UKC

Went to the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Exhibition at the weekend, some outstanding photography there.

One thing puzzled me. I am trying to learn all about the settings etc to try and get some decent shots from my G12, so I am looking at the camera details by each picture at the exhibition. I was astounded to see that some fantastic pin sharp photos were taken with ISO settings in excess of 3200.

If I use a setting of 800, then the noise spoils the picture. How do they do it? What have I misunderstood?

In reply to Fredt: Depends on the camera - a high end DSLR can take a photo at 3200 without any grain while a compact might take almost unusable photos at that setting. Just depends on the sensor quality.

Not much you can do about it sadly.

In reply to Fredt: I think you'll find they are using cutting edge professional full frame DSLR's like a Nikon D4 which are able to handle noise at vastly better at higher ISO's than your G12 which has, in comparrison a tiny sensor.

In reply to Fredt: Hmmm, shocking how good those high end models are compared with the budget ones. This is the main difference as far as I can see, and where all your money goes.

In reply to Fredt:

Thanks for this info.
So what determines the sensor quality? How is it measured and specified?
Is the 'quality' whatever it is measured at, directly proportion to the ISO capabilities?

And for what it's worth, there were a few pictures at the exhibition taken with a G12. It's not'high-end', but I don't think it's 'budget' either.

The main differences are the sensor size and how old the sensor design is. The g 12 has a pretty small sensor, which doesn't capture much light whereas dslr's have a much larger sensor which therefore captures more photons, resulting in a higher signal to noise ratio. Perfect exposure and careful post processing in lightroom can also reduce the noise.

Great question! Sensor ability is hard to measure meaningfully. .a website called dxo has a good effort at it but it gets very technical. 1 of the most useful tools I found is this 1 at dp review which shows the resulting images from various sensors at various iso settings dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7/widget?type=Noise&page=12&id=noiseCompare_compared

The pro's will be using top of the range equipment from Canon. Or some of the very good amateur stuff Nikon do.

Even on the amateur stuff, I was amazed at the increase in usability of high ISO when I moved from a Canon 400D (800 was noisy) to a 60D (3200 okay).

And yes, the g12 is a very well regarded camera. At up to a4 size prints, and up to iso 400 (about, guessing here), it would likely be hard to tell the difference between that and a pro dslr. Once you get bigger prints and higher iso settings then the difference starts to show.

In reply to Philip:

"The pro's will be using top of the range equipment from Canon. Or some of the very good amateur stuff Nikon do."

:-D

In reply to Richard Carter:

Is that emoticon a look of amazement. It shouldn't be, the Nikon stuff is coming on leaps and bounds. I saw a wedding photographer's assistant using one (although it might have been a guest's).

In reply to Richard Carter:

I thought that too.

In reply to Philip:

Was just amused as I didn't think people still argued over this stuff :-P I'm curious, is there anything a Canon camera can do that you couldn't do with a Nikon?

In reply to Fredt:
'Quality' is somewhat subjective, but a big contributor is a pixel sensor's signal-to-noise ratio - e.g., what proprotion of its output is related to the light falling on it and what is just random. This is where size matters: the bigger the sensor pixel, the more light falls on it (all else being equal) and the better the signal-to-noise ratio. High quality sensor tend to be bigger ('full-frame' rather than APS or smaller). This is somewhat complicated these days in that cameras will tend to do some level of noise-supression electronic post-processing which can reduce the noise, but may also generate other 'artifacts' which themselves reduce the perceived quality of the image.
ISO just sets the gain of the amplifiers in the sensor prior to digitisation. Since the noise is amplified with the signal it follows that high ISO setting will show more noise than low ISO settings.
Also remember that the sensor is only part of the system capturing the image. A great sensor behind a poor lens will still produce a poor quality image - it just won't have much noise. It'll be blurred, distorted, have reflection artifacts ('flare') and other deficiencies. In a system like a camera, the final image quality tend to follow the 'weakest link' in the system rather than the average. The trouble is that which component is the weakest link depends on external conditions since some quality degrading characteristics are light level dependant (e.g., sensor noise) while other are fixed (e.g., lens distortion at fixed f-number). So the sensor is likely to be the limiting factor in poor light, but be more than good enough in strong light. You can mitigate the sensor noise to some extent by designing lenses which capture more light (larger apertures), but that carries all sorts of other consequences (cost, weight, low dof...).
You can also attack the source of the sensor problem by cooling the sensor (cold sensors produce less noise). Fairly common for astronomical telescope sensors, but not too practical for a general purpose camera.

In reply to Tim R-T-C:


Not quite true - the RAW image will be full of noise at 3200. The camera on-board jpeg engine will do a good job at removing it, so unless you shoot RAW, you'll not see it.

In reply to Richard Carter:

Poke yourself in the eye while adjusting exp. compensation? The only reason I went Nikon - I'm left-eyed, and adjusting exp.comp on Canon was a bit awkward (was a 400D, so a while ago...).
For the rest you're right - there's very little in between the two...

In reply to Marek:
Cracking post. As good a description as I've heard.

In reply to Richard Carter:

They don't; DPReview has degenerated into m4/3s vs The World recently.

In reply to Fredt: The sensor of a Canon 1DX (or any other full frame camera) is just over 20 times bigger than the sensor in your g12. That works out to be a lot better for signal to noise performance. It is unfortunately a function of the camera how good it'll be but also it depends on the hardware. I have an older 400D, ISO 1600 looks pretty grainy on it whereas my 40D which has a generation newer on board chip but essentially the same sensor is usable at ISO 1600. My 1DIII on the other hand which is also similar generation and with 10mpix as well but iso 1600 is pretty good since it has a bigger sensor (2/3rds bigger roughly). A newer full frame camera will be usable at ISO 10000 without too much problem

In reply to Fredt:
It's got a lot to do with post production.
Check out some new software.

In reply to Fredt:

doesn't have to be 'top end' cameras these days. i have a canon G1X and the image is pretty clean even at 10000.

i have an older G9 which is basically unusable above 400.

In reply to Fredt:
>

Nikon D4 + 800mm f5.6 lens = £18,000. G12 = £250.

In reply to Fredt: I think it is true that most entries to WPOY are by dedicated wildlife photographers who are using top end equipment. However the key element of the competition is timing and some entries achieve a superb result by exploiting that element with cheaper equipment. Long may this be the case!

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Keith, I respectfully disagree. Being in the right place at the right time consistently isn't just coincidence. Knowledge and understanding of your subject, fieldcraft and the technical photographic skill not to screw the shot up when a beastie appears where you thought it would it are are more important than luck. The part where chance comes in the biggest is in animal behaviour and whether you'll get something unique or special enough to get into the final exhibition. I've twice reached the final round of judging and on both occasions I just didn't have the 'something special' - maybe this year...

Anyway- it's like saying that the best landscape photographers just got for a walk and happen to be out at dawn on a misty morning in a photogenic place when it's almost all preparation.

In reply to london_huddy:

That's a good point, I'm sure it must take a lot of practice and knowledge to be in the right place at the right time and suitably prepared to be able to capture that moment when the animal might do that certain something that makes a great photograph.

In reply to Fraser:


http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/photo.do?p...

In reply to Fredt:

There are some things that any image of will be special and the siberian tiger is certainly one of them!

I tend to think that the breakdown of a really good wildlife image is:

50% - Knowing where to be and when to be there
30% - Field craft
15% - Having the photographic skill not to screw it up when it's all come together down range
5% - The change of something special/note worthy

I usually bring back 3-5 images back from a week's wildlife photography that are 'decent'. I'll take, at most, one image from each trip that I'll think about entering into a competition and perhaps an image a year that'll win something. Most climbing photography is a piece of cake in comparison!

Anyway - back to the OP's Issue:

I'd suggest that it's a combination camera and post-processing. Image layering, noise reduction software etc can really help.

To take advantage of it, never under expose - if in doubt, use a higher ISO rather than underexposing with the intention of pushing the exposure up in post-processing. If you underexpose and push the exposure back up, you'll have way more noise to deal with than if you'd just dialed in a higher ISO.

In reply to london_huddy:

I posted that particular image because, basically, the photographer waited in a snow hole for 50 days, hoping the tiger would walk past. That's preparation.

In reply to london_huddy:

And thanks for those tips, I shall try that out.

I do use Lightroom for post processing, but struggling to balance, -distinguish even, between sharpening and noise reduction.

In reply to Fredt: You are quite right Andrew - I take the points you make about knowledge, preparation and planning that go into producing great images and I didn't mean to devalue that aspect at all. I was thinking more of those situations where you are in a magical location but not with the best kit and can still somehow make a good image. I always have a camera with me and I can recall many incidents of driving along and coming across a potential image such as a cloud formation or a fantastic patch of light on the land and having only my compact to work with. The image is made by the photographer through the camera and it is in those fleeting situations that our skills & creativity are tested.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Yep, we all have plenty if those times!

And afterward, if you pull it off, general critique will be "you must have a really good camera"

In reply to Fredt:

One final thing from me - try neatimage for end of workflow noise reduction.

The free version is stand alone but really impressive: I often prefer it's outcomes to those from lightroom. http://www.neatimage.com/download.html

In reply to



Heard of the internet?, it's this amazing resource where there is lots of stuff to learn about everything...

In reply to ChrisJD:

Heard of the UKC forums?, it's this amazing friendly forum where you can hijack interesting and useful threads with pointless, smart-arse, self congratulatory, willie-waving posts?

In reply to Fredt:


>but struggling to balance, distinguish even, between sharpening and noise reduction.

You've got Lightroom! Software takes 'some' effort - at least try to learn to use it. It's not even 'that' hard to master

In reply to Fredt:

Go onto Flickr and search for photos taken on your model camera, and you will likely see thousands of photos how good ( and bad) that camera can perform. You can usually also see the settings.

In reply to Fredt:

And thanks for posting the link. An awesome shot.