 at f/1.8.

Then you'd also find the problems with many of the other
f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses.

The softer image
makes it more difficult for AF sensors to work correctly.

Since the sensors work from the de-focussed lens image and even
work with tele lenses (where they have much less 'sharp' images to
work from if the focus is way off), I don't really buy that theory.

-Wolfgang