I have been shooting some 1600 and 3200 shots today of animals. 6400 is not recommended by Sony but, in the light conditions, could have been useful. I find the noise just needs Chroma NR (luminance set to zero in ACR) and with High ISO NR turned off, it's very crisp indeed. For me, the best 'look' comes by downsizing - 6 megapixel output is very nice and finely grained, 12 megapixel output ditto. The main problem is depth of field. I did a lot of shooting with the 500mm RF mirror lens and at 20 feet d-o-f is measurable in millimetres! That's what 100 per cent pixel peeping does for you.

Here's one example:



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/103441556

Original at 6.3 mpixel, JPEG level 12 to preserve the grain, so you can see how NR programs work on it.

David

No problem, cats willing, 50mm f1.4 finding serious problems focusing in my extremely dimly lit house - big rooms, often lit by a single 18W energy saver bulb (it was designed to be lit by oil lamps and candles and we still have the old gas fantails on a couple of bedroom mantelpieces... it's dark by most people's standards!).

First 1/60th at f2.2, 3200, tungsten-ish energy savers:



Now a 100 per cent section, from raw, no exposure adjustment, black level to 0, no sharpening, no luminance NR, chroma NR set to 50:


See pBase original for proper 100 per cent view: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/103455076

Now a 1600 ISO version same conditions and processing, 1/40th at f2:


pBase URL: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/103455248

Finally, a different closer-up because Elmo was not in the same place and won't be herded - at 6400. There is such a big shift in quality I would not use 6400 except in emergencies, as with the A700:


pBase URL: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/103455198

I don't much like doing this kind of test as I would never shoot under these conditions at these speed ratings (I would turn on more lights, or wait until the cat was naturally lit in an attractive way). But through all that noise, the fur and whisker hairs are clearly being resolved even from a 50mm f1.4 used nearly wide open.

David

I have a few good shots taken in low light conditions where our cats were facing the light source, as in your shots (the reflections in the eyes show that the light is favourable in that respect). But some of my best marketed kitten and cat shots - now 20 years ago and more - were taken in the studio, with flash and very powerful flash at that. Since the cats lived in the studio it was never a problem. I would never aim a direct flash at a cat close-up, in the dark; our studio had very bright (650W per head) modelling lamps. I know many professionals who produce award-winning pet portraits using studio flash.

You referred to my Cirque du Soleil pix, but in fact as with most events I kept to ISO 800 for a lot of shots and only used 6400 to assess the quality. The light was quite bright, as is often the case with stage and theatre shows, allowing action-stopping shutter speeds and moderate apertures like f4. Even when shooting at night with the Olympus E-3 I was able to use ISO 800 rather than risk reduced quality images.

Here are two ISO 3200 images, both processed to 50MB files of quality acceptable to Alamy - clean, no artefacts, sharp:





I know which one I'd rather be at right now - Vilamoura not Edinburgh! The first is on the A700, the second on the Nikon D3. Both are hand-held. Both will make 24 x 36 inch prints no problem. But, I rarely use 3200 or even 1600, and try to keep to 800 even with cameras like the D3. The D3/D700 shows noise at 400. There is a myth that it is noise-free but actually, it's much like any other DSLR - the big difference is going to 12,800 and 25,600 without a snowstorm of noise.

David

David

Can you judge how your high ISO shots on the A900 compare to the A700 with V4?

Yes, they appear to be identical. I can not see any real difference between the raw qualities. A900 JPEG is not up to A700 standard, in Fine mode. It's more like the older A700 JPEGs. But NR OFF on the A900 means OFF, just like v4 on the A700.

David

Hi Don

Not at all. David made the point that your cat shots have more light on them. Your shots look far better than David's, but I was just wandering if in equivalent light they would be the same, in his judgment.

Hi Don
In your judgment, is the quality of the A900 the same as the A700, or better?

Don, I'm off to Cologne now. The only problem is that my pix show 3/4 tone shadow to midtones, and yours show the bright end of the scale, in relatively 'good' lighting despite the level. There's a lot of difference between noise in the murky end of underexposed shadows, and noise in well lit areas. You asked for low light and I assumed you meant bad light, adverse light, dark tones etc. So my pix show the very worst situation in that sort of light level, while yours are showing a basically good situation in the same kind of the LV. Also, ACR Beta 4.6 may or may not be handling the conversion as well as it could on the Alpha 900 which is 'undocumented support'. So it's too early to judge anything, but the A900 will probably turn out to be much the same as the A700 in the end.

David

See this thread for ISO 3200 in similar light quality+level conditions to yours - quality counts as well as quantity!

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=985#p6155

David

I do not think it's wise to compare the pictures of both cats. There is way more light in the A700 version, and you pick out a very bright part (the cat looks like it's eying straight into the light) to compare it with the darkest part of the a900 picture.

Me neither... As said earlier it would be better to see a side by side comparison of the two (or more) cameras.
/Zeb!

I won't repost my images the way that you do, but the Papa Joe's musician automaton in my photokina thread is lit much like your cats in terms of level and directness of light. My cats were not lit that way, no direct fell on them at all, no windows, no desk lamps - just two ceiling 60w equivalents in a 12ft high room, with shades below the bulbs so all the light is reflected off the ceiling, and all tungsten. I used a worse case situation to get the worst possible result I could - to give the noise levels a severe test. You didn't, you took the pictures for different reasons - because the cats were in the right light at the time for a good shot. I shot despite my cat being in the worst possible light, because you wanted to see really low difficult light. But you never show any shots in low, difficult light.

David

You don't get it do you? This is not difficult light, this is similar to the Cirque du Soleil stuff I did on the A700. It's actually good light - lighting designed and intended to show off the subject, to audiences, in arenas and on stage. If the light levels in a sports arena were not good, the players would unable to play. I'm talking really cr*p light, domestic tungsten, lower than 2400K, energy saver bulbs, mixed spectrum, poor directional quality - existing light, ambient light, not designed and installed floodlighting and spotlighting for performances and matches. You don't need a DSLR for that - I filed a set of Leonard Cohen's last concert from the KM A2, and the same for Seth Lakeman in close-up in a small club:





Bear in mind, ISO 200 is the absolute limit for extracting a sharp, low noise 56 megabyte uprezzed file from the A2. This kind of situation could be tackled easily enough when all we had was Tri-X and the stage lights were a quarter of the brightness of the new halogen and xenon stuff.

I shoot a lot in low light which is not intended for spectator comfort, or for photography. Your fish shots are the closest in terms of difficult light, so please, show us a 100 per cent clip at full image res - as I do.

Anyway, cheers! - :



This is what SS and high ISO and the full format is about for me. 1/10th is not an ideal speed when the bubbles have to be sharp (f2.8 is fine, very limited depth of field is currently fashionable and improves the marketability). I'm not posting this one full frame, either - my real life beer shots are consistent stock sellers, another one sold yesterday, little-known Czech brand in Prague snapped on a real table with real people OOF in the background. The specialist beer magazines prefer them to manufacturer's handouts.

David

Very nice beer pic DK!

May I make 3 wild guesses: Starobremen, Kozel and Krushovitsa
Do I win a A900 ?