[marius]

Opinions?

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/canon-550d-at-iso-3200---test-shots-gallery-5237-article.html

[popo]

I have the 7D which is near enough the same sensor and I use ISO3200 routinely. It does lack the punch and dynamic range that lower ISO settings can offer, but it if it gets the shot when light is lacking, I don't hesitate to use it.

[wim]

Just make sure you expose correctly. You get hit quite hard when you don't (but then, that is generally true for high iso shooting, with any dslr)..



Other than that, I find Topazlabs' Topaz Denoise is currently the king of the hill when it comes to denoising, and it is cheap too. From my experience with a bunch of tools there is no other which is capable of retaining details so well while simultaneously getting rid of the noise.



Kind regards, Wim

[popo]

I just looked up my notes from when I tried Topaz Denoise 4 on 50D camera jpegs, comparing it against Neat Image which is what I use. Denoise did give slightly better output when seriously pixel peeping, but I found the operating speed too painful for my tastes. So I stuck with Neat Image as good enough.



Doh! I noticed they're on version 5 now, so my past impression is out of date. I see on their web page they specifically say version 5 has a "double increase in speed". I guess I need to revisit it...

[anyscreenamewilldo]

yes - seems to look good, and it's nice to have such jpegs - but do the whites seem to be clipped and the blacks crushed?





[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288123338' post='3800']

Just make sure you expose correctly. You get hit quite hard when you don't (but then, that is generally true for high iso shooting, with any dslr)..

Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



hmmm . . . just one thing, and it might be me or the way i work, but i find i can get a very acceptable picture out 2 stops or even more underexposed at iso800 (so i suppose effectively correctly exposed iso3200 or more) by using auto-iso200-800 in camera and then doing the amplification in the computer, in my case with C1, so long as there is some contrast in the picture - but maybe this is a quirk of my gear - and i must say it's generally a mistake in my settings in the heat of the shooting as i really really like iso200



and although there has been a small difference of opinion with a nr specialist that what i'm about to say is nonsense (well what's new in that you say), but for me the lens used makes a big difference - so that nice high quality lenses (you know which) return much better pictures in difficult situations (so much easier to do nr on with fewer losses) than a lesser lens on the same shot

[wim]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1288125117' post='3804']

I just looked up my notes from when I tried Topaz Denoise 4 on 50D camera jpegs, comparing it against Neat Image which is what I use. Denoise did give slightly better output when seriously pixel peeping, but I found the operating speed too painful for my tastes. So I stuck with Neat Image as good enough.



Doh! I noticed they're on version 5 now, so my past impression is out of date. I see on their web page they specifically say version 5 has a "double increase in speed". I guess I need to revisit it...

[/quote]

You do, actually, especially as an upgrade is free. And it is not only faster, but also even better than 4. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I use the latest versions of DxO Optics Pro, Noise Ninja, Nik Dfine 2, occasionally CS4, and they just can't hold a candle to Topaz Denoise 5. I am really impressed. I do shoot a large amount of high iso, BTW (lowest used normally is 400 iso for me, and I readily shoot at 3200 iso).



Kind regards, Wim

[marius]

Crop from 100%. Picture made by me, in a Romanian church, from hand, no tripod, very very low light

Canon 550D+Sigma 24-70

f/6.3

1/30sec

24mm

ISO 3200



Pretty good, no?

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='marius' timestamp='1291629105' post='4785']

Crop from 100%. Picture made by me, in a Romanian church, from hand, no tripod, very very low light

Canon 550D+Sigma 24-70

f/6.3

1/30sec

24mm

ISO 3200



Pretty good, no?

[/quote]

Yup... would've been better if your lens was stabilised. Also I'm not sure whether f/6.3 was necessary because from the little you showed, the subject is fairly flat.



Just pointing out the fact that the camera can do even better in such situations with the right lens choice, etc.



GTW

[miro]

They are two solution for your rpoblem.

1. Buy FF camera. Fast preferably prime and IS lens. Add to this several flash units, order the most advanced noise reduction software.

2. Add to your setup stable tripod. Depends on your budget there are AL – starting from 150Euro and Carbon begins at 400 inclusive decent head.



Looking back at your example you would choose the second solution.

1. It is cheap. With saved money you can buy nice photo books. Hovever the libraryes are full with nice photo books.

2. There is no handheld camera/lens on the earth that beat your 550 + tripod in situation listed by your example.

3. I’m a fan of the KISS approach.



Greetings,

Miro

[marius]

Miro, thanks for you response.

In fact I do own an tripod and a flash unit. But, this picture was made by mistake. I was out, in church's garden taking shoots. Then I entered this church. My 550D, in fact, Kiss X4, is always on M mode. But, by mistake the ISO was on Auto this time - can't remember why... I just pointed and shoot in a hurry ...wasn't to sure if I can take pictures inside on not. I was surprised after the shot a a look at the LCD and remember I posted this here. I',m a big fan of taking photos in the given light conditions, and for this I wanted a dark light photo...but, as I said, it was a mistake. But, I'm pretty happy with the result, in small size the picture looks great.