SX1IS at ISO1600 - photos inside

(Also posted at DPReview, but I thought there might be some interest here)

I've been having a play with the SX1 at ISO1600. I think that the conclusion is pretty unsurprising.

It's a small sensor camera, it's not really designed for ISO1600 photos. If you want to shoot ISO1600 on any kind of frequent basis, you really should go and buy an SLR. However, the SX1 might just be adequate for occasional use.


The subject matter was a rehearsal for The Boy Friend (more information at http://www.sabos.co.uk - I am playing Bobby in it). The hall was lit only by overhead fluorescent lights. It was night and so the windows gave no illumination. The back wall of the hall is (almost) white, thus making it harder for the camera to meter accurately.


And in addition, I screwed up and forgot change the exposure compensation settings on the camera. All of these pictures were taken at -1/3 exposure compensation.


I have tried to pick a sensible size for posting each photo, but I have also included a link to the photo on Flickr, where you can see the full-sized picture.

Here's hoping this is useful to someone, I'd be interested in your feedback.

And of course, if anyone's near Stirling, Scotland and fancies coming along to see the show, please get in touch!

regards,
/alan

1. Picture #1, straight out of the camera

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/atp/3226598834/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/atp/3225749827/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/atp/3226605926/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/atp/3225747993/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/atp/3226608670/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/atp/3225756527/

hi

other than the WB shifts in the other photos, photo #1 seems ok to me outright.

For NR, i use

http://www.imagenomic.​com/nwsa.aspx

Well, I went to the flickr link and for the first time ever, I see no options to view at a different size, and they are all smaller than these. Which look fine to me.

Thanks for the comments. I'd agree that apart from the WB, the originals weren't bad - but I felt that some "fill flash" did no harm.

Lensmen, I don't know why you wouldn't have seen other sizes unless flickr didn't think you were logged in. The two original pictures are certainly there up to the original 3840 x 2160.

regards,
/alan

I think the originals look better. They're slightly green but the corrections look over-corrected.

As for ISO1600 itself - sure it ain't pretty but it's usable on the web and/or small prints. Who really prints huge these days anyway?

Each to their own! I can accept that they may be over-corrected, but the green cast makes me want to be sick... I find the same when I use monitors that are excessively green...

But as you say, it's usable. And no worse than many 35mm films I've scanned...

regards,
/alan

I was not signed in, but I have gone to flickr many times and never signed in and have been able to view any of the sizes. This time, the links above the image were not there and I'm not going to join Flickr just to see them.

canonloader wrote in post #7218834
.....I'm not going to join Flickr just to see them.

Same feeling & attitude here.

To each his own opinion. Cheers & have a great weekend of snapping...

Really can't comment without exif information

If you click through to the flickr link (and you are a flickr member) you can get the full EXIF.

regards,
/alan

You don't need to be signed into Flickr to see the EXIF. Just scroll down a bit and click on "More Properties". Bartholomew - clicking on the photos will bring you to the Flickr pages where they're hosted.