ISO 3200 CANON 30D "TEST" RESULTS!

[feRRari4756]

Hey guys. About a week ago, I was asking on here is you guys thought 3200 was usable on a Canon 30D. Well this past weekend, I went shooting my sisters cheer team and the results came over AMAZING! A LOT better than I thought.

My shutter speed was around 1/320, ISO 3200, Aperture f/1.8, and custom WB.

After I shot them, I ran them through Noiseware.

This is what I got:

What do ya think?

 

[gsgary]

Did you shoot them in raw, WB looks out

 

[fightin14]

the WB is off for sure. even if it is jpeg you maybe able to fix it in your color curves alittle.

 

[ksmattfish]

That looks pretty clean to me. A little too clean actually; they have that plastic look. My taste would be to back off on the noise reduction a bit. A little bit of noise will increase acutance, and actually make the photos look sharper. The viewers' eyes translate some of the noise/grain as fine detail and texture.

Acutance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well done though. Now push it to 6400 or 12800! I've done it for BW, and although crude I'm amazed at what I can come up with.

Bluegrass Jam at ISO 6400+ (pushed)

 

[Early]

Using Noiseware is really not showing us what the camera can do.

 

[jwsciontc]

they seem real glitchy looking, from the looks of the gym, it doesnt seem like you needed nearly that high of an ISO

 

[feRRari4756]

thanks guys!

Hmm, I didnt think the WB was off. Like how do you guys tell? Because the white walls have that blue tint? How do I know when I have it adjusted right?

 

[feRRari4756]

Using Noiseware is really not showing us what the camera can do.

Show me a non fullframe camera that can shoot clean pics at 3200 ISO.

and FYI, the thread I mentioned when I was questioning about shooting at this high ISO and is if it would be usuable AFTER a run through a noise reducer.

 

[feRRari4756]

they seem real glitchy looking, from the looks of the gym, it doesnt seem like you needed nearly that high of an ISO

I appreciate the comment. What do you mean "glitchy"?

And Im pretty sure I needed that ISO because that was at a f/1.8 aperture and only a 1/320 shutter speed. I dont think I could have done anything else to make them brighter (and remain clear) if i turned down the ISO.

 

[SrBiscuit]

agreed with the WB issue...they all seem to have an unnatural greenish warm tint to them.
real clean looking though.

 

[GeneralBenson]

It looks like the lights in there might be a mix of fluorescent and tungsten. Sometimes it looks like there is a green cast, sometimes it looks like a yellow/amber cast. Anyways. Most of those pictures looks like they don't need such a high shutter speed, except the last one. You could have dropped the shutter speed a bit, and taken down the ISO. Also, with such strong over head light, your best bet would have been using some fill flash to tame the shadows, which would also reduce the need for 3200 ISO. I agree wit whoever said that there is way too much noiseware. The pictures look too smooth and the shadow/highlight transition areas are really harsh.

What Early was trying to say is that this still isn't showing the capability of ISO 3200 on a 30D. Regardless of whether your post was about using it with Noiseware, the fact remains, that only thing this shows is that Noiseware works. But it's way over done in these pics. If the point was to take noiseless ISO 3200 pics, then it worked. But if the pint was to take good ISO 3200 pics, then it didn't work. I think they would look better with more noise and a more natural look.

Also, in the last pic, try and avoid large blurry people in the foreground of your pics, which can be hard to do, but they never look good.

 

[Early]

Show me a non fullframe camera that can shoot clean pics at 3200 ISO.

and FYI, the thread I mentioned when I was questioning about shooting at this high ISO and is if it would be usuable AFTER a run through a noise reducer.

Sorry! I opened up a thread headlined " ISO 3200 CANON 30D "TEST" RESULTS!". I then mistakingly looked at the pictures before reading the text, and I said to myself, "Now, I wouldn't mind having that camera." Please excuse my sarcasm, but do you see where I'm coming from?

 

[NateWagner]

Yeah, the WB looks most unnatural on the skin areas. They appear a rather greenish, yellowish tint, which is generally not that attractive.

 

[feRRari4756]

Thanks for all the replies! Early, that is fine lol.

And about the fill flash that someone mentioned--When i tried that, I could get down to about 1000 ISO, and a big higher shutterspeed, but the colors werent as bright and the people behind the subject (cheer team) were kinda dark, so it didnt come out as good. is there a way to use the flash to my advatage is this/that situation?

 

[GeneralBenson]

Yup. For starters, what you did is pretty common, which is as soon as you start using flash, you try and bring the exposure down as far as possible. It's all about balance. Somewhere between 1/320, f/1.8, ISO 3200 and 1/500, f/1.8 ISO 1000, is a good place to be. Something like 1/250, f/2, ISO 1600. That's all guess work, depends on what flash and all that. You want to use as much ambient as you can, then just supplement a little bit of flash. But in a huge room like that, bouncing won't do any good, and straight on flash is always ugly, so it's pretty much a wash. What I originally said was just to use some fill in flash. If you look at all the pictures, especially #3, the girls have pretty dark eye socket shadows, and at the same time their foreheads are blown out. If you dropped the exposure like -2/3 stops or so, and then used fill flash to even out some of the contrast, it would look better. The concept of fill flash is not to be a light source of it's own, but just to add light to the shadows, and lessen the difference between highlights and shadows.