Bandhavgarh National Park.
Canon 50d + Canon 100-400
F5.6 at 1/100 sec
ISO 320
Printable View
Bandhavgarh National Park.
Canon 50d + Canon 100-400
F5.6 at 1/100 sec
ISO 320
Nice shot Kiran. Love the angle.
Kiran,
I was waiting for this as I had heard about it. I like the angle and the looks. It is engaging. The grasses in the background gives a nice wild feeling. I think the sharpening needs to be reduced. Do you have a vertical?
It has been proved that the intermediate ISOs like ISO 250, 320 etc are based on software extrapolations and gives higher noise. So it is better to stick to ISO 200 or ISO 400. In this image, a higher depth of field would have been great but your shutter speed was less. So only way was to increase the ISO. I would have kept the ISO at 400 if not higher.
Thanks for sharing. Look forward to more.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Hi Kiran,
Lovely eye contact. Loved the low angle and the stare.Agree with Sabyasachi about reducing the sharpness a bit. Liked the stride and the partially raised paw.
Keep posting..
Overall beautifully done , C part very well doen by Sabyasachi
Harshad
Thanks all. appreciate your Comments
Saby 50d is very noisy camera... ISO 400 is bad....I generaly avoide above 200 but the light was very less so went upto 320....
thanks for you inputs...
will upload more soon
If I have to use 50D then I will lock 200 as my final ISO
Harshad
Great shot, Kiran. I like it the way it is. Agree with Sabyasachi about the sharpening effect.
Otherwise, just a fine image. ISO 800 and above on the 50D is bad...but 400, 640 should be doable. I don't think the shutter speed was any issue here since the entire body is actually sharp and in focus.
My 30D, 40D definitely produce cleaner shots at 640, 1250 and also at 1600.
Canon did goof up with the 50D...trying to pack on too many pixels on the crop sensor. 40D is a value for $ camera...
Sabyasachi, Mike Sheehey over on Dpreview has done some tests on intermediate ISO's on the 1.6x crop bodies. Intermediate ISO actually gives better noise control than full stop values. On a 30D, 160, 320, 640,1250 give better results than conventional 100, 200, 400 800.
On a 5D however, 100, 200, 400 produce better results. Anyway, I do use intermediate ISO's on my crop bodies, never had any issues with regards to noise...if exposed correctly.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=19721647
Harshad, stop spreading rumors on the net that ISO 200 is the best an EOS 50D can do...you use nikon equipment, right ?
Kiran But I have seen 50D quite closely before buying D300, 40D is one the best body no doubts
No rumors but the truth
Harshad
Kiran,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiran Khanzode
On the contrary, if you check that link you will realise that ISO 125 is worse than ISO 100 as it is interpolated in software from ISO 100. ISO 160 and ISO 250 are again interpolated from ISO 200. by giving negative and positive ECs respectively. He clearly says that 125 comes from 100. Similarly 160 and 250 comes from ISO 200. Please check here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=19929696
I am also quoting Emil Martinec:
On the 40D the 1/3 stop ISO's are implemented in software based on the "standard ones". For instance, for ISO 250 the camera hardware uses the hardware amplification of ISO 200 and simply multiplies the resulting RAW values by 1.25. If one looks at the RAW data prior to conversion, one clearly sees that only 4/5ths of the levels are populated, a clear sign that the data has been stretched after quantization. This makes the histogram look nicer, but in reality you would do better by using the same shutter speed and aperture at ISO 200, and applying 1/3 stop exposure compensation in the RAW converter; there is no difference whether the camera hardware does the software multiplication of RAW values or the RAW converter does, but you keep an extra 1/3 stop of highlights in the RAW data by using ISO 200. So if you happened to want that extra 1/3 stop of highlight data, it's there for you in the RAW converter, whereas if the boost was done in-camera that data is lost forever.
On the other hand, for ISO 160 and its siblings, the camera still uses the hardware amplification of ISO 200, but now divides the digitized result by 1.25 to make the histogram look better. So in reality you are doing ETTR by 1/3 stop at ISO 200. In this case there is not much difference whether the division by 1.25 is done in the camera of in the RAW converter; however, if that is what the camera is actually doing, then my personal preference is to use ISO 200 rather than 160, and the metering will tell me explicitly that I am doing ETTR by 1/3 stop rather than lying to me that the exposure is correct, and I am reminded as to what is going on and the potential loss of highlight headroom."
Similar results have been quoted by Christian Bull, Michel Clark etc. I don't have the links. Will search and share the links later. Those links will contain terms like read noise, full well capacity etc etc. I had just saved the relevant portions.
One way of knowing it ourselves is:
Just put the lens cap on your lens and then click shots in all the intermediate ISOs. You can see the difference in noise. Check at 100%. That is a much better way to know for lesser mortals who don't want to be bothered by terms like read noise, full well capacity, gain value, photon noise, etc etc. :D I used to be an engineer 17 years back. :D:D So I can understand how greek and latin those words would sound to people.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Good that I used ISO 320 :) So much to learn... Thanks Saby and Kiran