No one really knows when. But just wait.Does anyone know anything about the next X100 (or X200)? I guess it's not coming soon, but I'm considering the WCL and TCL adaptors and if they change the sense in the next camera then they will be obsolete.
Is it just me or do not all lenses handle iso noise the same way? I think my Sigma lens handles higher iso better than my Nikon 50, but it might just be my mind toying with me.I'm wondering if he was using the same lens across both. The a7s's ISO performance certainly is stellar, but I wanna see the receipts on aperture and ss.
Because, as I've found out, noise is not entirely dependant on ISO, but also just how much light you're getting. A brighter scene with the same ISO will have less noise than a darker one.
If it's allowing it to pull in more light then certainly.Is it just me or do not all lenses handle iso noise the same way? I think my Sigma lens handles higher iso better than my Nikon 50, but it might just be my mind toying with me.
I guess. I've never really used my 50 at 3.2 at 640 iso but the Sigma 2.8 17-50 seems to be handling it pretty well actually. Only thing I can see being the difference is the optical stabilization on the Sigma, but I've gotten some really good shots with that thing last night at 3.2 Iso 1250 and 1600 that I wouldn't have tried with the 50mm as well.If it's allowing it to pull in more light then certainly.
What I've learned, studying more about astrophotography, is that if a higher ISO allows more light to get in, then it will actually end up being *less* noisy in a lot of cases. If an ISO800 scene is dark, and you adjusted nothing except for the ISO to say, 3200, you'd actually have less noise in the 3200 ISO image, in a lot of cases. There would be noise introduced by being at 3200, *but* that extra sensitivity apparently cuts out other forms of noise. It's crazy.
EDIT: You may also just be using the two lenses a bit differently without realizing it. If you took a few shots using the Nikon lens and said "wow that's noisy I shouldn't do that ever", but then ended up taking a shot with the sigma at high iso in a better lit environment, then you'd see a difference.
I'm wondering if he was using the same lens across both. The a7s's ISO performance certainly is stellar, but I wanna see the receipts on aperture and ss.
Because, as I've found out, noise is not entirely dependant on ISO, but also just how much light you're getting. A brighter scene with the same ISO will have less noise than a darker one.
If it's allowing it to pull in more light then certainly.
What I've learned, studying more about astrophotography, is that if a higher ISO allows more light to get in, then it will actually end up being *less* noisy in a lot of cases. If an ISO800 scene is dark, and you adjusted nothing except for the ISO to say, 3200, you'd actually have less noise in the 3200 ISO image, in a lot of cases. There would be noise introduced by being at 3200, *but* that extra sensitivity apparently cuts out other forms of noise. It's crazy.
I'm still looking into all the factors, this was actually something I found out the other day, but I took a test shot with the same overall exposure at two different ISOs. I took one at 800ISO, 1/30, and one at 3200, 1/125 (the closest I could get to a perfect match), and the noise levels were VERY similar. I turned off all noise correction in Lighteoom. At normal viewing levels I really couldn't tell the difference.Is that also taken iso-invariance into account for the said sensor/body? Assuming you are going to be boosting iso800 image to match iso 3200 image for comparison.
Does anyone know anything about the next X100 (or X200)? I guess it's not coming soon, but I'm considering the WCL and TCL adaptors and if they change the lens in the next camera then they will be obsolete.
New X100 comes out every 1.5 year. Obviously, the next one will have the 24mp sensor.
And a new lens, hopefully.
look up "shooting to the right" or "filling up the right side of the histogram"I'm still looking into all the factors, this was actually something I found out the other day, but I took a test shot with the same overall exposure at two different ISOs. I took one at 800ISO, 1/30, and one at 3200, 1/125 (the closest I could get to a perfect match), and the noise levels were VERY similar. I turned off all noise correction in Lighteoom. At normal viewing levels I really couldn't tell the difference.
There WAS more noise on the 3200, but not nearly what I was expecting. It seems to lead into the idea that underexposing an image at a lower ISO won't give you a less noisy image.
Granted, a proper exposure at a lower ISO is preferable, but if it's between an underexposure at a lower iso vs a good exposure at a higher iso, it seems the higher ISO actually wins.
It's weird and I'm still trying to perfectly understand it, so I may not be spot on, but that seems to be the gist of it.
look up "shooting to the right" or "filling up the right side of the histogram"
It's weird and I'm still trying to perfectly understand it, so I may not be spot on, but that seems to be the gist of it.
I ended up using ISO 100 and ISO 800 for virtually all my exposures on the Alaska trip. Since the a7RII is ISOless from ISO 100 through ISO 500, there is no reason to use ISO settings 125 through 500; youll get pretty much the same shadow noise shooting at ISO 100 and pushing in post, and, if you do that, youll have a lower probability of clipping highlights. At ISO 640, the a7RII changes its conversion gain, and exhibits lower noise, so there are advantages in using that ISO setting over ISO 100 and a 2 2/3 stop push in post. After that, the a7RII returns to ISOless behavior, so there is negligible shadow improvement to be had from cranking up the ISO setting, and the same highlight advantages pertain. After a certain point, as the light drops, the finder image will become unusable and you night well exceed Lightrooms pushing capability, but I never encountered light the dim on the trip, since I slept through the Aurora Borealis display the only night we had one.
When you underexpose you give up dynamic range. When you don't capture enough light your "image" is hidden in the noise floor so attempts to raise the exposure in PP just amplify the noise along with the image.
Should also note that video is a whole different beast than photos.
The D810 is taking its 36mp sensor down to about 2mp for 1080p. In theory this should lead to less noise, but something in the scaling algorithm is wacky. The Sony is scaling 12mp to about 4mp, and is doing an amazing job.
If I did still photos I would expect the D810 to be much closer to the A7s ii but I think the sony would still win.
The A7s and A7s II sample the full sensor for video, so they're getting the full light-gathering effect of having a full-frame sensor. All other full-frame cameras skip lines while recording video, and fewer lines sampled means more noise. The proportion of lines actually sampled vary from one camera to the next, but the worst-case scenario would be to only sample 1080 lines, meaning on a 36mp camera like the D810 you may effectively only be taking in less than a quarter of the light hitting the sensor, and noise would be expected to increase by two stops because of that.
I whipped out my camera, and did a few tests, and it seems that the a6000 also is relatively ISO less. I did notice some differences between ISO100-ISO800, but ISO800-6400 looked identical across the files in noise.It highly depends on the sensor's characteristics and how the manufacture messes with the resulting signal (even if shot in raw). To some degree, it also depends on the ISO value the camera tells you. (i.e. is it really 100 when it says it's 100?)
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7450523388/sony-alpha-7r-ii-real-world-iso-invariance-study
Can't say I understand how it works down to the metal level but it's kind of useful information to know for the camera you use. This guy did a lot of signal analysis (and I mean hard-core stuff if you go to his blog) on A7RII, so here's an example of it.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56561672
Is there anything people do here to test out a lens. Ever since getting this sigma I've been taking it to the night time ice skating rink. It's like the perfect test cause it poses a challenge to everything. It tests out the low light capability, iso handling and auto focus speed.
Currently using an EM-1 with only the 12-40mm PRO lens at the moment. Is it worth buying a dedicated macro lens? I'm not the type of user that likes having too many lenses and the macro abilities of the 12-40mm lens seems pretty good already.
Well those make sense. I'm not a photo mathematician so I just use it in a way that I enjoy and just examine shit afterwards.
Ok. Sounds like everybody has their own different methods. Works for me.That's the main point, yeah.
Currently using an EM-1 with only the 12-40mm PRO lens at the moment. Is it worth buying a dedicated macro lens? I'm not the type of user that likes having too many lenses and the macro abilities of the 12-40mm lens seems pretty good already.
I tend to think ergonomics are more important to the shooting experience than the level of noise beyond ISO 800. For example, the X series cameras (except the XT1) are not comfortable to carry with the hand due to the lack of a protruding grip.
Any opinions on the Sony HX60? For random internet posting photos, travel, youtube clips. They are pretty cheap on eBay in good condition.
I tend to think ergonomics are more important to the shooting experience than the level of noise beyond ISO 800. For example, the X series cameras (except the XT1) are not comfortable to carry with the hand due to the lack of a protruding grip. The x100 is the biggest offender of this.
Whilst good image quality is assured in all cameras, handling is not.
My issue is that fuji doesn't really have a fast pancake lens for the XT1 to compete in size with the x100. 2.8 is too slow, yes. (My main lens is a 35/1.4 on my 5D2.) So the X100 still has my eye for something that's both compact and fast.I tend to think ergonomics are more important to the shooting experience than the level of noise beyond ISO 800. For example, the X series cameras (except the XT1) are not comfortable to carry with the hand due to the lack of a protruding grip. The x100 is the biggest offender of this.
Whilst good image quality is assured in all cameras, handling is not.
Just went through this on my phone, and even without looking at the crops I'm incredibly impressed.Damn, the IQ of the 300mm seems to be superb.
The owl picture is handheld at 1/10sec!
http://robinwong.blogspot.my/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html
Damn, the IQ of the 300mm seems to be superb.
The owl picture is handheld at 1/10sec!
http://robinwong.blogspot.my/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html
Damn, the IQ of the 300mm seems to be superb.
The owl picture is handheld at 1/10sec!
http://robinwong.blogspot.my/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html
Damn, the IQ of the 300mm seems to be superb.
The owl picture is handheld at 1/10sec!
http://robinwong.blogspot.my/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html
Damn, the IQ of the 300mm seems to be superb.
The owl picture is handheld at 1/10sec!
http://robinwong.blogspot.my/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html
I'm right there with you when it comes to GAS, I'm going to need to start buying lights soon. I wonder what's a good affordable starter kit. Don't even get me started on Full Frame, damn I want one so bad just cause of improved iso handling.I hate myself.
I saw a Nikon 28mm f/3.5 on eBay for $40... that's probably the fastest I've been in trying to hit that "Buy It Now" button lol.
Now I've got primes in 28, 50, 85... I just really need a full frame body then I think I'll really be done with GAS(gear acquisition syndrome) lol.
Damn, the IQ of the 300mm seems to be superb.
The owl picture is handheld at 1/10sec!
http://robinwong.blogspot.my/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html
Damn, the IQ of the 300mm seems to be superb.
The owl picture is handheld at 1/10sec!
http://robinwong.blogspot.my/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html
You guys are probably more hardcore than I am about cameras but I need assistance.
I would like a camera recommendation.
Not looking to go broke on a camera.
I'd like the best image quality one can get for:
-Around 300 USD (willing to do 400 but no more).
-Smaller in size; I want something that I can carry everywhere all the time.
You guys are probably more hardcore than I am about cameras but I need assistance.
I would like a camera recommendation.
Not looking to go broke on a camera.
I'd like the best image quality one can get for:
-Around 300 USD (willing to do 400 but no more).
-Smaller in size; I want something that I can carry everywhere all the time.