ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?

[stevecim]

Or should I be expecting more ? Does better quality lenses help with higher ISO at the same aperture ?

A550, f4 1/200 iso3200 70mm


Thanks

[Lonnie Utah]

Tell us a little more about the image. RAW or in Camera JPEG? Noise Reduction on or off? How did you process it?

This looks pretty typical of the high iso shots I've seen/taken.

Lens quality doesn't make a difference in itself for luminance noise. However, the larger light gathering ability of a F2.8 or lower lens, does. What I'm saying is, at f/4 1/200 iso3200, you are going to get pretty much the same result. However, a faster lens will allow you to drop your iso a stop (shooting at a lower f-stop) and that will improve your image quality.

[pakodominguez]

a 100% crop always help

[stevecim]

raw image, processed in Lr3.2 (first time I've ever used Lr), I'll post a 100% crop .

[Lonnie Utah]

Trying increasing the Luminance NR.

http://ishootshows.com/2010/03/23/light ... -thoughts/

[stevecim]

Will give it a try, I used to think DxO was good, but the new noise controls in Lr3.2 seem so much better, to my untrained eye, Lr3.2 seems produce a very fine grain and keeps colour, where DxO is very "blocky" and seems to loose colour in skin tones.

Hope I've done this right
100% crop Lr3.2



and I just finished install DxO DOP 6.5 100% crop




Don't know if 6.5 is better then Lr3.2 but it does seem better then DOP 6.2

[Dusty]

I think the DXO is much better. Just look at the details in her bracelet on the far side.

I also think that for ISO 3200, you've got nothing to complain about.

Then again, I come from the film era, where ISO 400 used to be a bit grainy before T-grained films. Today, there are those who want to use their cameras as night vision devices with daylight like results. Great is you can get it, but not very realistic.

Dusty

[stevecim]

Hi Dusty

I was happy with the results, I was just interested in know if my standards where to low

I felt the DxO 6.5 did keep more detail than LR3.2, LR3.2 was better then DxO6.2.
But it maybe that I can drive DxO a little better than Lr3 (first time I've ever used LR, had DxO for about 2 1/2 years)

[Dr. Harout]

I think the DXO is much better. Just look at the details in her bracelet on the far side.

I also think that for ISO 3200, you've got nothing to complain about.

Then again, I come from the film era, where ISO 400 used to be a bit grainy before T-grained films. Today, there are those who want to use their cameras as night vision devices with daylight like results. Great is you can get it, but not very realistic.

Dusty

Those 2 shots are not of the same size, hence the difference in details.