Quite grainy @ auto-iso 6400 on d7000 - Indoor sports

Msmoto

I do not have a D7000, but suspect the issue of using high ISO is better than a D90, which I do have. For me, the exposure needs to be correct. A D90 pushed even to ISO 3200 is really falling apart. And if I mess up, not that uncommon, underexpose accidentally, the D90 is in trouble.

Now, on my D4, this camera will save my tail if I underexposed by up to one stop...up until about ISO 6400. I believe the same is true of most sensors, they perform up to a point and the primary ISO issue is loss of dynamic range as the ISO increases.

The OP may need to find the ISO which produces the results desired and limit their use to this number. One cannot expect a D7000 to perform like a D800 or D4.

heartyfisher

I just did an internet search about this subject and there seems to be quite some discussion on it. Where as many like me believe correct exposure ( at higher ISO ) gives better signal to noise ratio, there are many who favor underexposing and then correcting in post process.
...

And then we have spraynpray's solution which is to expose +1 then bring it back in post. which is unique (@Snp you are so special ;-) ) we will need to test that.. it makes some sense.

Paperman

And then we have spraynpray's solution which is to expose +1 then bring it back in post. which is unique (@Snp you are so special ) we will need to test that.. it makes some sense.

In theory it ( histogram to the right ) does, but in practice it is rarely applicable. Digital photography exposure is mostly exposing for the highlights anyway and due to the limited dynamic range of sensors, one always needs more details form blacks. In other words, one is hardly in a situation that allows overexposing without blowing the highlights - that is all blacks giving full details without blown whites. ( In my type of photography - landscapes - at least ).

Keemo

Thanks for all the input. All of you are so helpful to the beginners on this board. Camera & gear companies should pay you to post because I can assure you, that without this advice, I would've given up in frustration.

I shot another gymnastics meet this past weekend (10/12/13). I capped the ISO @3200, underexposed in a range from -0.5 to -1.5. I'll have a little time to see results in LR this weekend. While quickly reviewing the shots on the camera at the event, I really couldn't tell if it improved. I'm sure it did, I just couldn't tell on the little screen. Of course, the images were darker, but I'll bring them up in LR.

I did have some time last week (prior to 10/12) to begin using the "sharpening" tools in LR on some other shots. I could see how it removed the grain & I began to learn how much to use to "optimize" the results. I can see how LR can suck up as much time as I could put in to it! It amazes me what can be done to a photo. Between the camera & LR, they sure make me look like a much better photographer than I am, for sure.

While spending more time in LR isn't really the solution I want, it'll work for now until I can afford & then find another camera body that's better at high ISO. While I was in Houston this week, I visited Houston Camera Exchange & Camera Co-op. The folks at both places were helpful. Several people at both places recommended the D3s or D4 for my needs. They could get the D4 in short order (supposedly), but I REALLY don't want to spend $6k on a camera. Know anyone with a good, used D3s for sale or where I could look? Of course I'm looking at B&H, KEH, Adorama. Are there any other sites where I could "trust" the condition of the camera stated by the seller? Does anyone have any experience w/Amazon or Ebay? If a good value pops up, I suppose I could afford it sooner than would be ideal.

To address some of the other suggestions:
1. Shutter at 1/250 or slower - this doesn't begin to stop the action for me. I use 1/500 & have even bumped a notch higher than that for the best results. And it shouldn't matter what aperture or ISO I have set, should it? More or less light, or a more sensitive sensor doesn't slow down the movement of the player/gymnast. It just lets me see what the camera/shutter caught. The "blur" effect doesn't do much for me, although I'm sure some folks like/prefer it.

2. Aperture priority - I currently shoot on Manual with a 2.8 (switched to RAW recently instead of JPEG since you pros recommended for a better quality photo & more flexibility in post). I can't see how letting the camera select shutter speed would help. The camera doesn't know what speed I need to stop action. It would slow it down to produce a better "quality" output, right?

3. Overexposing & bringing the shot "down" in post - I haven't tried that yet but I have another gym meet & volleyball tourney (both) next weekend. I already shoot on Vivid, so maybe I'll have to dial that back to neutral to avoid "blowing out" the shots?

aquarian_light

1- in that case leave it in manual. Set the aperture to 2.8, shutter to 1/500th and let the auto ISO do the work for you with a -.1 to -1.5 EV set.
3- If youre shooting in RAW (like you should be) color space doesn't matter. Vivd, natural, landscape portrait, it all means hooey to raw files. RAW is literally just RAW. The camera is storing exactly the information that comes off the sensor, those color spaces are just effects the camera can add to JPG files. RAW doesnt get touched.

And BTW, you definitely should be shooting raw, if you don't... JPGs wont have anywhere near the amount of data in the shadows and this whole suggestion wont work.

TaoTeJared

Some of the discussion has gone off topic and some are talking about "proper" exposure or how to get a good exposure. While this is good advice for static/landscape/non moving objects, Keemo is trying to freeze fast moving motion and "proper" exposure goes out the window at times.

I would suggest reading up on the dependencies of exposure (exposure triangle) - Shutter speed vs aperture vs ISO. For good exposure (and/or desired exposure) If you change one, it pulls the other two. What a sensor that produces better images at higher ISOs (very different from sensitivity) allows the use of higher shutter speeds in lower light.

Whichever mode you shoot in (M/A/S/P) it needs to be a conscious decision with understanding the goal/reason why. This is where the learning through experience and trial and error comes in. When looking at an image, every goal has multiple decisions on the different give and takes of each aspect of exposure. Every choice has a consequence and effect on the other aspects of exposure.
Main decisions:
Shutter speed: Freeze motion, show blur, sync flash, doesn't matter.
Aperture: Depth of field (shallow focus or all in focus), gather more light, limit the amount of light, optimal sharpness.
ISO: Optimum quality, gather more light, somewhere in the middle.
Secondary decisions: Raw vs Jpeg, Noise reduction, active D-light, contrast, mirror lock up, etc.

For you freezing action is the #1, so shutter speed is the primary goal. So shooting in "S" Mode is a given. That means shooting at 1/500th, widest aperture, and raising the iso. The secondary goal is to keep the ISO as low as possible. I'm guessing you really don't want to go far above ISO 2000 and to keep it at 800 and below. What I'm guessing is that you actually need to add some light - so a flash maybe in order. As long as you are not within 40ft of the participants it shouldn't be noticeable to them.

aquarian_light added any other comments that I had

Again, if you posted some photos we could see where issues are, and be able to tell what you may help.

uvafan420

Over exposing and bringing the exposure down to match normal works best in test I done. Actually under exposing and bringing shadows back up looked like rubbish on my samples.

Over exposed at 6400 iso with no editing or noise reduction except bring the exposure down in lightroom to match normal exposure. 100% Crop


Normal exposure at 6400 iso no eiditing or noise reduction. 100% Crop

aquarian_light

That's all fine and dandy, but I'd like to see an example of an over exposed area that would be a highlight area in normal exposure, before and after the bringing to normal exposure. The possible loss of detail in high light areas from over exposing is enormous.

TaoTeJared

@uvafan420 - 2 things,
1) we are talking about the difference of shooting at ISO 800 VS ISO 3200 (or higher) and brining back up the lower ISO - NOT making proper exposure.
2) Used only as necessity of stopping motion. Everyone keeps leaving this NEED out and are talking about static objects. Please stop - it is mudding up the topic. For static objects, yes it is better that you expose correctly - but that is NOT the situation we are dealing with.

People are also Pixel peeping way too much as well! There is always going to be some grain/noise in every shot. That is a good thing, that means the camera is resolving detail. If it was smooth, that means detail is being lost.

Here is an example I had to do the other day. (Close as I could find) Situation - Baptism photos, baby crying, father was rotating around his torso quickly to calm him down. Inside a room that proper exposure was 1/60th at f4 at Iso 500. That was not stopping motion.
Shot settings: 1/640th - F2.8 - Iso 500.
Out of camera:

Edited:
LR4 - Exposure +2.52 - Shadows @ +100% - Nothing else

LR4 - What would be my final delivered (maybe a bit too warm(; )

TaoTeJared

Ok here is one just to show how much you can pull from a D800 file. I'm not saying it is perfect but it worked and for a 4x6 you couldn't tell much other than it was a "style". (There are too many perfectionists out there.) At this point I was just documenting family (not primary shots) using available light.

Out of camera: Isn't that back window perfectly exposed! lol
Iso 500 - F 3.5 - 1/2000th (Oops didn't lock the spot meter on a face but on the back window)


Edited: (All lightroom only)
Exposure +3, Contrast +15, Highlights -81, Shadows +64, Whites +37, Blacks -17, Clarity -54, (tone curve) Shadows +100. Noise reduction L:62, 68, C: 46, Color 36, Detail 50


I have never had a camera that you could pull that much detail after being 3+ stops under exposed and severely backlit. Held the highlights as well. Only the true blacks turned a bit blotchy. I could work the image a much more and get it better - but I have already been paid, and work delivered

uvafan420

@TaoTeJared

The OP asked about grain at iso 6400 on the D7000 (hence the topics name). Whatever is in between I did not care to read, as I was answering the OP. It would not matter if it is a moving subject or a still, the D7000's grain (it is actually noise, as digital does not have "grain") is much less pronounced over exposing a bit and adjusting the exposure down in lightroom shooting at iso 6400. This has always been the case for me, (having had a copy of the D7000 since it came out) regardless if I shoot stills or sports at 6400.

And not sure where you are getting the 800 vs 3200 ISO, as the topic says iso 6400 and no where did I read the OP talking about iso 800 or even 3200.

uvafan420

@aquarian_light

I don't have to many examples shots of good highlight detail atm. But just the sharpness and details in general are quite a bit better shooting over exposed by 1:7 and bringing exposure back to normal in lightroom as compared to normal exposure in the D7000 (when shooting iso 6400).

Notice the sharpness/detail on the plant stem. The top image is normal exposure. Bottom image is 1.7 over exposed and brought down in lightroom to the same normal exposure (no other editing besides exposure). Keep in mind this is cropped 3:1 so an extreme crop here. This is the same result over and over no matter what I shoot using iso 6400. Over exposing and bringing exposure down a bit in lightroom has always given me really good results at iso 6400. My focus was not on this particular part of the picture, so it is not tack sharp, but just to show the major difference in quality of the two.

aquarian_light

@uvafan420 Indoor sports is in the title of the thread... sports usually entails stopping motion. over exposing with shutter speed tends to let things blur.

Keemo

@aquarian - I have been shooting RAW for a couple of months now. Thanks for the education on vivid setting.

@tao - thanks for those shots AND the changes you made in Lightroom. I'm shooting vball every week again so I'll try underexposing & bringing up in LR.

spraynpray

@keemo: Like I said waaay back, you need good light for good hi ISO performance with the D7K. Your requirements and your body are mismatched, you need to buy a D3s or D4 for low light sports along with fast enough and long enough lenses. All the talk relating to the D800 file's capabilities and characteristics is totally irrelevant and prolonging a thread that is really simple to answer.

heartyfisher

Been thinking a bit about this over exposing strategy. It seems to me that if you set the ISO at 6400 and then over expose by 2 stops( to bring that back in post ) .. its basically setting the ISO to 1600 and shooting at the correct exposure but with less risk of blowing the highlights and keeping a better DR and Tone Depth. So although it works .. its not the best option to choose.

spraynpray

Hiya hearty,

The ETTR strategy works perfectly when shooting land/city/indoor shots as subject movement is not a problem for one reason or another. As a strategy it doesn't work where motion needs to be stopped in low light which is why I keep saying get a D3s or D4. Personally I use a tripod and longer exposures when I can to avoid using hi ISO at all on the D7K but whatever I do ETTR improves my noise performance. I'm not saying the D7K's noise performance is terrible, but I personally find it unacceptable.

+1 @uvafan420.

TaoTeJared

@uvafan420 Indoor sports is in the title of the thread... sports usually entails stopping motion. over exposing with shutter speed tends to let things blur.

Exactly - 1/250th shutter with an exposure comp of +1 = 1/125th = Blur. Exposure comp changes the shutter, not the aperture or iso.

Shooting above 1600, the image quality degrades exponentially, especially with indoor sports where cropping is a fact of life and many times upwards to 50% crop. Personally I would not even consider shooting above ISO 2000. The loss of detail is just too much with sensors less than 24mp.

Indoor sports stinks to shoot. I did a bunch with my D300 (which was a stop behind (ability) the D7000) and I did the same thing as I do with my D800 but left the max at 1000. Realistically anything above iso 800 was a limit that I didn't want to use. My solution was underexposing 1 stop and shooting with my 85mm 1.8.

The idea that one has to have a D3s/D4 is ludicrous unless you have $5k to burn or if that's what you really want to do. The cheapest option is to use a faster lens like the 85mm 1.8 and even one of the 50mm-s.

A body upgrade could be reasonable soon. Generally speaking, sensitivity is generational not body based in each format. (i.e. DX D5100 = D7000 performance, D5200 = D7100)
One of the few scores I actually read from DxOMark is their Sports (low-light iso) . (I do not agree with the D800 being the same as the D3s or D4 - something about Maga-mp obviously messes with their testing.) Their ISO score is what I have found to be the max I really ever want to shoot with on any camera.

Here is their scores (I put the D4 at the top where it should be - which this is not the thread to discuss why) and I scored the increase in stops from ISO 800 (what I would suggest the max shooting at).


Hypothetically you would want an exposure of 1/250th, f2.8 @ ISO 800. The list shows how much of a gain you would actually get. As you can see, you would have to jump to a D700 to see any real gain (about 1 stop) which could be a possibility. But consider that if you are looking at a camera body being your way to increase quality, that would cost you about $2,500 per stop of gain for a D4.

Lenses, a 85mm 1.8 would give you about stop of light for under $600 (and you don't need to upgrade it in a couple of years.) If you got a D700 that would also get you another stop for about $1,300ish used.

heartyfisher

How are you calculating your 5th column? seems a bit off to me.

kyoshinikon

Lenses, a 85mm 1.8 would give you about stop of light for under $600 (and you don't need to upgrade it in a couple of years.) If you got a D700 that would also get you another stop for about $1,300ish used.

The only problem is that there is no visible difference between the 2 under ISO 3200. My D700 and D700 are my prime shooters. Last month I did a concert in very dark lighting. Both cameras pushed to ISO 6400 SS never exceeded 1/250th of a sec and my f stop was wide open. Almost an identical performance. My D90 just lost it in that environment but the other 2 held up quite well. Id sat that the D7000 in many of the photos came off as cleaner than the d700 which made me think at how much better the D600/D800/D4 probably is at even ISO's like 6400...
Personal experience, you do not gain a full stop with a D700 over a D7000. Maybe third a stop in the worst of conditions at most.

aquarian_light

I just shot a wedding reception over the weekend. It was pretty much just a drunken dancing rave party. BRide and groom hittin us up with some sweet dace skillz. But thats besides the point. Its not indoor sports but it is fast moving people in a VERY poorly lit environment. Had on a 28mm 1.8G and a SB700 set to TTL. Manual control. Aperture WIDE, shutter 160th (wanted a little bit of a motion blur to make their dancing look better lol), ISO set to auto up to 6400 (where it spent most of the evening.) with an exposure comp of -1.5 Just like I explained above. D800E performed like a champ.
http://aquarianlightphoto.com/p643426530/he0f053#he0f053
Check it.

kyoshinikon

I can see a faint bit of colorbleed but these are a very good example of fine performance from a high ISO. Nice pictures too

TaoTeJared

How are you calculating your 5th column? seems a bit off to me.

I rounded it to the closest. (3200-800 = 2400/8 (for 1/4 stops for the 2 stops gained) = 300 for each 1/4 stop.) In actuality it is 200 between 800 & 1600, and 400 between 1600 & 3200. In practice you can't shoot at iso 2290 so rounding it a smidgen doesn't matter.

The only problem is that there is no visible difference between the 2 under ISO 3200. My D700 and D700 are my prime shooters. Last month I did a concert in very dark lighting. Both cameras pushed to ISO 6400 SS never exceeded 1/250th of a sec and my f stop was wide open. Almost an identical performance. My D90 just lost it in that environment but the other 2 held up quite well. Id sat that the D7000 in many of the photos came off as cleaner than the d700 which made me think at how much better the D600/D800/D4 probably is at even ISO's like 6400...
Personal experience, you do not gain a full stop with a D700 over a D7000. Maybe third a stop in the worst of conditions at most.

That is kind of my point - actually two of them. There really isn't all the much difference between all the bodies (I'm leaving the D3s and D4 out of that grouping though) and with the amount of degradation in image quality, 3200 on up is not great. Also note that my calculations (or DxOs) is not a stop and a half between the two, but from ISO 800. At 6400 between the D7000 and D700, I doubt there is much difference. At 1600-3200 - I always saw about a stop of difference. Of course it you use a high end dedicated Noise reduction, that helps a ton. My and aquarian_light's point is bringing back images - which is much easier at lower isos. I agree with the differences under 3200. Actually I would say any Nikon system since the D300/D90 days below 800 is basically the same.
Iso 6400 (and even 3200) is the issue - I advocate not shooting at it. (Unless you have a D3s/D4) Family/friends capturing moments - sure I'll let my camera race to 6400, but anything that I expect to crop and want the best quality, I just don't go there unless it is only going to be B&W. You lose detail, color, highlights and shadows start to fade and that is in good lighting. Horrible lighting, it just get's worse. I add light (flash), under expose and bring back, or just go B&W.

I have not used for any length of time any of the new 24mp dx cameras and would like to see if there is much difference - I'm sure there would be. The issue with indoor sports, High ISO, and cropping is the loss in detail. At least with my D800, I the noise is there, but so are many more pixels for details to show.

heartyfisher

I rounded it to the closest. (3200-800 = 2400/8 (for 1/4 stops for the 2 stops gained) = 300 for each 1/4 stop.) In actuality it is 200 between 800 & 1600, and 400 between 1600 & 3200. In practice you can't shoot at iso 2290 so rounding it a smidgen doesn't matter.

I am not great at maths but that seems a bit off .. I dont think simply subtracting 800 and using that 2400 to calculate the "stop" works ( i think it to do with the logarithmic scale of the ISO numbers ).. I will have to wait for the maths experts to help us out. :-)

TaoTeJared

I rounded it to the closest. (3200-800 = 2400/8 (for 1/4 stops for the 2 stops gained) = 300 for each 1/4 stop.) In actuality it is 200 between 800 & 1600, and 400 between 1600 & 3200. In practice you can't shoot at iso 2290 so rounding it a smidgen doesn't matter.

I am not great at maths but that seems a bit off .. I dont think simply subtracting 800 and using that 2400 to calculate the "stop" works ( i think it to do with the logarithmic scale of the ISO numbers ).. I will have to wait for the maths experts to help us out. :-)

I explained it right there, and you do not need a logarithmic scale.
And actually I am a bit of an expert - I use to design massive forecasting models for a living. The math is correct, and the logic in my rounding is correct as well. Like I said, using 3/8s or 13/64ths is useless since you can't actually shoot at the fraction.