best camera for ISO 1600

[Ronnie T]

The problem I see with a 5D is a lot of the shots posted around are not sharp. This photo included. Yes, you can take a low noise shots at high ISO but if the picture is not sharp or out of focus, it doesn't help.

I am not pro Nikon or Canon since I am choosing between the 2 at the moment. If I were to judge solely on the quality of the photos posted here in Nikon or the Canon forum, I will choose Nikon hands down.

Sorry, I did use my D200 at Medium size and still the performance
from and above ISO 400 was very poor. THis and other forums are
litterally filled with posts about the mediocred D200 performance.
Sorry it's a great camera in other areas, but not for high ISO !!

Claire

Claire, you are right. The problem these days is that the sensor is
the film. Changing films, or even trying out new ones if you are
not happy with the ones you have, is not easy as it used to be.
Since interchangable sensors have not been invented yet (to my
knowledge), if you want to change your "film", you have to change
the body and often the camera brand and therefore all your lenses
as well. Thus, the barriers to changing film are psychological as
well financial.

But having said that, the barriers are not set in stone. If you
don't like the performance of your "film" at ISO 800 and above, it
is upto you to try others. This is what I did when I tried a Canon
5D. The result is that I sold all my Nikon gear (at a loss) and
bought the 5D. I am very happy now.

Please don't call me a "troll" or get your feathers ruffled because
of this. I didn't sign any contracts with Nikon, there is no law
against saying "I switched to Canon", and the subject of this
thread is "Best camera for ISO 1600". I favour available light
photography, and I like using very high ISO film.

As photographers, what harm is there in being educated about the
film (ie., sensors/bodies) made by other brands and using the tool
that suits us best?

I have had my 5D for five days. Here is a snapshot I took yesterday
at ISO 3200, with windowlight while the sun had almost set. NO
POST-PROCESSING. This was not possible with my D200.

I post this because the OP asked a question and I feel that he,
like me, would do well to be told about the facts before spending
(and losing) a lot of money.



Exif here: http://www.pbase.com/pneumatic_artichoke/image/61955396

--
-NG
----------------------------------------------------
Personal Motto: 'Quality pays for itself'

 

[Joffun]

With respect your question is probably fundamentally flawed.
It is normal for stage lighting to be several stops brighter than
room lighting.
If so you should have no problem getting good sharp shots at 400 ISO
--
Leonard Shepherd
Usually skill in using equipment has more to do with good
photography than the equipment itself.

Some of the venues I have shot at have required ISO 1600, shooting at f1.4 and 1/45s using a 50mm lens - so low noise at high ISO is often required for this kind of work!

 

[spt_gb]

Tell you what, when you can pull off a sharp shot in those conditions then we'll accept your complaints.

I am not pro Nikon or Canon since I am choosing between the 2 at
the moment. If I were to judge solely on the quality of the photos
posted here in Nikon or the Canon forum, I will choose Nikon hands
down.

Sorry, I did use my D200 at Medium size and still the performance
from and above ISO 400 was very poor. THis and other forums are
litterally filled with posts about the mediocred D200 performance.
Sorry it's a great camera in other areas, but not for high ISO !!

Claire

Claire, you are right. The problem these days is that the sensor is
the film. Changing films, or even trying out new ones if you are
not happy with the ones you have, is not easy as it used to be.
Since interchangable sensors have not been invented yet (to my
knowledge), if you want to change your "film", you have to change
the body and often the camera brand and therefore all your lenses
as well. Thus, the barriers to changing film are psychological as
well financial.

But having said that, the barriers are not set in stone. If you
don't like the performance of your "film" at ISO 800 and above, it
is upto you to try others. This is what I did when I tried a Canon
5D. The result is that I sold all my Nikon gear (at a loss) and
bought the 5D. I am very happy now.

Please don't call me a "troll" or get your feathers ruffled because
of this. I didn't sign any contracts with Nikon, there is no law
against saying "I switched to Canon", and the subject of this
thread is "Best camera for ISO 1600". I favour available light
photography, and I like using very high ISO film.

As photographers, what harm is there in being educated about the
film (ie., sensors/bodies) made by other brands and using the tool
that suits us best?

I have had my 5D for five days. Here is a snapshot I took yesterday
at ISO 3200, with windowlight while the sun had almost set. NO
POST-PROCESSING. This was not possible with my D200.

I post this because the OP asked a question and I feel that he,
like me, would do well to be told about the facts before spending
(and losing) a lot of money.



Exif here: http://www.pbase.com/pneumatic_artichoke/image/61955396

--
-NG
----------------------------------------------------
Personal Motto: 'Quality pays for itself'

 

[Film_Ruled]

I think what the OP means is true low light photography.

Sure, it is easy to set tungsten to balance looking like day light, then over expose it to not look like the natural scene and blow out the highlights on a bleach bottle...but some of us don't like that fake look.

If you are shooting a true low light scene , say a monk by candle light in a monestary and want to make it look like the same scene, deep blacks in the shadows and rich amber color on the subject, no blown highlights, you have to expose it correctly, but you also have to expose it naturaly to retain a faithful reproduction of the real scene.

That is how you measure low light performance in my book.

For all of the nonsense being circulated in forums like this about
"which camera has less noise" very few people get it right.

The real answer is that it doesn't matter. Learning how to expose
properly and set white balance properly is 100 times more important
than what camera you have.

The noisy D2H at ISO 6400. Yeah. It would have a bit of noise on 13
x 19 prints or larger. But I could print this at 8 x 10 and you'd
never have a clue it was at ISO 6400.

 

[Film_Ruled]

I just shot weddings with my 30d and I had the sb-800s
with good nikon bodys and lens
there is no differnts with nikon and canon in flash photography
if you use the new canon flashs 580ex and 430ex..
also at iso above 640iso the canon has less noise.
but also more dynamic range and no color loss.
much better color balance right out of camera.
ther is much more the better noise to switch to canon.

But don't spout that off in the Nikon members only club, they will trash you to no end...even if you are like me and have a good kit in Nikon as well.