 |
English - Espaņol |
recommendations |
Picture Styles |
Sharpness - Bokeh |
|
HOME
Foto tutorial (English) Foto tutorial (Espaņol) Equipment recommendations US-ES Flaat Picture Styles Old Picture Style Tests LENS TESTS For stills For video For video (lineskip) Conclusions ND filters Other filters BOKEH TESTS Summary Alternative scenarios Badly assembled lenses and image quality Lens mount compatibility chart ISO on different cameras DIY: DR test chart RGBWK Bayer sensors DoF/FoV CALCULATOR Notes on DoF-FoV Notes on crop-DoF-FoV Custom Cropmarks for Magic Lantern on the Canon 550D How many megapixels do I want? How many megapixels can I see? Quick Monitor Calibration Chart MY VIDEOS Random rants Search engine |
ISO values don't mean the same on all cameras. Case in point: ISO 12800 on the Canon C300 looks actually darker than ISO 6400 (+24db) on an FS100. So I downloaded the very excellent Philip Bloom's Christmas 2011 shotout, loaded the "low light tests" into the editor, and looked at the waveform monitor. Below you can see a vertical crop of such waveform (corresponding to the area where the guy's face is) for each camera and sensitivity setting. Bear in mind that this is not a fully scientific test, and it may very well not mean much. For example: using my Flaat_4 picture style on my T2i (550D), shadows are pushed up, but highlights are mostly unaffected, and ISO is not altered: it's just a different gamma curve, but the guy's face would appear much higher in the waveform monitor. A side effect of this is that results will depend on the shape of that curve and the point where I concentrate my analysis: maybe I'd have gotten different results if I looked at a brighter part of the image (e.g. the Christmas tree in the background). Also, some cameras clip at IRE 100% but others reach IRE 109%, and I didn't take that into acount. Even more, maybe one camera delivers clean images where stuff appearing at 10% IRE is perfectly useful (it can be pushed up and will remain noise-free), and another one shows unbearable noise in stuff that's recorded at 30% IRE. So, watch the shootout and draw your own conclusions (maybe the most useful test would be to push up all the images to match the brightest one, and judge from the noise there which ones are useful and which ones are useless; I don't have the original footage, so I can't do that). As expected, the C300 falls clearly on the dark side of things. The 5D2 not only allows for higher clean ISO values than its APS-C little brothers, but it's also brighter at each ISO (in the relevant range for these: 1600 and 800). Sony (F3, FS100, 5N) is usually on the bright side, and specifically the 5N is a lot brighter than the ISO value would make me think. And the GH2 has a very steep curve: it's on the dark side at low ISO, but on the bright side at high ISO. |
|
 |  12800 |  20000 |  24db |  12800 |  6400 |  6400 |  6400 |  6400 |  3200 |  6400 |  12db |  3200 |  3200 |  3200 |  3200 |  1600 |  3200 |  6db |  3200 |  1600 |  1600 |  800 |  1600 |  0db |  1600 |  1600 |  1600 |  800 |  800 |  800 |  800 |  800 |
Similaar is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, two affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com and amazon.es.