Z6 at 51,200 ISO: A shot of my grandson just as he peeked above the recliner arm. I didn't have time to set this up on a tripod so I grabbed my Z6 which was the closest camera. I had...

tomcat

A shot of my grandson just as he peeked above the recliner arm. I didn't have time to set this up on a tripod so I grabbed my Z6 which was the closest camera. I had my Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 lens on it, from last night's Worm Moon shots. Shooting data are Z6 body, 1/640 sec, f/5.6, ISO 51,200 at 500mm. I processed it from a raw file using Topaz AI Clear, Precision Detail, and then Sharpen AI to get the right eye sharper. I did not adjust brightness because I wanted to hold the detail from the highlights on the left side of the image. Not one of my best shots, but not too bad for a grab shot.......

Topaz adjustments
Topaz adjustments...

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

After Topaz, you're really not saying much about the camera's capabilities. You are saying something about your exposure technique for an IBIS camera / VR lens of a static subject at 1/640 and ISO 51,200. The colors and pose look great. Zoom to 100% of the details is something else, though.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Agrees with CHG_CANON. This is just good for a reduced web post, nothing else.

By the way. post in gallery next time?

(You would avoid the comments on quality there....)

-

tomcat

CHG_CANON wrote:

After Topaz, you're really not saying much about the camera's capabilities. You are saying something about your exposure technique for an IBIS camera / VR lens of a static subject at 1/640 and ISO 51,200. The colors and pose look great. Zoom to 100% of the details is something else, though.

Yeah, that's all I meant for it to be. A simple grab shot. I was amazed though at what I could get at ISO 51,200. I remember a few years ago when an ISO that high was unusable and looked like ASA 160 slide film pushed to ASA 3200. Technology has come a long way in the past couple of years. Don't zoom it out and go looking for trouble though....lol

tomcat

Rongnongno wrote:

Agrees with CHG_CANON. This is just good for a reduced web post, nothing else.

By the way. post in gallery next time?

(You would avoid the comments on quality there....)

-

Yeah, I was just amazed at what I could get from ISO of 51,200. The old DSLR cameras and processing software from 10 years ago couldn't have made this into a decent image. I probably should have titled the post as "We've come a long way in 10 Years".....lol

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

tomcat wrote:

Yeah, that's all I meant for it to be. A simple grab shot. I was amazed though at what I could get at ISO 51,200. I remember a few years ago when an ISO that high was unusable and looked like ASA 160 slide film pushed to ASA 3200. Technology has come a long way in the past couple of years. Don't zoom it out and go looking for trouble though....lol

I agree at the amazing abilities of today's hardware and software. My point was the opportunity of this static subject could have been to show how slow you can shoot a sharp 500mm image, still at a 'high' ISO-3200 to ISO-6400 range. You might revisit too your topaz settings as the image should have less grain after the AI tools have run their magic.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

tomcat wrote:

Yeah, I was just amazed at what I could get from ISO of 51,200. The old DSLR cameras and processing software from 10 years ago couldn't have made this into a decent image. I probably should have titled the post as "We've come a long way in 10 Years".....lol

Actually the issues are not from the camera but the post processing...

tomcat

CHG_CANON wrote:

I agree at the amazing abilities of today's hardware and software. My point was the opportunity of this static subject could have been to show how slow you can shoot a sharp 500mm image, still at a 'high' ISO-3200 to ISO-6400 range. You might revisit too your topaz settings as the image should have less grain after the AI tools have run their magic.

I wanted to post the original raw, just to show you what it looked like but it was too large. I didn't want to reduce the raw file down because I figured it would be throwing pixels away and make it worse than it really was. But even without the processing, an adjustment of exposure could have made it an ok wallet....

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

tomcat wrote:

I wanted to post the original raw, just to show you what it looked like but it was too large. I didn't want to reduce the raw file down because I figured it would be throwing pixels away and make it worse than it really was. But even without the processing, an adjustment of exposure could have made it an ok wallet....

The conversion of a 24MP RAW to a 24MP JPEG does not throw away any pixels nor image detail .... It should yield an near 'original' that fits under the 20MB attachment limit. Your posted image also is 24MP.

tomcat

Rongnongno wrote:

Actually the issues are not from the camera but the post processing...

What could I have done in PP to make this better? I tried noise reduction from LR, but lost too much detail. I realize though that starting at ISO 51,200 is not ideal and if I had set this up with a tripod and slower shutter speed, I could have reduced the ISO and it would've been much better. With time, I could have made a studio portrait out of it. But remember this was a grab shot because as you know, with a kid, the moment is gone while you are fiddling with controls.

tomcat

CHG_CANON wrote:

The conversion of a 24MP RAW to a 24MP JPEG does not throw away any pixels nor image detail .... It should yield an near 'original' that fits under the 20MB attachment limit. Your posted image also is 24MP.

I didn't think about posting it as a jpeg for the original because I assumed you guys would have rather seen the original raw rather than a jpeg. Anyway, it's ok with me. I was just impressed with what I pulled out of that high ISO because I can't get anything like that from a basketball game where I have to use f/1.8 lenses and 12,000 ISO.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

tomcat wrote:

What could I have done in PP to make this better? I tried noise reduction from LR, but lost too much detail. I realize though that starting at ISO 51,200 is not ideal and if I had set this up with a tripod and slower shutter speed, I could have reduced the ISO and it would've been much better. With time, I could have made a studio portrait out of it. But remember this was a grab shot because as you know, with a kid, the moment is gone while you are fiddling with controls.

What is your minimum hand-holding ability for this lens on this camera? Can you get down to 1/60, even 1/30? That would be my 'grab shot' expectation.

Regarding processing, we need your converted JPEG output without any edits, using say Nikon's Capture NX-D for the conversion. You'd have to undo any LR defaults, if that is your easiest way to export a JPEG from the RAW.

If you haven't reviewed these Lightroom sharpening and noise reduction topics, see of any of these ideas help in your LR editing approach:

Basics of noise processing

Basics of Lightroom Sharpening

tomcat

CHG_CANON wrote:

What is your minimum hand-holding ability for this... (show quote)

My minimum hand holding capability for this lens is 1/500 sec. It's heavy and not well balanced when extended out to 500mm on the Z6. There's no weight to balance it like when I'm using the D3s on the lens. I'm a little more shaky at age 71 than I was at 51. Sometimes I can't even hold the red square target on the subject--ha. 'Course with the tripod, my hand holding speed is a lot lower--yuck yuck

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

tomcat wrote:

My minimum hand holding capability for this lens is 1/500 sec. It's heavy and not well balanced when extended out to 500mm on the Z6. There's no weight to balance it like when I'm using the D3s on the lens. I'm a little more shaky at age 71 than I was at 51. Sometimes I can't even hold the red square target on the subject--ha. 'Course with the tripod, my hand holding speed is a lot lower--yuck yuck

You super sure? The lens VR should give you 4-stops and the camera 4-stops too. I'm not saying that's a cumulative 8-stops, but still 1/100 might be 'easy' with some practice and / or weight training.

tomcat

CHG_CANON wrote:

You super sure? The lens VR should give you 4-stops and the camera 4-stops too. I'm not saying that's a cumulative 8-stops, but still 1/100 might be 'easy' with some practice and / or weight training.

I can get my 70-200 down to 1/30 with no problem, but it's not as wieldy. That 200-500 is like an anaconda to me when it's extended out to 500mm. I look like I'm a machine gunner on a Navy destroyer trying to shoot down attacking planes.