But my older small point and shoot gets unbearable noisy above ISO. So noise is not always a factor of the sensor size. It has to do with the sensor quality too! A lot of you are shooting video now, and the same rules apply for video ISO settings.
In my experience, camcorders are especially noisy in low light. Make sure to test your own cameras! I test out every new camera I buy, and sometimes I test them out before I buy them. What is the Best ISO to use? From what I can tell, your prescription recommends ISO setting and that seems to be where I get my best images. Thx for sharing your experience! Always good for others to read, as the best ISO will differ quite a bit per camera model.
Just important to understand the mechanism and check for your own model! Can you put me out of my misery and give me your best guess please?? The saturation numbers are especially important in determining the quality of the sensor.
I would say you can ignore it to determine the best ISO, since you will pick the highest saturation number automatically if you look at the curve of the read noise and pick the value when it starts leveling out. Thanks for this, and very helpful. It is simple enough to do and you can discover what works best for your own needs in your own circumstances. Good luck! Hi, thx for your article. I find it hard to see the point where the read noise is levling out when i look at the chart for my D.
What would you suggest? Until now I always used ISO and was happy with the results, but never really tried something else. With the 6D the read noise becomes linear or flat after around ISO and you should really not shoot above that, the Canon DR drops from So if I look at the data for the Nikon D it seems like the best combinations of read noise and dynamic range seem to be for ISO and ?
Be sure to read the questions and answers at the end of the article. I have a Eos D. I had been using it at ISO but going to ISO there seems to very little difference in the dynamic range and saturation seems to max out there per the chart.
Thoughts on that? Of course you can check it out yourself for your camera in specific, but there are a lot of forum posts and user tests showing this. How actually does it work? Will it change the linearity of RAW data?
Thanks for a very interesting blog. I now know more about the best ISO settings for my camera. But how can I find the camera that perform the best in astro photography? You can do so much In post, but is Nikon superior to Canon? Or should I choose Sony for my next camera?
What to look for? If not high iso performance? My camera now is 5D mk ll but Your article made me a little bit confused? Camera choice can be complicated if you consider all variables that you should take into account.
In general, Nikon is better for astrophotography because of the sensor performance. However, since you have Canon right now I can imagine you already own some Canon lenses. Next is noise performance, but also take the resolution into account. Get a modded version or have your model modified lots of people offering this as a service.
Canon equivalent would be the 6D a. Thanks for the great article. I am still confused on which ISO to use on D, can you help me out? Looking at the read noise graph on sensorgen.
Very good article, thank you!! It seems to me that short exposure times may have these problems 1. Huge number of frames to achieve the same total integration time: I will need to shoot hundreds of frames! Maybe going beyond a certain number of frames is useless, I guess, because it only improves the quality of what you got in a single frame, I am right?
I read somewhere that exposure length matters too, because the camera has to collect enough photons from the faintest parts of a DSO and that if you increase the ISO and lower the exposure time, the risk is that you are collecting no photons from faintest regions and the result will be zero signal irrespectively of the amplification, what do you think about it? Excellent points!
Yes the exposure length matters, mostly on faint signals. What I left out of this article for simplification matters, is the role read noise actually plays in any particular situation. The situation you are describing is limited by other factors and not read noise. In that case I definitely go for lower ISO more dynamic range! Hi, Thanks for your explanation. Thx in advance. Thanks for your question, which is a very valid one!
However, what of course still matters is the dynamic range. So yes, I would be inclined to say it would be better to use ISO and stretch in post.
Hi, Thanks for your prompt response. I usually take pictures of the milky way on 14mm x sensor factor 1. So for what I understood, since that sensor just amplify the signal after ISO , than I could take the shots at that low ISO, even though I would see nothing in there and then take care of it in post processing.
However, usually the milky way tutorials mention to take the shots in the highest ISO we can.. How did your tests go? To be honest I never look at the EV.
But for many targets this can work out just nicely as long as you take enough frames. Nothing is more important than your own tests! So if your results indicate you need to use ISO because of the banding you definitely should! Have I got my understanding wrong as this seems really high? Hi, Glad you found the article interesting and helpful. Thank you so much for your reply.
I was looking at the lowest point not where it was flattening out. Learned a ton. Already had the sensorgen data imported into Excel so I graphed the date for my two Canon cameras 6D and 60Da.
The higher the ISO number, for example the faster the speed. If you set your digital camera to a low ISO, for example , the resulting photograph will be better quality than one set at The higher the ISO the more grainy the photo will look. Therefore go for a low ISO number whenever possible. However there are circumstances where a lower quality photograph is better than none at all. For example taking photographs of fish in a dark aquarium would normally be out of range for most point and shoot cameras.
Otherwise there would not have been enough light let in to the sensor and the image would have turned out totally black. Of course I could have chosen a lower ISO camera setting and used the in built flash. However this would have resulted in unwanted flash glare bouncing off the glass. This is the setting of choice for photographers who want to make large prints — the more you enlarge a digital image, the easier it is to see noise.
We now arrive to a point of great debate: how do different digital SLR cameras handle image noise at high ISO settings? While this may sound like popping in some earplugs, it's actually something that your digital camera does every time you take a photo.
At the same time, your digital SLR is trying to compensate: it's "filtering" out the noise so that the image doesn't look like a grainy mess.
This is why you might still have a very hard time seeing image noise even at ISO with some cameras. Both Canon and Nikon digital SLR cameras have been praised for their ability to keep high ISO noise at a minimum, which gives photographers a lot of flexibility when shooting in low light. Every time a new digital SLR camera is released, the immediate debate begins: how well does it handle noise at high ISO?
Pundits and amateurs alike go back and forth about the threshold: the ISO setting where noise becomes visible in your digital photos. Some claim the noise starts at ISO , while others will swear it's All nitpicking aside, here's the takeaway point: not all digital SLRs produce noise in the same way, and some are better at reducing it than others.
0コメント