Fuji S5 excellent at ISO 3200

[ned1]

I got my S5 just a few hours ago and have shot some test images at ISO 3200.

WOW! I shot them both raw and jpg. You can see the jpg images here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=703531

 

For the second and third images I applied Photoshop's "Shadow/Highlight" to

bring out the shadows. This usually produces insane noise. Remember also that

this is JPG.

 

The last image is a 2x version of the shadow/highlight version.

 

I repeat: WOW! Tomorrow I will post a RAW image.

[ivaylo_iordanov]

:~) Congratulations!

 

Could you please shot the same scene at ISO 100 on a tripod for the sake of comparison,

Beside noise, high ISO can effect colour fidelity and saturation.

 

Thanks.

[ned1]

Here's another actual pixel one shot at 3200. It seems a bit soft, but the colors are good.<div></div>

[digitmstr]

Good performance. Here's a 5D shot, also at ISO 3200 (fluu crop) for comparison. Both cameras seem to do well, though I think the 5D may still have an edge (also in price..;p)<div></div>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

Here's the 5D from ISO 3200 to ISO 25,600. 100% crops.

 

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

[ned1]

No question, if I was starting over I would go Canon, but for those of us who've invested heavily in Nikon lenses the Fuji puts us in the same ballpark.

 

The S5 runs about $800 less than the D5, has an extra stop of latitude, but half the pixels. The wide latitude has been a life-saver with my S3, and I can shoot jpgs with confidence, but the pixel count means it wouldn't be suitable for magazine or catalog work. I'm a wedding photographer and it's fine for my purposes.

[ronaldo_r]

An ISO 3200 image shot in good light will have less noise than a 3200 shot in the dark.

 

Looks like your images could've been shot at ISO 800 while still mainatining a reasonable shutter speed. I once forgot to change my ISO and made a few shots in daylight. Very low noise - but so what? There'll lots more noise if the ISO 3200 is really necessary.

 

I'm afraid your test proves nothing.

[ned1]

The picture with the china dog was taken in a dimly lit room. It only looks bright because I was able to get a good histogram shooting at 3200. Trust me, it would have looked like crap at 800.

 

Also, the test image is NOT a window shot. The window looks into a closed porch on an overcast day. Again, it only looks like a direct window shot because the camera is so clear at low light levels.

[elliot1]

Congratulations on your new purchase.

 

Nothing against the S5 - I have never used a Fuji camera period. And I don't mean to sound critical, just curious. With today's marvelous selection of fast lenses, especially VR lenses, why would you want or need to shoot at such a high ISO?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Elliot - high ISO is necessary in certain conditions, such as shooting indoor basketball. The light is usually poor and you need fast shutter speeds to freeze action.

 

The S5 performance @ ISO 3200 looks very good. But it's funny how people will post a shot from a 5D and proclaim that the 5D is superior. The shots were under completely different conditions, for crying out loud! I'd bet that you could get nice prints at high ISO from either camera. Too much pixel peeping.

[bravin_neff]

This interests me greatly. I do a lot of low light concert photography with a Nikon D40. Any shutter speed below 1/100 will guarantee subject motion and blur, while at the same time nothing below ISO 1600 will work (and all I use are f1.4 and f1.8 primes!). It is very often the case I wish I had ISO 3200 like some of the canon shooters near me have. In fact it is only with my f1.4 and f1.8 lenses that put me somewhat on equal footing since they're all using f2.8 zooms. I know the D40 has "Hi-1" ISO 3200, but seriously, it looks like crap. The noise from high ISO is BY FAR most noticeable in low light situations, and Nikon's 3200 is 10 times worse looking than 1600, which is perfectly acceptable. Imagine a tiny spot light on a performer with an all-black or nearly all-black background. I'm faced with this scenario all the time. Heck, I'd kill for ISO 6400 if I could get it. Fuji to the rescue?

[ned1]

As a wedding photographer, there are times when I cannot escape high ISO shooting. Some ministers forbid any flash during the ceremony, so this will be a life saver. I'm sure there are other real-world reasons for high ISO shooting.

[sampson]

I think the most impressive thing from the tests is the quality of the noise. Maybe its because I am several years behind in technology, but I tend to get much more chromatic noise at ISO 1600 (maybe its from the older sensor?). Not to play up the whole Canon vs. Nikon vs. Fuji debate, but for my tastes, I certainly find the pic of the China dog has a type of subtle noise, not in any way distracting like from my S2.

[ned1]

As promised: here's a raw conversion with a small amount of Photo Raw luminace smoothing (20). The picture was shot in a dark room: ISO 3200, f2, 1/20.<div></div>

[mjt]

hi Bravin ...

 

i shoot a lot of concerts and bands at local venues. obviously, the house lights are off and usually, there are colored lights illuminating the stage. i have three zooms that i use: 70-200 2.8, 28-70 2.8, and 17-35 2.8. the first i use when in a balcony or from behind the audience. the 28-70 is use mostly front--of-stage or in the photographer's isle or backstage. the third i use mostly when backstage or side-stage during the show.

 

my very typical settings are ISO 800, f2.8 and shutter speeds anywhere from 30-80. NoiseNinja is a part of my post-processing workflow. many of the bands i shoot are punk/industrial/alternative rock, which needless to say, these folks are moving around quite a bit :)

 

i have found that the key is to anticipate when their movements will be at a minimum and shoot then. other photographers around me simply hold the trigger down and hope for the best. i prefer quality over quantity.

 

given the specs i provided in the previous second paragraph, i get pretty good photos. i also use a 28 2.8 and an 85 1.8 - all these lenses are NON-DX (using D70x, D80, D200).

 

i have an S5 Pro on the way - i know this camera will be my main staple for concerts and weddings. i have a couple of gigs in 7 and 8 days, where i'll be able to get some real-life comparisons.

 

regards, michael

[harvey_edelstein1]

I hope to see some of the indoor wedding shots and in the reception halls subdued lighting situations near the bar etc. A good six megapixel camera that gets fine results out of the camera in JPEG would be nice to have.

[juan monino]

I just got one S5 in my hands, what?s really impress me is the low noise at high ISO, I enclosed a picture taken in doors at 3200 ISO with a 70-200 2.8 nikon lens<div></div>

[ned1]

EV readings I've taken in reception halls never go below EV 4 and are usually EV 6. The dog picture above was at EV 3.

[rehor]

You cant use it for magazine work? Says who?

 

Honestly, what cameras can you use for magazine work then, as far as DSLRS go?

 

Whats the magic number of pixels? I've yet to determine this.

[davidgarth]

>You cant use it for magazine work? Says who?

 

In my experience, it depends on the publication, the quality of the image, and how badly they need it as to what they'll accept. I just had an image published in National Geographic Adventure magazine that I shot three years ago with a Fuji S2. It looked pretty darn good, too, if I do say so myself, but it wasn't too large,

[scottelly]

I guess the digital photos used for magazines in 2001 were no good, since there was no camera that could shoot photos the size and quality of what this camera can shoot. Even the Canon EOS 1 Ds didn't shoot at 48 bit color, and that was the best camera available. Until this year, Nikon shooters were limited to quality comparable to what this camera produces, so I guess Nikon cameras were useless for shooting photos to be put in magazines until 2008 huh? The S5 produces 4256x2848 images. I have a 5 D, and when I shoot at 3200 ISO, my photos are very grainy. I find the S 5 dechnology very interesting indeed. I just wish Fuji made it work all the way up to 6400 ISO. That's where I want to go. I was shooting a fashion show one evening, and I had to use ISO 3200 shooting through my 70-200 f2.8 L IS set on f2.8 with shutter speeds of about 1/20 second. Check them out at: http://www.scottvision.com/Sterling

 

I wish I had ISO 6400 with 14 bit per pixel color!

 

I'm considering switching to Nikon for the D300 and that way I can experiment with the DC lenses and shoot fast when I need to (6 frames per second - or faster if I get the grip with the modification and the big battery).

 

So my point in this reply is that I saw someone using a Fuji S5 yesterday, and I did some research on it today. I was surprised at the concept of S pixels and R pixels and a 400% extended dynamic range, etc. I was amazed that the camera shoots true 12 megapixel images in RAW that are about the same size as my 5 D images, and can handle 24 of them in its buffer! I wish my Canon 5 D could do that. I wish I knew about this camera in February, when I bought my 5 D. Oh well. I've learned a lot since then. I wouldn't have even realized what it all is about back then.

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"I wish I had ISO 6400 with 14 bit per pixel color!"

 

14 bits is meaningless at any ISO over 100, since the noise levels due to photons being distributed statistcally and that there just aren't enough of them result in noise that swamps the low order bits. And it's worse than that, since none of the current 14-bit cameras deliver more than 12 bits of valid data.

 

The good news, though, is that although the "14-bit" bit is BS, the 14-bit generation of cameras has lower read noise and lower ADC noise than the 12-bit generation, so the top 12 bits from the 14 bit cameras are better than the 12 bits from the 12-bit cameras. Since the newer cameras keep the read and ADC noise levels down, that means they're a tad cleaner at higher ISOs, too.

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html

 

So until Canon gets off their collective duffs and comes out with a 14-bit version of the 5D, the Nikon D3 will remain the king of the high ISO hill. (Good work, Nikon!)