Under-expose vs bump iso

[WWP]

I'm in a predicament. Shooting a baseball game this afternoon, and the forecast is for cloudy skies. I need a 2.8 lens, but all I have is 4.5-5.6 and at 300mm I pretty much need 6.3 unless I over sharpen in processing. One thing I can do is shoot at 200mm wide open and do a lot of cropping, just as I would have to do with a 70-200 2.8.
I was thinking perhaps I could under expose by .7 or 1 stop, drop my minimum shutter speed just a bit and still keep the iso at something reasonable. The D300 is pretty good with higher iso, but I'm not sure it's good enough for this situation.
Will under exposure 1 stop with processing yield better end results than bumping the iso 1 stop then reducing noise in post? I don't do well with noise reduction. I lose too much sharpness, it seems to me. Probably a no-talent thing.
There is a place in town where I might be able to rent a 70-200 2.8, but I won't know for awhile, and my brain is melting down with the prospect of poor light this afternoon.

[harrysixtie7]

I have issues at high iso's on my D70, im sure the D300 is much better, but I think it has a lot to do with my lack of practice in low light situations. For baseball your going to need the fast shutter with that in mind you might find your results better at 200mm with a crop. With the beautifully giant lcd screen on the D300 you should be able to compare and adjust accordingly. Best of luck, rent the glass if you feel you really need it.

[Chip]

WWP - Welcome!

I have a D90, which I understand has more or less the same high ISO performance as your D300. To me, it's a no-brainer: crank up the ISO.

As long as the shot is properly exposed, the noise from high ISO should be much less than you probably would expect. I'd bet that an ISO of 3200 wouldn't produce much noise during a daytime shot; and if it did, then it should be a pretty easy fix with a noise reduction program.

Just as a reference (not a great shot by any means), here's one I took at night with a 70-300mm VR, ISO 6400, f/5.6 and shutter of 1/200th. No noise reduction has been done to it. If my D90 can do this decent of job at a night high school football game, I'd bet that your D300 can do a better job at f/6.3 on a cloudy afternoon.




You've got a D300 with a great CMOS sensor - use it!

[wulf]

Try some high ISO shots - the results can turn out pretty good if the picture is well-exposed. The worst noise comes when you push the ISO up a bit but not enough to get good exposure, leaving dark, obviously noisy areas. Since learning this, I often end up shooting at ISO 800 with my D40 and getting good results.

Wulf

[WWP]

Oh, I need the glass, no doubt. 1/1250 is what I need from the shutter. I will drop that a quarter stop and probably blow a few shots, but that is about as low as I can go. In good light with occasional clouds the iso varies from 200 to 400 at f6.3 and 1/1250. I get good results with that, but I figure I will lose at least 2 stops of light today, maybe more. So iso 800 is a given, and 1600 more likely unless I do something with exposure. The laws of light are just brutal.

[WWP]

Originally Posted by Chip

WWP - Welcome!

I have a D90, which I understand has more or less the same high ISO performance as your D300. To me, it's a no-brainer: crank up the ISO.

As long as the shot is properly exposed, the noise from high ISO should be much less than you probably would expect. I'd bet that an ISO of 3200 wouldn't produce much noise during a daytime shot; and if it did, then it should be a pretty easy fix with a noise reduction program.

Just as a reference (not a great shot by any means), here's one I took at night with a 70-300mm VR, ISO 6400, f/5.6 and shutter of 1/200th. No noise reduction has been done to it. If my D90 can do this decent of job at a night high school football game, I'd bet that your D300 can do a better job at f/6.3 on a cloudy afternoon.

You've got a D300 with a great CMOS sensor - use it!

Thanks, Chip. Nice shot.
I will do what I have to do on iso, obviously. But consider that most action plays have the ball and the players moving at a 90 degree angle to the lens at high speed, even airborne. It's great to have confidence, but iso 3200 and iso 6400 are out of the question. If the photos were only for me, "usable" would be fine. That isn't the case.

[vandergus]

If you're shooting jpg, then you'll probably get better results from boosting your ISO. If you're shooting RAW, then I'm not sure. This is something I've been meaning to test but haven't got around to it yet.

Say you have two options. Shoot at 1/1250 at f5.6 and ISO 400 which underexposes your particular scene by 2 stops and push the image 2 stops in post. Or shoot at 1/1250 at f5.6 and ISO 1600 and get a proper exposure in camera. In both cases the same amount of light is getting to the sensor since the shutter speed and aperture are the same. In both cases, the image has to be pushed 4 stops from the base ISO of the sensor, assuming a base ISO of 100. The difference is that in the first case, the RAW converter does some of the pushing, while in the second case the camera does all of the pushing (or amplification of the signal). So whether one technique is better than the other will depend on the individual noise handling capabilities of your particular camera and your particular RAW converter. In other words, the only way to know is to try it and see

[vandergus]

Another thing to consider when evaluating noisy images is the size that they will eventually be used at. The noise may be objectionable when viewing the image at %100 but may be fine in an 8" X 12" print. Do you have an idea of what the end use of the images will be?

[fletch]

As Vandergus says, pushing the exposure in PP is the same as increasing the ISO. You are just amplifying the signal.

However if you do this in PP you loose some other things such as dynamic range and the cameras noise reduction. Get the expsoure right in camera, then apply noise reduction if necessary.

[WWP]

Originally Posted by vandergus

Another thing to consider when evaluating noisy images is the size that they will eventually be used at. The noise may be objectionable when viewing the image at %100 but may be fine in an 8" X 12" print. Do you have an idea of what the end use of the images will be?

Good thoughts, vandergus. I shoot RAW, use NX 2/Paint Shop, and some of the parents do view at 100%. I had one lady tell me about the stitching on her boy's jersey. Glad he doesn't play outfield. I know at least one who got some 20" prints made.
All of this is a result of poor planning on my part. Should have checked the weather yesterday. I could have done some testing yesterday evening. I've only done a couple of games. The first turned out okay, the second much better because I changed from hand held to free wheeling tripod shots, although I lost some nice shots in the second game because framing from the tripod took practice. Lots of straightening going on on some of those shots.
The D300 gives me good shadow detail. I know because bright sun and baseball caps make for shadowed faces, and I've been able to bring out those faces pretty well with color control points in NX 2. That is where I got the idea to under-expose, but I am not easy about it.