• 10-27-2009, 02:08 PM
    Anbesol
    Much ado about image grain.
    What is everybody's obsession with high ISO grain, it is almost as if it were the top benchmark to measure how good a camera is. Whenever a new camera is announced, consumers flood message boards and blogs and comment sections with high ISO query, the hubub is all about the high ISO. What happened to color renditioning, dynamic range, aliasing, color temperature management, etc? And these factors play a role across the entire ISO spectrum anyway.

    I think all of us here can agree that ISO 100-400 is ideal when you can get it, and no matter how great a cameras high ISO ability is - light permitting 100-400 will always be the better option.

    This rant was sort of sparked by my witnessing another debate at another forum, where cameras were being compared and the benchmark was pixel peeping 3200 ISO image grain at 100% crop. How absurd is it that we can become such compulsive nit-pickers, and completely forget the hundreds of other aspects and benchmarks that cameras can be measured by?

    Am I alone in this frustration?
  • 10-27-2009, 02:21 PM
    Canuck935
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Hear hear!

    That's what makes this forum so special. This one is actually about photography. :D
  • 10-27-2009, 02:28 PM
    drg
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    What is everybody's obsession with high ISO grain, it is almost as if it were the top benchmark to measure how good a camera is. Whenever a new camera is announced, consumers flood message boards and blogs and comment sections with high ISO query, the hubub is all about the high ISO. What happened to color renditioning, dynamic range, aliasing, color temperature management, etc? And these factors play a role across the entire ISO spectrum anyway.

    I think all of us here can agree that ISO 100-400 is ideal when you can get it, and no matter how great a cameras high ISO ability is - light permitting 100-400 will always be the better option.

    This rant was sort of sparked by my witnessing another debate at another forum, where cameras were being compared and the benchmark was pixel peeping 3200 ISO image grain at 100% crop. How absurd is it that we can become such compulsive nit-pickers, and completely forget the hundreds of other aspects and benchmarks that cameras can be measured by?

    Am I alone in this frustration?

    Nope you are not alone!

    The camera makers are greatly to blame based on their advertising and marketing decisions. Very good higher ISO images can be made and of course it is not as easy as just turning up the dial.

    Advertisements starting appearing that showed a certain brand of cameras results compared to another brand of cameras results, O.K. Nikon vs Canon and one was nice bright action photo and the other was a dark blurred image. It wasn't really a fair comparison and the dark blurred image disappeared, but enough people had seen it.

    Of course that the images were taken by professional sports photographers under very specific conditions, so on and so forth, wasn't the message. It was, High ISO saves the day.

    Seems as if people want to shoot in the dark and get daylight quality for one issue. The second is attempting to use second rate glass and technique with no flash or other added light source to get what is at best, in some cases, a snapshot.

    That having been said the current group of high ISO performers does about as well at 1600 ISO as the first go around of digital cameras with variable ISO did much above 200 or so if not properly exposed. Also the achievement is often at other image expense due to the in camera processing, i.e. Sony by their own admission.

    With a little bit of work, a very fine image can be made at high ISO settings. If not post processed, yes it may display some noise. The problem may be that people have too many tools at their disposal that are not being used as engineered or intended to get the result they want or think they should get.

    I'm amazed on the other hand at how much difference their is between higher ISO performance in even entry level DSLR's today in late 2009 and the first professional DSLR's. Of course today's cameras benefit from much better in camera processing, newer sensors, and more experienced users.

    High ISO is the Holy Grail of the moment. Give everybody six months and there will be a new fixation.
  • 10-27-2009, 02:40 PM
    OldClicker
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    A little while ago I asked, "Is high ISO the new MegaPixel race?". Things that are easy to show are easy to market. - TF
  • 10-27-2009, 03:33 PM
    Photo-John
    Good Discussion Subject
    Great subject, Anbesol. And I believe I can provide an opposing point of view :)

    My main subject is sports - you know that. Mountain biking, in particular. And a lot of that action happens in very low light. No matter what the limitations of my gear, I'm always pushing it as much as possible. At one point that meant ISO 200 or maybe 400, if I really wanted to get crazy. But there were photos that I just couldn't make with those ISO limits. I was forced to pan or use flash. And sometimes I don't want to pan or use flash. Sometimes I want a sweet shot of a rider frozen in the natural light. As an example I'm including a photo I shot this weekend at ISO 1600. This photo would not have been possible for me a couple of years ago. I would have been forced to use flash or let the rider blur and it just wouldn't have been the same.

    http://gallery.photographyreview.com...02/MG_1877.jpg

    Another thing to take into consideration is the professional image market. Personally, I may not be that concerned with noise in many images. But photo buyers are. A lot of the time I think their expectations are silly, unrealistic and based on outmoded standards (drum scanned medium format film, for example). But that doesn't change what magazines, ad agencies and stock houses want. I think they may actually be the biggest dupes in the megapixel and noise marketing competition. I swear, magazine photo editors and stock houses are the first ones to buy into new camera hype. But if you want their money, you have to play their game.

    To summarize - I am happy to have less noise at high ISO settings. It means I can make photos I wasn't able to a few years ago. I'm not a pixel peeper (except by profession). But lower noise really does make a big difference for me. On the other hand, I don't think noise is evil. It doesn't necessarily ruin a photo. A lot of people get caught up in the tech and lose sight of the image. Content is what matters. I think a lot of the people who do the most pixel peeping are the same people who buy a sports car and only commute in it. They are missing the point and probably couldn't take a good picture if their life depended on it. Fair enough. Those people will always be around and their money helps fund better technology for the rest of us. I'm going to do my best not to get caught up in the hype. But if a better camera comes along that will really help me get better photos and that I can afford - I'm buying it.
  • 10-27-2009, 03:54 PM
    Majik_Imaje
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Well let me say this in regard to HIGH iso !!

    FIRST OF ALL. In the old days (chuckle) to become a professional photographer you needed to CREATE STUNNING IMAGES.

    PRO'S that worked for National Geographic had only one choice for film to use - ISO 25 !!!!

    Today's breed of Automatic computer driven cameras that do all the work. are hard pressed to possess the SKILLS that NG photographers use. So instead they are off exploring HIGH ISO'S

    Do you not know ??? the difference between 100 iso and 400 iso is only two F stops

    So use a frigin tripod !! the difference between 400 iso and 800 iso is ONLY ONE F stop !!

    The difference betwen 800 ISO & 1600 iso IS ONLY ONE F stop

    In other words.. YOU CAN CREATE any image you want @ 100 ISO !! ALL YA need is a tripod - but most people are too lazy to use one or better yet the CORRECT TYPE.

    FOR 50 years or longer. National Geographic astounded the entire world with skilled professional photographs only using Kodachorme ASA / ISO 25

    Therein- lies the main difference between a skilled professional and a ?? experimental wannabe

    This was created @ 100 ISO one minute @ F 45

    http://majikimaje.com/bns.jpg
  • 10-27-2009, 03:58 PM
    n00b
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    I share Anbesol's frustration... but that's good insight Photo-John!
  • 10-27-2009, 04:07 PM
    mtbbrian
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Look at this way...
    Considering that with a film camera you can have ASA whatever film, it seem logical for a DSLR to have all of the same capabilities and what not of a film SLR.
    Just my two cents...
    Brian
  • 10-27-2009, 04:16 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    It's true that great images were made before we had the technology we have now. I used to shoot motorcycle racing with ISO 100 slide film and a manual focus camera. It's also true that content should always come first. But neither of those things mean we should ignore the benefits of current technology. We definitely shouldn't get so caught up in camera features and specs that we lose sight of the goal (great photos). In the end the camera is just a tool for capturing pictures and the photographer is in charge. But if I follow your logic I will have to give up my car for a donkey cart. I like being able to cover some ground in a day - both with my camera and with my car.

    A couple more points -

    1) Sometimes one stop is the difference between a sharp photo and a soft one. I want every advantage.

    2) A tripod doesn't freeze action

    Thanks for your post. In case it isn't apparent, I like your message and point of view. But so far it seems it's my job to play devil's advocate in this thread :)
  • 10-27-2009, 04:32 PM
    markzero
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    I am reminded of an article I saw a couple of years ago: Compact Camera High ISO modes: Separating the facts from the hype. Just seemed to click with me that I actually wanted this for what I wanted to shoot.

    Of course, they're talking compact cameras, and there's more of a concern with those than with DSLRs as far as having a basic level of competent reproduction in low light and for fast images. Still, within limits, it does seem to make a difference, and provide additional opportunities like John related. So if you've got a raft of cameras to choose among, why not demand a certain level of ability, giving you more shooting flexibility, at least when narrowing the field to the 3 or 4 models you'll actually go to a camera shop to rent and test? All other things being equal (and these days, most of the objective numbers are close enough at each tier), something else that says 'this is more likely to capture the detail for which I am shooting' should be welcomed.
  • 10-27-2009, 04:52 PM
    racingpinarello
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    I don't think a camera with great high ISO sensitivity would be a great camera without good color rendition, dynamic range, and computing power within the camera.

    I no longer have the time to play the role of monk and use an incredibly heavy tripod to get the rock still image on a piece of velvia. I now have to run like 500 mph to keep up with my daughter and/or dogs. Having a camera that can snap a great image at 1600 or 3200 will allow me to use a smaller aperature, thus getting a better allround image.

    Leica users constantly use 3200 b&w film for the street "scene". A great digital camera should be able to do the same. Why pay all of that money to have a low iso camera only?

    If you want a low iso, superb camera? Buy the Fuji S2 for about $200. It sucks over iso 400, but at 100 and 200 it was the cleanest camera around. Now, I would want the best low and high range camera available.

    Loren
  • 10-27-2009, 05:50 PM
    Loupey
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    ...What happened to color renditioning, dynamic range, aliasing, color temperature management, etc? And these factors play a role across the entire ISO spectrum anyway...

    Isn't it a "given" that each successive generation builds on the merits of the last generation. That is, today's camera will have the same if not better color rendition, dynamic range, noise at comparable ISOs, etc... I mean, have there been a case when "color renditioning, dynamic range, aliasing, color temperature management, etc" went backwards?

    So what's left to improve? Until recently, it was megapixels and high ISO performance. Now it's primarily high ISO performance. That's why the fixation is there.
  • 10-27-2009, 06:01 PM
    Loupey
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Majik_Imaje
    ...In other words.. YOU CAN CREATE any image you want @ 100 ISO !! ALL YA need is a tripod - but most people are too lazy to use one or better yet the CORRECT TYPE.

    With all due respect, but I disagree with the above statement completely. When I'm trying to shoot a warbler on the wing hunting for insects or shooting macros in even the slightest of breezes or shooting super-telephotos when I can't open beyond f/4, I need to crank up the ISO as high as I'm capable of doing so for the intended purpose. Right now, I'm stuck at ISO 800 with my current camera for images I intend to sell up to 13"x19". It used to be ISO 200 with my first dSLR so I can't really complain.

    And yes, each generation (except for my current one) upped the maximum useable ISO by 1 full stop each time. To me, that's HUGE! Each step allowed me to push my abilities and results a full notch each time. All thanks to higher ISO for the most part.
  • 10-27-2009, 07:18 PM
    Majik_Imaje
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    1974 I made a fortune - from Kodak because I did something that was known to be IMPOSSIBLE !!

    This all began with a woman who would not shut up and leave me alone - My wife !!

    The location was inside the boston Gardens for the ice-capades ice show . I was at the 'far end of the STADIUM. up in the highest level of that place, it is dark except for center ice.

    I have a Mamiya RB67 w/360 mm F 6.8 lens !! "I want photographs she said.. " I said there is not enough light for me to use this in here for those photos. Use your flash she said.. Ha !! That thing is not going to travel 200 feet to light the scene . no way !!

    I want photographs she kept saying! The Sesame Characters were skating. She wanted posters for my daughters room. I have VPS 100 ISO film. People are skating 'fast' !!

    I decide to go with the minimum shutter speed to hold this huge thing steady 1/250

    the lens is open @ 6.8 so basically I am shooting @ EV 15 partly cloudy outside !!

    but I am inside in the dark - yes there is light @ center ice. I create photographs

    I develop the film +30% for each stop I had to compensate for.

    C-41 process developer = 3:15 minutes / seconds precicesly !

    I increased the temp by one degree and develop for 5:30 (101.5) instead of 100.5

    I never ever thought in my wildest dreams that this was going to work. but I had to go through the motions to apease the other side.

    OMG.. I just could not believe these results.. This can't be true. - I am throughly confused now.. this cannot be possible.

    the next day I went outside and purposely underexposed film by 4 stops & six stops & 8 stops .

    The results were most impressive. IN fact - further testng revealed this FACT !

    On one roll of film - I exposed a few frames @ 100 ISO - then on that same roll I exposed frames @ 400 ISO 800 ISO & 1600 ISO. all this - on ONE ROLL of VPS

    Every frame was goreous color and @ 800 ISO I could literaly place my hand on that photograph and the skin tones matched with no grain !! At 1600 there was very slight grain that was consistent with 35mm film characteristics !!

    I sent all the neg's and prints to Kodak and they told me to get it patented !!!

    We have been trying to do this for 60 years was there reply.

    That was the start of Kodak relasing all the new high speed color films - Vericolor was phased out. They had already achieved what they wanted - they just didn't know it yet !!!

    Now in today's digital world, I have found out, this can indeed be done again digitally with extremely impressive results that knock your socks off !!

    It just depends on what you USE for imaje editing !!!

    I have just recently (within the last two days) STOPPED using Adobe photoshop to edit / process my images. I found something ten times more powerful !!
  • 10-27-2009, 07:54 PM
    Frog
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    "I have just recently (within the last two days) STOPPED using Adobe photoshop to edit / process my images. I found something ten times more powerful !!
    Offline Report Bad Post"

    What? What? What?

    High iso capability is very useful when shooting action,(fast or slow) in less than ideal lighting. If your doing stills on a tripod it doesn't matter as much.
    I've seen many fine photos that wouldn't be so fine without a lot of noise or grain.
    I want a camera that can give me the dynamic range of the human eye. I'll probably have to wait a while, eh?
    Just an amateur's point of view.
  • 10-27-2009, 08:00 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Majik_Imaje
    It just depends on what you USE for imaje editing !!!

    I have just recently (within the last two days) STOPPED using Adobe photoshop to edit / process my images. I found something ten times more powerful !!

    So what are you using for image editing then? No matter what you use there are physical limitations based on the sensor, just as there are physical limitations based on the crystal structure of your film emulsion. Yes, we can push our film or digital images around a lot. And I do. But I'll take every bit of technological advantage I can afford. There's no reason to turn your nose up at what's available.
  • 10-27-2009, 08:42 PM
    Majik_Imaje
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Head on over to .. ..
    Adobe.com and download Lightroom3 beta and play with it !!

    Get your very best image and play and watch what happens. whoa it knocked me right over !!
  • 10-27-2009, 09:03 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Majik_Imaje
    Head on over to .. ..
    Adobe.com and download Lightroom3 beta and play with it !!

    Get your very best image and play and watch what happens. whoa it knocked me right over !!

    Oh, I've been using Lightroom since the very first beta. It is great. I don't think it's a replacement for Photoshop, though. I use them both on almost every image. I'm glad you've discovered, though. It is a very powerful tool :)
  • 10-27-2009, 09:07 PM
    Anbesol
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Wow, quite the conversation started!

    I wasnt saying high ISO is useless, I am simply saying that honing in on that singular aspect of imaging as a way to benchmark the technological value of a camera is foolish. It is made even further absurd by the 98%+ of imaging that is better done under ISO 800. I think it is great how far image noise performance has come, but it is not the be all end all of imaging technology and performance.

    An equally or even more significantly pressing matter to modern imaging technology is dynamic range. How many photo's have you seen with hot white spots or pitch black? So why isn't the internet flooded with people curious about the dynamic range of a camera?
  • 10-27-2009, 09:22 PM
    Loupey
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    ...I think all of us here can agree that ISO 100-400 is ideal when you can get it, and no matter how great a cameras high ISO ability is - light permitting 100-400 will always be the better option...

    Why? On my current camera, I can't see the difference between ISO 100 images and ISO 200 images in terms of noise. I bet in a few years I won't be able to see any difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600. If one can't see the difference, why not use the higher end when there is no penalty? The 100~400 ISO is rather dated.

    Low ISO will always be required for those needing long shutter speeds in bright light or for those who want extremely shallow DOF without using ridiculously high shutter speeds. Other than those, there really will be no advantage to keep using low ISOs in the future.
  • 10-27-2009, 09:29 PM
    Loupey
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    ...An equally or even more significantly pressing matter to modern imaging technology is dynamic range. How many photo's have you seen with hot white spots or pitch black? So why isn't the internet flooded with people curious about the dynamic range of a camera?

    Not to drive this conversation off-topic, but I think the range was sufficient several generations ago. Unprocessed RAW images look spectacularly awful because the dynamic range is already very wide. In every single image I process, I bring in one end or the other (typically both) in order to bring the contrast back to a more realistic level.

    Not picking on you. Nice conversation though.
  • 10-27-2009, 11:00 PM
    Majik_Imaje
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    I dunno ?? Maybe they don't understand it fully enough yet .

    some people like to explore and climb to new heights. - others are content to stay in their comfort zone !!
  • 10-28-2009, 12:32 AM
    Anbesol
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Well to be truthful I cant remember the last time I actually used ISO 100, the lowest I go in regular circumstances is 160, but my use does mainly lay between 160 and 640. I dont know why you call 100-400 dated, its still useful and I cant see a time that they wont be useful.

    As for the range - with my Sony A700 they have different dynamic range options, allowing a standard mode or 5 levels of dynamic range optimization, or turned off. I've been able to use it to get what would have otherwise required an HDR composite. You can't say that tonal range is done growing, when you see things like HDR compositing gaining in popularity. Not saying that base level native tonal range needs improvement, but the ability to enhance the sensors ability to capture wider range.
  • 10-28-2009, 05:44 AM
    OldClicker
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loupey
    Why? On my current camera, I can't see the difference between ISO 100 images and ISO 200 images in terms of noise. I bet in a few years I won't be able to see any difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600. If one can't see the difference, why not use the higher end when there is no penalty? The 100~400 ISO is rather dated.

    Low ISO will always be required for those needing long shutter speeds in bright light or for those who want extremely shallow DOF without using ridiculously high shutter speeds. Other than those, there really will be no advantage to keep using low ISOs in the future.

    But, as the thread topic suggests, you are saying that there is no difference based only on noise (like all the reviewers). I think things like subtle low ISO colors and detail are being sacrificed for high ISO noise. I'm not saying that higher ISO is not a good thing or that it will not get better as the technology progresses, only that it has become the single spec (as MPixels use to be) and therefore the marketers will specify designs that sacrifice other aspects to get the high ISO. - TF
  • 10-28-2009, 06:22 AM
    Loupey
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OldClicker
    But, as the thread topic suggests, you are saying that there is no difference based only on noise (like all the reviewers). I think things like subtle low ISO colors and detail are being sacrificed for high ISO noise.

    Yes, I'm saying there is no difference (at low ISO's) as a good thing. I've been perfectly happy with ISO 100 since my first dSLR. Performance at low ISO hasn't degraded over the last four years.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OldClicker
    I'm not saying that higher ISO is not a good thing or that it will not get better as the technology progresses, only that it has become the single spec (as MPixels use to be) and therefore the marketers will specify designs that sacrifice other aspects to get the high ISO. - TF

    Even if low ISO performance is sacrificed for the sake of gaining clean ultra high ISO performance, the demand will still be extremely high. People will just use older cameras for the low ISO stuff. ISO's beyond 3200 is a new frontier and many people will be more than happy to explore it. Manufacturers will be more than happy to provide it.
  • 10-28-2009, 07:42 AM
    Photo-John
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    with my Sony A700 they have different dynamic range options, allowing a standard mode or 5 levels of dynamic range optimization, or turned off.

    If I remember right, the Sony "DRO" feature applies to JPEG images only and doesn't actually change the dynamic range of the camera. It just processes the RAW image to optimize and bring out the shadow and highlight detail that isn't visible in an unprocessed image. This feature is available with all DSLRs now under different names.
  • 10-28-2009, 08:12 AM
    mjs1973
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    For me high ISO performance is one of the first things I look at when a new camera body comes out. There are many other features that I'm looking for but high ISO performance is one of the biggies for me.

    The reason for me is because that is the main thing that is lacking in my current body. I'm thrilled with just about every other aspect of my camera. I'm assuming that when a new camera body is introduced they are not taking away the performance of what I already have, but are building on what is already there and making improvements. Give me the exact same body I already have with clean images up to ISO 3200 and I would be all over it. Right now ISO 800 is really pushing the limits of noise for my tastes.

    For what I like to photograph (nature/wildlife) I'm generally shooting at the ends of the day when the light is low. Not a problem when shooting landscapes on a calm day when DOF is more important than freezing motion.

    When shooting wildlife that is moving you need that fast shutter speed to freeze that movement. With my current wildlife lens needing to be stopped down to f/9 to get sharp images I need a higher ISO to boost my shutter speeds to freeze movement. Like Loupey said, sometimes even f/4 isn't fast enough. If I can gain a couple extra stops by boosting the ISO and still getting clean images that would be great.

    So for me, and what I like to use my gear for, ISO performance is a very important feature assuming they aren't taking away from the other areas of performance I'm already getting out of my current gear. Of course I would look at any other improvements that were made before I buy a new body but ISO performance is one of the big things I will be looking for.
  • 10-28-2009, 08:29 AM
    OldClicker
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loupey
    Yes, I'm saying there is no difference (at low ISO's) as a good thing. I've been perfectly happy with ISO 100 since my first dSLR. Performance at low ISO hasn't degraded over the last four years.




    Even if low ISO performance is sacrificed for the sake of gaining clean ultra high ISO performance, the demand will still be extremely high. People will just use older cameras for the low ISO stuff. ISO's beyond 3200 is a new frontier and many people will be more than happy to explore it. Manufacturers will be more than happy to provide it.

    Oh, I agree they will provide it. And as long as ISO is the only parameter being looked at, that is all they will provide. - TF
  • 10-28-2009, 09:58 AM
    Loupey
    1 Attachment(s)
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Here's an example of what I had in my mind for several years but couldn't execute until high ISO performance caught up:

    A shot during a rain storm (it gets dark you know) and the ripples/drops move very fast when shooting close up. If I could have gotten a clean shot at ISO 3200/6400 I would have (I wanted more DOF on this shot).

    Anyway, I shot it at ISO 1600 and this image is cropped. No way possible to capture this in the field at ISO 100~400. EXIF attached.
  • 10-28-2009, 10:49 AM
    Anbesol
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    If I remember right, the Sony "DRO" feature applies to JPEG images only and doesn't actually change the dynamic range of the camera. It just processes the RAW image to optimize and bring out the shadow and highlight detail that isn't visible in an unprocessed image. This feature is available with all DSLRs now under different names.

    It does apply to Raws as well, it isn't just a jpeg engine. Youd be surprised how much range it does add.

    It bends tonal curves at the top and bottom, making them less graduated - it is useless unless you intend on using that ultra-high and low detail, so for the most part it remains off or very low for me. But when I so choose, I can make a pseudo-HDR using a single shot thanks to the huge range potential.
  • 10-28-2009, 01:16 PM
    drg
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    This is conversation is getting close to what I believe Anbesol mentioned in his start of this discussion.

    ISO alone is meaningless as it is an arbitrary legacy measurement that could be argued that we don't even need any longer.

    Where shutter speed and aperture (just to mention two) are settings/parameters for exposure that have a physical measurement that goes with them that is universal . . . ISO numbers are based on a 'standard' that never was very standard in its implementation. Ergo why we shot film pushed/pulled or always shot at something other than rated for some emulsions.

    None of this would be possible without dramatic improvements in dynamic range capability and not just end-to-end increase but the increase in uniformity of linear response of the sensors in all their critical measurements.

    Framing rate of a sensor also plays a critical role in the modern DSLR and that isn't how many frames per second you can shoot! It is how long it takes the sensor, not the camera, to be recycled/discharged/charged and internal sensor buffer cleared to be ready for the next shot. That's important in determining how long it takes for the heat to dissipate that creates added noise. Or you can just use a lot of in-camera processing to speed up an older fab of chip. This as much as any combo of factors gives us the current ability to amplify the signal, i.e. turn up the ISO equivalent rating.

    NOTE:
    Canon has announced that they have obviously pushed the framing rate a bit to far with the 7D as previous images can appear to overlap one another in continuous shooting mode!

    Do we need ISO much longer?? Or should we start pushing for a setting that is low to high(acceptable) noise? We have Auto-ISO in some implementations now. Marketers want us to compare how large our numbers (ISO) are as it keeps selling new stuff!

    Personally I like having the added option of lower noise at higher 'sensitivity' to simplify or ease further control what I do with light. It isn't though a magic bullet to great photos.
  • 10-28-2009, 08:08 PM
    AgingEyes
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    What happened to color renditioning, dynamic range, aliasing, color temperature management, etc? And these factors play a role across the entire ISO spectrum anyway.

    Yeah, what about Fujifilm S5? You use a S5? Anybody here paid attention to S5, or Fujifilm for that matter?

    I have a s5 and still use it occasionally.

    Quote:

    This rant was sort of sparked by my witnessing another debate at another forum, where cameras were being compared and the benchmark was pixel peeping 3200 ISO image grain at 100% crop. How absurd is it that we can become such compulsive nit-pickers, and completely forget the hundreds of other aspects and benchmarks that cameras can be measured by?

    Am I alone in this frustration?
    Yeah, you do sound very frustrated. Nothing wrong with those guys if good high ISO performance is what they after, right?
  • 10-28-2009, 08:11 PM
    AgingEyes
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drg
    Give everybody six months and there will be a new fixation.

    Well, if new technology comes, people talk about it. Just like they talk about new movies. What's wrong with that?
  • 10-28-2009, 08:16 PM
    Anbesol
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Absolutely I heard of the S5, I remember the S2 when it just came out, I really wish that octagonal pixel placement took on with other manufacturers and I dont know why it hasn't (perhaps a Fuji patent or something), I have used an S2 way back when, great camera.
    Quote:

    Yeah, you do sound very frustrated. Nothing wrong with those guys if good high ISO performance is what they after, right?
    I never said that looking for good high ISO performance was bad, it is an important aspect of imaging. I think its important as well, I just think that too many consumers squarely concentrate their focus on high iso image grain alone, and even to the point that the benchmark becomes pixel peeping 3200 ISO images alone. Cameras are complex dynamic machines and they aren't so simply as to base hte value on its image grain at iso 3200.

    Seems like a lot of words are being put into my mouth - I never said that high iso performance is insignificant, I am just downplaying what I see as waaaay too much hype.
  • 10-28-2009, 08:18 PM
    AgingEyes
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Majik_Imaje
    YOU CAN CREATE any image you want @ 100 ISO !! ALL YA need is a tripod - but most people are too lazy to use one or better yet the CORRECT TYPE.

    How would you shoot with ISO 100 on a tripod for something like this?

    http://forums.photographyreview.com/...3&d=1256618531


    Mind you, you don't have any say on the lighting.

    Or this:

    http://gallery.photographyreview.com...ing_bird_3.jpg
  • 10-28-2009, 08:24 PM
    Anbesol
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    This conversation has led somewhere it didn't need to go. Nobody is trying to say that high ISO is bad, I did not want to say that. Reiterate: if conditions permit ISO 100, 200, or 400, are you inclined to shoot at 1600? That said, is it a good idea when comparing cameras to make the central, sole, solitary performance spec looked at 100% pixel peeped ISO 3200 image grain? I just think that there is a disparity between the hype and the reality of the technology. High ISO performance absolutely is important, but the hype surrounding it is often very unbalanced and one-dimensional.

    The context of the original debate was some fan boy whining that Sony's new cameras (A330/A380) had terrible noise that was instantly visible even on the little LCD and was therefor clearly a horrible product. He compared it to a rebel which he quantified as 'better' because of its image grain. I provided a 100% crop sample from imaging resource with lab shots from both Sony and Canon bodies at ISO 800, 1600, and 3200 - put them together and the same dork who was so proud of his rebel couldn't tell which one was which. Heck, I doubt any body here would see the difference at 800 or 1600 either, I couldn't. Sadly this sort of hair splitting overhyping aspect in photo-consumer culture is all too common, I just think that the consumers need to be more conscientious of the dynamics of imaging technology, not so myopic.
  • 10-28-2009, 08:39 PM
    AgingEyes
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    I never said that high iso performance is insignificant, I am just downplaying what I see as waaaay too much hype.

    Certainly, I haven't seen the discussion you talked about re the high ISO. I'm just saying if that is what those guys were after, of course they would compare the ISO performance of one camera against the other. And you being an "outsider/onlooker" got frustrated by their discussions, it seems to me. I don't see why you should be so frustrated is what I'm saying.

    And I don't think it's just hype these days. Good high ISO performance is just another development these days in the advancement of camera technologies, should I say. And it's been pretty good so far. Later on, it'd be something else, and some new discussion.

    Personally, before I even bought my first dslr (that's my S5), the way I see it is buying a digital camera is basically buying a computer. It seems to be a never ending process as long as technologies keep on developing. Just like PC and Mac. I think one day, image quality would no longer be an issue for the photogs. What's left is the vision of one photog against the other.
  • 10-28-2009, 09:11 PM
    Anbesol
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    no, you are again putting words and context into something it isn't. Please stop making assumptions about my intentions.
  • 10-28-2009, 10:11 PM
    AgingEyes
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    no, you are again putting words and context into something it isn't. Please stop making assumptions about my intentions.

    IMO, your intentions were not that clear until your post on 3:24am, which I didn't have a chance to read until until my last post was posted.

    No, I had no plan to put words in your mouth. Perhaps some miscommunication and misunderstanding happened along the way. After reading your 3:24am post, I think it would have been better if you had written this in your first post:

    Quote:

    [snip]Heck, I doubt any body here would see the difference at 800 or 1600 either, I couldn't. Sadly this sort of hair splitting overhyping aspect in photo-consumer culture is all too common, I just think that the consumers need to be more conscientious of the dynamics of imaging technology, not so myopic.
    If you did, my guess is nobody would have come out and stated why good high ISO performance is a good thing to have, which you already knew and agreed.
  • 10-29-2009, 06:15 AM
    Loupey
    Re: Much ado about image grain.
    Aside from my standpoint regarding high ISO noise (which should be pretty evident by now), I think many people will fall into the hype (which is understandable hype by those who need and use it) who don't genuinely need it.

    It would be unwise for someone who is a casual shooter (whatever that may mean) or one who doesn't need to use high ISO's on a regular basis to think that buying the latest camera with the improved high ISO performance will automatically improve the image quality for what he/she is shooting (at lower ISO's). It will be an expensive lesson.

    So for those who don't use high ISO's in the first place, yes I agree there would be much ado about image grain.