20D @ 1600 ISO !!!

"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

Kibo informs me that HooDooWitch
stated that:

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.

You can see the noise quite clearly in the eyes & sclera at a 100% view,
& it jumps right out at you at 200%. (BTW; notice how the image is
losing chroma on the dark skin of the eyelids - an effect I've also
noticed on my 10D in similar shots.) That said, the noise in that shot
is amazingly low for ISO 1600, & would be invisible at any sane print
size. Reduce the scale down to 50% (equivalent to a 200 DPI print on my
screen), & you wouldn't be able to spot the noise without already
knowing it was there.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that HooDooWitch
stated that:

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.

You can see the noise quite clearly in the eyes & sclera at a 100% view,
& it jumps right out at you at 200%. (BTW; notice how the image is
losing chroma on the dark skin of the eyelids - an effect I've also
noticed on my 10D in similar shots.) That said, the noise in that shot
is amazingly low for ISO 1600, & would be invisible at any sane print
size. Reduce the scale down to 50% (equivalent to a 200 DPI print on my
screen), & you wouldn't be able to spot the noise without already
knowing it was there.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On 24 Sep 2004 03:50:52 GMT, (Annika1980) wrote:

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


Sweeeeeeeet. REALLY nice image considering 1600 ISO. There is a little
noise, but you can easily clean that up.

VERY nice shot.


---Atreju---

On 24 Sep 2004 03:50:52 GMT, (Annika1980) wrote:

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


Sweeeeeeeet. REALLY nice image considering 1600 ISO. There is a little
noise, but you can easily clean that up.

VERY nice shot.


---Atreju---

"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.


Patrick


Depth of field and sharpness of image are both very good reasons to shoot at
f11 and 1/25. Most lenses are not at their best wide open, f8 and f11 are
usually better choices, if you can do it. And, of course, depth of field is
greater at f11 than it is at f2.8.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"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.


Patrick


Depth of field and sharpness of image are both very good reasons to shoot at
f11 and 1/25. Most lenses are not at their best wide open, f8 and f11 are
usually better choices, if you can do it. And, of course, depth of field is
greater at f11 than it is at f2.8.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"HooDooWitch" wrote in message
...



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


How about a daytime sky? Fast shutter and aperture, but there's a wide
expanse of sky for noise to show up in.

http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...es&p icture=4

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"HooDooWitch" wrote in message
...



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


How about a daytime sky? Fast shutter and aperture, but there's a wide
expanse of sky for noise to show up in.

http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...es&p icture=4

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Patrick L. wrote:

"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.

I (and others?) asked Bret to post shots at higher ISO's in order to see the noise.

Low light shooting, further, does not _demand_ a sacrifice in DOF either.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--