High ISO shooting; high MP for detail or low MP for noise?

[ScottyP]

Personally, if I had to pick one aspect about bad image quality at high ISO to address through sensor tech, I think it would be the low detail problem rather than the grain/noise problem. It is not a slam-dunk choice, but I think the available software does a halfway decent job in smoothing out the noise artifacts, but not much good at all at supplying detail which was not captured by the camera if you intend to crop much.

In other words, it seems like a high MP sensor would solve more problems with its increased detail than it would cause with its tiny noisy pixels.

Is this completely wrong?

 

[Dylan777]

My 2cent: it comes down to individual needs - sport shooter Vs Landscape shooter.

I do lot of indoor shooting, clean IQ at high ISO is what I'm after.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The noise robs sharpness, and image processing to reduce noise, steals more details. In other words: Comparing two sensors with the same size and same megapixel, that one has less noise, have more detailed picture.

 

[horshack]

If you think through what typical High ISO shooting represents then you'll reach the conclusion that there is no detail advantage for higher-density sensors in this application. Specifically, High ISO is typically used in hand-held situations for scenes that are shutter-speed limited, ie ISO is bumped to achieve the minimum shutter speed necessary to avoid motion/camera shake. Higher-density sensors require faster shutter speeds to achieve the same pixel-level sharpness as lower-density sensors - this same pixel-level sharpness is required in order for the higher-density sensor to have a detail advantage over the lower-density sensor, even for downsampling cases, otherwise you're just oversampling motion blur/camera shake. Without a faster shutter speed the higher-density image will have the same acuity as the lower-density sensor at equivalent viewing sizes (but not worse). Because the High ISO image requires a faster shutter speed, the absolute exposure (roughly ISO) will be lower on the higher-density sensor, normalizing the detail advantage over the lower-density sensor due to higher noise.

Most High ISO comparisons are done with tripod-mounted setups, which fails to account for the necessary shutter speed adjustments since a stabilized setup can achieve pixel-level sharpness at any shutter speed (at least for camera shake if not motion blur).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My 2cent: it comes down to individual needs - sport shooter Vs Landscape shooter.

I do lot of indoor shooting, clean IQ at high ISO is what I'm after.

+1

That's it. I bought a D800, and at low ISO's, it was very good. At High ISO's, the amount of noise made the files gigantic, and it was taking Lightroom almost a minute to render it, and adjusting the noise slider took another minute to update. I had a 4 core I7 computer. Not the fastest, but plenty fast for my 5D MK III. I've since updated to the latest i7 processor and to LR5, and it renders them much faster.

Then, there were the Nikon lenses, my 24-70 f/2.8G had a huge amount of CA's. It was so bad that Lightroom could not correct it all. I thought the lens was bad until I read some reviews seeing the same issues. DXO, of course rated them excellent I also saw that it takes a month or more for Nikon to repair a lens, while Canon turns one around in about 2 days.

A person needs to be aware of all the surrounding issues, and then go for what he needs.

 

[Cheryll]

In other words, it seems like a high MP sensor would solve more problems with its increased detail than it would cause with its tiny noisy pixels.

See the difference in the noise comparison from Noise comparison between Sony a7s and Nikon D4S.
(Sorry I not post a comparison from canon to a7s. I hope the next canon's are better than the Sony and Nikon)
The Sony has good fine details in lowlight. The Nikon has more details, but the 4 MP more comes to much more noise in high ISO Shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0bK1xqcYZI

Here is a great test from the a7s with the question :,, Is 12 MP enough?''
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_a7s_first_impressions.shtml

 

[Aglet]

HAHA! MSP sure didn't have a positive D800 experience.
I, OTOH, LUV the darn things.

BUT, I rarely need hi ISO abilities. When I do, I find I can still get high quality images even from 3200 ISO with only a small amount of NR required.

So, part of what you'll need to consider when you make a decision like this is knowing HOW high of and ISO you're going to be operating at on a "need" basis. If you don't "need" to go about 3200, the d800 class of camera will still provide a lot of detail. If you need to go higher ISO on a regular basis then you may want to choose something like the 6D or more premium bodies but pay close attention to the types of noise produced by all cameras. Random niose is not a bit deal, pattern noise is a big hassle and sometimes a complete deal-breaker. The latter is why most of my gear is no longer Canon.

 

[bdunbar79]

HAHA! MSP sure didn't have a positive D800 experience.
I, OTOH, LUV the darn things.

BUT, I rarely need hi ISO abilities. When I do, I find I can still get high quality images even from 3200 ISO with only a small amount of NR required.

So, part of what you'll need to consider when you make a decision like this is knowing HOW high of and ISO you're going to be operating at on a "need" basis. If you don't "need" to go about 3200, the d800 class of camera will still provide a lot of detail. If you need to go higher ISO on a regular basis then you may want to choose something like the 6D or more premium bodies but pay close attention to the types of noise produced by all cameras. Random niose is not a bit deal, pattern noise is a big hassle and sometimes a complete deal-breaker. The latter is why most of my gear is no longer Canon.

Not surprised...

 

[Aglet]

HAHA! MSP sure didn't have a positive D800 experience.
I, OTOH, LUV the darn things.

BUT, I rarely need hi ISO abilities. When I do, I find I can still get high quality images even from 3200 ISO with only a small amount of NR required.

So, part of what you'll need to consider when you make a decision like this is knowing HOW high of and ISO you're going to be operating at on a "need" basis. If you don't "need" to go about 3200, the d800 class of camera will still provide a lot of detail. If you need to go higher ISO on a regular basis then you may want to choose something like the 6D or more premium bodies but pay close attention to the types of noise produced by all cameras. Random niose is not a bit deal, pattern noise is a big hassle and sometimes a complete deal-breaker. The latter is why most of my gear is no longer Canon.

Not surprised...

And you shouldn't be, the 36MP Sony sensors have better mid to hi ISO performance than some shooters are aware of.
That IS what you're not surprised about, is it not?

 

[Dylan777]

My 2cent: it comes down to individual needs - sport shooter Vs Landscape shooter.

I do lot of indoor shooting, clean IQ at high ISO is what I'm after.

+1

That's it. I bought a D800, and at low ISO's, it was very good. At High ISO's, the amount of noise made the files gigantic, and it was taking Lightroom almost a minute to render it, and adjusting the noise slider took another minute to update. I had a 4 core I7 computer. Not the fastest, but plenty fast for my 5D MK III. I've since updated to the latest i7 processor and to LR5, and it renders them much faster.

Then, there were the Nikon lenses, my 24-70 f/2.8G had a huge amount of CA's. It was so bad that Lightroom could not correct it all. I thought the lens was bad until I read some reviews seeing the same issues. DXO, of course rated them excellent I also saw that it takes a month or more for Nikon to repair a lens, while Canon turns one around in about 2 days.

A person needs to be aware of all the surrounding issues, and then go for what he needs.

As an owner of a7r, I understand the feeling of PP 36MP files

 

[Loswr]

BUT, I rarely need hi ISO abilities. When I do, I find I can still get high quality images even from 3200 ISO...

'...even from 3200'?? If ISO 3200 was my definition of 'high ISO', maybe a 36 MP Sony sensor would work for me. Mt. Spokane shoots high school theater. I shoot fast action in gymnasiums and birds in poor light. ISOs 1-3 stops higher than ISO 3200 are needed frequently.

...the 36MP Sony sensors have better mid to hi ISO performance than some shooters are aware of.

For users of current Canon FF bodies (6D, 5DIII, 1D X), ISO 3200 is mid ISO, not high ISO. Nikon users need the D4s for that, Sony users the a7S...and given the thread title, I'll point out that both of the latter options mean sacrificing more resolution for the same level of performance.

 

[ScottyP]

My 2cent: it comes down to individual needs - sport shooter Vs Landscape shooter.

I do lot of indoor shooting, clean IQ at high ISO is what I'm after.

I shoot very little landscape. Virtually everything I shoot is alive, and occasionally I jumping around doing gymnastics or trampoline indoors in horrible light. It is a struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed without going 1-2 stops above 3200. Then I am limited to how much I can blow it up, because the image really has little detail.

 

[Aglet]

I shoot very little landscape. Virtually everything I shoot is alive, and occasionally I jumping around doing gymnastics or trampoline indoors in horrible light. It is a struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed without going 1-2 stops above 3200. Then I am limited to how much I can blow it up, because the image really has little detail.

Sounds like you're gonna need a decent full-frame body with a very good AF system to get what you want, and a fast lens to go with it, both in terms of light gathering and AF speed.
It aint gonna be cheap.

 

[jdramirez]

It depends. I control the light entirely on maybe 5% of my shots, the other 95% is a combination of low light and good light... but I've rather have low noise. I rarely kick my iso above 3200... and I never kick it above 6400... So that is just me.