I have a Canon Rebel T3i and in auto ISO it has chosen ISO 320 many, many times. Why I'd need to be able to manually select that fine of a difference in ISO I don't know. It's just a fraction of a stop worth.
Attachments
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
650d iso320
- Thread starter soapstar
- Start date
Exactly. A fraction of a stop difference in the ISO might have made a difference in bridge cameras of long ago where ISO400 was 'noisy' but it makes virtually zero difference on an APS-C camera.WilbaW wrote:
There are approximately ONE MILLION things more important, and you need to master most of those before you need to worry about the difference between ISO 160 and 100 or 200.
soapstar wrote:
WilbaW wrote:
There are approximately ONE MILLION things more important, and you need to master most of those before you need to worry about the difference between ISO 160 and 100 or 200.
Noise levels on any APS-C camera are not going to be any better or worse if based on multiples of 160 rather than on full stop values. Noise levels are low enough well past 320 - like several times that high - that worrying about 320 is like worrying whether your car gets its best fuel mileage at 24 miles per hour or at 27 miles per hour.
My Rebel T3i has chosen not only ISO320 but ISO250 in Auto ISO mode. Maybe multiples of 125 have some other magic.
i would say anybody reading this thread and leaving it worried have more issues to deal with than their cameras.
i have accepted the first reply. Why do you think otherwise? is it because i keep replying to your further comments? The comments that came after your have already pointed out the question had been answered and were simply to tell me i should think about other things and not be worried. This despite at no point giving any evidence the issue was a worry, simply a question about what the camera is capable of doing. I read all your posts and can only refer you to a well known phrase, when in a hole stop digging. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands which is is great. But surely spend it replying to threads with ontopic comments that help members. Telling me i shouldnt even be asking the question based on your own misconceptions of my motivation on starting the thread and your personal bias as to what YOU would concentrate on above other things is helping nobody.
No. But I'm learning...
Midwest wrote:
soapstar wrote:
WilbaW wrote:
There are approximately ONE MILLION things more important, and you need to master most of those before you need to worry about the difference between ISO 160 and 100 or 200.
Midwest wrote:
Exactly. A fraction of a stop difference in the ISO might have made a difference in bridge cameras of long ago where ISO400 was 'noisy' but it makes virtually zero difference on an APS-C camera.WilbaW wrote:
There are approximately ONE MILLION things more important, and you need to master most of those before you need to worry about the difference between ISO 160 and 100 or 200.
i think the suggestion was that iso320 produces good results comparable to those below while offering advantages of allowing higher shutter speeds without much more noise, if any. This was all based on multiples of 160 being more efficient algorithmically than others.
I did read that once, but I'd have to research it again. I like the smaller incremental ISO levels I had on my Olympus E-500 DSLR camera, but I didn't have them on my Olympus E-510. So, when I was considering the Canon T2i (550D), I thought that the Canon 60D might be a better choice for that one reason (to be able to utilize the smaller increments). I did quite a lot of research on it, learning about native and non-native ISO settings etc. But so far, I've been happy with the Canon T2i (550D) camera and the smaller ISO increment limitation (in shutter or aperture priority) hasn't been that detrimental.
I read that you noticed a loss of detail above ISO400. The detail loss is minor, especially in bright lighting. I routinely take pictures at ISO1600 or higher. Also note that what we print out, is often much better than what we see on our monitors.
Here's one at ISO1600:
Here's another at ISO1600, indoors without a flash.
Here's one of my small bird photos at ISO1600.
If you like the smaller ISO incremental choices, again you might want to consider the Canon 60D. The price for that camera seems to be dropping...rumors are that it might be because of the anticipated availability of the Canon 70D.
I read that you noticed a loss of detail above ISO400. The detail loss is minor, especially in bright lighting. I routinely take pictures at ISO1600 or higher. Also note that what we print out, is often much better than what we see on our monitors.
Here's one at ISO1600:
Here's another at ISO1600, indoors without a flash.
Here's one of my small bird photos at ISO1600.
If you like the smaller ISO incremental choices, again you might want to consider the Canon 60D. The price for that camera seems to be dropping...rumors are that it might be because of the anticipated availability of the Canon 70D.
karl mohr
Senior Member
Agreed, I really don't like going much over ISO 800 if I can help it.... I probably won't make the shot if I have to go higher than 1600.
Detail loss higher than ISO400 is minor. Here's an example at ISO4000 (using the smaller incremental value available with the method we have described), taken under less-than-ideal conditions (in cloudy weather). This was taken as an out-of-the-camera JPEG at full focal length. Supposedly using RAW is better and printing this out would make this better too. No special post processing with expensive software was applied also; I use IrfanView.
yes raw is better. I have noticed that even just using the in-camera noise settings via dpp gives more efficient noise reduction that done in camera. So even with no pp and just using dpp to produce your jpegs from the camera raw files using the camera settings gives better results that using the camera jpegs. Less noise and more retained details with only that one extra step.Digirame wrote:
Detail loss higher than ISO400 is minor. Here's an example at ISO4000 (using the smaller incremental value available with the method we have described), taken under less-than-ideal conditions (in cloudy weather). This was taken as an out-of-the-camera JPEG at full focal length. Supposedly using RAW is better and printing this out would make this better too. No special post processing with expensive software was applied also; I use IrfanView.
soapstar wrote:
Midwest wrote:
soapstar wrote:
WilbaW wrote:
There are approximately ONE MILLION things more important, and you need to master most of those before you need to worry about the difference between ISO 160 and 100 or 200.
soapstar wrote:
Midwest wrote:
Exactly. A fraction of a stop difference in the ISO might have made a difference in bridge cameras of long ago where ISO400 was 'noisy' but it makes virtually zero difference on an APS-C camera.WilbaW wrote:
There are approximately ONE MILLION things more important, and you need to master most of those before you need to worry about the difference between ISO 160 and 100 or 200.
The detail in this shot at 4000 is quite good, and for an OOC JPG? I am certain that processing RAW would have made it even better.
The OP has been using an SX50 with a 1/2.3 sensor. I can see possible differences in IQ between 320 and 400 with a camera using such a tiny sensor, especially in less than ideal light, but with our Rebels I just don't see that as any concern. I have no qualms about shooting up to 1600, and will go up to 6400 if need be to get a sharp action shot.
Camera
Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Focal Length
250mm
Aperture
f/13
Exposure
1/250s
ISO
4000
I never had read about that ISO thing but what I see in Magic Lantern suggests that some folks may consider it worth worrying about. Anyhow - Magic Lantern allows selecting ISO's in all multiples of 100 OR 160, so you (or the OP) can select ISO300, 320, 400, 480, 500, 600, 640... that has it covered very nicely I think.
I have taken many shots at 1600 and been more than pleased with them. In fact I was using auto ISO and didn't realize the camera had chosen 1600, they were so clean.
I never knew how much detail was in my photos til I started printing them out, especially larger. i.e. A3+ (13x19). I had never done any printing but when I tried it, I was amazed how good the prints were.
CameraHere's one at ISO1600:
Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Focal Length
154mm
Aperture
f/13
Exposure
1/2500s
ISO
1600
Here's another at ISO1600, indoors without a flash.
Camera
Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Focal Length
34mm
Aperture
f/6.3
Exposure
1/500s
ISO
1600
Here's one of my small bird photos at ISO1600.
Camera
Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Focal Length
250mm
Aperture
f/14
Exposure
1/400s
ISO
1600
If you like the smaller ISO incremental choices, again you might want to consider the Canon 60D. The price for that camera seems to be dropping...rumors are that it might be because of the anticipated availability of the Canon 70D.
Wait til the 70D comes out and trumps the Nikons, hopefully, while avoiding oil spot and mirror dust flaws. Then it will be that forum's turn to have the hand wringers posting about their cameras suddenly not being good enough.
--
It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.
I hadn't seen (still haven't really) mention of any benefits of using multiples of 160 but I notice that Magic Lantern allows selecting of multiples of 100 as well as multiples of 160 which they mention as 'native' resolution. (Not sure if that is for all sensors or not, but...) You might see a lot more difference changing between 320 and 400 on a small sensor camera like the SX50 than on an APS-C sensor camera.
So there is something mentioned about it - I still think the difference would be inconsequential, but there is a basis for the concept. BTW it's too bad they don't have Magic Lantern for the 650d yet, not sure if they will though that version at least made it to 'pre Alpha' so it looks like it could come to pass.
I've got a 600d and I think I'll put ML on my camera today for fun.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum