So how does YOUR point and shoot fare at ISO 800?

[996GT2]

Since people always ask about high ISO performance in point and shoots, I thought it would be good to have a thread with sample images from fellow AT members' own cameras. That way, people can get a real sense of how these cameras perform at higher ISOs.

Rules: post an unprocessed image straight from your point and shoot at ISO 800. Full size is preferred, but 100% crop can also suffice. Image can be compressed to fit under limits for uploading (e.g. 1 MB for Photobucket).

Here's one from my Panasonic LZ8 @ ISO 800. Noise reduction was left at default settings, along with everything else.

 

[Deadtrees]

To make it accurate, you need to think about exposure.
Think about these situations. a. shots taken in ISO 800 when there's enough light. b. shots taken when there's the minimal amount of light.
A exact same camera would show very different result depending on the situation; in other words, case b would show a lot more noise.
Hell, I can take out any camera in day light using high ISO values and conclude this cameras' ISO performance is very good; I can even manipulate in a way that Nikon D70 shows less noise than Nikon D700.

Simply put, comparing ISO performances between cameras without considering light setting or exposure is quite meaningless.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
To make it accurate, you need to think about exposure.
Think about these situations. a. shots taken in ISO 800 when there's enough light. b. shots taken when there's the minimal amount of light.
A exact same camera would show very different result depending on the situation; in other words, case b would show a lot more noise.
Hell, I can take out any camera in day light using high ISO values and conclude this cameras' ISO performance is very good.

Simply put, comparing ISO performances between cameras without considering light setting or exposure is quite meaningless.

Hmm, maybe make it more specific and have the posted shots be at the correct exposure?

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
To make it accurate, you need to think about exposure.
Think about these situations. a. shots taken in ISO 800 when there's enough light. b. shots taken when there's the minimal amount of light.
A exact same camera would show very different result depending on the situation; in other words, case b would show a lot more noise.
Hell, I can take out any camera in day light using high ISO values and conclude this cameras' ISO performance is very good.

Simply put, comparing ISO performances between cameras without considering light setting or exposure is quite meaningless.

Hmm, maybe make it more specific and have the posted shots be at the correct exposure?

I don't know what you mean by "correct exposure."
Anyway, in order to accurately compare ISO performances between cameras, here are settings that must be equal:

1. Same amount of light.
2. No exposure compensation.
(No manual exposure.)
3. Same aperture and shutter speed.
4. No flash lights.

There're other factors to consider (such as cameras' built-in ISO reduction options,) but given how users knowledge is limited not to mention settings play different roles between given cameras, I think this important factor can't be met across all the cameras.

EDIT: First of all, you should take down your sample shot.

 

[shortylickens]

The F717 died a while ago. The only P&S (or POS) I have left is my old Sony P50.
It takes rotten pics at 400 or above. Only 100 and 200 look decent and I had to learn that the hard way. I also learned to not use AUTO ISO if at all possible. I'd have to dig up some photos and dont really feel like it right now.
Trust me, they stink. Only my new Nikon D40 takes decent pics at ISO 800 and thats assuming everything else is optimal.

 

[magomago]

I agree with Deadtrees. I saw the photo and first thing I thought was "Now now, this doesn't count". Go back and retake a photo in low light. Already in your photo I can see, even when made smaller, NR blotches in the shadow area. I can take a nice bright photo @ the same ISO on my 100D and make it look like no noise exists at all. Hell, even iso1600 can come out perfect.

There is rarely a reason to use high ISO (I'm sure there IS a scenario when its preferred) when you have plenty of light.

 

[extra]

Why doesn't that pic count?

We use high iso in bright light all the time. The point of doing this is to get a high shutter speed to freeze motion. If i'm taking a picture of something static in low light i just use a long shutter speed and a low iso (unless there is motion of course).

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: extra
Why doesn't that pic count?

We use high iso in bright light all the time. The point of doing this is to get a high shutter speed to freeze motion. If i'm taking a picture of something static in low light i just use a long shutter speed and a low iso (unless there is motion of course).

I can't imagine anyone using a P&S for action scenes. By the time you acquire focus on a P&S, the player would have thrown the ball already, and the race car would be way past the finish line. Not to mention that low-light high-iso performance is more demanding on the camera than in good lighting. If you have enough light, a pixel-smudging algorithm can hide the noise and still retain what looks like detail. But in a low light scenario you really need to have a good high-iso implementation, otherwise the shots will look like a watercolor paining.

 

[randomlinh]

SD1000... think rainbow dots all over your image =P

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: extra
Why doesn't that pic count?

We use high iso in bright light all the time. The point of doing this is to get a high shutter speed to freeze motion. If i'm taking a picture of something static in low light i just use a long shutter speed and a low iso (unless there is motion of course).

Let's say, with this lens, you took a picture using optimal aperture (probably f/8) and say we should all compare lenses we have. Some shots are taken with f/1.4, some are taken with f/4, some are taken with f/22 or whatever. Sure, you may use whatever aperture values for whatever reasons, but that just isn't the correct way to test various lenses. A simple science course in high school would tell you why.
Same thing with this high ISO performance test, even worse, unlike in above cases, we can't even know about the light setting which plays an very important factor.

(Technically, increasing exposure or having good light increases photon shot noise but at the same time, it gives far better SNR due to capturing more photon rain. Let's say there's camera A and B and A is just better than B in terms of 'high ISO performance.' However, if camera A is given better light or good exposure, A would show better result; not because camera A performs better but because it was given unfair advantage.)

Simply put, set your camera's ISO 1600. Go take a picture outside in daylight. Go take a picture in a dark room. Compare those 2 ISO 1600 images.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

My beloved Fuji F30 is still my P&S of choice, I have yet to find a pocketable camera that can match it in low light at ISO800

 

[corkyg]

In order to compare apples to apples, etc., a valid judgment can be made by shooting the exact same scene with the same light, etc., and varying the ISO. I did this with my 5D two years ago - shot the same scene fromn a tripo and used ISO 50, 200, 400, 600, 1600, and 3200. The exposure was automatic. Unless you would be enlarging the images beyond 8 x 10, there really was very little noticeable difference.

Digital photogs are overly concerned with "noise." Back in the film days, my standard was Ektachrome 400. In the 60s, we used this to get very good intelligence shots at night or very low light by processing the film as B&W and pushing it to what was then ASA 6400. Yes - there was what we called grain opresent, but that did not bother the usefulness of the information.

Today, noise is the digital equivalent of grain, and in very low light environments, it is entirely appropriate and useful for specific illustrations and projects not involving big enlargements.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: corkyg
In order to compare apples to apples, etc., a valid judgment can be made by shooting the exact same scene with the same light, etc., and varying the ISO. I did this with my 5D two years ago - shot the same scene fromn a tripo and used ISO 50, 200, 400, 600, 1600, and 3200. The exposure was automatic. Unless you would be enlarging the images beyond 8 x 10, there really was very little noticeable difference.

Digital photogs are overly concerned with "noise." Back in the film days, my standard was Ektachrome 400. In the 60s, we used this to get very good intelligence shots at night or very low light by processing the film as B&W and pushing it to what waws then ASA 6400. Yes - there was what we called grain opresent, but that did not bother the usefulness of the information.

Today, noise is the digital equivalent of grain, and in very low light environments, it is entirely appropriate and useful for specific illustrations and projects not involving big enlargements.

Actually if its a discussion about purely noise and separating it from the blotches, then I'm all for it. I very much like that grain look that film cameras give. At times, having noise enhances a photo and gives it something that a 'clean shot' would never give. Even on a DLSR I've come to appreciate grain like noise and there will be times I shoot at ISO1600 because I want to capture that specifically. What gets to me more so is not about the existence of noise, rather, it is about low light performance where blotches begin to appear. And that brings us back to the point that we can't _fully_ decouple noise from algorithm blotches - as iso increases, these blotches (Although it takes generally iso3200+ for this to happen), increase as well.

But you are right...printed on less than 8x10 and it probably isn't noticeable.

 

[ElFenix]

if i could find a working card reader i've got a full ISO series for a few little cameras of my bookshelf. should have gotten some from the SLR as a control but iso 100 on the lx3 should be decent enough.