|
Paulbmounds
Jun 1, 2010, 3:42 AM
Post #1 of 16
(9085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 661
|
|
|
|
|
|
jlargent
Jun 1, 2010, 1:22 PM
Post #2 of 16
(9058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2009
Posts: 2
|
Nikon D3s, extremely high ISO with very little noise. With the bonus of HD video. A google search should find some of the high iso tests, beat all the other models, and brands so soundly it almost wasn't even a competition.
|
|
|
|
|
Paulbmounds
Jun 1, 2010, 3:34 PM
Post #3 of 16
(9047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 661
|
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Jun 2, 2010, 4:49 AM
Post #4 of 16
(9012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
The Cannon 50D does 12,800 ISO. There is a camera on the market that does something like 26,400 ISO, I forgot what model it is though.
|
|
|
|
|
xmesox
Jun 2, 2010, 8:22 AM
Post #5 of 16
(8991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2009
Posts: 326
|
A fellow storm chaser!
Canon 1D Mark IV has a max ISO of 102400.
They go for around $5000 I think. Which isn't too bad for such a beast of a camera. If anything, I'd advise in reading up on some of the reviews on it.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Jun 3, 2010, 12:53 PM
Post #6 of 16
(8921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
xmesox wrote: A fellow storm chaser! Canon 1D Mark IV has a max ISO of 102400. They go for around $5000 I think. Which isn't too bad for such a beast of a camera. If anything, I'd advise in reading up on some of the reviews on it.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Jun 4, 2010, 8:59 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
fenderfour
Jun 3, 2010, 3:49 PM
Post #7 of 16
(8908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 177
|
Nikon D700 is a very good high ISO performer, and much less expensive than the D3S.
It's more than max ISO, it's about noise and grain. You will need to look at sample images to see how the files resolve.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/
These guys have a healthy library of images at various camera settings that should help you decide.
I recently went on a similar mission to find the cleanest High ISO camera. The D3S was it, but only marginally better than the D700, and a lot more expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jun 7, 2010, 12:12 AM
Post #8 of 16
(8824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
xmesox wrote: A fellow storm chaser! Canon 1D Mark IV has a max ISO of 102400. They go for around $5000 I think. Which isn't too bad for such a beast of a camera. If anything, I'd advise in reading up on some of the reviews on it.
The Canon 1DS MKIV is the only one that can reliably shoot 1080p @24 FPS and at ISOs greater than 6400. It is pretty much the only camera you should consider for true lowlight videos.
Throw an 85mm F1.2 on there and you could probably get some really dramatic footage.
However, I think your crazy if you think trying to get close-up videos of a tornado at night is a good idea. If you survive I would love to see the footage.
You could also consider the Panasonic DMC-GF1 which shoots great 1080p @ 24 fps. It would allow you to shoot with a greater depth of field with the 85mm F1.2 and still get the same light into the lens. It is a steal at $700 used on ebay.
Here is what the 1DS MKIV is capable of in low light.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM
(This post was edited by JasonsDrivingForce on Jun 7, 2010, 12:42 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jun 7, 2010, 12:41 AM
Post #9 of 16
(8813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
fenderfour wrote: Nikon D700 is a very good high ISO performer, and much less expensive than the D3S. It's more than max ISO, it's about noise and grain. You will need to look at sample images to see how the files resolve. http://www.imaging-resource.com/ These guys have a healthy library of images at various camera settings that should help you decide. I recently went on a similar mission to find the cleanest High ISO camera. The D3S was it, but only marginally better than the D700, and a lot more expensive.
Truly low light videos are more about the lens than anything else. Sure you can get better performance with higher ISO. However, the 2-3 stops you will get with a better camera cannot compare to the 3-5 stops you will get from changing to a wider aperture lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Paulbmounds
Jun 8, 2010, 4:16 AM
Post #10 of 16
(8767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 661
|
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jun 8, 2010, 4:26 AM
Post #11 of 16
(8766 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
Paulbmounds wrote: That is a good website for comparisons. I was comparing the 12,800 to my current camera's 12,800 ISO. I like the Nikon top of the line better than the Canon. I don't shoot much video yet, but my Canon can do that. Do you shoot a lot of video with your camera?
I shoot about 80% video.
http://www.youtube.com/...cd#p/u/0/kdFaVNQWUP4
I prefer moving pictures to stills but that is just my taste. Don't get me wrong. I love a great still photo but it is really difficult to get a great still shot in a gym(where we climb most of the time) without adding extra light which I don't like either.
I think Canon's video is probably the best followed closely by the Panasonic GH1. However, I do think the top of the line Nikon is pretty hard to beat for stills.
I also like Nikon lenses better but I know Canon lenses are excellent as well. You can't go wrong with either the Canon or Nikon top of the line cameras. Just don't pay a bundle for the body and scrimp on the glass.
(This post was edited by JasonsDrivingForce on Jun 8, 2010, 4:26 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fotovult
Jun 24, 2010, 8:27 PM
Post #13 of 16
(8517 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2006
Posts: 13
|
I routinely shoot high ISO (4000) for some clients where all I have is available light to work with and the Canon 5D MKII is amazing. Low noise and a real good color representation at these ISOs are real standout.
|
|
|
|
|
bergo
Jun 25, 2010, 2:54 AM
Post #14 of 16
(8502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 111
|
First of all, I have to say I'm a Canon Fan. I always prefer Canon over other brands but in this case I have to be on the Nikon D3S's side over the 1d Mark IV. Nikon has chosen a wiser noise reduction path: larger sensor, fewer MPs. I've seen pictures taken with both machines with similar lenses and the result is brutally different. Specially with ISO 102400.
On the price: Canon $4999 vs Nikon $5199. If you look for the D3X model it will be over $7000 and that one only reaches ISO 6400.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Jun 25, 2010, 4:41 AM
Post #15 of 16
(8493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
There is a good comarprison here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/vs-5d-mark-ii.htm
...of two of the best modern cameras. The Nikon wins out in the high-ISO/low noise reduction and the price will fit well within you budget.
|
|
|
|
|
pseudolith
Jun 25, 2010, 12:21 PM
Post #16 of 16
(8478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 96
|
Look for the lens on www.fredmiranda.com. Check out the buy/sell forums. Wes Powell pointed me to that site a couple years ago, and I've purchased several lenses, and my 40d, from fellow photographers on the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
