rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I'm confused.

The discussion and the chart in that link show that a 100 ISO for that 1D MKII to be the best. Only the "fake 50 ISO" is equal to 800 in signal/noise quality.

They were only making the point that those "fake 50's" were not necessarily the best for s/n ratio and that's not a surprise.

MtnMan Loc: ID

You are reading the chart right. For the Canon shown the best point is for ISO 100. But the lowest ISO for that camera is 50. The S/N for it at lowest ISO is MUCH worse than at 100. The units are decibels...that means a factor of ten for each number.

That camera came out in 2004.

Note the statement below the chart, "Nikon D300 owners must also be well aware of this as the manual warns that setting ISO numbers below 200 will also degrade the image."

Camera sensors follow Moore's law: doubling of capability every two years or so. We've had four doublings since then.

The prinicple still seems to hold.

Here's a little practical study I found on my D5100: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D5100/noise_JPEG.shtml

It showed no practical noise for ISO up to 1600 for my camera (D5100). My own tests confirm.

What got me onto this was a discussion with a Nikon rep a few months back. I was concerned with focus on one of my lenses and did some tests at ISO 100. She told me, "the first thing you need to do is set your ISO at 500 because that is best for your camera". That didn't match my previous understanding and what I'd been hearing so I dug in some. The above are some of what I found out.

No camera I know talks to "fake ISO". I used to use film with ISO (ASA) 25 cause it was best for image quality.

[/quote]

I'm confused.

The discussion and the chart in that link show that a 100 ISO for that 1D MKII to be the best. Only the "fake 50 ISO" is equal to 800 in signal/noise quality.

They were only making the point that those "fake 50's" were not necessarily the best for s/n ratio and that's not a surprise.[/quote]

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

When I referred to "fake" ISO I was referring to camera manufacturers trying to outdo each other with lower ISO's like 50, which really are nothing more than "over exposing" and then bringing the exposure back down to neutral.

I'm still not convinced that the statement:

"Many will tell you lower ISO gives you the best resolution but they happen to wrong for current generation digital cameras."


That's not true.

That's a blanket misstatement. It's not true in all cases nor is it true in every case.


Also:
but you'll likely get better signal to noise (i.e. better quality) at 800 than at 100...


Not even close to being supported from that article and definitely not my experience nor the experience of anyone that I know.

I think that these are hasty generalizations.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Interesting. I thought the camera mfgs trying to outdo each other was at the higher end of ISO. Another interesting things I read recently (maybe a D7000 owner can confirm) is that the Nikon D7000 has a minimum ISO of 200. On the lower end D5100 it is 100.

In any case I don't claim to be a technical expert in this field. I sense very little of the advice on UHH comes from technical experts although there are some pretty good photographers. We're all trading opions based on our limited knowledge.

I trying to disband what might well be an urban lengend. They are hard to break.

From what I can see posted here the biggest problem many have with blurring isn't due to digital noise but simple things like not using their focus correctly and camera movement. If camera movement is a contributor telling them to use the lowest ISO their camera offers is a disservice. Most of them will do better with higher ISOs and consequent faster shutter speed to help reduce the effect of camera movement.

The story may be quite different for an expert in camera use. There are few that contribute to UHH but they are not in the majority and are not the ones with the issues.

RocketScientist Loc: Littleton, Colorado

On the Some kind of weed, it looks like the F-Stop was 4.5 or so, lens set at around 33mm ISO 100 and 1/500th of a second.. Parts of it are in focus. Try shooting in aperture priority and knock it up to F8 or 10.

Keep the camera in the same place. Keep the 33mm. If changing the F# causes too much more time on the shutter, try knocking the ISO up to 200 or 400.

RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

Go to your camera focus options.

You will find a "single-point AF" (a bracket with a smaller bracket or dot in the middle). This will let you focus on the subject selected focus point only.

If you are in "auto-area AF" (a bracket with a solid rectangle in the middle), your camera will automatically detect the subject and selects focus point. Thereby, your camera may focus on a branch instead of the bird.

twowindsbear

I'm confused. . .

It sure looks like you're shooting at 72dpi. Is this correct? If you are using 72dpi, why? Wouldn't a higher resolution give better pix?

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

One thing I saw right away on the first exif list is that that photo was shot at just over 3mp when the camera is capable of 10.

I own an XS also and I've never had such problems with my camera. I use an 18x55, a 28-200, a 75-300 and a
Tamron 18-200 (which I don't really like).

I always keep my ISO at 200. I have boosted the contrast a bit in the camera, just a couple of notches. It helps sharpen the images I get.

I also use single focal point and never shoot in full auto.
One of the major problems I've discovered with using all
the focal points is the camera can't really tell what you're trying to focus on so it can grab just about anything in the frame. With single point - dead center - I don't have that problem because I'm giving the camera no choice but to focus where that point is. To do this you have to shoot in program or one of the manual modes. I never shoot full auto. You can find out how to switch to single point in your owner's manual.

Another thing, when I'm shooting people I always put that single point over an eye, usually the closest too me... works
at least 98% of the time, as in the third photo below.

Rebel XS / 75-300 at 1/1000 (full 300mm on the lens)


Rebel XS / 20-seconds / f/5.6


Rebel XS / 18-200 / Flash / 1/200, f/7.1 (full manual)

MtnMan Loc: ID

Marvelous illustrations of what great technique can do!

valleymiss Loc: Mississippi

Hi Again.

I want to say a great big thanks to all of you.You have all given me an so much valuable information and I can't wait to try it out.

The hard drive on my computer went out and although I have tfhose photos on a disk, I have nodisk drive on the net book my son brought for me to use.However, I do jave a thumb drive where I saved my latest photois and I want to show fcrwley another of the "weeds. " and there are a few more flor you to give me your opinion on please.

I studied Jimmy A's photos and noticed he haqs the same camera I have. There is quite a difference in his photos and these I am posting.

Several of hyou have commented that since my camera is capable of taking 10mp photos why were the ones I posted at 3.5 or so... I had never nothiced that before,and looking back I see that almost all of them are below 10 How do I renmedy that?My camera is set at the highest quality (L)

Gold Finch


Another goldfinch


cardinal

valleymiss Loc: Mississippi

Hi Again.

I want to say a great big thanks to all of you.You have all given me an so much valuable information and I can't wait to try it out.

The hard drive on my computer went out and although I have tfhose photos on a disk, I have nodisk drive on the net book my son brought for me to use.However, I do jave a thumb drive where I saved my latest photois and I want to show fcrawley another of the "weeds. " and there are a few more flor you to give me your opinion on please.

I studied Jimmy A's photos and noticed he haqs the same camera I have. There is quite a difference in his photos and these I am posting.

Several of you have commented that since my camera is capable of taking 10mp photos why were the ones I posted at 3.5 or so... I had never noticed that before,and looking back I see that almost all of them are below 10 How do I remedy that?My camera is set at the highest quality (L)

Gold Finch

valleymiss Loc: Mississippi

Hi Again.

I want to say a great big thanks to all of you.You have all given me an so much valuable information and I can't wait to try it out.

The hard drive on my computer went out and although I have tfhose photos on a disk, I have nodisk drive on the net book my son brought for me to use.However, I do have a thumb drive where I saved my latest photois and I want to show fcrawley another of the "weeds. " and there are a few more for you to give me your opinion on please.

I studied Jimmy A's photos and noticed he has the same camera I have. There is quite a difference in his photos and these I am posting.

Several of you have commented that since my camera is capable of taking 10mp photos why were the ones I posted at 3.5 or so... I had never noticed that before,and looking back I see that almost all of them are below 10 How do I remedy that?My camera is set at the highest quality (L)

valleymiss Loc: Mississippi

oops!I am sorry for all the duplicates... this net book is hard to get used to...How can I delete these? Or Can I?

Here are some photos of the weed . Hope thyey are better than the first ones.

Some Kind of Weed


another wed

RocketScientist Loc: Littleton, Colorado

A 10 MegaPixel camera does not mean that the resulting file size will necessarily equal 10 megabytes. The file size is going to be dependent on the complexity of the picture. For example, a dark background will have a smaller file size than a colorful one. There's a million variables on the file size.

You are definitely shooting on L for size. Be sure you also have the smooth quarter circle icon next to it (I think you do) and you're fine.

I think the shots are certainly getting better. Keep it up.

Mikey...

valleymiss Loc: Mississippi

oops!I am sorry for all the duplicates... this net book is hard to get used to...How can I delete these? Or Can I?

Here are some photos of the weed . Hope they are better than the first ones.I tried different settings.

Some Kind of Weed


another wed