Shooting 1600 Samples (images in replies)

I took my A700 down to the waterfront where we were having dinner hoping the clouds would part just a bit and give me some good lighting before dinner. never happened

I did make a point to leave the camera set at ISO 1600.. the JPGS were set to standard +3 sharpness DRO+ shooting cRAW+JPG

I still am amazed at what this camera can do.. I know maybe I should complain more.. but for me it works.

There were a couple of shots that I think for me give an idea of why I like it so much.

These are both taken in the 1600 ISO Mode
Posting them each in their own message

First one was waiting near the bar... handheld f5.0 1/10 sec at 90 mm

Second one is shot through the Window at a Ferry 3/4 mile offshore is f 8.0 1/400 sec 135 mm

Below is a link to fill files (25MB Zips) if you want to look close or play with them
http://www.fogfire.com/dphotos/edmonds1600/Bottles1600.zip
http://www.fogfire.com/dphotos/edmonds1600/Ferry1600.zip

------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Again taken at F5.0 1/10s handheld 90 mm ISO1600
HIGH ISO NR = LOW of course

Bottles Processed in RawTherapee
Then a 100% Crop of the RT JPG
Finally 100% cro from the camera JPG no PP (DRO+ brings out shadows)







------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Again taken at 8.0 1/400s handheld 135 mm ISO1600
HIGH ISO NR = LOW of course

What I like is that I can tell this is the Ferry Spokane!!!

Ferry Processed in RawTherapee
Then a 100% Crop of the RT JPG
Finally 100% cro from the camera JPG no PP







------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Dear Ken...

Just a real quick comparison of ISO 800 and 1600 on the A700.
Handheld at 50mm f/5.6, 100% crops
1600 on the left, 800 on the right
Personally, I can live with at least 800

No sarcasm intended, in any way, but what do think is the significance of your test shots? In other words, what do they suggest to you about the A700 @ 1600?

BTW, I upped the jpg at 420kb to smugmug and the file no downloads at 1.5 mbs. Any suggestions?

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/204961778-O.jpg

--
Nubee, casual photographer of the digital age (18 months)
See profile for equipment...

christopherta said:

Dear Ken...

Just a real quick comparison of ISO 800 and 1600 on the A700.
Handheld at 50mm f/5.6, 100% crops
1600 on the left, 800 on the right
Personally, I can live with at least 800

No sarcasm intended, in any way, but what do think is the
significance of your test shots? In other words, what do they
suggest to you about the A700 @ 1600?

BTW, I upped the jpg at 420kb to smugmug and the file no downloads at
1.5 mbs. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

I up load giant uncompressed JPGS to smugmug 8 MB+.. they have a standard level of compression for downloads so it will make more compressed JPGS bigger.. That to me is an indication that what you uploaded was too compressed maybe, might not always print well.

Member said:

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/204961778-O.jpg

--
Nubee, casual photographer of the digital age (18 months)
See profile for equipment...

Click to expand...

While some will complain that your shots can't be comparred because the focus and distance to object are different... What I do see is Lightroom like blotches in the 1600 shot. If you did it in lightroom, I would like to see what happens if you take the numbers I am listing below.

What I see in my shots is detail.. I keep hearing there is not Detail at HIGH ISO..

IS there less than lower ISO ... yes.. and Duh! Now without any NR lilke some we would see maybe more noise that looks like more detail. But someone last week pointed out adding random grain in PS created the same effect.

the Ferry shot is just not one I would ever print.. but I was plesently surprised at the detail in that shot too. So I played with it. The bottles would print beautifully at least to A3+

So there is plenty of detail. There may not be as much as an ISO 200 12 MP shot.. but there is more than an ISO 1600 6mp shot using the right tools.

Also at +3 the jpgs are getting pretty close to a well processed RAW.. before doing some realy polishing in PS. Which is why people pay for PS.

As t lightroom
I am starting to get better results out of it but the trick is
Zero out all NR.. Adobe has already done too much.
Zero out sharpening. if you use it... using masking too
Take Clarity to 50% and that is about where I stop...

Lightroom actually does a good job with the bottles but still watercolors out the Ferry more than the camera or Raw Therapee. But both would probably print well up to letter size.

The Bottles Shot tells me one more thing the SSS is better than my KM 5D.. no surprise.. but I don't have the steadiest hands and that is just over 3 stops of stablization.
------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Hi Ken,

are you doing additional sharpening to the JPGs after the +3 in camera or are you finding its doing a better job than PP sharpening?

redsim74 said:

Hi Ken,

are you doing additional sharpening to the JPGs after the +3 in
camera or are you finding its doing a better job than PP sharpening?

Click to expand...

No PP was done on the Camera jpgs.. cropped in Fireworks MX 8. And saved at JPEG Quality of 95.

+3 seems to be getting close to RAW for HIGH ISO...

It would be interesting to compared it to PP RAW at say ISO 200...though I don't expect to be as good as RAW processing plus PS work with Dave at IR had used to create amazing detail. No free photoshop in the camera..darn!
------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Dear Ken...

A) Cataloged them using Lightroom. Did the rest in PSCS3. I only see a subtle difference @ 1600 with your settings. I think I just leave 1600 alone for the time being.

B) 800 is certainly respectable. 640 seemed to provide enough detail for the hair of my curly, Welsh Terrier without PP. She's starting to get her winter coat. Albeit, it was hovering around 90 degrees today in Chicagoland.

C) I would imagine those that would complain about a simple comparison done at 2 a.m. would be considered twits. Good twits, nonetheless.

Best,
christopherta

Ken_5D said:

christopherta said:

Dear Ken...

Just a real quick comparison of ISO 800 and 1600 on the A700.
Handheld at 50mm f/5.6, 100% crops
1600 on the left, 800 on the right
Personally, I can live with at least 800

No sarcasm intended, in any way, but what do think is the
significance of your test shots? In other words, what do they
suggest to you about the A700 @ 1600?

BTW, I upped the jpg at 420kb to smugmug and the file no downloads at
1.5 mbs. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

I up load giant uncompressed JPGS to smugmug 8 MB+.. they have a
standard level of compression for downloads so it will make more
compressed JPGS bigger.. That to me is an indication that what you
uploaded was too compressed maybe, might not always print well.

Ken_5D said:

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/204961778-O.jpg

--
Nubee, casual photographer of the digital age (18 months)
See profile for equipment...

Click to expand...

While some will complain that your shots can't be comparred because
the focus and distance to object are different... What I do see is
Lightroom like blotches in the 1600 shot. If you did it in lightroom,
I would like to see what happens if you take the numbers I am listing
below.

Click to expand...

Ken_5D said:

What I see in my shots is detail.. I keep hearing there is not Detail
at HIGH ISO..
IS there less than lower ISO ... yes.. and Duh! Now without any NR
lilke some we would see maybe more noise that looks like more detail.
But someone last week pointed out adding random grain in PS created
the same effect.

the Ferry shot is just not one I would ever print.. but I was
plesently surprised at the detail in that shot too. So I played with
it. The bottles would print beautifully at least to A3+

So there is plenty of detail. There may not be as much as an ISO 200
12 MP shot.. but there is more than an ISO 1600 6mp shot using the
right tools.

Also at +3 the jpgs are getting pretty close to a well processed
RAW.. before doing some realy polishing in PS. Which is why people
pay for PS.

As t lightroom
I am starting to get better results out of it but the trick is
Zero out all NR.. Adobe has already done too much.
Zero out sharpening. if you use it... using masking too
Take Clarity to 50% and that is about where I stop...

Lightroom actually does a good job with the bottles but still
watercolors out the Ferry more than the camera or Raw Therapee. But
both would probably print well up to letter size.

The Bottles Shot tells me one more thing the SSS is better than my
KM 5D.. no surprise.. but I don't have the steadiest hands and that
is just over 3 stops of stablization.
------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Click to expand...

--
Nubee, casual photographer of the digital age (18 months)
See profile for equipment...

Interesting results ken, will download and have a look later.

Might check out that RawTherapee too.

RAW def much more desirable than jpeg, still some NR going on though, but its perfectly usable.
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Interesting results ken, will download and have a look later.

Might check out that RawTherapee too.

RAW def much more desirable than jpeg, still some NR going on though,
but its perfectly usable.

Click to expand...

It is a pretty nice peice of raw software. It supports two methods of demosacing and some types of lense correction...

image libararies are the chains the hold us to what is for now inferior software.

------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Ken_5D said:

It is a pretty nice peice of raw software. It supports two methods of
demosacing and some types of lense correction...

image libararies are the chains the hold us to what is for now
inferior software.

Click to expand...

Overall its a lot better than I imagined, I was expecting some awful UI, not bad as it is, some good options. It could, and should be faster though, I have a fairly decent pc, and its a tad on the chug chug side. I am sure this is one to watch though, output is pretty good. Give it some time, and we might have a really really good free RAW program.

Worth a play, probably too slow for me if I wanted to do many RAW files, browsing for files is a tad crude too.



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Ken_5D said:

It is a pretty nice peice of raw software. It supports two methods of
demosacing and some types of lense correction...

image libararies are the chains the hold us to what is for now
inferior software.

Click to expand...

Overall its a lot better than I imagined, I was expecting some awful
UI, not bad as it is, some good options. It could, and should be
faster though, I have a fairly decent pc, and its a tad on the chug
chug side. I am sure this is one to watch though, output is pretty
good. Give it some time, and we might have a really really good free
RAW program.

Worth a play, probably too slow for me if I wanted to do many RAW
files, browsing for files is a tad crude too.

Click to expand...

Slow but solid and stable.. which someone like ACDSee would license this and add it to a good catalog... You know me I don't choose software based on much else but does it work for me...I like RT a lot.

Capture one beta is doing pretty good.. but I like the options on RT better.
--
------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Some of my posts went when a trolling account someone was using got banned and his post deleted.

I like the bottle shot a lot. May post it to my main gallery.

The ferry shot is a poor shot.. but still I was impressed at the level of detail the camera got in bad circumstances.. but in no way do I consider the Ferry shot a "Keeper"

------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

I'm in no way banned...

I asked the administrators to delete some of my posts, as obviously they were of no value for the forum.
Invain arguments are of no value to me either.

I had pretty interesting tests done (plus done well) recently - both good and bad for A700, but will not post them here. If anyone is interested, may PM for a link to them.

happier said:

I'm in no way banned...
I asked the administrators to delete some of my posts, as obviously
they were of no value for the forum.
Invain arguments are of no value to me either.
I had pretty interesting tests done (plus done well) recently - both
good and bad for A700, but will not post them here. If anyone is
interested, may PM for a link to them.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected...

So question.. what is your interest here? Besides having suggested al sorts of alternatives to the A700.
------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
..............................................

Member said:

I am sure this is one to watch though, output is pretty
good. Give it some time, and we might have a really really good free
RAW program.

Click to expand...

.............................................

IMO when it's at a "really good" level it won't be free anymore...!

Lucas
--
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix/root

Always having fun with photography ...

My interest here is photography, and I've used Minolta/Sony equipment the most.
I'm not Sonolta, Barry and anyone else here on this forum.

This is my last interaction with you here though - and I don't even want to explain why - I'd better go and shoot some pictures. #1 priority - be "happier" ;-)...

happier said:

My interest here is photography, and I've used Minolta/Sony equipment
the most.
I'm not Sonolta, Barry and anyone else here on this forum.
This is my last interaction with you here though - and I don't even
want to explain why - I'd better go and shoot some pictures. #1
priority - be "happier" ;-)...

Click to expand...

You can say what you like about sonalta, but I really dont want to be put in the same basket as him..thanks very much. There is some reason and respect in my postings, not constant spamming of the forum or uber attacks on people.

--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

happier said:

My interest here is photography, and I've used Minolta/Sony equipment
the most.
I'm not Sonolta, Barry and anyone else here on this forum.
This is my last interaction with you here though - and I don't even
want to explain why - I'd better go and shoot some pictures. #1
priority - be "happier" ;-)...

Click to expand...

You do like to play the "I have a secret" card...
Secret photos I can't show
Secret Tests I can't show..

Lots of innunedo why not partcipate in discussions vs a couple odd posts on one forum about how thier camera is not that good. And Sony is cheating people,,

When you are feeling less special and secret.. come back and talk... otherwise what you have to say has very little value.. because you have not given it any.
------------
Ken - KM 5D (A700 Joy)
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Actually, nothing is secret. The tests are already posted and some nice discussions over there.

The reason it stays a secret for you is that noone would be interested in your opinion, because it would be too subjective and too wrong but too emotional. We are photographers, not fanboys over there. No time to waste arguing invain. You are too confident and spam the good posts with some not quite competent comments. I haven't seen ANYTHING yet that proves it otherwise. Not a single test (well) done by you, not even a single (good) picture in your gallery (and those are your "favorite" shots). Obviously you spend lots of time here on this forum writing. Your subjectivity would be much more valuable if you go out and shoot something or at least try to learn something while browsing through every single post. And when making assessments/comparisons, try to base them upon objective criteria.
Go socialize off-line, Ken, and go shoot something... ;-)