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!
no, did not add anything. just enhanced the noise by boosting blacks and fill. at its defaults settings the image was much smoother.Did we add the noise in the ISO 800 shots for effect. I'm am looking to see how this back handles ISO 800
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
Thierry in essence one would expect the same performance from the 54 i believe it is.
in general, colour images at iso800 suck no matter what shutter speed. B&W may be quite interesting, thoughThat 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.
it prints just fine. actually, looks better than here, because scaling down and jpeg compression ruin structure of the noise.Irakly,
Thanks for posting these - and I agree, the only thing you can do with ISO 800 on the non plus phase backs is make a "creative" black and white. It looks okay in a small webfile but how do you feel about that noise on a print or looking at it bigger?
Eric
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 LOLWho 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 : -)
Horses for courses Woody. It's why you have a M8, a D3 , and now a MF digital kit.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
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 packageWho 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 : -)
MarcHorses 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.