1Dx M2 Sensor Resolution - Back of envelop estimate

[Loswr]

The finished product if it were in my workflow the ISO 1000 shot would have 0 noise and 0 data as it would have been deleted when I chimped it.

Interesting. I have lots of 'keepers' shot at well above ISO 1000. When I used a 7D, I tried to avoid going above ISO 800, although I would go up to ISO 3200 if needed (usually to get a shutter speed fast enough for birds), and live with the increased noise at those higher ISO settings.

 

[takesome1]

The finished product if it were in my workflow the ISO 1000 shot would have 0 noise and 0 data as it would have been deleted when I chimped it.

Interesting. I have lots of 'keepers' shot at well above ISO 1000. When I used a 7D, I tried to avoid going above ISO 800, although I would go up to ISO 3200 if needed (usually to get a shutter speed fast enough for birds), and live with the increased noise at those higher ISO settings.

Yes, however in his long winded premise the ISO 1000 shot was 2 stops underexposed vs a ISO 4000 shot properly exposed.
The underexposed shot gets deleted.

 

[3kramd5]

To sum up what I think of the conversation in regard to this subject. Eric Fossum is correct, Neuro is correct and your inability to look beyond a single point has left you with an incorrect assumption.

Speaking of assumptions, here is one, and it goes to my question above.

I assume that most people who deliberately set exposure on a camera typically choose exposure time and aperture based on the subject and their creative intent, and set sensitivity according to the availability of light and their desired brightness. That may be a poor assumption, but I'm self-centered and that's how I shoot.

So say I'm shooting a hummingbird in flight and want to stop motion. I want 1/4000 or faster exposure time. Say I'm using a lens combination which allows me f/5.6 aperture at the maximum, but I want f/8 for a little wider DOF given my distance to subject and a desire to have the entire bird in focus. That right there is the subject/creative intent side of the equation. Next comes light. I can't change or augment ambient - it is what it is. I'm at ISO1000, but a "chimped" glance at the histogram shows that I'm about 2 stops under where I want it to be in the first shot. Accordingly, I change to ISO4000 and shoot again. Can I expect more noise, less noise, or the same noise in the second shot?

You forgot to specify one detail: Do you lift the exposure of the first shot in post in the raw converter or do you use the shots directly as coming from the camera?

I didn't forget to specify . The reason I hypothetically increased ISO was to get it right in camera. No lifting in post necessary.

 

[3kramd5]

The underexposed shot gets deleted.

But before it gets deleted, does it have more noise, less noise, or noise equivalent to the ISO4000 shot?

 

[Loswr]

The finished product if it were in my workflow the ISO 1000 shot would have 0 noise and 0 data as it would have been deleted when I chimped it.

Interesting. I have lots of 'keepers' shot at well above ISO 1000. When I used a 7D, I tried to avoid going above ISO 800, although I would go up to ISO 3200 if needed (usually to get a shutter speed fast enough for birds), and live with the increased noise at those higher ISO settings.

Yes, however in his long winded premise the ISO 1000 shot was 2 stops underexposed vs a ISO 4000 shot properly exposed.
The underexposed shot gets deleted.

Ahhh, of course. I would also have deleted that shot in the defined scenario (although during triage after transferring to my Mac, as I generally don't delete files on my camera), keeping the higher ISO 'desired' exposure image with comparatively more noise (and at ISO 4000, it would get DxO Prime NR processing).

 

[zim]

The underexposed shot gets deleted.

But before it gets deleted, does it have more noise, less noise, or noise equivalent to the ISO4000 shot?

It didn't have ANY he has a SONY

 

[takesome1]

The underexposed shot gets deleted.

But before it gets deleted, does it have more noise, less noise, or noise equivalent to the ISO4000 shot?

When I saw that the LCD is near black I just deleted it, I wouldn't have done an analysis.

If we are talking a processed finished image drawing the comparison of two pictures properly exposed would be a fair comparison. Your comparison is a "what if" comparison.

These type of comparisons usually used as troll bait. If that is the case then I am pretty sure there is no answer that you would accept as the "right" answer.

So how about this, make the point you want to make then it can be discussed.

 

[takesome1]

The underexposed shot gets deleted.

But before it gets deleted, does it have more noise, less noise, or noise equivalent to the ISO4000 shot?

It didn't have ANY he has a SONY

no no no... because the proper exposure would have been 4 stops under exposed. It is obvious the ISO 1000 would have been 6 stops under exposed. It would be almost be unusable.

 

[Loswr]

no no no... because the proper exposure would have been 4 stops under exposed. It is obvious the ISO 1000 would have been 6 stops under exposed. It would be almost be unusable.

Unusable for Canon. As we all know, a 6-stop push is no problem for Exmor. Even a 10-stop push works with Exmor, as you can see from those appreciating the quality artwork in the National Gallery...

Original (under)exposure:

10-stop push of the ISO 100 Canon shot:

10-stop push of the ISO 100 Exmor shot:

;D

 

[bdunbar79]

The finished product if it were in my workflow the ISO 1000 shot would have 0 noise and 0 data as it would have been deleted when I chimped it.

Interesting. I have lots of 'keepers' shot at well above ISO 1000. When I used a 7D, I tried to avoid going above ISO 800, although I would go up to ISO 3200 if needed (usually to get a shutter speed fast enough for birds), and live with the increased noise at those higher ISO settings.

Yes, however in his long winded premise the ISO 1000 shot was 2 stops underexposed vs a ISO 4000 shot properly exposed.
The underexposed shot gets deleted.

So let's do it the right way. Let's take the shot "properly exposed" at ISO 1000 and then keep that same exposure and dial in ISO 2500. Which one has more noise? Let's keep everything the exact same except ISO.

 

[3kramd5]

The underexposed shot gets deleted.

But before it gets deleted, does it have more noise, less noise, or noise equivalent to the ISO4000 shot?

When I saw that the LCD is near black I just deleted it, I wouldn't have done an analysis.

If we are talking a processed finished image drawing the comparison of two pictures properly exposed would be a fair comparison. Your comparison is a "what if" comparison.

These type of comparisons usually used as troll bait. If that is the case then I am pretty sure there is no answer that you would accept as the "right" answer.

So how about this, make the point you want to make then it can be discussed.

I was not making a point, I was asking a question. Specifically, does noise vary (and if so: how) with ISO for a given fixed input?

The reason for the long wind was to avoid the "lower SNR because you lowered the input signal at the same time as increasing ISO" assumption baked into much of the discussion.

 

[tpatana]

Banding looks quite bad on the Canon.

 

[bdunbar79]

The underexposed shot gets deleted.

But before it gets deleted, does it have more noise, less noise, or noise equivalent to the ISO4000 shot?

When I saw that the LCD is near black I just deleted it, I wouldn't have done an analysis.

If we are talking a processed finished image drawing the comparison of two pictures properly exposed would be a fair comparison. Your comparison is a "what if" comparison.

These type of comparisons usually used as troll bait. If that is the case then I am pretty sure there is no answer that you would accept as the "right" answer.

So how about this, make the point you want to make then it can be discussed.

I was not making a point, I was asking a question. Specifically, does noise vary (and if so: how) with ISO for a given fixed input?

The reason for the long wind was to avoid the "lower SNR because you lowered the input signal at the same time as increasing ISO" assumption baked into much of the discussion.

EXACTLY. You cannot lower input signal AND increase ISO and determine whether increasing ISO increases noise, or not. You must keep input signal the same, vary ISO, and measure noise. And this has been done thousands of times.

 

[takesome1]

I was not making a point,

Yes I agree.

 

[3kramd5]

I was not making a point,

Yes I agree.

Since you're so dismissive, shall I assume that only statements are allowed, not questions?

I will readily admit: I don't know the answer. I suspect that the answer is: noise varies directly with sensitivity, but I don't know it. Hence: asking.

 

[zim]

Banding looks quite bad on the Canon.

hehehe but the canon looks sharper ;D

 

[rs]

My name is Filluppa

Hello Mikael

 

[Loswr]

Banding looks quite bad on the Canon.

hehehe but the canon looks sharper ;D

Yeah, but only with Exmor can you truly appreciate the artwork. ;D

yes or no Mikael

 

[raptor3x]

As I understand , we will not have an answer from you Neuro in terms of noise to signal ratio and your claim about more noise in higher iso.
so I ask you again, does noise increase with higher iso
yes or no
it should be easy for you to answer this simple question

Before you can ask that question, you really need to define what you mean by noise. Based on all your previous posts it seems you don't have a clear understanding of what noise means.

 

[Loswr]

...shall I assume that only statements are allowed, not questions?

I will readily admit: I don't know the answer. I suspect that the answer is: noise varies directly with sensitivity, but I don't know it. Hence: asking.

You can always ask questions! Unlike some, you don't incessantly repeat the same question, which has already been clearly answered.

As for your statement question thing that you're sort of not quite asking , your suspicion is eminently correct in the context of your earlier scenario.