I can't believe I was afraid of ISO 1600

So far on my 350D I've taken around 11k shots since I got it in June. I mainly do portrait photography, sometimes I have some fun with the DOF, macro, etc.

I've never really done concert or sport photography which forces me to raise ISO. I've never shot above ISO 200 tbh, as I used flashed (and managed to balance ambiant light with the flash quite effectively).

Here are a few pics I took at my staff karaokee - all at ISO 1600, wide open. On some shots I can't believe its ISO 1600 (after noise reduction) looks like ISO 200.

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

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

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

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

Get the exposure right and ISO makes little difference...high ISO just is less forgiving...IMHO...

second superdiver. Here are some shots at both 1600 and 3200... >>> click <<<

yours are good. the odd colored lighting works.

illy wrote in post #2400825
Poor Nikon users will never get this

Why? I don't get it.

Nikons are known to have bad noise at ISO higher than 400.

Hermeto wrote in post #2401061
Nikons are known to have bad noise at ISO higher than 400.

Oh ok, that's not my experience with mine, but to each his own.

illy wrote in post #2400825
So far on my 350D I've taken around 11k shots since I got it in June. I mainly do portrait photography, sometimes I have some fun with the DOF, macro, etc.

I've never really done concert or sport photography which forces me to raise ISO. I've never shot above ISO 200 tbh, as I used flashed (and managed to balance ambiant light with the flash quite effectively).

Here are a few pics I took at my staff karaokee - all at ISO 1600, wide open. On some shots I can't believe its ISO 1600 (after noise reduction) looks like ISO 200.
The noise is quite harsh on the top two because of the exposure, but when the lighting was normal I got images like this at 1600:

If you were to just reduce the file size like you did, you probably wouldn't have had to do noise reduction to begin with. Looking at pictures at 100% on your screen would be the same as a 30 inch print. Onscreen viewing is 72dpi and printing is 300dpi. So reducing file size by say 25% will give the same impression as printing the picture.

Hermeto wrote in post #2401061
Nikons are known to have bad noise at ISO higher than 400.

Another swim dad I hang with has a Nikkon and we both use ISO 1600 when shooting sw3imming and his look just as fine as mine...

Hey, wait a minute, are you saying MY pictures suck??....LOL

I dont know if its true, but I havent seen it so far...maybe Nikkon shoots just suck more light...LOL

one of the major reasons i switched from P&S to SLR...

on my S3IS, 400 was barely tolerable...800 was pointless unless you were taking a certain type of shot that called for a grainy appearance

I can't wait till I have the 1D or 5D (which has bigger pixels)? I think the 5D has even lower noise.

I agree that exposure is vital with high ISO, but as backgrounds blur with such an open aperture, the blurriness is much more grainy, however, since that part isn't usually what you are exposing for, then it won't be scrutinized as much; or will it?

I was also very hesitant to shoot at iso1600 and 3200, but once i did, it opened up a whole new world of lowlight possibilities (a little bit of Noise Ninja never hurts either). My experience is with the 5D though, which i have heard does a better job with noise than other bodies (im not saying that it is true though).

illy wrote in post #2403773
I can't wait till I have the 1D or 5D (which has bigger pixels)? I think the 5D has even lower noise.

I've seen 5D shots at ISO 1600 that look just as good as ISO 100 on my 350D. Can't believe how beautifully that camera handles noise. WOuld love to get my hands on one.

Hellashot wrote in post #2401591
If you were to just reduce the file size like you did, you probably wouldn't have had to do noise reduction to begin with. Looking at pictures at 100% on your screen would be the same as a 30 inch print. Onscreen viewing is 72dpi and printing is 300dpi. So reducing file size by say 25% will give the same impression as printing the picture.

I performed the noise reduction when the image was allready at 600 by 900 pixels - so there was a bit of noise present.

^_^ yea i took similar pictures with my 400d on 1600 i was like "ooo thats neat"