What is considered high iso

[the black fox]

Re: What is considered high iso

Again hard to really comment on either of these ,viewed and expanded on my I.pad ,but a couple of points are starting to surface ,first off your shooting with a knowingly dirty sensor ,that may or may not affect the images but worth a wet clean to put your mind at rest . Secondly these are SOOC images again showing your frustration ,but all RAW digital images are usually soft and will need p.p to bring them up to scratch ,it's also hard to tell from shots like these where your focus point is are you using single or multi point .
As you are probably realising there's so many variables in the mix it's going to be a hard one to pin down .also one thing I do know from wildlife as a subject matter ,canon sensors do not like trees/ messy backgrounds probably not such a problem on the latest sensors but a definite problem on older ones .
I also get the vibe that your getting frustrated with a perceived problem that may or may not be there .dont get tempted into changing gear to find that it's something your doing wrong or it's a lens problem .
Also both these shots are at f10 when f8 is usually accepted as the sweet spot for most lenses, your also shooting at a low ISO which in turn is slowing your shutter speed and even using a tripod could be inducing camera shake from wind movement ,again there's another variable is your tripod and head up to the job .
As you can see there's lots of things that could be causing a problem .pity your not closer as I really thing you need another person to help sort this out

[digiman]

Re: What is considered high iso

Again hard to really comment on either of these ,viewed and expanded on my I.pad ,but a couple of points are starting to surface ,first off your shooting with a knowingly dirty sensor ,that may or may not affect the images but worth a wet clean to put your mind at rest . Secondly these are SOOC images again showing your frustration ,but all RAW digital images are usually soft and will need p.p to bring them up to scratch ,it's also hard to tell from shots like these where your focus point is are you using single or multi point .
As you are probably realising there's so many variables in the mix it's going to be a hard one to pin down .also one thing I do know from wildlife as a subject matter ,canon sensors do not like trees/ messy backgrounds probably not such a problem on the latest sensors but a definite problem on older ones .
I also get the vibe that your getting frustrated with a perceived problem that may or may not be there .dont get tempted into changing gear to find that it's something your doing wrong or it's a lens problem .

Thanks Jeff for your patience! You're right, it is getting very frustrating. Maybe I just haven't come as far as I thought I had with my technique I did think though that eliminating camera shake with a tripod and 2second timer, plus a reasonably fast shutter speed would help.

I have looked at a sensor cleaning kit previously, but it bothers me that I will do more damage than good. I think it was yourself that suggested it when I got the camera originally, and how easy it was to do. I guess it should be the first thing to eliminate really.

Re sharpening, I know that RAW files need a touch of sharpening, and do that as part of my workflow normally. It's an interesting comment you make regarding trees and branches! But it does appear throughout most images. Maybe I am expecting too much from an aging sensor. Plus, I don't understand most of the focusing options on the menu! So maybe have the camera set up wrong from the off!? I'll keep at it and see if I can improve!

Thanks again for your input. I appreciate your time,

Garry

[digiman]

Re: What is considered high iso

Garry, f you look here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/lens...m-f2.8/review/ you'll see that the EF 28mm, f2.8 which I think is the lens you're using, suffers from diffraction below f8. It may be that what you're seeing is diffraction effects causing the softness. Try shooting the same images, or similar, at f5.6 - adjusting ISO and shutter speed - and see what you get.

I wasn't aware of this Andy. It is a lens I have on (long term) loan from my Dad. Have used it a fair bit, but never really checked it closely. I do seem to be getting the same results with different lenses though, which suggests me or the camera , and, on reflection, more likely me!

Thanks for this, a good site to keep an eye on,

Garry

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: What is considered high iso

I just took a look at your shot of Paisley Abbey - https://flic.kr/p/LsEwK7 - and it looks fine to me. Personally I would have stopped down to f5.6 and taken it at 1/60th which should be doable but it looks nicely detailed and clean to me.

It's a personal preference but when I take shots like that I always try to shoot at base ISO - 100 - and adjust the other settings around that to minimise noise and maximise dynamic range although in this case, like you I'd probably up it to 200 as the light looks to be not great.

So in short, I don't think you have a problem with that lens or the camera...

[digiman]

Re: What is considered high iso

I just took a look at your shot of Paisley Abbey - https://flic.kr/p/LsEwK7 - and it looks fine to me. Personally I would have stopped down to f5.6 and taken it at 1/60th which should be doable but it looks nicely detailed and clean to me.

It's a personal preference but when I take shots like that I always try to shoot at base ISO - 100 - and adjust the other settings around that to minimise noise and maximise dynamic range although in this case, like you I'd probably up it to 200 as the light looks to be not great.

So in short, I don't think you have a problem with that lens or the camera...

Thanks for that Andy. So what you're saying, bottom line, it's me I think I need to develop a better hand held technique. All my recent shots that I have posted on this thread have been taken using a tripod mind you. The Paisley Abbey one was handheld.

Maybe I am being too picky. Out of interest, how far would you zoom in to an image during PP before noticing obvious softness? And how do you gauge how much added sharpness is just enough?

Thanks again guys,

Garry

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: What is considered high iso

Starting with the second bit first, how much you crop is based on your view of the quality of the resulting image. Certainly I've found that I can crop to 25% and get a decent result with my 7D2. This one is that level of crop but for me it depends on how good is the light, how accurate was the focus and exposure and the subject matter:

Great crested grebe by Andy Mulhearn, on Flickr

Basically the centre AF point was on the bird's eye and I took nothing off the right or bottom of the frame, if that makes sense.

Sharpening is slightly more objective in that if you zoom in on the image as you sharpen, you can see a halo forming around edges if you over sharpen. Best way to see that is experiment with an image with distinct edges and push the sharpening as far up as it will go and see the results. Then scale back until the halo disappears. My rule of thumb for images shot at ISO 100 and processed in LightRoom is to not go over +60 on sharpening, and as ISO increases I drop that a bit as higher ISO images don't sharpen as well.

As for it's you :-) Perhaps you're over thinking it :-) I've had a look through your Flickr pages and there are some cracking shots there so I don't think basic technique is the issue. This for example is a corker with loads of detail:


Wallneuk Parish Church_ by Garry Macdonald, on Flickr

I think the paper test we can put down to using f18 and hitting diffraction issues with the 28mm. So perhaps I missed it but which lens is giving you the most issues and what are you shooting when you see those issues?

Also, what 70-200 lens are you using and does it have IS? I ask because some older lenses do not handle having IS turned on when on a tripod - it causes the reverse effect and you get blurred images.

Sorry. rambled a bit there didn't I...

[the black fox]

Re: What is considered high iso

as andy says the church shot is a stunner ,.and by your own admission it could well be the camera settings that are the problem here .there should be a online guide available just do a google for your camera .that should help a bit .
as for the tripod a good one will help but if its flimsy it will have the opposite effect ,i have over the years had quiet a few peeps come and visit me to sort out various problems ,and its usually just a basic alteration they have made to a setting either in menu or physical ,last one was a young lady that thought her lens was broken as it had stopped focussing and she turned to me before putting it on e/bay it turned out she had quiet simply put it into manual focus ,put it away for a couple of weeks and on her next outing forgot to switch it back on to a/f .
so advice here is sit back calm down and go through everything ,even if that involves re-setting camera to default settings .and lets not get it wrong here we ALL make mistakes i cocked up my lightroom imports the other night without realising it and was importing stuff this morning as DNG files ,somehow i had switched it on and not realised it. needed my lad to find it and switch it off .

oh dear just found a glaring error by looking through your flickr shots ,you ready for this . the shot of beth looking trough the camera ,your camera is on the tripod with the 70-200 on it .you have the tripod mount screwed to the camera not the lens foot .
even mounted on a tripod (which looks to flimsy for that weight of camera btw) mounting it like that will induce shake at the far end of the lens even set on self timer the simple rise and fall of the shutter will give the far end of the lens a vibration .
when i use mine on a tripod i still hold the the top of the lens as well to keep it steady and always use the lens mount

the one thing that really stands out though by looking through your flickr is your stopping down to far i.e f11 f16 etc and using a low iso as well and not thinking about the most important one which is shutter speed .if thats not high enough then every photo will be blurry due to camera shake

[digiman]

Re: What is considered high iso

Love this forum!

Thanks Andy, and no rambling, just useful observation and advice. Re the zooming, I was referring more to during editing, rather than the final crop. That said, there is no way ANY of my images match the clarity of that Grebe! None of my lenses have IS, although would love to try one to see the difference.

Jeff, I have downloaded the manual for the camera, but don't understand some of the terminology. Also, I think there are "personal preferences" set by the previous owner which I believe can only be changed via software and firewire from my pc, neither of which I have. Maybe a hard reset is the answer, and start from there.

I know about mistakes too! I make my fare share of schoolboy errors. I grabbed a battery for my 1ds the other day, walked into the country for about an hour, with tripod and all my gear, took two images, and the battery died. Forgot to charge it didn't I I also know about forgetting to set focus to AF again too. Done that too many times!

[the black fox]

Re: What is considered high iso

aah now we are getting there ,its starting to make sense at last .
yes i would definitely do a back to factory settings reset ,i don't think theres going to be anything within the menu that will need plugging into anything . i would however check if its available on that camera whether the previous owner has done any BACK/FRONT focus adjustments it will be your luck he's had them lenses as well ??
when i said download via google i meant more of a set up idea page ,i know they do one for the 1d3 .try canon u.s.a as theres more on there .a factory re-set is your first priority however then start with your own settings, a new thread on here on any your stuck with will quickly get the answers you need .

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: What is considered high iso

Love this forum!

Thanks Andy, and no rambling, just useful observation and advice. Re the zooming, I was referring more to during editing, rather than the final crop. That said, there is no way ANY of my images match the clarity of that Grebe! None of my lenses have IS, although would love to try one to see the difference.

Ah, I see what you mean now. In very rare cases I'll zoom to 1:2, or twice normal size, too heck some detail but mostly I only zoom to 1:1. If you go to 1:2 then the pictures look horribly pixelated and any noise is massively exaggerated. Even at ISO 100.

If you don't have IS on the lenses then the rule I tend to go with is 1/focal length with a minimum of 1/50th. Some will argue it's 1/crop*focal length but I've seen both quoted and anyway, as your 1DSII is full frame with no crop then 1/focal length seems to be the one. But that's a minimum and you may need to go higher - if the subject is moving or if the light is bright enough you overexpose the shot.

[SpringfieldPhoto]

Re: What is considered high iso

You need to consider the age of the technology in a 1DS MkII. The camera was released in 2005. with a top ISO of 1600. It was ground breaking at the time but the world has moved on. Noise was noticeable at ISO 400 on this camera. As for the soft images that may be due to a fault in either the lens or the camera. Try using a focus target and looking at the results in detail.
Your 500D is newer technology than the 1DS Mk II