ISO 3200 nice or not ? - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

03/06/2005 08:42:41 AM · #1

I took these pictures of a dying rose last night, I was trying the ISO 3200 setting on my 20D, compared to my last camera (300D) at ISO 800 I think these pictures are sharper and have less noise.

these are straight from the camera, no manipulation of any kind (exept crop and save for web on 1, and resize and save for web on 2.)

//homepage.mac.com/dansignet/.Pictures/myndavefur/100crop.jpg
//homepage.mac.com/dansignet/.Pictures/myndavefur/0crop.jpg

Message edited by kirbic - Converted to links for bandwidth-friendliness :=).

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/06/2005 08:52:58 AM · #2

These look very clean for 3200 ISO! My older camera (vintage 1995) images look about that good at ISO 200.

the-O-ster

03/06/2005 09:01:29 AM · #3

i would rather see a simple crop of both rather than a crop and a resize.

that aside, they do look really nice. the d70 at 1600 i think is almost like shooting a tv screen tuned to a dead channel.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/06/2005 09:12:41 AM · #4

this is the same picture, the first one is a 100% crop from the second one, I had to resize the second one, couldn´t post it in 3504x2336 ;)

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/06/2005 09:14:03 AM · #5

For still life, 3200 iso of course is not the way to go - but image that same level of noise in a high school basketball picture or a dank church. That's AWESOME low-noise. Almost unbelievable.

nfessel

Best-Buy Easy Point & Click

03/06/2005 09:18:53 AM · #6

Just one more reason why I am going to go out and buy this camera today. ;) Thanks for posting a 3200 ISO of a "normal" subject. The subjects on the camera review websites don't really give a good idea of reality.

the-O-ster

03/06/2005 09:19:32 AM · #7

i'm sorry i thought one was the 20d and the other was your 300d :)

i gotcha

Best-Buy Easy Point & Click

03/06/2005 09:21:29 AM · #8

Looks pretty good to me. For my 300D, I've found that the noise increases, however, in low light. What I mean is that the more the high ISO is needed, the poorer the performance. Like trying to use it in ordinary incandescent room light. When I've accidentally left the ISO set high outdoors when I could have easily used a lower ISO, it seems to show pretty good performance.

Also, if you use the exposure adjustments on a RAW file to bring out some shadow detail, you start to see more noise. Were these RAW or JPEG? If you use JPEG I think some noise reduction is already applied.

It would be interesting to see if the built-in post-processing noise reduction is more effective than RAW conversion solutions. That would be an advantage of JPEG but would be a shame because I prefer to shoot RAW.

Edit: Also, I think the noise tends to look like "color noise" and the crop selection is hiding it in the texture and deep red of the flower. How about posting a few other 100% crops from the image?

Message edited by author 2005-03-06 09:23:58.

nfessel

03/06/2005 09:22:00 AM · #9

Mavrik, I disagree. 3200 ISO on a still-life subject could be an incredible image, that is, depending on the photographer's eye and technique.

scottwilson

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28mm f/2.8

03/06/2005 10:40:29 AM · #10

I think the photo came out looking great, a print would look very good I am thinking. To be able to shoot at ISO 3200 is very neat indeed, there are so many photos to be had where you just don't have enough light and a tripod will not work (like you don't have it with you).

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

03/06/2005 11:01:12 AM · #11

I think it's gorgeous! I had to play because I love shots like this and thought it had a "vintage" look to it. Hope you don't mind. It's such a pretty image, and at 3200 ISO it's amazing! I'll take this down in a little bit, just thought I'd share. :o)

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

03/06/2005 11:13:57 AM · #12

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Yes, I agree regarding incandescant light. The reason has to do with the cam's sensitivity to blue. There's little blue light to begin with, and the cam's sensitivity is not that high, so it cranks up the gain in that channel, and the result is extremely high noise. I usually find that the red channel and to some extent the green channel are much cleaner.
The 20D RAW files should look much cleaner than the 300D, if Canon's marketing info is correct. Part of the noise reduction is achieved in the analog portion of the circuitry (before it's digitized). That would certainly be reflected in the RAW file. As for NR applied after conversion, who knows? I suspect that some processing is still done on the RAW data. I wonder, for example, if "dark frame subtraction" is possible for RAW? I suspect it is (if not it would be a major disadvantage) and if so it does imply that some processing of the RAW is done in the digital realm prior to writing the file to the card.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

03/06/2005 11:15:04 AM · #13

@Laurie
That's a beautiful edit of this image. If the OP doesn't mind, you should leave that up. Nice work!

03/06/2005 12:36:48 PM · #14

Originally posted by laurielblack:

that looks nice. by all means leave it there so others can have a look :)

tomzinho

03/06/2005 01:31:04 PM · #15

Originally posted by the-O-ster:

i would rather see a simple crop of both rather than a crop and a resize.

that aside, they do look really nice. the d70 at 1600 i think is almost like shooting a tv screen tuned to a dead channel.

i guess i was just really lucky then when i shot this on my d70 at 1600 . . .

Message edited by ClubJuggle - Changed large image to thumbnail.

the-O-ster

03/06/2005 02:44:25 PM · #16

Originally posted by tomzinho:

Originally posted by the-O-ster:
i would rather see a simple crop of both rather than a crop and a resize.

that aside, they do look really nice. the d70 at 1600 i think is almost like shooting a tv screen tuned to a dead channel.

i guess i was just really lucky then when i shot this on my d70 at 1600 . . .

thats about what i get on mine...looking at rodriguez's arm and shirt. also the black wall just beyond the third base line shows the noise. the d70's not bad, but my buddys 300d at 1600 is noticably less noisy. (as much as it hurts to admit that :)

03/06/2005 03:28:33 PM · #17

Ok, here's a challenge: in normal incandescent room light, take a picture of a white wall at your cameras highest two ISO ratings (no flash, of course), and post a 100% crop here. Then we'll see what kind of noise we are getting. Just to make things consistent, use JPEG mode (eliminates processing differences, though not in-camera settings differences).

Message edited by author 2005-03-06 15:29:31.

03/06/2005 04:06:05 PM · #18

Originally posted by nshapiro:

here are pictures taken at iso 100,200,400,800,1600,3200 on Canon 20D with Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM

my walls aren´t white so I took a picture of Ilford smooth gloss paper, all pictures are 100% crop without any manual whitebalance or other adjustments in the camera, it was set to the lightbulb and I used a 60W ligtbulb to light the room. and there were no postprocessing other then crop and save for web.

iso 100

iso 200

iso 400

iso 800

iso 1600

iso 3200

03/06/2005 11:35:31 PM · #19

Here's my almost comparable test (I didn't have an incandescent lamp handy, and room lights sucked). So I used my desk lamp that's compact flourescent.

Here's the setup.

A piece of glossy photo paper, under a 60 watt equivalent compact fluorescent lamp, camera on tripod, 50mm 1.8 lens.

Light just above paper, so lighting is uneven. But 100% crop to the brighter area.

RAW mode, 0 adjustment to EV, Metered and took shots and adjusted to keep aperture equal. Shutter speed not as important because on tripod and no real long exposures under that light.

This set was processed in Bibble to white balance all images at once, sharpening off:

ISO 100

ISO 200

ISO 400

ISO 800

ISO 1600

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/06/2005 11:45:18 PM · #20

And here's the same files, but this time I processed them with sharpening turned on full (in bibble, which is 400 intensity, 0 radius). This brings out the noise, maximum:

ISO 100

ISO 200

ISO 400

ISO 800

ISO 1600

Message edited by author 2005-03-06 23:45:41.

puma

Canon EOS-10D

03/06/2005 11:59:42 PM · #21

How long of an exposure are these photos

03/07/2005 12:26:09 AM · #22

The third number in each file name is the shutter speed. It varied, but not long exposures. Can you do the same and post the 10D? (Should be similar to the rebel).

Message edited by author 2005-03-07 00:27:10.

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

03/07/2005 12:50:18 PM · #23

Anyone care to do this experiment on a D70? Not trying to start noise wars, just curious!

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/07/2005 01:01:14 PM · #24

All the pics in my London DPC GTG folder in my DPC Portfolio were (accidentally) taken on 3200 ISO setting on Canon 20D.