Camera Labs

Just wanted to post this, because I knew it performed well, but lets let the pictures speak for themselves.

Nikon d90 w/ 55-200mm VR
JPEG Fine Large
@200mm
iso 1600
1/20 s
F8
Post processing: Re sized image, and nothing else


100% Crop


So what do you guys think? was very impressed since this was a test just to see how high the iso was really tolerable.

_________________
Nikon D90
18-55mm VR
55-200mm VR
ML-L3 Wireless release

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97752536@N00/

High ISOs are usually fine in good light. That's not how they're normally used though. Could you post a relatively dark scene?

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Looks good to me. I think that was low light at 1/20s exposure time.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Well, pretty much a very normal indoor light level.

1/20s, f/8.0 and ISO1600 translates to 1/40s, f/2.8, ISO400.

And that's quite normal light.

_________________
Olympus shooter and a calm voice of reason.

Shouldn't 1/20s, f/8.0 ISO1600 translate to 1/640s, f/2.8, ISO400?

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

not really...

down from f/8 to 2.8 it's 3 stops, down from ISO 1600 to 400 it's 2 stops, so it's 1 stop faster = double the shutter speed. So 1/40s is indeed correct if you ask me

_________________
Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
...and a lot of lighting stuff. -> complete list of equipment

Website
Blog

Thank you for shared tips.

I am beginner who learn about this understanding exposure.
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en ... a=N&tab=iw

Again to echo what's already been said - this isn't the way to test higher ISO performance. You need low light conditions (usually translating to more shadows in your histogram) to evaluate ISO performance.

I've also got a few questions:

- was VR turned on?
- did you use a tripod?

_________________
Nikonian

http://www.edtangphotography.com
http://journeysintophotography.blogspot.com/

Doh! I think I was having a bad calculation day earlier. I got the 3 and 2 stop differences, but added them instead of subtracting the reduction when going to lower iso... right numbers, wrong calculation. XD

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Yes VR was on, and yes it was handheld.

I can definitly add a darker shot, I will try to do the same flower or something similar to keep it even.

I was aware that low light = worse noise, but I wasn't really thinking about how I would not use the camera.

Generally if the light is much worse I would use a lower ISO and longer shutter speed, but for the sake of testing, I will post the other scenario as well.

Thanks for the feedback so far though, glad to know what works for others.

_________________
Nikon D90
18-55mm VR
55-200mm VR
ML-L3 Wireless release

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97752536@N00/

In that case, I don't see why any sports photographer would ever need something like a D3.

_________________
Olympus shooter and a calm voice of reason.

If you shoot with iso 1600 in low light you will notice that there is more noise. I own a 450D and I find iso1600 to be unaccepable in lowlight shots. Iso800 is barely cutting it for my standard. I dont own a d90 but I have seen some good iso 800 and iso1600 comparisons and they are both very similar. Unfortunately, both still unacceptable. Fullframe is the only real way to overcome this barrier in my opinion. D3x or even 5d mk2 are both monsters in this department. The difference is almost as much as going from an Ixus to EOS in low light.

_________________
Canon EOS 450d/XSi, BG-E5 Grip, 4 LP-E5 battery, Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM, B+W 77mm Pro1 MRC UV0 filter, Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM, HOYA 77mm HMC UV(C) Multi-Coated Filter THIN, Canon 580EX II,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31510271@N05/

The D3x is not as good as the 5D2 at high ISOs.

_________________
Olympus shooter and a calm voice of reason.

Even more simply put, the D3X is orientated to the well lit studio environment, and the D3 is the action tool, performing grandly at high ISOs. Not that the D3X can't - it's still better than any DX Nikon. Just not there with the other full framers re:noise handling.

Returning to the review - from personal experience ISO1600 on the D90 is only there for emergencies (when used properly in challenging light conditions). Images are acceptable for web at reduced sizes.

_________________
Nikonian

http://www.edtangphotography.com
http://journeysintophotography.blogspot.com/

I'm a former user of canon 450d/rebel xsi and switched to nikon d90!!

I always read about the excellent iso performance of the d90 and how they compare it to the d300,to tell u the truth,canon's iso 1600 is much cleaner than the nikon's d90!!

that's why i always wondered why they didn't push the iso in canon above that((maybe commercial purposes)).but overall there is a big difference in how both canon and nikon deal with noise.in the end it's a personal preference and though i'm not cmparing similar category cameras (450d and d90) the d90 overall controls r much better!
also with canon,for the price u can't go wrong!!