Stuart Richardson
Active member
There was an image!
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!
Erm, was that for me? There was only one image, so comparison was not possibleThere was an image!
Stuart, if it was underexposed why didnt you increase the iso-setting?That's what I meant. The 54LV did not make an image that I am comfortable posting. It was severely underexposed at 30 seconds, and it does not go over 30 seconds in use, so I did not post it. I could make a visible shot by pushing it 4 stops in post processing, but it looked horrible. For all intents and purposes, there was no image.
Just remember when you are comparing 100% crops that the noise on a MFDB is not enlarged as much as with the D3. So if the noise looks the same or even slightly worse on the MFDB when comparing 100% crops, the MFDB will look less noisy in print. Hope that makes sense. People seem to forget this quite often.Thanks to everyone - really helpful. God I love this site!
With my pictures of moving trains, my most commonly used ISO in good light is 200 (because it allows me to use a fast enough shutter speed and still get reasonable DoF). Anyone got side-by-side comparison of noise on, say, a P30+ compared to a D3 at ISO 200? (Other similar comparisons would be appreciated too, of course )
Many thanks,
Ed
Stuart, I understand. The image you posted looks stunning by the way. Any chance you post some more.Tom -- I did not try it because, frankly, I was not testing, I was trying to make pictures. I was told to use the 54 at base ISO for long exposures, as the higher ISO's are just cranking up the gain (as far as I understand it). It did not appear to work, so I set it aside and worked with something that demonstrated to me that it could do the job. It is also very difficult to tell in the field if 54LV images are workable (the screen is not good enough), so I did not know that the images would not be salvageable. A look at the screen of the 54LV versus a look at the screen of the D3 was more than enough to convince me to just concentrate on the one that was working.
Finally got around to doing some higher ISO shots today.Well you showed me that photo in your office when I was in Atlanta for a meeting. I should have kept a copy to send back to you.
The same would hold true if this was later in the day. I was shooting at f5.6, so let's say it was an hour or two later and I've got sun, but it's below the horizon and I'm at f5.6 and 1/8 second at 200 ISO. If I move to 800 ISO, I'm at 1/30th.Steve,
I think you make a valid point regarding high ISO shooting in decent light so that you can get a higher shutter speed. Typically, for me, that's NOT the reason I'm looking for high ISO... it's to capture a decent image in low light and therein lies the challenge. I inadvertently shot a bunch in good light at ISO 400 and only realized my oversight because I looked at the metadata in post. From the image I didn't notice the difference. I'll take your word, and those of others, that the 31MP Kodak sensor is the king of the road for high ISO. If I know I'm heading for low light I grab my Nikon D3 knowing it's the better choice of gear.
I have recently tested my P45+ at high ISOs, just for fun because I rarely need them for my landscape work.Hello all,
Many thanks to all of you who have helped with my questions so far.
If comparing MF digital (e.g. the latest Phase backs and the latest H series bodies) with 35mm-style DSLRs such as Nikon D3 and Canon 1DSmkiii, how do they perform at ISO 200, 400 and 800 in terms of noise, detail and dynamic range? I know the resolution will be higher, but what about these other parameters?
For my purposes, being able to shoot at 200 and 400 (and preferably up to 800) with confidence is important - and I wouldn't want to lose out on overall quality by stepping up to MF digital. My fear is that MF digital might only be worth it at very low ISOs...
Any feedback very welcome!
Best wishes and thanks in advance for your help.
Ed