inexpensive digicam for ISO 1600/3200

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi folks. This is a great group; by reading the archives last year I
decided to buy the Canon S1, which I'm loving.

Only problem is, I like to take pictures of my kids playing volleyball,
indoors. I can't use a flash, which means the action pics I'm trying
to take frequently end up pretty blurry.

The Canon S1 goes up to ISO 400, but I'm thinking if I could find
another digicam which lets me do 1600 or even 3200, then my results
will be much better. Only problem is, the only cameras I can find are
all more expensive than I want to pay (which is TBD, but $1000 is
definitely too much).

Are there any relatively inexpensive digicams that let you do ISO
1600/3200? I looked on dpreview.com but the search feature doesn't let
you filter by ISO.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to

<amj.forums@gmail.com>], who wrote in article <1118248934.563575.316020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> Hi folks. This is a great group; by reading the archives last year I
> decided to buy the Canon S1, which I'm loving.
>
> Only problem is, I like to take pictures of my kids playing volleyball,
> indoors. I can't use a flash, which means the action pics I'm trying
> to take frequently end up pretty blurry.

> The Canon S1 goes up to ISO 400, but I'm thinking if I could find
> another digicam which lets me do 1600 or even 3200, then my results

With current technology of sensors the cameras have approximately the
same sensitivity per area of individual sensel (for purists, here
sensitivity is measured as position of the "ISO sensitivity" dial
which gives a prescribed level of noise ;-).

So to get 4x better sensitivity, you need to either

x) have a 4x larger (in area) sensor (a difference of 2/3'' and
4/3'') with the same Mpixel count, or

x) smaller Mpixel count with the same area of the sensor
(is it even possible today?).

Or a combination of two. The first option is expensive. The second
more or less out of question (and you can achieve practicaly the same
effect with larger MPixel count sensor - just trade resolution for noise).

(There is also image stabilization, but given that you provide no
details on the focal length you use, I can't judge whether it is
applicable.) There is also an option of using a camera with a
brighter lens - but the choice is also not very favorable today.

Sorry that I can't give you a positive answer, but I hope that
understanding the *reasons* for your frustration may help you.

> Are there any relatively inexpensive digicams that let you do ISO
> 1600/3200? I looked on dpreview.com but the search feature doesn't let
> you filter by ISO.

You can use any decent camera with practically any "ISO equivalent".
Use RAW with exposure compensation dial set to severe underexposure
(or just manual), then postprocess. The noise, of course, will be
proportionally higher...

Yours,
Ilya

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

amj.forums@gmail.com wrote in news:1118248934.563575.316020
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Hi folks. This is a great group; by reading the archives last year I
> decided to buy the Canon S1, which I'm loving.
>
> Only problem is, I like to take pictures of my kids playing volleyball,
> indoors. I can't use a flash, which means the action pics I'm trying
> to take frequently end up pretty blurry.
>
> The Canon S1 goes up to ISO 400, but I'm thinking if I could find
> another digicam which lets me do 1600 or even 3200, then my results
> will be much better. Only problem is, the only cameras I can find are
> all more expensive than I want to pay (which is TBD, but $1000 is
> definitely too much).
>
> Are there any relatively inexpensive digicams that let you do ISO
> 1600/3200? I looked on dpreview.com but the search feature doesn't let
> you filter by ISO.


A 2nd hand Canon 10D might be worth looking at. The 10 can go up to 3200,
but has much better noise characteristics at 1600.

If you could use a lens with the equivalent angle of view to 136mm on 35mm
systems then a Canon 85 f1.8 lens would be the best value for money for an
indoor sports lens. There is also the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 available at a
reasonable price. Of course f1.8 would allow over twice the shutter speed
of f2.8.

If you compare the S1 at ISO 400 to the 10D at ISO 1600, the 10D can use 4x
the shutter speed, with an f1.8 lens you can shoot at over 2x the speed
again. So in low light you might only get 1/25 sec, but the 10D with the
85 f1.8 lens could shoot at around 1/250 sec or at ISO 3200 in could get
around 1/500 sec.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for the advice, I was actually thinking about a used 10D.

BTW, what's the difference between the 10D and 350D (Rebel XT), besides
the megapixel difference? From looking at the specs they look almost
identical. A new 350D isn't that much more than a used 10D (10D's are
going on ebay for 600-700 USD).

> A 2nd hand Canon 10D might be worth looking at. The 10 can go up to 3200,
> but has much better noise characteristics at 1600.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"AJ" <amj.forums@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1118493901.893858.163520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Thanks for the advice, I was actually thinking about a used 10D.
>
> BTW, what's the difference between the 10D and 350D (Rebel XT),
> besides the megapixel difference? From looking at the specs they look
> almost identical. A new 350D isn't that much more than a used 10D
> (10D's are going on ebay for 600-700 USD).

Try handling a 350D, it is smaller but if you find it comfortable it is a
good option.

For almost all the specs the 350D is better than the 10D, there have been
many improvements since the 10D was made. Either way you get a good ISO
1600, just realise that the 350D does not have ISO 3200.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <bbIqe.20965$1B2.10536@fe10.news.easynews.com>,
> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>
>>For almost all the specs the 350D is better than the 10D, there have been
>>many improvements since the 10D was made. Either way you get a good ISO
>>1600, just realise that the 350D does not have ISO 3200.
>
>
> None of the DSLRs really have ISO 3200, AFAIK. They're usually just
> pushed ISO 1600 for JPEG shooters.


The theoretical maximum useful gain on a digital camera is when you reach
1 electron per Data Number (DN). Even 1 electron/DN is in practice
not needed as noise is much higher due to read noise. The lowest
read noise I've seen on a room temperature digital camera is about
6 electrons on the 1D Mark II. Gains of all Nikon and Canon DSLRs that I've
measured or data I've seen that others have measured are less than
1 electron/DN at ISO 1600 (e.g. the 1D Mark II has a gain of 0.8 electron/DN
at ISO 1600). Point and shoot cameras have much lower trade
points. For example, the Canon S60 has a gain of 0.7 electrons/DN at
ISO 400, so there effectively is no point in ever using the camera
at higher ISOs, as you can boost "digital gain" in post processing.

A digital camera working at high ISOs needs to collect enough photons
at that ISO. The only way to do that is have larger pixels. So P&S
digital cameras will do well at high ISOs when they come out with larger
pixels.

See:
The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail [...] l.to.noise

Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail [...] ize.matter

Roger