20D @ 1600 ISO !!!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a
big
file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO





What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?. Find
some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600 or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore, only
such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.


Patrick

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a
big
file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO





What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?. Find
some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600 or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore, only
such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.


Patrick

Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a big
file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still
a
big
file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO





What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

Find
some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600
or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
only
such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

Huh?
I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of field
in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light AND
allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE benefit,
and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
camera's ability to avoid noise.

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still
a
big
file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO





What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

Find
some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600
or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
only
such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

Huh?
I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of field
in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light AND
allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE benefit,
and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
camera's ability to avoid noise.

Mark M wrote:

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a
big file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO


What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

Find some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600 or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
only such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

Huh?
I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of field
in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light AND
allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE benefit,
and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
camera's ability to avoid noise.

And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
this 20D has a damn good sensor.

Thomas

Mark M wrote:

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's still a
big file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO


What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

Find some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and ISO 1600 or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
only such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

Huh?
I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of field
in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light AND
allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE benefit,
and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
camera's ability to avoid noise.

And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
this 20D has a damn good sensor.

Thomas

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...


Mark M wrote:

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's
still a
big file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO


What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

Find some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and
ISO 1600 or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to
use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
only such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

Huh?
I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of
field
in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light
AND
allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE
benefit,
and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
camera's ability to avoid noise.

And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
this 20D has a damn good sensor.

It is especially impressive given the fact that it's packing another 2
million pixels into the same size as the 10D. This usually leads to more
noise, but Canon seems to have manage LESS noise, or at worst...the same
amount. It looks like less to me.

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...


Mark M wrote:

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Here's a test shot I took of The Mighty Jewel tonight using only
available
light (from a ceiling fan). This is an actual-sized crop, but it's
still a
big file.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34174309/original

1/25 @ f/11, 1600 ISO


What's the point of ISO 1600, if ambient light is enough for F/11?.

Find some ambient light that requires 1/25 sec, at F/2 or f/2.8, and
ISO 1600 or
ISO 3200.

Then let's see the results. In my view, there is only one reason to
use
ISO 1600 or ISO 3200; when light is so low you have to. Therefore,
only such light is relevant testing. as far as I'm concerned.

Huh?
I guess you haven't thought much about retaining sufficient depth of
field
in close shots like this?? At 2.8 or even smaller (like 5.6 or even 8),
this doggy's eye's might have been in focus, but little else would have
been. This quality at 1600 allows for flexibility to use ambient light
AND
allows for substantial DOF using small apertures. This is a HUGE
benefit,
and is a perfectly legitimate demonstration of a useful aspect of any
camera's ability to avoid noise.

And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
this 20D has a damn good sensor.

It is especially impressive given the fact that it's packing another 2
million pixels into the same size as the 10D. This usually leads to more
noise, but Canon seems to have manage LESS noise, or at worst...the same
amount. It looks like less to me.

"Mark M" somehow managed to
post:

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...

And the noise at 1600ISO is quite low indeed. Very decent,
this 20D has a damn good sensor.

It is especially impressive given the fact that it's packing another 2
million pixels into the same size as the 10D. This usually leads to more
noise, but Canon seems to have manage LESS noise, or at worst...the same
amount. It looks like less to me.


It is quite impressive, but the nature of the fur, which makes up 90%
of this shot, masks a lot of the noise. I'd like to see a shot of some
smooth coloured glass or plastic under similar circumstances.

--
HooDooWitch (NaCl - Gratis)

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/51251.html