stupid question

[jrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was fiddling with the Nocti and got to wondering...

 

Do you get better performance at high ISOs if there's plenty of light around, than in a situation where there's very low light> I mean, if both are exposed correctly? Say ISO 3200 stopped down 6 stops (from f1 to f5.6) as opposed to a correctly exposed f1 at 3200? I'm not talking about depth of field, which of course would be deeper at 5.6, but in terms of other measures of picture quality like noise, color accuracy, etc?

 

JC

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sean_reid]

I was fiddling with the Nocti and got to wondering...

 

Do you get better performance at high ISOs if there's plenty of light around, than in a situation where there's very low light> I mean, if both are exposed correctly? Say ISO 3200 stopped down 6 stops (from f1 to f5.6) as opposed to a correctly exposed f1 at 3200? I'm not talking about depth of field, which of course would be deeper at 5.6, but in terms of other measures of picture quality like noise, color accuracy, etc?

 

JC

 

It depends on a lot of variables, including the type of light source, the predominant tones in the exposure, the prevalence or lack of shadow areas, etc. Files made under tungsten, for example, will normally have more noise then those made under daylight.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[carstenw]

I have found that in many reviews which test high ISO, they simply dial up the aperture to force the need for high ISO, and that this often gives much better results, noise-wise, than actually shooting in a dim situation. I can only recommend to shoot in dim situations if that is what you need to evaluate.

[Jamie Roberts]

I was fiddling with the Nocti and got to wondering...

 

Do you get better performance at high ISOs if there's plenty of light around, than in a situation where there's very low light> I mean, if both are exposed correctly? Say ISO 3200 stopped down 6 stops (from f1 to f5.6) as opposed to a correctly exposed f1 at 3200? I'm not talking about depth of field, which of course would be deeper at 5.6, but in terms of other measures of picture quality like noise, color accuracy, etc?

 

JC

 

Not stupid at all.

 

Sean's caveats notwithstanding, in general at high ISOs, with more amplication of the sensor, proper exposure, pushing as far "to the right" as possible without blowing significant highlights, will result in less chroma and luminance noise.

 

This is why some people's 2500 shots look just fine and others don't. Sometimes, if you can't get a good exposure at ISO 1250 or 2500, it's better to underexpose at ISO 640 and push in post (shooting RAW, of course), because 640 has very low noise and the M8 is spectacularly good in the shadows at low ISOs anyway.