Equivalence

WestEndFoto

This latest article by ByThom is interesting:

http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/equivalence-in-a-nutshell.html

Especially this part:

With small medium format: ISO 3200, f/8 at 1/125, 135mm lens
With full frame: ISO 1600, f/5.6 at 1/125, 100mm lens
With APS-C (DX) crop: ISO 800, f/4 at 1/125, 70mm lens
With m4/3: ISO 400, f/2.8 at 1/125, 50mm lens
With CX (Nikon 1): ISO 200, f/2 at 1/125, 35mm lens

Looking at this it is obvious why I like full frame. I almost always try to shoot at ISO 64 and if I can't, I try very hard to stay below ISO 400. I hate noise. Also, in many circumstances, I love a narrow dof.

Here is another good article on equivalence:

https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso

snakebunk

I also like large sensors and good high iso handling, but I don't hate a little bit of noise. I actually often like it. If I can fill the sensor I don't mind shooting at ISO 1000 or higher. Below is a squirrel I photographed with ISO 2500, and in my mind it is better with the noise than without it. If I hate anything it is noise reduction .

WestEndFoto

snakebunk said:

I also like large sensors and good high iso handling, but I don't hate a little bit of noise. I actually often like it. If I can fill the sensor I don't mind shooting at ISO 1000 or higher. Below is a squirrel I photographed with ISO 2500, and in my mind it is better with the noise than without it. If I hate anything it is noise reduction .

I don't like noise reduction either, it reduces resolution. There are times I like noise, as in your example or sometimes with street photography. But much of the stuff I do does not fall into that category.

snakebunk

I agree, it depends on what you do.

BVS

This also helps to show why cell phones are starting to match traditional cameras. If I tweak the exposure params a bit:

With small medium format: ISO 6400, f/11 at 1/125, 135mm lens
With full frame: ISO 3200, f/8 at 1/125, 100mm lens
With APS-C (DX) crop: ISO 1600, f/5.6 at 1/125, 70mm lens
With m4/3: ISO 800, f/4 at 1/125, 50mm lens
With CX (Nikon 1): ISO 400, f/2.8 at 1/125, 35mm lens
With 2/3" (compact camera): ISO 200, f/2 at 1/125, ??mm lens
With 1/2.5" (cell phone): ISO 100, f/1.4 at 1/125, ??mm lens

With the aperture on cell phones now approaching f/1.4 (f/1.5 on Galaxy S10), and with many regular users using f/5.6 kit lenses on APSC cameras, the noise is (theoretically) about the same.

mhedges

Cell phone cameras have very low base iso (20 in iPhone, I believe) which also helps, at least in bright light.

spraynpray

Have you guys tried the new Topaz AI denoising? Looks interesting.

Ton14

I have Luminar, DxO, Lightroom, Topaz and installed the trial Topaz AI denoising, compared ISO test photo's till ISO 25600 and decided that the noise reduction and sharpening in Lightroom covers everything I want.

Topaz AI denoising got sometimes more detail back in the high ISO's (12,800 and up), but I never use those ISO's and I don't want the extra step to pass the photo to another program (other than Photoshop for a single photo only).

At the moment I test the 30 days trial "Exposure X4" the RAW convertor from Alien Skin which are also in the photo editing business for decates. It works fine, I'am going to buy it and use it next to Lightroom for a while.

No catalog needed and the learning curve from Lightroom is minimal, Price $119.- or $149,- for a bundle, no subscription.

In the bundle also is a JPG only resizing program "Blow Up". The fun with this is, I used it to resize the Snapbridge 1680 x 1020 JPG's to 3360 x 2040 JPG's, did not test it much till now.