wow!!! high ISO bodies

[forestgnome]

I heard about this at the photo store and I still can't beleive it. The image below was shot at 4000 ISO at night. I can't shoot with 1600 without visible grain. This is one tech upgrade that would improve my work tremendously because I often see wildlife in low light, and this would also help us freeze action, and it would offset being forced to stop down the aperature in a given situation, etc.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/...SSID=8894db9eca488ce3fbd8fd70e05641ab&u=25612

So, how do they do it? What is Canon offering and is this technology coming to the Rebel line ( So I can afford one).

 

[DougPaul]

Take a look at the thread on the Canon 5D Mk II--there are some links on high-ISO performance. http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25243 The 5D2 does pretty well up to ISO 6400 and can shoot up to 25600 (with rather noticeable grain).

Part of the how they do it is the use of a full size sensor. The smaller sensors of the Digital Rebel line will always be at a disadvantage.

Noise reduction processing (in camera or in software) may reduce the visible noise, but also reduces the fine detail.

http://www.clarkvision.com, http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/night.and.low.light.photography/index.html has some good articles on low-light photography, including IIRC some examples of how to push a digital camera way beyond its normal limts.

BTW, the lighting on the picture of the bear in your link looks like it is in direct moonlight (which is rather like sunlight except for being dimmer).

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

For anyone who frequently works in low light conditions, the latest round of digital camera bodies (sensors) that produce relatively noise-free images and good color rendition at high ISOs is a Godsend.

I can’t answer the question about the newer high ISO technology coming to the Rebel line of cameras. My guess is that eventually we will see it move down into the lower priced cameras. The only question is when. High ISO really is a somewhat specialized tool.

After reading the linked discussion, I am left wondering wonder just what the rumination on the “distorted” tonal values is all about. That is, tonal values in the scene as seen in real life v the way it is rendered photographically. You would tend to see the same kind of tonal values in a properly exposed shot made at ISO 400 as at 4000. The only difference usually would be the greater ability to overcome blurring as a result of camera or subject movement at the higher ISO.

If one perceives the “normalized” rendition as a problem, perhaps the solution is to do some post processing so it better replicates the original scene. This would mean reducing color saturation and vibrancy to match the relatively unsaturated colors and reduced vibrancy we tend to see with our eyes in deep twilight.

One point here about terminology (and certainly intending to be informative rather than critical).

Forestgnome commented:

This is one tech upgrade that would improve my work tremendously because I often see wildlife in low light, and this would also help us freeze action, and it would offset being forced to stop down the aperature in a given situation, etc.

In photo parlance, “stopping down” the lens aperture, means reducing the size of the lens diaphragm opening, which means going to a higher f/number. Going to a larger lens opening – smaller f/number – usually is referred to as “opening up.”

G.

 

[DougPaul]

After reading the linked discussion, I am left wondering wonder just what the rumination on the “distorted” tonal values is all about. That is, tonal values in the scene as seen in real life v the way it is rendered photographically. You would tend to see the same kind of tonal values in a properly exposed shot made at ISO 400 as at 4000. The only difference usually would be the greater ability to overcome blurring as a result of camera or subject movement at the higher ISO.

If one perceives the “normalized” rendition as a problem, perhaps the solution is to do some post processing so it better replicates the original scene. This would mean reducing color saturation and vibrancy to match the relatively unsaturated colors and reduced vibrancy we tend to see with our eyes in deep twilight.

The human eye only sees in B&W at low light levels (using the rod cells, the less sensitive cone cells detect color). My guess is that the author was surprised by the color in the photo that he did not see with his eyes.

Night has just as much color* as day--we just don't see it.

* Night may have even more color than day if there are a variety of artificial or artificial and natural light sources in/illuminating the scene.

Doug

 

[nartreb]

>is this technology coming to the Rebel line ( So I can afford one).

In the meantime, using a gyro-stabilized lens will usually gain you the equivalent of at least a stop (or, equivalently, a doubling of ISO). So that's like letting my Rebel xT get to 3200 ISO for a given f-stop. (In fact my priciest lens opens extra-wide too, so I get stabilisation in *addition* to actually having a faster lens.)

Unfortunately, buy just a few L-series lenses and you're in the same price range as the Mk II...

Within limits, you can do "push processing" in both film and digital: go ahead and shoot underexposed, then brighten in the darkroom/computer. Won't do miracles (noise will be a problem), but (unlike major overexposure), you can often salvage the shot.

 

[DougPaul]

In the meantime, using a gyro-stabilized lens will usually gain you the equivalent of at least a stop (or, equivalently, a doubling of ISO). So that's like letting my Rebel xT get to 3200 ISO for a given f-stop. (In fact my priciest lens opens extra-wide too, so I get stabilisation in *addition* to actually having a faster lens.)

Canon claims 2-3 stops of improvement from some of their image stabilized (IS) lenses. This allows one to hand hold the camera for longer exposures, but does not help with moving subjects.

Unfortunately, buy just a few L-series lenses and you're in the same price range as the Mk II...

Some of the prime (non-zoom, fixed focal length) lenses are relatively inexpensive and have fairly large apertures: eg Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 II, $85.

Within limits, you can do "push processing" in both film and digital: go ahead and shoot underexposed, then brighten in the darkroom/computer. Won't do miracles (noise will be a problem), but (unlike major overexposure), you can often salvage the shot.

Descriptions this technique (for digital) can be found in http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/night.and.low.light.photography/index.html

Shoot raw if you are going to do this:
Shot at 2am, half moon. Canon Xt, 30 sec, F4.5, ISO 1600, FL 18mm. 1/4 size.
JPEG from the camera:

Brightened from RAW using ufraw (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/). Effective ISO unknown.

(Brightened from the camera JPEG is much noisier.)

Doug

 

[forestgnome]

In photo parlance, “stopping down” the lens aperture, means reducing the size of the lens diaphragm opening, which means going to a higher f/number. Going to a larger lens opening – smaller f/number – usually is referred to as “opening up.” G.

Thanks, Grumpy. That's twice! ( I recently confused dodging with burning) I meant "opening up". Thanks for commentary as well.

Dougpaul, thanks for those links, I'll do some reading tonight. I agree with your point about IS; it only helps with camera shake, and only a little bit in my experience. To shoot that shot of the bear, I'd probably still need a half second of exposure, which will not freeze the slightest movement. The bear shot has an exposure time of 1/60. Just not gonna happen with IS, 1600ISO and PS.

Also, fixed lenses simply are not an option for my style, and even if I could afford a truely fast wildlife zoom, the size and weight renders them useless for me. Furthermore, I hate shooting at really wide aperatures in most of my comps. At f/1.8, a moose's eyes are in focus but the nose and everything behind the ears is out of the DOF., and the larger the lens the worse it gets.

There's simply no substitute for what this technology will do.


I'm now motivated to increase some revenue from photography so I can justify a purchase of one of these bodies and a suitable lens(full frame) by summer. Otherwise, such purchase will not pass muster with the CEO (wife)

 

[DougPaul]

There's simply no substitute for what this technology will do.

Higher ISO is certainly the easy way, but one can often do pretty well with some compromises. For instance, a light-weight tripod can steady the camera for moments when the subject is still. (Note that the 5D Mk II body is almost twice the weight of a Digital Rebel, full frame lenses are heavier than small frame lenses, and IS lenses are also heavier than non-IS.)

BTW, I think I have gotten some significant gains from IS.

You may find my available-light night shots of Bearly Live '07 of interest. http://mysite.verizon.net/dbpwebjunk/bearly-live-07/index.html. The Friday night band shots are all ~2sec available light exposures, hand-held, but propped against a chair back or a tree. The Saturday night band shots are all ~2sec available light exposures using a tripod. All night shots were taken at ISO 1600 with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens on a DR-XTi. The images are all camera JPEGs.

Extrapolating from my pics, if you have a decent moon, are not under tree cover, prop the camera on something steady or use a tripod, and the subject cooperates, you should be able to do fairly well with your current gear.


BTW, there was an article on one of the photography websites about a camera with a B&W sensor which increased the ISO by a factor of ~10 over a corresponding color sensor. Few seem to have been made, however, a Google search finds lots of B&W security video cameras with B&W sensors. B&W sensors are also used in astronomy.

(Note to anyone who is tempted to try it: setting a color camera to a B&W mode will not increase the ISO.)

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

...

There's simply no substitute for what this technology will do.

No kidding! You have hit the nail solidly on its head.

My Nikon D2Hs (now a generation old) was darned good technology in its time, and still is. The normal ISO range for the camera is 200 to 1600. A Noise reduction (NR) option is available for ISO 800 and above. Frankly, I haven’t used that enough to comment on its effectiveness.

With this camera I have been reasonably satisfied with image quality, including noise, for my purposes (newspaper repro and occasional prints up to 20” x 24”) on well exposed images using ISO 800-1600. This assumes fairly minimal cropping. There is a particularly noticeable increase in noise stepping up from ISO 1250 to 1600.

The D2Hs also has ISO options labeled “HI-1” and “HI-2.” These boost the ISO to 3200 and 6400, respectively.

I have used these settings seldom, always neglecting to use the NR option. This has produced “usable” images, but the results have been pretty awful, especially if any appreciable image tweaking was required to open up (bring out detail in) shadows. “Hideous” would not be a bad or unfair word to apply to those results. They are the kind of photos that I wish the editors would either drop my byline from altogether or attribute to someone else. (Not really the latter – it’s a newsroom joke for me and my associates.)

This is the experience leading me to believe that when it comes to high ISO work, the new breed of camera exemplified by Nikon’s D3 is the way to go. It is a specialized tool, but like many or most specialized tools, it is the right one for the job and everything else is a jerry-rigged (or is that, jury-rigged?) solution, and very much second best.

So I drool over the Nikon D3. And I see one (or equivalent) in my future kit, although by no means exclusively for the high ISO capability which (to me) is the icing on the cake.

Now ...

One of Nikon’s VR lenses (70-200mm f/2.8 zoom) resides in my kit and gets extensive use. I also have used other Nikon lenses with VR. The Vibration Reduction technology does work, and it works very well at reducing the image degrading effects of camera movement. I use mine almost exclusively in the “Normal” rather than “Active” mode since I usually am in a static position shooting moving subjects rather than the other way around.

Sometimes I also use a very good state of art tripod system that was un-Godly expensive to buy, but works far better than any other tripod I’ve ever used or owned. And I use a monopod in some circumstances. Both address the camera movement issue.

But, again, going to high ISO is the only real solution when the light gets low and the objective is to be able to use a high enough shutter speed to compensate for subject movement while retaining a small enough lens opening to preserve adequate depth of field. And that takes us right back around to the beginning here …

G.