File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
My camera has rather bad noise sensitivity it seems. I usually just always shoot at 64 ISO but that makes almost EVERY SHOT require a tripod. I made this little presentation of the noise as it increases per ISO and am wondering what you guys would consider still usable?
>> Anonymous
- I see no difference between 64 and 100

- difference between 200 and 100 is damn small and I doubt you would see it on actual print

- 400 starts to get color noise wich is bad, but can still be fixed easily in PP and the image is still very usable

- I would still go with "sharp" 800 I see there rather than blurred or photo at no photo all, it is still fixable

- forget 1600 unless you know you want that photo because some memorable/unbelievable event is going on and there's no other way to shoot it (like, aliens coming at night)
>> beethy
800, just need to do noise reduction though photoshop and you're fine
probably some unsharp mask too.

what the hell kind of camera are you using?
>> beethy
wait..
iso 800 if these are 100% crops, they are.. right?
these aren't the full photos, right?
>> Anonymous
>>114865here
I also thought those are crops and not full pics

also .. grammar fix lol "rather than blurred ohoto or no photo at all"

overally ... iso800 is still good to go with some PP
>> Anonymous
Yeah these are crops with no magnification. I'm using a Fujifilm S5700/S700.
>> Anonymous
I can't help but wonder if gif compression is giving us a false impression of your camera's images...
>> Anonymous
Why does that camera offer a 64 ISO setting when most real DSLRs don't? They usually have a low of 100. I've never seen 64 before is that a P&S thing? My EOS only goes down to 100 I think.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>115168

The 5D has ISO50, but these things really depend on the design of the camera and the sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>115168
The lowest ISO normally offered is the sensitivity the sensor works the best at. Lower than that and it sacrifices dynamic range.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
Noise sure is noisy

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:18 17:55:23Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1400Image Height985RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>115187
I'm afraid I don't follow. Noise is what now?
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
>>115189
Well, you see, when a daddy and a mommy love each other very much, they go to the local porno shoppe and buy wooden dildos and latex clothing and whips. Daddy being the cheapass that he is buys a Sony A700 and decides to shoot mommy at 1600ISO. Daddy puts them on the computer to look at them and finds a noisefucked photo, and being drunk, he blames it on mommy and begins to beat her. Mommy of course does not like this, and files a divorce. Daddy becomes depressed and listens to loud music and then kills himself.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
>>115193
Mommy's remaining days are spent using daddy's camera to spread the word of Sony's photographing products on an image board on the internet, channel four I believe it is.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115193
>>115194
I fucking love you.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
>>115195
Well isn't that a coincidence <3
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
also wink wink
>> Anonymous
It seems every thread lately eventually either becomes about Sony, or Butterfly, or Both.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>115216

Conspiracy. Butterfly is a plant from Sony to lead all threads into being an advert for them.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115218
I remember when ac managed to make most threads about canon.

Also i didnt even post in this till someone else brought me up.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115316
You know, I honestly don't remember doing that...
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>115317

It's foul propaganda from the evil empire.
>> Anonymous
So while you are all here, thoughts on the noise? lol
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115404
Save up for a digital SLR. Your ISO200 looks like my ISO1600.

What kind of camera is it?
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>115173

Actually, the ISO50 is "pulled". Just like ISO3200 on the same camera is pushed.

It's like shooting normally ISO100, but overexposuring it one step, and then underexposuring it using software.
ISO3200 works the opposite way around.

But who would be so wise, and tell me by simply words why there isn't e.g. native ISO25 on serious digital cameras?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>115415

Ask Canon, Sony or Kodak. :)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115415
I'm guessing the same reason you can't just expose Delta 3200 at EI200 and expect it to work well. The sensor is too sensitive and will always suck up at light at at least a level of EI100.
>> Anonymous
>>115411
It's a fujifilm S5700/S700.
>> Anonymous
What kinds of shots are especially susceptible to noise? Are there particular situations or types of shots that noise is particularly bad in? Any shots that are more tolerant of it than others?