The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
P25 at work
- Thread starter irakly
- Start date
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Did we add the noise in the ISO 800 shots for effect. I'm am looking to see how this back handles ISO 800
gogopix
Subscriber
The P25 I never used at 800. In fact even 400 was marginal.
the current "+" (plus) backs are much better I would guess at LEAST one stop (I had P45 for a yr before P45+ and used 400, then 800 in P45+ became useful.
P30+ looks as if 1600 is quite usefull
This shows that pixel size isnt6 everything-it is how the site uses its space.
Also, watch out for comparisons in bright light. Thssinar shots may have more noise if the shot was NOT wide open; wide open means fastest shutter means less noise in many cases, since the 'signal' that is the light from the lens is so strong it overwhelms the noise.
all noise tests should be done at 1/125 or even 1/30 for WA lens.
Victor
the current "+" (plus) backs are much better I would guess at LEAST one stop (I had P45 for a yr before P45+ and used 400, then 800 in P45+ became useful.
P30+ looks as if 1600 is quite usefull
This shows that pixel size isnt6 everything-it is how the site uses its space.
Also, watch out for comparisons in bright light. Thssinar shots may have more noise if the shot was NOT wide open; wide open means fastest shutter means less noise in many cases, since the 'signal' that is the light from the lens is so strong it overwhelms the noise.
all noise tests should be done at 1/125 or even 1/30 for WA lens.
Victor
irakly
New member
no, did not add anything. just enhanced the noise by boosting blacks and fill. at its defaults settings the image was much smoother.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
That is what i was wondering if the out of camera raw is smoother looking. I would love to see a test image at that speed or a raw to play with to see what it is doing. I will get a chance to test the Phase backs in two weeks so don't go out of your way to get one to me see.
T
thsinar
Guest
Victor,
the test I have posted was shot a f5.6 and 1/40, not faster. It was not under bright light, but still pretty dark in this part of the garden, with only some light rays hitting the plant (look at the background, how little light there is, and I had to increase the midtones).
Of course, smaller apertures means longer exposure times, which in turn means "more" noise. But noise DOES NOT depend ONLY on the exposure time: there is one thing I have forgot to mention, the temperature.
Currently is the summer season in Thailand, the temperature this morning was 31 °C, at 6.30 am (yes, 31°C!) ---> so you could also say, that this image would have less noise if shot at a cooler place!
Best regards,
Thierry
the test I have posted was shot a f5.6 and 1/40, not faster. It was not under bright light, but still pretty dark in this part of the garden, with only some light rays hitting the plant (look at the background, how little light there is, and I had to increase the midtones).
Of course, smaller apertures means longer exposure times, which in turn means "more" noise. But noise DOES NOT depend ONLY on the exposure time: there is one thing I have forgot to mention, the temperature.
Currently is the summer season in Thailand, the temperature this morning was 31 °C, at 6.30 am (yes, 31°C!) ---> so you could also say, that this image would have less noise if shot at a cooler place!
Best regards,
Thierry
Last edited:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Thierry in essence one would expect the same performance from the 54 i believe it is.
gogopix
Subscriber
Yes, well the shots look fine- better than I would have expected.
I look forward to testing myself, though I am not one to 'push' things. These 25,000 ISO shots on Canons and Nikons (I have been cautioned not to combine to Canikon!
) seem a curiosity. More like shots I would take with my wifes Digilux!
anyway, sould be interesting to see the 75 vs say the P45+
I look forward to testing myself, though I am not one to 'push' things. These 25,000 ISO shots on Canons and Nikons (I have been cautioned not to combine to Canikon!
) seem a curiosity. More like shots I would take with my wifes Digilux!anyway, sould be interesting to see the 75 vs say the P45+
T
thsinar
Guest
irakly
New member
in general, colour images at iso800 suck no matter what shutter speed. B&W may be quite interesting, though
irakly
New member
it prints just fine. actually, looks better than here, because scaling down and jpeg compression ruin structure of the noise.
Who on earth would want these images to be smooth and perfect?
They are evocatively gothic. I love the crushed blacks. The discort of noise (or film grain) has the grit of reality to it. It's the way humans actually feel.
Maybe it's time for some folks to go shoot some pushed tri-X, and take a break from pixel peeping : -)
They are evocatively gothic. I love the crushed blacks. The discort of noise (or film grain) has the grit of reality to it. It's the way humans actually feel.
Maybe it's time for some folks to go shoot some pushed tri-X, and take a break from pixel peeping : -)
woodyspedden
New member
There you go again Marc! As soon as you get us hooked on MF digital based on your camera porn you now want to drive us back to Film. What's a lad to do LOL
Woody
Horses for courses Woody. It's why you have a M8, a D3 , and now a MF digital kit.
However, I've found that what seems a disadvantage for MF backs ... noise at ISO 800 or 1600 can be turned into an advantage ... as Irakly has so aptly demonstrated.
Frankly, I doubt I'll use the D3 below ISO 800 very often ... more like 1600, 2000 and up. Hardly a curiosity ... a real low light candid photography tool.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
You know what i am after. Not these kinds of shots. LOL I will use a M8 for this or push any MF over the edge. I'm just trying to avoid the 10k lighting package
woodyspedden
New member
Marc
couldn't agree more in a more serious vein. I think the biggest advantage of the D3 is that it allows usage of lenses at more realistic f stops of 4.0. In a different thread I made a plea for Nikon to come out with a Nanocrystal, VRII 70 200 4.0 and an update to the long in the tooth 80-400 VR with a 100-400 4.0 VRII. These lenses would be considerably lighter, smaller, and if market forces dictate cheaper than any 2.8 version. With the power of the D3 one to one and one half stops of glass is less impacting because of High ISO performance than the price, weight and size penalties of 2.8 glass. JMHO YMMV
Woody