g2, above 100 iso useless?

[xdjoynerx]

how are you suppsoed to take night time pics without using a flash or tripod with this damn thing. 200 and 400 have noise out the ass.

[Andy_T]

Quite simple ... you aren't supposed to :roll:

When I do night shots and don't have a tripod, I select ISO 50 (I rarely ever select anything else) and try to brace the camera somehow ... put it on the floor, on a ledge, a parked car, or press it firmly against a tree, wall or lamppost and do the exposure with f/5.6 and 8 - 15 seconds exposure time. Of course, they don't always come out sharp, so you might have to take a photo more than once.

Best regards,
Andy

[xdjoynerx]

you arent supposed to?

your just refering to the g2 i hope..............

i seen people take regular night time snap shots with no flash at 600 iso with the 300d and they turn out beautiful. no noise at all..... if the high iso setting on the g2 are so useless, why are they even there.

[Andy_T]

Why is ISO 400 there? ... it's there for masochists, blind people and all others who don't mind ISO noise. :cry:

All others have to upgrade to the 10D/300D with a larger sensor or use a tripod. Period.

The sensor of the 10D has a 1.6x crop factor.
The sensor of the G1 ... Pro1 has a 5x crop factor.

This means that the sensor of the G series is a lot smaller and can not record as much light.

Best regards,
Andy

[joeyjoeyjoey]

you arent supposed to?

your just refering to the g2 i hope..............

i seen people take regular night time snap shots with no flash at 600 iso with the 300d and they turn out beautiful. no noise at all..... if the high iso setting on the g2 are so useless, why are they even there.

If you want to shoot high iso with little to no noise there is no other way around it but buy getting a 10D. :)

But if you want to get the shot and dont care about noise then shoot at 200 or 400. I do that all the time. Doesnt matter if there is noise so long as I get the shot. :)

[Haifidelity]

you arent supposed to?

your just refering to the g2 i hope..............

i seen people take regular night time snap shots with no flash at 600 iso with the 300d and they turn out beautiful. no noise at all..... if the high iso setting on the g2 are so useless, why are they even there.

300D has ISO 600???

[Duke107]

Are you saying that you purchased a 600 to 900 camera and did not even take the time to do some research as to its capabilities?

Hmmmmm. You can only blame yourself.

[xdjoynerx]

its not like that though... if i cant shoot it then oh well.... i was just wondering.

and to the comment about the 300d shooting in 600 iso. yes, it can shoot in 600 iso and up to 800 iso. 600 iso there is virtually no noise, and the noise at 800 is minimal (like comparable to g2's 200, maybe even less)

it seems to me, that the g2's 400 iso (even 200 to an extent) are just a marketing ploy. just like digital zoom :?

[Duke107]

G2 I thought you had a G5, ohh well you still prob spent 300 - 400 without a little homework, Not trying to be too critical but the way you worded your topic left me to think you read all the good and the eyes did not see some of the neg. Anyways that G2 is a spectacular cam, enjoy it for what it is.

[joeyjoeyjoey]

I find iso 200 and even 400 usefull. I would rather have noise which I can later filter out than built in flash any day.

xdjoynerx, accept the camera for what it is and its limitation and enjoy. sometimes a little added noise helps create a mood for the photograph.

Even though I know the G2 can produce outstanding sharp and colourful photos sometimes a little film look is good.

Have fun with your G2, I get a blast out of using mines everyday :)

[xdjoynerx]

[Andy_T]

initaially though, the reason i made that comment is ive never had past experience with a camera like this, i saw noise comparisions at many review sites and though the g2 did well compared to cameras in its class. it just wasnt what ive expected.

The G2 *does* perform well as noise is regarded. Those comparisons are justified.

Point is, the other digicams have even more noise.

I bought a Kodak DX6440 camera for my wife that was a bargain ($200 new, 4MP, 4x zoom) ... it's a nice cam, but the ISO noise is horrible compared with the G2. In addition, it has the nasty feature of using 'auto ISO' and selecting the highest ISO before slowing down shutter speed in all but one mode.

So what it all amounts to ... you have a terrific camera, it's just that you have to know how to get the most out of it.

- it provides *great* pictures at ISO 50. Whenever possible, use that
- Use RAW and try to get the best out of your pictures in post processing
- When you want to do available light shots, use some kind of support and long exposure times
- try to 'expose to the right' (do a forum search on that in the DSLR forum)

Best regards,
Andy

[Haifidelity]

and to the comment about the 300d shooting in 600 iso. yes, it can shoot in 600 iso and up to 800 iso. 600 iso there is virtually no noise, and the noise at 800 is minimal (like comparable to g2's 200, maybe even less)

I'm sorry, but I didn't think the 300D had ISO 600? Am I incorrect??

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page2.asp

[4walls]

Shot some ISO200 pics with my G3 today. I thought they came out OK.
I shot them hand-held.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39402

[Duke107]

I think the camera is more than it was ever expected to be but that is my opinion. I think if you do your homework you will discover most non dslr cams are weak in 200 and above iso, but that has just been my findings maybe you found other conclusions.

[xdjoynerx]

and to the comment about the 300d shooting in 600 iso. yes, it can shoot in 600 iso and up to 800 iso. 600 iso there is virtually no noise, and the noise at 800 is minimal (like comparable to g2's 200, maybe even less)

I'm sorry, but I didn't think the 300D had ISO 600? Am I incorrect??

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page2.asp

thats very weird, cause i was viewing some gallerys and reviews and there were samples that said 600 iso..... i didnt know it could go up to 1600 either

???

[Andy_T]

I'm sorry, but I didn't think the 300D had ISO 600? Am I incorrect??

I don't have one, but according to the Canon website it has 100,200,400,800 and 1600 ISO.

I think the point was not really whether the 300D has a 600 ISO setting(which it doesn't, but don't we all make mistakes now and then?) but that it has settings well above 400 ISO.

Actually, you'll also have to take into consideration that the 400 ISO on the G series are more similar to 800 ISO in film. Still, the 10D and 300D will have considerably less noise at 1600 ISO than the G series at 200 or 400 ISO.

Best regards,
Andy

[Leighow]

G2

I love the camera -- but I suspect that the color renditions of the G3 and G5 are a bit better. As for ISO

1: I have shot hocky shots indoors at ISO 200 with great results

2: While 400 is grainy, I have shot a group of 30 people standing in an atrium. It was before a dinner. I was 2 stories up and reaching over a balcony with flash. Other photographers -- every one with less flexible P & S camneras were dropping like flies.! The G2 was the "king". I pulled off super shots (all things considered) although optimal PS processing resulted in a bit much color sat and contrast. The same goes for sunsets and Xmas tree lights. .

My camera cost $1300 CAN two years ago. I'd love a G6.. but I have to live with this baby. The only shots that I regret missing were of the four Otters on the log, etc. The camera was at home.

Get out there and shoot -- show/teach us your stuff!

See Yah

[DocFrankenstein]

I have the rebel. The original firmware doesn't have the 600 ISO. Increments of 2 from 100 to 1600. If you hack it, it's till 3200.

No way to fight this. Because of the zise of the chip it will always give a lot of noise compared to the "big chip" cameras. My rebel gives less noise at ISO 800 than my S1 at ISO 50 :roll:

Don't want the noise? Shell out a grand for the body and a grand for the lenses. You decide if it's worth it.

[Andy_T]

Don't want the noise? Shell out a grand for the body and a grand for the lenses.

I think that if you search real hard, you'll be able to pick up a DRebel + 1.8/50 for even less than that :wink:

... and if you want a zoom, you can go for the Tamron 2.8/28-75

Best regards,
Andy

[Imperitus]

Useless? oh come on. Sure they will have some grain, but as long as you shoot them in RAW, and work with them a little, photos taken at 400 iso can still be usable...

http://www.gopunk.com/pics/Keys.jpg

Sure it's not as clean as a pro photo from a dSLR, but in my mind definitly not useless.

[Imperitus]

Am I crazy? I could have sworn I saw a reply to this thread after mine last night, but was too tired to reply, then this morning when I returned to reply I don't see that post...

I guess I'm spending too many hours at night playing with my camera and photoshop and not enough sleeping. Oh well.

[Mortsid]

At iso 400 there is a lot of noise, but I have been successful at getting excellent shots by post processing with Neatimage. The current version of Neatimage (v 4.0) removes close to all the noise without loss of sharpness.