[normhead]

Do you think there is a difference between underexposing by 1 EV or increasing the ISO ? I've not tried this recently.

As noted above, different lighting intensities produce different results... but in general yes, under-expsing produces different results than increasing the ISO, at least in my experience.

ISO determines the level of amplification. Using the same level of amplification but a lower exposure and boosting in PP should produce a different result.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-26-2015 at 07:23 AM.

[zzeitg]

Using the same level of amplification but a lower exposure and boosting in PP should produce a different result.

Usually a (slightly) better result I'd say.

[carpents]

OK, now that's understandable... but you have to realize, to match your 300 ƒ4 in an FF, you're going to have to go to 500mm ƒ5.6 FF. MY guess is, unless you are going to pay over $10,000 dollars for your lens ( Or get a Sigma 500 4.5 for around $5,000) you're probably going to be shooting something like a 6.3 lens. SO to get the same field of view, going FF isn't going to help you unless you spend the big bucks, because you can't get as fast an aperture. I've shot beside guys shooting 600 mm ƒ4 Nikons, while I shot my A-400 ƒ5.6 and results were very similar. Except my lens cost $500 and their cost $12,000, and weighed a fraction of what theirs weighed. Personally I tend to shoot lower ISO's and shutter speeds in such environments, you get many shots ruined by motion blur, but when you do get one, it's worth keeping. With a K-5 you can actually underexpose a stop and then rescue the shadows as well. Indoors there's lots of room in the Dynamic Range, and your contrast will have more punch, slightly under-exposed as compared to an even exposure. Use your histogram to expose to the left, using the EV +/- dial to move the histogram, keep the curve to the left, try and leave the right side of the histogram empty. You should be able to improve on what you got shooting at a higher ISO. or at least equal it, with a higher shutter speed.

Whoa there.

If you're shooting the (old, manual focus) A 400mm f/5.6, an analogous (old, manual focus) 600mm f/4 is nowhere near $10,000. Or $5,000. And they're not equivalents; you could emulate the A lens with a 300mm f/4 and a teleconverter. I got mine (Nikon lens/Tamron 1.4x TC) for $500. Apples to apples.

In fact, a better way to get the look of his 300mm f/4 is to get a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x TC. Nikon makes a fully-autofocus VR combo that works quite well. (Yes, the latest version is pricey.)

Or he can do what I use to shoot sports professionally and pick up a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x (or 2x if desired) TC. Autofocus is terrific and fast, and results are stunning.

[narual]

It's true, once I got up to ISO 8000, all the details on the clock in my linked shot blurred away: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8579/16065383021_e1d91337e8_o.jpg

(no wait, I can still make out the hair that are like a mm long)

LOL. At first I thought you were making a huge joke. Then I realized my Safari is just screwing up again.

This is what I saw when I clicked on your link:

---------- Post added 03-26-15 at 12:16 PM ----------

Do you think there is a difference between underexposing by 1 EV or increasing the ISO ? I've not tried this recently.

Among other things, if you underexpose, you can choose to just recover the shadows if the other parts look good - if you boost the ISO, you've brightened everything and increased the noise across the board.

Attached Images

 

[tuco]

The Sunny 16 Rule is for summer conditions and not much higher than the mid latitudes. Outside of those geographical and seasonal times you need to adjust.

And, if you ever used a one-degree spot meter in the film days, you may find the Sunny 16 rule places your shadows typically 4 to 5 stops below your middle gray depending on the shadow surface, conditions and geographic location. Now that is pretty deep and often the Sunny 11 Rule works better most of the year and higher latitudes. FYI.

And note the Sunny 16 works better with negative film than with digital and positive film because negative film has so much exposure latitude. I shoot almost elusively with the Sunny 11 Rule with my Pentax 67 armed with a WLF and no light meter when outside in daylight hours.

[fuent104]

Depends on the light there is no set rule for noise vs iso, in bright sun 4000 is very clean but
in low light can be noisy.
The old rules no longer apply the same way with digital, even F stops should be eliminated and replaced with another
more appropriate measure such as field depth as used in video.
Eg. a linear aperture lens with an EVF showing real time is using the sensors capability without crippling it by setting
artificial Stops.
The limits are not defined by the sensor size but by the decision of the photographer.
PS Best to not read too many reviews or data this is Art not tech...

What did you mean when you video? We use f-stops in video, and t-stops when possible, which are more accurate for exposure, but less accurate for depth of field.

[redrockcoulee]

According to the sunny 16 rule, we should have 1/100 s shutter time, at aperture f/16, ISO 100, at fully sunny conditions.
Now, in worst case cloudy condition, we should increase exposure by 4 stops:
- either open aperture to f4
- increase iso to 800

If we consider the latest APS-C high iso perf, 800 is stil good enough.

Now, still in cloudy conditions, imagine you shoot at 500mm FF equ. focal lenght, you need to increase shutter speed to 1/500 s. , then if the lens has f/4 max aperture, you are limited because then at f/4, iso 1600 is needed.

While the K-5 still perform at 1600 iso, the K-3 has already is beyond its limit. You need a full frame then.

Or a tripod or using shake reduction. Or a combination of the three exposure controls.

[Na Horuk]

With FF you need a longer lens to get the same FoV, so you need an even higher shutter speed. And then you need to stop down more if you want the same DoF, so you end up with worse bokeh and less light.
The noise advantage of FF these days is mostly a myth. APSC cameras have great noise performance at the base and low ISOs, where it would be indistinguishable from FF. And at really high ISO, above 3200, FF is not perfect either. And FF pixel density is practically the same as many APSC a couple years ago. The main advantage that FF has is with ultra wide angle lenses, but even this is disappearing with so many brands making really great APSC uwa lenses (like DA 15mm ltd or the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8). So landscapes and portraiture are the main advantages of FF. Oh, and making large prints where absolute pixel count is important.
Telephoto, macro, product photography, web photos.. APSC has no disadvantage, might have advantages like wider DoF, narrower FoV, higher relative magnification.. it just doesn't have the same "prestige" as running around with a big box with 1Dx or D4s written on it. So impressing non-photographers is another advantage of FF.

[ChristianRock]

I apologize for my previous post... I didn't think it was a serious question. We have had a lot of "full frame or die" people invade the forums in the last year or so, and this seemed to follow that pattern...

Once you put your 500mm or 600mm lens on a tripod, do you really need a 1/500s or 1/600s speed to take the picture? Or are you trying to take the picture hand held? Honest question.

[biz-engineer]

Once you put your 500mm or 600mm lens on a tripod, do you really need a 1/500s or 1/600s speed to take the picture? Or are you trying to take the picture hand held? Honest question.

Hmmm , that's a good point. Where I was taking photos with my K-5 + Tamron 70-200, there was a guy seated and with a big canon lens on a monopod. The monopod would help to get more stability, and some freedom to track a moving subject.

[biz-engineer]

With a K-5 you can actually underexpose a stop and then rescue the shadows as well. Indoors there's lots of room in the Dynamic Range, and your contrast will have more punch, slightly under-exposed as compared to an even exposure. Use your histogram to expose to the left, using the EV +/- dial to move the histogram, keep the curve to the left, try and leave the right side of the histogram empty. You should be able to improve on what you got shooting at a higher ISO. or at least equal it, with a higher shutter speed.

.... I've done two test shots with K-3 on tripod. One shot at ISO 800 underexposed by 2 EV , and the same shot at ISO3200, 0EV, high iso noise red. OFF. It's the other way around: there is less noise at ISO 3200 compared to ISO 800 underexposed. So, it's counter intuitive, but I'd use a higher ISO and slightly overexposed to get better IQ at faster shutter speeds.

[normhead]

I see the first one, -2 EV as sharper, with more detail...the 3200 IOS looks washed out by comparison.... you can accomplish the second by applying a mild blur to the first.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Whoa there.

If you're shooting the (old, manual focus) A 400mm f/5.6, an analogous (old, manual focus) 600mm f/4 is nowhere near $10,000. Or $5,000. And they're not equivalents; you could emulate the A lens with a 300mm f/4 and a teleconverter. I got mine (Nikon lens/Tamron 1.4x TC) for $500. Apples to apples.

In fact, a better way to get the look of his 300mm f/4 is to get a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x TC. Nikon makes a fully-autofocus VR combo that works quite well. (Yes, the latest version is pricey.)

Or he can do what I use to shoot sports professionally and pick up a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x (or 2x if desired) TC. Autofocus is terrific and fast, and results are stunning.

Sigma has a new line 1.4 and 2 tc for their sport lenses
If the OP is looking to a 300 F4 aspc equivalent for FF the Nikon (used) or Canon 400 F5.6(new) would give him the best options or with used Nikkor 600 mm f/5.6 IF-ED
would give him even more reach and they can be had for under $1800 for the AF version in good condition.
Even if he went with the new Nikon 80-400 it could match the aspc 300 F4 with only a loss of 1/3 of a degree in FOV or a factor of 1.123. I know going from aspc 300mm F/2.8 to FF 200-400 F/4 I lost nothing and gained equal or better resolution with the benefit of owning a zoom

[biz-engineer]

I see the first one, -2 EV as sharper, with more detail...the 3200 IOS looks washed out by comparison.... you can accomplish the second by applying a mild blur to the first.

Yes, I also noticed that, although noise reduction was Off in both cases , and the camera was mounted on tripod.

[normhead]

Sigma has a new line 1.4 and 2 tc for their sport lenses
If the OP is looking to a 300 F4 aspc equivalent for FF the Nikon (used) or Canon 400 F5.6(new) would give him the best options or with used Nikkor 600 mm f/5.6 IF-ED
would give him even more reach and they can be had for under $1800 for the AF version in good condition.
Even if he went with the new Nikon 80-400 it could match the aspc 300 F4 with only a loss of 1/3 of a degree in FOV or a factor of 1.123. I know going from aspc 300mm F/2.8 to FF 200-400 F/4 I lost nothing and gained equal or better resolution with the benefit of owning a zoom

You mean this Nikon 200-400? Used at Henries for $6,000 dollars?

You do realize that if you have a 24 MP full frame, I'll have 50% more reach than you do using my A-400 ƒ5/6 for $500 on my K-3?

I find it quite annoying you're speaking Nikon here to make your points, I have to look up the prices , don't know the gear etc. So just blank out the brands, ignore the price difference and ramble on. But just checking the cost of APS-c 300mm 2.8 and Your Nikon ƒ4 zoom, I think you're crazy. AN ƒ2.8 lens is always ƒ 2.8 for exposure and can always get you one stop faster shutter speed.

You must have compared a 24MP Nikon to a 16 MP APS-c or something some other different MP count cameras. That would go a long way to explaining your wonky math. I obviously don't have all the parameters.

I'm shooting with my DA*60-250 ƒ4, in FF terms that's 90-375 for a fraction what your 200-400 cost. SO, I'm not getting it.