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
ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
-
- Imperial Ambassador
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm
- Contact:
Re: ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
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.
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
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
a 100% crop always help
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
raw image, processed in Lr3.2 (first time I've ever used Lr), I'll post a 100% crop .
-
- Imperial Ambassador
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm
- Contact:
Re: ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
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
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
- Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
- Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA
Re: ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
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
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
Re: ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
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)
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
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5662
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
- Location: Yerevan, Armenia
- Contact:
Re: ISO3200 - Is this photo typical of ISO3200 ?
Those 2 shots are not of the same size, hence the difference in details.Dusty wrote: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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests