Reading mode: Light Dark

Phil Askey Hammers Home The Point

Go to last post
M

Mike Morbach

Senior Member
Messages
2,353
Reaction score
0
Location
Plant City, FL, US
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800 and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos. Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
I recently did a portrait session at ISO 400 after researching the fact that at 400, there is a small but acceptable amount of noise. The pictures that were slightly underexposed had noise in them, but was actually quite beautiful in the same way grain can look good with some films. I recommend that people experiment with high ISO and see how you can actually use the noise as a positive effect. 10D noise is really not a problem, whereas with my Minolta Dimage 7hi, it could be horrendous.

Rob
Mike Morbach said:
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't
be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While
doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I
discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800
and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster
shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower
iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos.
Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
 
Mike Morbach said:
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't
be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While
doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I
discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800
and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster
shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower
iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos.
Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--Mike, the whole idea of the gallery is to show what the camera can do. I think you will find each camera's gallery has shots from the range of ISOs that the camera is capable of. I don't find it all that surprising.

Jim Rickards
 
My Nikon 990 was / is a nice camera. Sometimes I miss it, not often but sometimes. Anyway at iso 400 it just wasn't all that good. In an under exposed iso 400 the noise really came through when you adjusted the levels / curves in PS. When I got my 10D I found myself afraid to go higher than iso 400 and many of my photos suffered from camera shake. Recently I have been experimenting with iso 800 and even 1600 for non flash christmas photos. I am amazed how much more mood they have in them because things like the twinkling lights can be seen. In the past my flash would overwhelm them. As my tag says "I am still learning"
Jim Rickards said:
--Mike, the whole idea of the gallery is to show what the camera
can do. I think you will find each camera's gallery has shots from
the range of ISOs that the camera is capable of. I don't find it
all that surprising.

Jim Rickards
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
sometimes I focus (no pun intended) too much on the "clean picture".

I took some pictures at a fight last month that required 1600 ISO. When printed it had a really cool atmosphere and feeling to the shots. The fighters loved the shots - even when they were blown up to 16x20.
2Jakes said:
I recently did a portrait session at ISO 400 after researching the
fact that at 400, there is a small but acceptable amount of noise.
The pictures that were slightly underexposed had noise in them, but
was actually quite beautiful in the same way grain can look good
with some films. I recommend that people experiment with high ISO
and see how you can actually use the noise as a positive effect.
Click to expand...
 
That's an excellent point, Mike. Over in the Sony forum, many are attempting to berate the Digital Rebel in comparing it to the 828's "fast" f/2.0-2.8 zoom lens. What they fail to recognize is that you can take a f/5.6 lens and put it on a Rebel at ISO400 and STILL have less noise than the 828 at ISO100 at f/2.8.

This is not meant to slam the 828 (which I plan on buying for snapshooting); instead it is to make the point that a super clean sensor like the 10D/300D can buy you several stops of speed, which negates the need for faster glass, at least when compared to ZLRs and P&Ss.

To me, the 828 at ISO100 would be about the same as the Rebel at ISO400 (and possibly even ISO800)...two stops difference
--
My Extreme Macro Bug Gallery: http://www.frankphillips.com/macro

Ever wondered about the MP-E lens? Read my review here:
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2914.htm

 
Those that own a dslr and those that wish they did. Just kidding but a dslr offers so many advantages over a camera with a fixed / permanently attached lens. They each have their place but most if not all dslr owners would never trade their cameras for the alternative. The Sony looks interesting. Will it measure up to a Canon dslr? I doubt it.
Frank Phillips said:
That's an excellent point, Mike. Over in the Sony forum, many are
attempting to berate the Digital Rebel in comparing it to the 828's
"fast" f/2.0-2.8 zoom lens. What they fail to recognize is that
you can take a f/5.6 lens and put it on a Rebel at ISO400 and STILL
have less noise than the 828 at ISO100 at f/2.8.
This is not meant to slam the 828 (which I plan on buying for
snapshooting); instead it is to make the point that a super clean
sensor like the 10D/300D can buy you several stops of speed, which
negates the need for faster glass, at least when compared to ZLRs
and P&Ss.
To me, the 828 at ISO100 would be about the same as the Rebel at
ISO400 (and possibly even ISO800)...two stops difference
--
My Extreme Macro Bug Gallery: http://www.frankphillips.com/macro

Ever wondered about the MP-E lens? Read my review here:
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2914.htm

Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
On this page of my gallery, all but the first 6 were taken with 1600. The first 6 were taken with 3200. I'm new to the whole photograohy thing and have been having a tendency to shoot everything underexposed with too low a shutter speed. These shots were all availiable light, in a classroom. They're the richest colors I've shot yet!

http://www.pbase.com/lonnit/class_iii&page=all

WArmly,
Lonnit
Mike Morbach said:
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't
be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While
doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I
discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800
and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster
shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower
iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos.
Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions. :)



WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!
 
Mike,

I always include that in my several bits of advice to new users. Everyone is so accustomed to noise above 100 ISO from other digicams that I think it's worth saying.
 
Children and the camera. What more can I say except absolutely adorable. Those photos put a smile on my face, something I can use today.
lonnit said:
http://www.pbase.com/lonnit/class_iii&page=all

WArmly,
Lonnit
Mike Morbach said:
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't
be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While
doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I
discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800
and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster
shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower
iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos.
Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions. :)



WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
Frank Phillips said:
That's an excellent point, Mike. Over in the Sony forum, many are
attempting to berate the Digital Rebel in comparing it to the 828's
"fast" f/2.0-2.8 zoom lens. What they fail to recognize is that
you can take a f/5.6 lens and put it on a Rebel at ISO400 and STILL
have less noise than the 828 at ISO100 at f/2.8.
This is not meant to slam the 828 (which I plan on buying for
snapshooting); instead it is to make the point that a super clean
sensor like the 10D/300D can buy you several stops of speed, which
negates the need for faster glass, at least when compared to ZLRs
and P&Ss.
To me, the 828 at ISO100 would be about the same as the Rebel at
ISO400 (and possibly even ISO800)...two stops difference
--
My Extreme Macro Bug Gallery: http://www.frankphillips.com/macro

Ever wondered about the MP-E lens? Read my review here:
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2914.htm

Click to expand...
--Frank, I'm curious what you see in the 828 for snapshooting that the 10D could not do.

When I look at the weight - Sony 906grams, 10D 875 w/o lens and then the size, I don't think I'd choose the Sony for that job.
I realize the lens for a 10D will push the weight over that of a Sony.

But I'm here to listen and learn.

Jim Rickards
 
Two things scared me early on. iso 400 on my Nikon 990. ASA 400 on a disposable I used once. (Gee I guess that adds up, disposable used once) Long night at the fire station and too wound to sleep.
Juli Valley said:
Mike,

I always include that in my several bits of advice to new users.
Everyone is so accustomed to noise above 100 ISO from other
digicams that I think it's worth saying.
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
Mike Morbach said:
Children and the camera. What more can I say except absolutely
adorable. Those photos put a smile on my face, something I can use
today.
Click to expand...
Glad to send some cheer your way. If you want to see even younger (= even cuter) look at these kindergarteners! http://www.pbase.com/lonnit/class&page=all . These were all at 3200 btw.

Lonnit
Mike Morbach said:
lonnit said:
http://www.pbase.com/lonnit/class_iii&page=all

WArmly,
Lonnit
Mike Morbach said:
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't
be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While
doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I
discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800
and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster
shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower
iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos.
Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions. :)



WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions. :)



WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!
 
lonnit said:
Mike Morbach said:
Children and the camera. What more can I say except absolutely
adorable. Those photos put a smile on my face, something I can use
today.
Click to expand...
Glad to send some cheer your way. If you want to see even younger
(= even cuter) look at these kindergarteners!
http://www.pbase.com/lonnit/class&page=all . These were all at 3200
btw.

Lonnit
lonnit said:
lonnit said:
http://www.pbase.com/lonnit/class_iii&page=all

WArmly,
Lonnit
Mike Morbach said:
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't
be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While
doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I
discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800
and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster
shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower
iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos.
Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions. :)



WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions. :)



WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
As has already been stated, underexposing is the main culprit for noise. I too, was afraid to shoot over 200 for fear of awful noise. That fear coming from my experience with the G1.

The 10D is a different world. I shot a concert the other night with iso800. everything came out great. I also noticed lowering the saturation a notch, and changing to Adobe RGB in RAW conversion helps clean them up.

this photo ended up here http://www.wagnermusic.com on the front page



--
Doug D.
'Promise a rainbow, and someone will look to the sky.'
Equipment in profile.
http://public.fotki.com/DougD/
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumList?u=1681338
http://www.pbase.com/doug_d
 
like I said sometimes using a flash would get the shot but ruin the mood. Nice shot btw.
Doug D. said:
As has already been stated, underexposing is the main culprit for
noise. I too, was afraid to shoot over 200 for fear of awful noise.
That fear coming from my experience with the G1.
The 10D is a different world. I shot a concert the other night with
iso800. everything came out great. I also noticed lowering the
saturation a notch, and changing to Adobe RGB in RAW conversion
helps clean them up.

this photo ended up here http://www.wagnermusic.com on the front page



--
Doug D.
'Promise a rainbow, and someone will look to the sky.'
Equipment in profile.
http://public.fotki.com/DougD/
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumList?u=1681338
http://www.pbase.com/doug_d
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
I bought a used D60. I find it perfectly clean up through ISO 400. ISO 800 is highly useable although it does require noise removal using neatimage at that ISO. At ISO 1000, perfectly noise free images are not quite possible. This is at standard hand holdable shutter speeds. The camera has a noise reduction algorithm that kicks in at slower shuttter speeds where a self time and or mirror lock is required. Where this noise reduction begins (shutter speed) is still unclear to me and Canon isn't at all specific about where this occurs. When it does occur, it works pretty darn good.

If I don't die before the next Canon DSLR comes out and money is available I'll replace the D60. The 10d is noticeably more noise free when compared to the D60. Not enough to be concerned with although on occasion the slight advantage would be nice.

I figure Canon will release a new camera that has less noise than the 10d and if they are on the ball, far superior focusing. To date, I've experienced zero problems with auto or manual focusing with the D60. Maybe I lucked out and got a good one. The only focusing problems I have is the cheapo lens I've got hanging on that D60 at present.
 
Under exposed images even at ISO 400 showed a lot of noise. I wonder knowing what I know now if I would have been better of using a higher ISO and getting a properly exposed image. As far as the next dslr we had better hold on to our hats. I have a hunch the next couple of years are going to be real exciting.
Rob Patterson said:
If I don't die before the next Canon DSLR comes out and money is
available I'll replace the D60. The 10d is noticeably more noise
free when compared to the D60. Not enough to be concerned with
although on occasion the slight advantage would be nice.
I figure Canon will release a new camera that has less noise than
the 10d and if they are on the ball, far superior focusing. To
date, I've experienced zero problems with auto or manual focusing
with the D60. Maybe I lucked out and got a good one. The only
focusing problems I have is the cheapo lens I've got hanging on
that D60 at present.
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
No doubt.

All sots in the following gallery ( of the performers ) were ISO 800 with no flash:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/MultiFest_2003.html
So was this one:


Mike Morbach said:
Without really trying Phil really hammered home the point. Don't
be afraid to crank up the iso, Canon dslr's can handle it. While
doing research for a friend of mine, a potential DRebel owner I
discovered that many of Phil's sample images were shot at iso 800
and gasp 1600. It really hammered home the point that a faster
shutter speed enabling a clear shot is more important than lower
iso and a blurred shot. Once again the proof is in the photos.
Here they are. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos300d_samples
Check out the lens, focal length, shutter speed iso etc.
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
Click to expand...
--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 
You have a valid point, Jim. I am planning on getting the 828 for snapshooting for two reasons: 1) range of lens (a "real" 28mm wide will be nice inside) and 2) low light focusing (I have a D60).

I like the idea of a TRUE 28mm lens (for inside) to 200mm lens (for outside) where I don't have to switch from my 16-35 (or 24-70) to my 70-200...one "do it all" lens is all I need for snapshots. As you know, with the 1.6x factor on the D series, there's no such thing as a true "hyperzoom" on our SLRs, so I like the idea of wide-to-tele in one lens; if I put a 28-200 on my D60, it would really be a 45-320, which is fine on the long end, but very poor on the wide end.

Also, I used to have a 707, and the laser focusing system on that thing is simply incredible and I really miss it, what with the sucky low-light focus performance of the D60.

Having said that, when it comes down to an IMPORTANT (i.e. not a snapshot) photo, my D60 will ALWAYS be the one I use.
Jim Rickards said:
Frank Phillips said:
This is not meant to slam the 828 (which I plan on buying for
snapshooting);
Click to expand...
--Frank, I'm curious what you see in the 828 for snapshooting that
the 10D could not do.

When I look at the weight - Sony 906grams, 10D 875 w/o lens and
then the size, I don't think I'd choose the Sony for that job.
I realize the lens for a 10D will push the weight over that of a Sony.

But I'm here to listen and learn.

Jim Rickards
Click to expand...
--
My Extreme Macro Bug Gallery: http://www.frankphillips.com/macro

Ever wondered about the MP-E lens? Read my review here:
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2914.htm

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top