My turn at 1600 ISO

[ababysean]

:lmao:

yea for the D3000

 

[MohaimenK]

hahahaha soooo sad! LOL love ya!

 

[mrpink]

Your camera should have just said "no"





p!nK

 

[gsgary]

If you get the exposure better it would not look so bad

 

[Aayria]

If you get the exposure better it would not look so bad

+1 to this. Exposure is everything.. And noiseware is getting amazing to help with any leftover noise. Lightroom works voodoo on camera noise!

This was taken at 2000 ISO on the D5000, which has similar ISO performance to yours:

That's nowhere near 6400 of course, but it's a good high range, and with a bit of luminance in lightroom it still printed out nicely. =)

I know there are cameras that *can* do better, and push 6400 with good performance but even with those, exposure makes the most diifference. You could shoot a slightly underexposed shot at 2000 ISO with something like the D700 and still have almost as much noise as te picture in your opening post.

I know you probably meant this thread as a joke, but just some food for though in case anyone had the impression their camera couldn't give them good results unless they upgrade to a more expensive model.

 

[MohaimenK]

If you get the exposure better it would not look so bad

+1 to this. Exposure is everything.. And noiseware is getting amazing to help with any leftover noise. Lightroom works voodoo on camera noise!

This was taken at 2000 ISO on the D5000, which has similar ISO performance to yours:

That's nowhere near 6400 of course, but it's a good high range, and with a bit of luminance in lightroom it still printed out nicely. =)

I know there are cameras that *can* do better, and push 6400 with good performance but even with those, exposure makes the most diifference. You could shoot a slightly underexposed shot at 2000 ISO with something like the D700 and still have almost as much noise as te picture in your opening post.

I know you probably meant this thread as a joke, but just some food for though in case anyone had the impression their camera couldn't give them good results unless they upgrade to a more expensive model.

WOW! Love that pic!

Here's one at ISO 5000, I haven't tried 6400 yet though

 

[Nautifish]

Aayria that is a beautiful photo.:thumbup:

 

[darkchild]

1600 ISO, Canon 550D, 70-300mm

 

[Blake.Oney]

I did a reunion shoot today, and I got this shot as soon as I pulled my camera out. It's just snap shot because I shot a few before I got going, which was good because I didn't check my ISO at first and this was 3200. I did do some noise reduction to it, but it goes to show that lighting means a lot. D3000.

 

[LaFoto]

ISO 1600 does produce A LOT OF noise in my old, rugged 350D, and yet - as I have to do a lot of rehearsal photos of late on a stage where the stage lights have not yet been installed - that is what I need in order to get shutter speeds I can live with (no one may move too fast! ). It is hard (next to impossible, really!) to live with the noise my camera produces at its highest ISO, though, so NeatImage has become my closest friend of late. Afterwards, however, I feel my photos are kind of presentable, and they've so far ALL been a lot better than the press photographers' pics taken with the pop-up flash of their cameras!

 

[gsgary]

1Dmk2 3200

1Dmk1 ISO1600

5Dmk1 iso3200

 

[timlair]

My turn. Haha. These are at 1600.