Post your ISO 3200 shots...

Great stuff guys...I guess what they say about ISo 3200 and proper exposure is right...

Keep them coming! I would really like to see the ISO 3200 on the 1DMkII and sports if any one has more of those...cuz thats where I am kinda headed...

superdiver wrote in post #2386652
Great stuff guys...I guess what they say about ISo 3200 and proper exposure is right...

Keep them coming! I would really like to see the ISO 3200 on the 1DMkII and sports if any one has more of those...cuz thats where I am kinda headed...

thats what mine were, minus the sports aspect

Wow, I'm impressed. I was expecting anything at ISO 3200 to be of poor quality but that is not the case.

TMR Design wrote in post #2386693
Wow, I'm impressed. I was expecting anything at ISO 3200 to be of poor quality but that is not the case.

I shoot at 1600 and 3200 more than I shoot at low ISOs. It's much trickier but the results (ambient light shots, fast action, etc) are well worth the trade off. In fact, 1600 really can look just fine with careful exposure.

wow, I didn't know anything could look that good at 3200 interesting...

I've read a couple times that it's all in how the image is exposed when shooting ISO this high...care to elaborate a little? thanks

edit...ahh i notice these high iso threads are lacking rebel participation it seems i assume the rebel users probably wouldn't be able to expect to see this kind of quality at this high of an ISO setting?

And just to remind everyone (maybe a first for some)

superdiver wrote in post #2384863
I dont doubt that from what I have heard, but like they say, picture is worth a thousand words...LOL

Would you mind posting a couple?

They will look like a typical picture you would see anywhere.

For those who might not like to click:

Not a controlled test, but a real world / perfect storm of crappy shooting conditions. Night shot, available light, hand held.

This was taken from the Ferris Wheel at the Orange County Fair.

1/30th second, f10, 3200 asa.

And in the Real World, I use Noiseware. So also is an example of the shot cleaned up by Noiseware at the default setting.

Keep this in mind. You should really look at what the shot looks like WHEN PRINTED!

These 100% crops can be interesting, but they often have no bearing on the final product. I have no qualms of using my 5d at 3200.

Rad

Full View (800 x 400 crop in Red Box)

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have never been afraid to shoot ISO 3200 on my MkII. As it has already been stated exposure is everything. These were very minimally processed.

Michael

This thread should be interesting from post #14 on...

@Mspringfield: these image all look about 1/2 a stop underexposed IMO. Matter of taste maybe..

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2386933
And just to remind everyone (maybe a first for some)

This is what high ISO used to look like. (Ilford Delta 3200 +1 stop (6400). )

Excellent!!

I was just marvelling at the paranoia expressed by some who worry about noise in pictures taken at high ISO. It reminded me of the film days when it was popular to use fairly high ASA (400+) film, over expose and then process it in warm - or even very warm! - developer in order to accentuate the grain! Some superb results could be obtained - most likely, in my opinion, more interesting than some of the over sharpened, over saturated "chocolate box" efforts that seem to be the vogue nowadays!

It's a funny old world!!

Radtech1 wrote in post #2387315
For those who might not like to click:

Not a controlled test, but a real world / perfect storm of crappy shooting conditions. Night shot, available light, hand held.

This was taken from the Ferris Wheel at the Orange County Fair.

1/30th second, f10, 3200 asa.

And in the Real World, I use Noiseware. So also is an example of the shot cleaned up by Noiseware at the default setting.

Keep this in mind. You should really look at what the shot looks like WHEN PRINTED!

These 100% crops can be interesting, but they often have no bearing on the final product. I have no qualms of using my 5d at 3200.

Rad

Just curious why you used f/10 in this situation? You were far enough away that even wide open, the entire scene should have been in focus, so I'm thinking f/5 and shoot at ISO 800. I can't really think of a good reason to use f/10 at all for this. If you were using a cheap lens, maybe f/8, but I'd rather have ISO 1600 or at least a faster shutter speed for low light shooting rather than a smidge of extra corner sharpness.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2386762
I shoot at 1600 and 3200 more than I shoot at low ISOs. It's much trickier but the results (ambient light shots, fast action, etc) are well worth the trade off. In fact, 1600 really can look just fine with careful exposure.

Wow again. Can you explain what you mean by 'much trickier'?

ISO 3200 and sports shots...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Jman13 wrote in post #2388462
I can't really think of a good reason to use f/10 at all for this. If you were using a cheap lens, maybe f/8, but I'd rather have ISO 1600 or at least a faster shutter speed for low light shooting rather than a smidge of extra corner sharpness.

That is pretty much it. It's a Tammy 19-35, and my experience with the lens is that f/10 is where is the sharpest - corner to corner. Since I knew I wanted to print big, that is where I shot at. And I think my 100% demonstrates a very sharp crop.

Rad