ISO WHAT?????????? Post em... - DPChallenge Forums

06/02/2007 01:03:06 AM · #26

okay here is the new ones

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/02/2007 01:03:12 AM · #27

Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:

Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
Okay I did, how do I do a 100% crop?

Don't resize the image. Instead, crop out an 800 x 600 chunk.

I figured it out but I did 640x480 instead, sorry I saw this after I already cropped them all

No prob. That's big enough. I was just suggesting the maximum DPC size, but it doesn't matter.

In that case I believe I have to correct you at 800X800? A resize on a 4:3 would produce 800x600 max but a 100% crop you can go 800x800!

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/02/2007 01:05:52 AM · #28

Is it just me or does the ISO200 image have less noise than the ISO100 one? Or is it just the NR running?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/02/2007 01:08:49 AM · #29

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

Is it just me or does the ISO200 image have less noise than the ISO100 one? Or is it just the NR running?

No I was thinking the same thing. It looks better on mine too.

Should ISO 100 be the best of all?

rider808

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/02/2007 01:13:10 AM · #30

my camera doesnt go to 300? i did 400 250 160 and 100. not bad eh?

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/02/2007 01:13:56 AM · #31

Should be...

Check out this page and scroll down towards the bottom. They have a few sample shots at various ISO settings. The ISO100 seems to be the best looking one of all. Not sure why yours turned out wacky.

rider808

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/02/2007 01:14:55 AM · #32

by the way, that was with a 120 watt light bulb. all I had

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

06/02/2007 01:16:15 AM · #33

Originally posted by rider808:

by the way, that was with a 120 watt light bulb. all I had

5d toting Fother mucker. Yup 400 looks great!

MattO

Nikon D4

06/02/2007 01:16:30 AM · #34

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by MattO:

When you get that Sony up to 3200 ISO compare it to this one and let me know how it holds up OK.

:D

MattO

Heh This might look better but a 10)% crop of anythign but the player shows alot of ugly noise!.

I'd have to find the original, but that is a cropped photo, and at 3200 I'd expect to find some noise. Lets see how that A630 does as say 400ISO or so. Besides it looked good printed 8X10 that the customer bought, and even better with a B&W conversion and printed in the newspaper. :-)

MattO

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/02/2007 01:17:11 AM · #35

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

In that case I believe I have to correct you at 800X800? A resize on a 4:3 would produce 800x600 max but a 100% crop you can go 800x800!

Yep, absolutely right. :) Old habits ...

06/02/2007 01:18:46 AM · #36

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by MattO:

When you get that Sony up to 3200 ISO compare it to this one and let me know how it holds up OK.

:D

MattO

Heh This might look better but a 100% crop of anythign but the player shows alot of ugly noise!.

Maybe so, but it's still pretty incredible for 3200. Not to mention that it's all luminance noise (i.e. there aren't any red pixels showing up in the sky).

Message edited by author 2007-06-02 01:20:52.

06/02/2007 01:19:36 AM · #37

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by MattO:

When you get that Sony up to 3200 ISO compare it to this one and let me know how it holds up OK.

:D

MattO

Heh This might look better but a 10)% crop of anythign but the player shows alot of ugly noise!.

I'd have to find the original, but that is a cropped photo, and at 3200 I'd expect to find some noise. Lets see how that A630 does as say 400ISO or so. Besides it looked good printed 8X10 that the customer bought, and even better with a B&W conversion and printed in the newspaper. :-)

MattO

A630 at 400 Versus your 3200 = A630 better
A630 at 800 Versus your 3200 = A630 Worse.

Versus my old olympus 50 = worse almost joking. I hate Olympus!

Message edited by author 2007-06-02 01:21:33.

06/02/2007 01:24:55 AM · #38

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by MattO:

When you get that Sony up to 3200 ISO compare it to this one and let me know how it holds up OK.

:D

MattO

Heh This might look better but a 10)% crop of anythign but the player shows alot of ugly noise!.

I'd have to find the original, but that is a cropped photo, and at 3200 I'd expect to find some noise. Lets see how that A630 does as say 400ISO or so. Besides it looked good printed 8X10 that the customer bought, and even better with a B&W conversion and printed in the newspaper. :-)

MattO

A630 at 400 Versus your 3200 = A630 better

Even if he dropped his resolution to the same as the A630 (8 MP)?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

06/02/2007 01:26:34 AM · #39

I was talking general noise versus that shot. The iso 400 noise on the A630 is better the Noise at 800 is worse.

The A640 would of course at 10mp have worse noise then the A630.

I don't shoot with it by choice technicaly i cant afford anything i currently own.

But pentax K10D si what i want and yes Canon is better on the noise levels then Pentax seems todo.

Message edited by author 2007-06-02 01:27:26.

MattO

Nikon D4

06/02/2007 01:26:49 AM · #40

Originally posted by geoffb:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by MattO:

When you get that Sony up to 3200 ISO compare it to this one and let me know how it holds up OK.

:D

MattO

Heh This might look better but a 10)% crop of anythign but the player shows alot of ugly noise!.

I'd have to find the original, but that is a cropped photo, and at 3200 I'd expect to find some noise. Lets see how that A630 does as say 400ISO or so. Besides it looked good printed 8X10 that the customer bought, and even better with a B&W conversion and printed in the newspaper. :-)

MattO

A630 at 400 Versus your 3200 = A630 better

Even if he dropped his resolution to the same as the A630 (8 MP)?

My camera is only 8.2 MP.

1600 ISO example.

MattO

06/02/2007 01:28:44 AM · #41

Originally posted by rider808:

by the way, that was with a 120 watt light bulb. all I had

okay I need a 5D, Those are exellent pictures. I didn't see noise, can I see a 100% crop of each?

Message edited by author 2007-06-02 01:28:52.

06/02/2007 01:29:29 AM · #42

1600 without a full crop looking at the whitish walls looks about 200ish on my camera.

Noise isnt everything the A630 would NOT have captured the shot in a decent manner noise or not. Its a great p&s as far as someone who needs control but its not gonna shoot sports or wide open indoor areas well at all....

06/02/2007 01:31:30 AM · #43

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by geoffb:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

A630 at 400 Versus your 3200 = A630 better

Even if he dropped his resolution to the same as the A630 (8 MP)?

My camera is only 8.2 MP.

MattO

Ahh, so it is. Somehow I came to think it was 16 MP.

06/02/2007 01:34:52 AM · #44

So the more MP the more noise???

I would think actually the less MP the more noise at a higher ISO

Message edited by author 2007-06-02 01:35:34.

06/02/2007 01:36:35 AM · #45

Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:

So the more MP the more noise???

On sensors of the same size, that's generally the case. Try to cram more pixels into a particular space, and each pixel has to compete more for light, which leaves the camera having to interpolate more (results in noise).

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

06/02/2007 01:37:02 AM · #46

Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:

So the more MP the more noise???

I would think actually the less MP the more noise at a higher ISO

The closer the photosites are together affects the noise levels.

MattO

Nikon D4

06/02/2007 01:41:24 AM · #47

Originally posted by geoffb:

[Ahh, so it is. Somehow I came to think it was 16 MP.

Nope even the newest 1DMKIII is only 10MP the slower studio version is the 1DsMKII thats megapixels above the rest.

MattO

06/02/2007 01:42:30 AM · #48

Originally posted by geoffb:

Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
So the more MP the more noise???

On sensors of the same size, that's generally the case. Try to cram more pixels into a particular space, and each pixel has to compete more for light, which leaves the camera having to interpolate more (results in noise).

So if I reduce my image size from 2048 to 1600 theoretically I should have less noise and so on and so on?

06/02/2007 01:43:24 AM · #49

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by geoffb:
[Ahh, so it is. Somehow I came to think it was 16 MP.

Nope even the newest 1DMKIII is only 10MP the slower studio version is the 1DsMKII thats megapixels above the rest.

MattO

yeah and it's only like $6k Pocket change for a guy like me right???