snubbr.com

ISO settings Ok to use 400 or 800 ?
Hi Guys.

How high can you set your camera to get good pics using continuous lighting..

I have a Nikon DX40..

I am used to film where ISO rating for colour film was typically 100. If one used 200 or 400 the pics were a little grainy..

With my current lighting set up I sort of need to use 400 or even 800 ISO rating. Do you think that I can still get good quality pics using such high ISO settings. The ones I have taken look OK to me..

Kind Regards.

Digby..

Comments (9)

Have pentax *istD which is a 6,1mp sensor. I have used it to 1600iso with no problems. though for best clarity you should be using some kind of antinoise software. I use noise ninja, works well. I have bothe freedtanding as well as the pluging versions. I have the pluging installed in cs2 and pe5..

Below are 2 shots both with iso1600 and noise ninja..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

What noise?..

Comment #1

Digmen1 wrote:.

Hi Guys.

How high can you set your camera to get good pics using continuouslighting..

I have a Nikon DX40..

I am used to film where ISO rating for colour film was typically 100.If one used 200 or 400 the pics were a little grainy..

With my current lighting set up I sort of need to use 400 or even 800ISO rating. Do you think that I can still get good quality pics usingsuch high ISO settings. The ones I have taken look OK to me..

Kind Regards.

Digby.

The beauty of Digital is that is does not cost you anything to try, whereas film does..

With that camera, you are probably going to be perfectly fine, but test some images using different ISO settings under different lighting conditions to see how far you can push the ISO settings without injecting noise. Trial and error is very easy with digital camera's..

Good Luck..

Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie'Aspire to inspire before you expire'...

Comment #2

Digmen1 wrote:.

I am used to film where ISO rating for colour film was typically 100.If one used 200 or 400 the pics were a little grainy..

Hey, I used to push B/W film to 1600 and beyond, all the time. Grain in film is "Artistic Effect", noise in digital is just noise. I find it interesting that you think even 200 ISO in film was "a little grainy". : ) But anyway....

With my current lighting set up I sort of need to use 400 or even 800ISO rating. Do you think that I can still get good quality pics usingsuch high ISO settings. The ones I have taken look OK to me..

I think you just answered your own question! .

Certainly something like Noise Ninja, as suggested above, should help - but on the other hand I think you'll find that on the D40/X ISO 400 is no problem, 800 is only a small problem..

In my experience, noise is highly variable and this is no surprise when you remember that it comes form many different sources / causes..

I have found "acceptable" noise in ISO 1600 pictures taken in very low light. But part of that "acceptability" lies in the fact that the picture clearly was taken in very low light, and I think the viewer "expects" to see that sort of effect..

On the other hand, I have photos that were (accidentally) taken in full daylight at high ISO (800 as I recall) and while the overall image was OK, the noise in the shadow areas was appalling - possibly worse (in my perception anyway) than if the same picture had been taken indoors at ISO 800. It's hard to predict..

Baseline is, you can get good results at 400/800 but it can be hard to predict..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #3

Arrowman wrote:.

I find it interesting that you think even 200 ISO in film was "a littlegrainy". : ).

"A little grainy" may not have been the optimum use of words but I think we'd all agree that there *was* a little degradation using 200 compared to 100 film. To the critical eye, the grain was there, the colours weren't quite so vibrant and the sharpness/contrast took a bit of a hit, too. I used a 4' x 8' piece of white foam board for indoor natural light portrait and figure pics for years with my SLR, just so I could load 100 ISO..

Baseline is, you can get good results at 400/800 but it can be hardto predict..

When reading this thread, this recent post with quick-loading pic came to mind:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=24747971.

I found the photo more than acceptable..

Kindest regards, mike marshall..

Comment #4

Mikemarshall wrote:.

When reading this thread, this recent post with quick-loading piccame to mind:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=24747971.

I found the photo more than acceptable..

Kindest regards, mike marshall.

Yes, that is a very good example of what I'm thinking of..

I'm no expert and I can't write very well on this off the top of my head - but in lay (and very general) terms, the way I see it -.

There are several sources of noise. The two most relevant here are(a) Noise due to the high ISO setting (amplification noise)(b) Noise due to longer exposure (some other name).

So - if you set ISO to - say - 800 and then use a moderate shutter speed in reasonable and even lighting conditions, you'll get good results because it's only amp noise and not a lot of it at that..

But use ISO 800 in very poor conditions, and the noise will be worse. Use it in poor conditions along with a long exposure, and you're dealing with amp noise PLUS long exposure noise..

Which is why we see such variable results for the same ISO setting on the same camera, in different conditions..

What I'm not sure of, is whether - say - 1/15 second really counts as a "long exposure" when it comes to noise. I kind of doubt it. Which blows my "explanation" out of the water..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #5

1. It is better to get a picture than nothing at all!2. It is always better to get grainy picture than getting blurred ones..

3. It is sometimes better to get grainy picture than washing out subtle skin tones of persons while shooting portraits.4. D40 has one of the best ISO perofrmance in it's class.Hope the reasons are enough...

Digmen1 wrote:.

With my current lighting set up I sort of need to use 400 or even 800ISO rating. Do you think that I can still get good quality pics usingsuch high ISO settings. The ones I have taken look OK to me..

Keep smiling, Ajayhttp://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612(Thanks for your precious time & invaluable comments)..

Comment #6

I have the D40 and am talking from my own experience! Check out samples on this page:http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM.

Ajay0612 wrote:.

1. It is better to get a picture than nothing at all!.

Damn right..

2. It is always better to get grainy picture than getting blurred ones..

That means iso 1600 is ok..

3. It is sometimes better to get grainy picture than washing outsubtle skin tones of persons while shooting portraits..

Easily iso 800..

4. D40 has one of the best ISO perofrmance in it's class..

Means to say that you won't notice any difference between ISO100 and ISO 800, and ISO 1600 is very usable..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #7

I regularly photograph concerts using available light with my D80 and D50 at ISO 1600 f2.8 1/100th NR off with good results. I shoot RAW. I often have to push to get those settings. The cams says I am pushing maybe +1.3 EV but when processing in Capture NX I rarely have to add more than +0.7 EV..

Results are entirely acceptable. I now get the atmosphere of the stage lighting whereas before it got bleached out by a powerful flash. Of course ISO 200 would be better but I would need an f1.0 zoom!!.

I recomend you give Capture NX a try and shoot RAW but you have very good JPEG engine in the D40X but you will get better control over noise that way..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #8

Do you have the D40 or D40x? I assume it is the latter. The 10MP sensor may have more noise but try not to underexpose the photo. That makes them more grainy..

I shoot an *istDS and I can get a decent ISO 3200 shot as long as the exposure is good. I have even been able to make posters from ISO 1600 shots...

Comment #9

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.