Whats giving me the slight grain??

alexisonfire said:
"Crap" results are better than no results, i'll use any ISO needed to get the shot.

I was just having a stab in my previous post, but Canon need to stop farting around making sensors and move to sony if they want to compete :)
Click to expand...

I haven't kept up lately as I'm not looking at any new gear, but Canon have been more than competitive at high ISO. It is low ISO DR where they lag behind.
 
NoNameNoNumber said:
Sorry to crash the thread a little. Rojin, would you mind expanding a little? Really looking to learn as much as I can now I've finally bought a DSLR :)
Click to expand...

Shutter speed especially if you are shooting children is the most important factor. A blurry shot due to motion from the child moving is worse than a noisy image, to me at least. You want to freeze their motion, no good having a nice clean image if the head and arms are all blurred due to movement. Personally I quite like noise, I take it as part of the process just like shooting film. When printing I'll quite often add grain to an image as I just prefer that look aesthetically :)

1/120 is the minimum I like for children playing, even then you have to pick the shot. This is for shooting candidly rather than posed. As they get older or if they are in a more active play mode you'll have to go higher with the shutter speed. Faster glass helps :)
 
Last edited:
Rojin said:
I haven't kept up lately as I'm not looking at any new gear, but Canon have been more than competitive at high ISO. It is low ISO DR where they lag behind.
Click to expand...

The 1Dx barely puts up a fight against prosumer level Nikons. If you use level equivalents, 5Dmk3 vs D750 and 1Dx vs D4S..canon are a long way behind on DR, tonal range and noise handling. I'm not just spouting personal opinions, go look at the statistics :)
 
alexisonfire said:
The 1Dx barely puts up a fight against prosumer level Nikons. If you use level equivalents, 5Dmk3 vs D750 and 1Dx vs D4S..canon are a long way behind on DR, tonal range and noise handling. I'm not just spouting personal opinions, go look at the statistics :)
Click to expand...

Until it makes a difference to their bottom line I can't see Canon changing anything in their approach. I was really interested in the D750 at one point, but found it lacking. The D810 I'd change to, but I don't really need it so ultimately haven't bothered. I'm more interested in what Sony are doing with their FF mirrorless line. I haven't touched my DSLR in 6 months...
 
alexisonfire said:
If you use level equivalents, 5Dmk3 vs D750 and 1Dx vs D4S..canon are a long way behind on DR, tonal range and noise handling. I'm not just spouting personal opinions, go look at the statistics :)
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree with your point (Canon sensors are behind Sony sensors) you are comparing cameras that are different generations, with 3 years gap between them.
If you compare like-for-like, D800 and 5D3, both launched in 2012, then the Canon actually has better dynamic range, noise etc.. Pretty much the same goes for the D4 and 1Dx.

Both these Canons are up for replacement within 12 months, so see how they compare then, with or without Sony sensors :p.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
Whilst I agree with your point (Canon sensors are behind Sony sensors) you are comparing cameras that are different generations, with 3 years gap between them.
If you compare like-for-like, D800 and 5D3, both launched in 2012, then the Canon actually has better dynamic range, noise etc.. Pretty much the same goes for the D4 and 1Dx.

Both these Canons are up for replacement within 12 months, so see how they compare then, with or without Sony sensors :p.
Click to expand...

You trillion g, D800 has a 3 stop DR advantage over the 5Dmk3, marginally lower noise and 2 stop better color depth. I think you mean if you compare the 5Dmk3 with the previous generation Nikon D700 then things are similar.
 
D.P. said:
You trillion g, D800 has a 3 stop DR advantage over the 5Dmk3, marginally lower noise and 2 stop better color depth. I think you mean if you compare the 5Dmk3 with the previous generation Nikon D700 then things are similar.
Click to expand...

It has a low ISO DR advantage, but does it really have 3 stops at high ISO which is under discussion here? No it doesn't, the 5D3 actually has better DR from around ISO 2000 and above. According to DXO mark anyway. You already know this though, so who is trolling? :D
 
Rojin said:
It has a low ISO DR advantage, but does it really have 3 stops at high ISO which is under discussion here? No it doesn't, the 5D3 actually has better DR from around ISO 2000 and above. According to DXO mark anyway. You already know this though, so who is trolling? :D
Click to expand...

And who is taking about high ISO DR, which is largely irrelevant. SDK never specified high ISO and yet seemed to suggest that there is a significant difference between the D800 and D810 because the latter is newr- the 2 sensors perform almost identically.

Up to ISO 1600 and higher the D800/D810 has a large DR advantage, things equalize by ISO 3200.
It is important to realize that when the likes of DXO show DR equal at say ISO 2000, that is measured ISO and not reported, the camera setting to achieve that is something like ISO 4000-5000. Moreover, even at highest ISO there is no visual difference.

In a perfectly designed sensor every stop increase in ISO should equal a stop decrease in DR, which is what the D800 sensor does. The fact the canon sensors eventually catch up at very high ISO just highlights that their ADC circuitry is adding a lot of noise that robs shadow detail and thus leads to the lower DR. If canon can sort out their ADC and amplifier technology then their sensor should be nearly indentical to the latest sony, Nikon and Toshiba sensors since their quantum efficiency is nearly identical. Much of the canon sensor design is just as good as the best Sony sensors, but the ADC really let's it down which has been the case since the days of the 400D/40D/5Dc etc.

Anyway, who cares, this is old news.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
And who is taking about high ISO DR, it is largely irrelevant. Up to ISO 1600 and higher the D800 has a large DR advantage, things equalize by ISO 3200. Who cares, this is old news.
Click to expand...

You obviously care enough to post this old news at every opportunity :D Although of course you never mention that things do equalise as the high ISO rises in a thread that is discussing how you use whatever ISO you need to in order to get the shot. Like for example someone saying just that and how they used ISO 6400 for a recent event...
 
Rojin said:
You obviously care enough to post this old news at every opportunity :D Although of course you never mention that things do equalise as the high ISO rises in a thread that is discussing how you use whatever ISO you need to in order to get the shot. Like for example someone saying just that and how they used ISO 6400 for a recent event...
Click to expand...

Heh, I happened to be browsing a thread where so done mentioned something that is factually wrong and pointed that out. Sorry for spreading the truth.i never raised the topic of DR or sensor performance and see it as completely irrelevant to the OPs topic.

I don't get your last point, it just highlights how irrelevant high ISO DR is. Who cares that I had to shoot my D800 at an ISO that gave visually identical DR to a 5Dmk3? What is relevant was capturing the sunrise the week before at ISO 100 where a huge amount of shadow detail needed to be pulled up.
 
D.P. said:
Heh, I happened to be browsing a thread where so done mentioned something that is factually wrong and pointed that out. Sorry for spreading the truth.i never raised the topic of DR or sensor performance and see it as completely irrelevant to the OPs topic.

I don't get your last point, it just highlights how irrelevant high ISO DR is. Who cares that I had to shoot my D800 at an ISO that gave visually identical DR to a 5Dmk3? What is relevant was capturing the sunrise the week before at ISO 100 where a huge amount of shadow detail needed to be pulled up.
Click to expand...

Low ISO DR is completely irrelevant to me, if it was something I actually needed I'd have changed systems to Sony ages ago. I shoot more high ISO than low, not that the small difference would make me choose Canon over Nikon though. However I can easily see why some find the DR at low iso useful, although many still want more from the sensor as it still doesn't cover all uses. People do still use filters with a D800 you know?... If you are taking shots of a high DR scene and filter use/multiple exposure is not an option, then exmor tech sensors are where you want to be. No argument there. Actually I have seen some interesting wedding work that uses the DR, if I was still shooting weddings I likely would have changed to Nikon.

Hell my next camera is still likely to be a D810, I'm not buying one for DR reasons though. Just that it is probably the best all-round camera with the features that I need that is available. A D810, 35, 85 and 120-300f2.8 would provide my DSLR needs. For everything else I'd use a MILC.
 
SDK^ said:
I based my comment above on the DP Review DR graph here : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19
The 5D3 has slightly more shadow range.
Click to expand...

That is comparing jpegs which is completely meaningless because it is based only on whatever tone curve the camera manufacturers desire. It is well know that canon prefers more contrast in their jpegs by default, Nikon gives flatter files. On I either camera you can change the JPEG tone curve.


You need to compare RAW files, Have a look at DXOmark, or here
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm
 
Last edited:
Ignoring the usual suspects and their usual, point-scoring (and tedious) arguments... what the hell is wrong with a bit of noise anyway? personally I quite like a bit of grain, and find things can look rather sterile if the image is totally clean... though its fine for some styles of work. I know loads of togs that add noise in post, and I have no issues with it, whether real or as an effect.

I did a very similar project at a primary school recently, recording the day-in-the-life of the place, and had to use very high ISO (up to 6400) in the lighting conditions I encountered, which varied wildly, with natural lighting coming and going on a showery day, combined with the schools mixed bag of artificial lights. The results, which were printed into a book were received with overwhelming positivity by all concerned, so any fears I had were quickly put aside. I would not be scared of getting some motion as well... kids move a lot, and I found some deliberate (some not) motion blur actually helped to capture the essence of the place, rather than frozen moments, which again can end up looking sterile.

At the end of the day the character of the shots is more important than certain technical aspects, which seem to be the overwhelming concern of some... and their shots are often lacking as a result.
 
Last edited:
The problem with digital noise is it can often be sen as unattractive, especially if you get color blotches or patterns in the noise. Grain and noise aren't really the same and if possible I would prefer zero digital noise but the ability to add controlled gain in post.

The reality is lighting conditions may require one to raise the ISO and one should do that with relatively little concern to ensure they get the shot. That why I shoot these kinds of things in auto-ISO because I don't care at all about the ISO, but the composition, framing, subject, orientation, background, lighting, depth of focus, distracting elements, balancing elements etc. Things that will actually have a positive or negative impact on the final photo.
 
Are you using Lightroom to post-process? If so then check the sharpening setting as too high a value can introduce a kind of mottling effect in areas of continuous tone which can resemble noise. Other software will likely do the same.
 
D.P. said:
The problem with digital noise is it can often be sen as unattractive...
Click to expand...

It can, but I have no issue with it up to ISO6400... further up the scale things can get nasty, and are best avoided unless there is absolutely no alternative. If I want to take the edge off it DXO Optics superb Prime noise removal tool does a great job. I just think a bit of noise is nothing to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom