Point of ISO?

what's the whole point of having the ability of changing ISO on the G6 since it has such a small frame censor? Because when i crank it up when i'm shooting night shots w/out a flash, i get more noise than anything that my Neat Image nise reduction can't even get rid of.

Indeed, noise on the G5 (and G6) is silly.

However, if I can knock up my shutter speed by one or two steps to something acceptable, I can live with ISO100 and ISO200. I'd have to be pretty deperate to use ISO400.

But anyway, if you don't want to use it - there's no need to. It's handy for that one chance when you'll need it.

time to step up to a dslr, they handle noise much better. i can use 1600 on my rebel xt and the quality is great. I had a canon S40 prior to this camera and know exactly how you feel, thats why i bit the bullet and stepped up. Let me tell you, if you are serious about nice shots spend the cash, its WAAAY worth it.

yeah, 100 and 200 aren't that bad, and it's nice to have 400 in case you see a UFO or something.

also, if you look at the review sites, Canon's ISO ratings aren't accurate: (from dp review)

--------
One thing not to fall foul of when performing this kind of test is the difference between the indicated sensitivity and the actual sensitivity. The actual sensitivity is easily calculated by comparing the exposure used by the camera to that measured by a high quality light meter (ensuring the middle gray patch is equal for all samples and cameras). By doing this we managed to produce the following difference table:

Canon PowerShot G6
Indicated sensitivity
50, 100, 200, 400
Actual sensitivity
100, 160, 320, 640

-----

The review goes on to say that if you look at the actual ISO, the G6 is less noisy than competitors. (that is, if you're shooting at 200, you have nearly the sensitivity of a competitor's 400, with less noise)

I rarely stray from 50, but it's nice to have options. If you think options are a waste of time, you could have bought a much less expensive camera with fewer buttons.

Bb.

420ex

Yea, it just that when i try to use it for specific situations, the pictures never come out that great, no matter how much research i do for it. But, i'll just have to do some more learning i guess, lol.

Well, as far as grain and color and contrast go, they're never going to be great compared to shots in the lower ISOs, it's just the nature of photography, the more sensitive the film/sensor, the more grain/noise. It's always improving (ISO400 film has become much less grainy even in the last few years, and digital sensors are always improving), but as far as the G6/Pro1 go, nothing you can do in-camera will make ISO400 photos less noisy. It's never the best option for quality, but sometimes you don't have enough light and can't use the flash, so it's good it's there. If you find yourself in that situation very often and find the results unsatisfactory, there's not TOO much you can do technique-wise, other than upgrade to a digital SLR with a bigger, better sensor that can shoot higher ISOs with limited noise.

I find comments such as this really funny. It's as if to say that G-series cameras aren't capable of taking nice shots. Owning a dSLR sure is nice, but one doesn't need to own one to be 'serious about nice shots'. I've seen enough G-series pictures that are stunning.

BottomBracket, isn't if funny how dSLR owners lurk in our Canon Powershot G forum just waiting for any opportunity to tell us our cameras are no good?

I agree that most of the time the "get a flash" and "get an SLR" answers are a bit annoying, (If you think the G6 is useless, why are you on this forum?) but in this case, if mknabster finds himself needing crisp low-light action shots at a high ISO, then maybe that's the only way to go. The G6 is definitely not the best camera for low-light action shots.

On the other hand, the G6/Pro1 have a lot of options to work with, so I think a bit of manual reading, learning the basics, and practice would do mknabster (and all of us) some good, rather than hoping a more expensive camera will help.

Man...Yes... My wife and I love our G-1's... Like anything, there is always better-faster-smoother, etc... But learn how to live the the relative few limitations of the G series cameras.. and you will probably come to love the things. We do.. to the point that we hope we never have to 'upgrade' to your G-6 !

The "get a flash" statement is true for the G6. I use a Sigma flash and the more light you use the less noise you will see from my experience, to a point of course. Inside pictures using bounce flash are head and shoulders above the built in flash. I attach my lumiquest 80-20 on the flash and it's even better. I'll put a properly exposed G6 picture shot at ISO 50 with an external flash against an SLR picture any day. You couldn't tell the difference. Especially if they are shooting with the kit lense included. On the other had an SLR will get pics the G6 can't due to limitations it has, low light focus and ISO speed are the only real two that hold it back. I'm learning on this until I move up to SLR. Either a Canon D20 or the new Nikon D200 which really looks nice to me. I'll still keep the G6 when I do this cause I like shooting with the LCD screen way more then plastering my eye to the back of the camera. This thing will take amazing pictures, won't it?

Not if you don't like the look of a flash! : )

Even the best flash, or array of flashes and lights, can't reproduce natural light and might create an unnatural effect. It's a valid option, but it's not always the answer.

In this case (and many cases), with a little practice and adjustment, the internal flash probably would have been sufficient (the original goal that sparked this thread was to snap trick-or-treaters), and an external flash would have worked great, but if mknabster was dead-set against using a flash, as he stated in his original post, then ISO 400 was his only option.

Photography is a lot of give and take. Sure, better/more equipment expands your options, but I like to work with what I have and make the most of it. Mknabster does too, though maybe his expectations are somewhat unrealistic and he's less willing to compromise.

I didn't buy a flash when I bought my camera, or I'd probably be on here posting that the G6 flash is crap, but i didn't, and I'm glad, because with a bit of playing around with it and overriding automatic settings, I've found it to be pretty useful for most things. I want to get one, it's obviously better than the in-camera flash, but I'm certainly not finding my camera useless without it.

Bryan

I'm a G6 owner and I agree with this statement fully! you can say that a flash isn't natural light, but is noise natural?Is a dark-sepia wash natural(since G6 goes monotone indoors)? I say no way, the flash is closer to real light then letting the CMOS take a crack at it. The G6 indoors is a day late to the race, adding a speedlite 420EX and now all of sudden your realize that there are colors indoors, it's not all a reddish brown mush with green glitter everywhere (my description of how bad the G6 distorts color indoors and the high noise factor)

Hello? It's dangerous to generalise......