Jump to content

Iso max for a good image quality, sony a7 mark i

Alforno

By Alforno,
in Sony Alpha Full Frame Cameras

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pieter Mentor

Pieter

Posted
Posted

Try it and you'll know it. Acceptability of image quality is very subjective. It's a tradeoff between ISO noise, motion blur, flash lighting and/or just accepting that you can't take the shot given the circumstances.

That being said, personally I'd try to stay below 6400 and just accept to not take the shot if that's insufficient. But then again, I'm just a hobbyist so not taking the shot is a viable option for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cameratose Rising Star

Cameratose

Posted
Posted

As stated, it's subjective. However, a good AI de-noising program can make a huge difference. I shoot at ISO 20,000 quite a bit when I have to get the shot, and use DXO to clean them up. I wouldn't be able to do that without DXO, even using a standard method of denoise in a software program. It's probably the best money you can spend after your processing software.

On my cameras I don't need to denoise from ISO 3200 and below under normal circumstances. I don't know how the A7 responds. 

Lastly, bear in mind noise has much to do with the original exposure. Over-exposing and pulling it back in post can make a positive difference. You may see this written as ETTR, or "Expose To The Right", which means to push the meter in the viewfinder to the + (or right) side.  

As Pieter said, some of these things are best done by trial and error. One man's set up may not be the same as the next. Do some testing in low light and see what works best for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tadwil Community Regular

tadwil

Posted
Posted

All of the things I have read about A7 and A7II, indicated neither of theses models were any good at low light situation.  And all of the reviews I have read about A7III said it was significantly better than it's predecessors in high ISO photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • XKAES
      JPEG options?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • Cameratose
      JPEG options?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • Pieter
      JPEG options?

      By Pieter · Posted

      If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...