XT-2 ISO 12800 - noise or something else?

SquarePeg · Oct 4, 2018

Fujidave said:
Just trying to help you out, so hope you don`t mind. Day time shot then Night time shot, so for me it was the weather and not you.

I appreciate your taking the time to help. Not sure I follow what you're trying to tell me here though. The 2nd photo you posted from my Flickr was at ISO 2000.

Fujidave said:
In crappy fine drizzle this is the wrong metering, taken off your Exif

Metering Mode - Multi-segment

What would the metering have to do with the noise? I could see that being an issue if the metering was off and the ISO was high when it didn't need to be or if I was shooting S or A priority and the ISO was off but these were not over or under exposed.

Derrel · Oct 4, 2018

I looked at the shots of the girls playing field hockey, and it looks to me like we are seeing how that sensor performs at the very HIGH ISO level of 12,800. The images have a reasonable amount of fine detail "there"...the plaid pattern in the skirts, the weave pattern of the socks, the hair--we can see all those things, but the finest of detail is just not being resolved, I think simply due to the very elevated ISO setting. The ISO 2,000 baseball shot by comparison, which is a vastly lower ISO level, shows finer detail being resolved. If we go by ISO steps, we have 100,200,400,800,1600,3200,6400,12800. You're shooting at a full seven ISO values above 100...I personally think your camera, with straight out of camera JPEGS, is doing as well as could be expected for that size of a sensor. And the thing is, this is SOOC JPEG, right? The noise looks extremely well-controlled...no really bad noise, no speckling. I think there's probably some fine detail that has been hurt by in-camera Noise Reduction.

A few years ago, pictures shot at ISO 12,800 would've been utter rubbish...I think you're expecting too much. At smaller, on-screen sizes, the field hockey pictures look perfectly usable, with decent saturation, lovely colors,etc.. When magnified, yeah, I can see some loss of the finest detail...it's just not there...at SEVEN ISO steps above 100!

It's like you're driving at 120 MPH on some freeway stretch and remarking, "The lane divider lines are too close to one another! They look like one blurred line. What's wrong? Why do the line seem so close to one another?" Answer: it's not the lines, its the speed level! LOL!

SquarePeg · Oct 4, 2018

Derrel said:
I looked at the shots of the girls playing field hockey, and it looks to me like we are seeing how that sensor performs at the very HIGH ISO level of 12,800. The images have a reasonable amount of fine detail "there"...the plaid pattern in the skirts, the weave pattern of the socks, the hair--we can see all those things, but the finest of detail is just not being resolved, I think simply due to the very elevated ISO setting. The ISO 2,000 baseball shot by comparison, which is a vastly lower ISO level, shows finer detail being resolved. If we go by ISO steps, we have 100,200,400,800,1600,3200,6400,12800. You're shooting at a full seven ISO values above 100...I personally think your camera, with straight out of camera JPEGS, is doing as well as could be expected for that size of a sensor. And the thing is, this is SOOC JPEG, right? The noise looks extremely well-controlled...no really bad noise, no speckling. I think there's probably some fine detail that has been hurt by in-camera Noise Reduction.

A few years ago, pictures shot at ISO 12,800 would've been utter rubbish...I think you're expecting too much. At smaller, on-screen sizes, the field hockey pictures look perfectly usable, with decent saturation, lovely colors,etc.. When magnified, yeah, I can see some loss of the finest detail...it's just not there...at SEVEN ISO steps above 100!

It's like you're driving at 120 MPH on some freeway stretch and remarking, "The lane divider lines are too close to one another! They look like one blurred line. What's wrong? Why do the line seem so close to one another?" Answer: it's not the lines, its the speed level! LOL!

I appreciate your feedback. I’m not sure why Dave posted my photo with the iso 2000 because it confuses the issue. If you look at the original photos from my first post, the one of the mother and daughter at Fenway Park is also iso 12,800 and it’s so much better than the ones from the field hockey set. My question is why is that one so much better?

I checked my shooting menu to see if I somehow turned on something funkybut I have the same old sharpness +1, color +1, noise reduction 0.

jcdeboever · Oct 4, 2018

I have my nr set to 0, not sure if it's right but it does make a difference. I think default is 2

SquarePeg · Oct 4, 2018

I’m reposting the 2 photos because the links are not working properly on my tablet.

Not useable at 12800

Untitled by SharonCat..., on Flickr

usable at 12800

Untitled by SharonCat..., on Flickr

Fujidave · Oct 5, 2018

SquarePeg said:
Fujidave said:

Just trying to help you out, so hope you don`t mind. Day time shot then Night time shot, so for me it was the weather and not you.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your taking the time to help. Not sure I follow what you're trying to tell me here though. The 2nd photo you posted from my Flickr was at ISO 2000.

Fujidave said:

In crappy fine drizzle this is the wrong metering, taken off your Exif

Metering Mode - Multi-segment

Click to expand...

What would the metering have to do with the noise? I could see that being an issue if the metering was off and the ISO was high when it didn't need to be or if I was shooting S or A priority and the ISO was off but these were not over or under exposed.

Sorry my mistake, what I should of said was in crappy weather Why not switch to Spot metering and try that with what ever iso setting, as spot metering would be better in rain.
PS: I am not saying anything about the iso, the shots I put in were to show that it was not a fault of yours if you forget the iso issue.

Derrel · Oct 5, 2018

I disagree with the "not usable at 12800" idea...not great I would say, yet still usable, I think. Sooooo much better than we had just a few generations back, I still think the photo is "usable".

SquarePeg · Oct 5, 2018

Derrel said:
I disagree with the "not usable at 12800" idea...not great I would say, yet still usable, I think. Sooooo much better than we had just a few generations back, I still think the photo is "usable".

While I agree that they are a million times better than what I would have gotten with my Nikon D60 10 years ago or even the 7100 2 years ago... I'm not complaining about the photo not being great as much as I'm confused by the difference in quality between the 2 photos.

jcdeboever · Oct 5, 2018

SquarePeg said:
Derrel said:

I disagree with the "not usable at 12800" idea...not great I would say, yet still usable, I think. Sooooo much better than we had just a few generations back, I still think the photo is "usable".

Click to expand...

While I agree that they are a million times better than what I would have gotten with my Nikon D60 10 years ago or even the 7100 2 years ago... I'm not complaining about the photo not being great as much as I'm confused by the difference in quality between the 2 photos.

This may sound silly but I have found the chrome simulation to have a better appearance (IMO) with higher ISO. It seems the more color saturation, the greater loss in detail or funky noise look. Now having said that, I'm not sure if that is a little of what your seeing. I actually have grown to like the chrome simulation a lot. Once in a while, I might use one of the other punchier color simulations if it calls for it. I also make sure my sharpness is not above 0 but I know people that have it full blast. Additionally, you have those stadium lights which may have had an effect on the appearance of the noise (it also has a chrome simulation look). So many angles to look at but I would start in the menu, look at the appearance type settings and make sure nothing got out of wack. My last firmware update changed some things around on me but I caught it.