1600 ISO vs 800 ISO

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

1600 ISO vs 800 ISO

Postby admajic on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:44 am

Here are 2 shots Wendell asked me to post.
Both Hand held, of the top of the wings of the SOH!
100% Crop

Image
This is 1600 ISO , 1/10s, f/3.5

Image
This is 800 ISO , 1/13s, f/3.5
D50 - AF-S NIKKOR 18-70mm 3.5-4.5G ED
User avatar
admajic
Member
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Sydney - Bondi Junction

Postby rokkstar on Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:06 am

It may be the fact that i've had a little bit too much to drink or it might be the fact that England have just narrowly won their opening game but i'm not sure what you're asking here Ad.
:oops:
Matt
User avatar
rokkstar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Miserable cold wet England - D200

Postby wendellt on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:08 pm

can't believe it the d50 has better noise handling capabilities than the d2x

iso 800 is quite noisy on the d2x for low light situations
User avatar
wendellt
Outstanding Member of the year (Don't try this at home.)
 
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:04 am
Location: Dilettante Outside the City Walls, Sydney

Postby sirhc55 on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:03 pm

Even the D2Hs has less noise than the D2X at high iso values :P
Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12930
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby Michael on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:05 pm

One thing about the D200 which I love is that the noise only appears as grain while almost all other cameras I've used the noise appears as coloured mottley grain.
Are we there yet?
User avatar
Michael
Senior Member
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:48 pm
Location: Toowoomba QLD

Postby wendellt on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:23 pm

1/200 f2.8 ISO800 D2X 100% crop

medium intensity lighting from a spot

Image

however when the lighting is cranked up ISO 800 is o.k

Image

and at iso 1600 - low light
Image
Last edited by wendellt on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
wendellt
Outstanding Member of the year (Don't try this at home.)
 
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:04 am
Location: Dilettante Outside the City Walls, Sydney

Postby LOZ on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:32 pm

wendellt please bring your new girl frend to the next mini meet so we can all meet her :wink: LOZ
User avatar
LOZ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:47 pm
Location: Hills

Postby Michael on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:37 pm

I can play this game too

D200 ISO 800 100% crop (can't find any 1600 pics) no PP at all

Image
Last edited by Michael on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Are we there yet?
User avatar
Michael
Senior Member
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:48 pm
Location: Toowoomba QLD

Postby Heath Bennett on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:38 pm

D2x shot is a little underexposed in comparison?

Yeah the D50 puts out great low noise - even in jpeg.

The strong point about the D2x is it doesn't contain much chroma noise - like the D200. It just looks like grain. The D2x has less chroma noise at high ISO than Canon's flagships.

And who really cares about screen display anyway. I have never noticed noise in any of my printed D2x shots. All you see is the stock (paper) fibres! It only bugs me if I look at it at 100% on screen!

Isn't printing where it counts anyway?
HB
User avatar
Heath Bennett
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: Morisset/Bonnells Bay

Postby Michael on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:42 pm

Heath Bennett wrote:D2x shot is a little underexposed in comparison?

Yeah the D50 puts out great low noise - even in jpeg.

The strong point about the D2x is it doesn't contain much chroma noise - like the D200. It just looks like grain. The D2x has less chroma noise at high ISO than Canon's flagships.

And who really cares about screen display anyway. I have never noticed noise in any of my printed D2x shots. All you see is the stock (paper) fibres! It only bugs me if I look at it at 100% on screen!

Isn't printing where it counts anyway?


I think this is for discussion purposes rather than arguments sake.
Are we there yet?
User avatar
Michael
Senior Member
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:48 pm
Location: Toowoomba QLD

Postby Heath Bennett on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:52 pm

Yeah fair point.

I just think this kind of thing is a little over discussed for little reason.
HB
User avatar
Heath Bennett
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: Morisset/Bonnells Bay

Postby wendellt on Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:55 pm

heath i'm not complaining
just impressed with the new noise handling features of the new nikon cameras the D50

canon 1ds MarkII users can shoot comfortably at ISO 1200 with little noise i have seen the results

when underexposed noise is more noticable
User avatar
wendellt
Outstanding Member of the year (Don't try this at home.)
 
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:04 am
Location: Dilettante Outside the City Walls, Sydney

Postby gstark on Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:22 pm

Most of the time when I see a noisy image I also find that I'm looking at an image that is somewhat underexposed. The first of the images that Wendell has posted here is exactly a case in point, whereas his second image - where he comments that the lighting "has been cranked up" is not underexposed.

In this case we have the equation of more light = more light for a better exposure.

But I fail to see what the fuss is about anyway: if it's a case of noisy shot vs no shot, guess who gets to go home with the job completed?

Michael, I'm going to have to steal that D200 for some shooting at The Empire, where the lighting is prodominately red, and thus makes available light shooting with the D70 a real PITA.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22924
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby Michael on Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:29 pm

gstark wrote:Most of the time when I see a noisy image I also find that I'm looking at an image that is somewhat underexposed. The first of the images that Wendell has posted here is exactly a case in point, whereas his second image - where he comments that the lighting "has been cranked up" is not underexposed.

In this case we have the equation of more light = more light for a better exposure.

But I fail to see what the fuss is about anyway: if it's a case of noisy shot vs no shot, guess who gets to go home with the job completed?

Michael, I'm going to have to steal that D200 for some shooting at The Empire, where the lighting is prodominately red, and thus makes available light shooting with the D70 a real PITA.


He he, The D200 much to my durprise does handle reds very well!
Are we there yet?
User avatar
Michael
Senior Member
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:48 pm
Location: Toowoomba QLD

Postby Heath Bennett on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:24 pm

wendellt wrote:heath i'm not complaining
just impressed with the new noise handling features of the new nikon cameras the D50

canon 1ds MarkII users can shoot comfortably at ISO 1200 with little noise i have seen the results

when underexposed noise is more noticable


I find myself worrying about noise a little too much myself - but make myself feel better by saying "in my prints it is never a problem"!

Here is where I got my information on Chroma noise: (from Phil Askey's review of the 5D, dpreview):

"This is what I was The EOS 5D exhibited slightly lower chroma noise (colored speckles) than both the EOS-1Ds Mark II and EOS 20D, although couldn't match the D2X which has a more monochromatic appearance to noise."
HB
User avatar
Heath Bennett
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: Morisset/Bonnells Bay

Postby Grev on Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:13 am

Interesting comparison, while the D50 is oh so cheap right now... it's tempting to get one and then a D200 or something later on...
Blog: http://grevgrev.blogspot.com
Deviantart: http://grebbin.deviantart.com

Nikon: D700 / D70 / AiS 28mm f2 / AiS 35mm f1.4 / AiS 50mm f1.2 / AiS 180mm f2.8 ED / AFD 85mm f1.4 / Sigma 50mm f1.4 / Sigma 24-70 f2.8 macro / Mamiya 80mm f1.9 x2 /Mamiya 120mm f4 macro
User avatar
Grev
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: 4109, Brisbane.


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques