A900 + 70-300 G + agorabasta high ISO setting

[Dearchivism]

If i may give my premature + humble experience (pardon me if there is wrong about what i've written here) :

very interesting experiment from TME, i become interested some day to shot using agorabasta at high iso setting at night, just wonder how the result will be, especially for the noise appearance ;p Hopefully the resullt will be good and satisfy me (because so far i am satisfied with sony DSLR ;p). Tumb up for TME ;p

i also seldom shot using RAW format (usually using JPEG format, and i not a pro lah, just a learner hahahaha), because the file size becomes big (my old note book will not able to handle the big big file, poor me lah....hahaha). i just feel the results at jpeg format from Sony DSLR so far are already good enough. i only have to set the camera more properly, manage to get the good light (if it is possible) and try to shot more creatively and happily. have a nice shooting time for all of you ;p

 

[XkaOnslaught]

The whole idea of the agorabasta setting is to find a setting that will give good high ISO low light image quality in JPEG... none of these will affect RAW. So you can have your cake and eat... Shoot cRAW + JPEG. Use the JPEG if it's good enough, and then RAW if it's not... the point is do you really need RAW if you're not a pro? I don't print beyond A4 much... I have printed A3+ only a couple of times... the better detail, tonality really can't be seen in an A4 print... so save me the trouble and hard disk space lor...

this is a flawed logic. shooting RAW does not mean you are a pro, and vice versa. RAW is a capability of a DSLR that many PNS and prosumers do not have.

personally speaking, i shoot RAW 99.9% of the time. If your camera lets you do better things, why not use it. for a DSLR, i find that shooting JPEG is a "bloody waste of time". if i want to shoot JPEG, i wouldnt have gotten a DSLR in the first place.

granted, JPEG is there to 'make things easy'. but still, a 'waste of time' imo.

 

[Getz10]

The main question is actually whether u need the 12bit image for processing.
U may question about the 2-stop and WB.......but is tat an issue if all are manage correctly right from the start?? Dun forget most of us compress the photo to jpeg in the end.......I also wonder how many hobbyist that capture RAW use it for adjustment, compress to tiff for retouching then printout.

RAW does not give u better image.....wat it allow is actually more colour depth and room for processing. If that's not what u are doing, then shooting RAW would just be another "waste of time" unless the 2-stop exposure is very important to u :sweatsm:

BTW, thanks TS for testing this setting Would try it too....seems good.

 

[XkaOnslaught]

The main question is actually whether u need the 12bit image for processing.
U may question about the 2-stop and WB.......but is tat an issue if all are manage correctly right from the start?? Dun forget most of us compress the photo to jpeg in the end.......I also wonder how many hobbyist that capture RAW use it for adjustment, compress to tiff for retouching then printout.

RAW does not give u better image.....wat it allow is actually more colour depth and room for processing. If that's not what u are doing, then shooting RAW would just be another "waste of time" unless the 2-stop exposure is very important to u :sweatsm:

BTW, thanks TS for testing this setting Would try it too....seems good.

Thats exactly the reason why we ( or at least I ) use a DSLR in the first place. It is so that we(I) have the option to do additional post processing. no one ever said shooting RAW will give you a better image. Shooting RAW will give you a chance to make a image look better.

and regarding the first para, i am one of those that uses RAW on everything. even candid/for fun/backside itchy kind of shots. you never know when you will take those unique photos. Its when you will pat yourself on the back that you actually took a RAW image.


that said, Shooting JPEG isnt a bad thing. its the next closest thing to shooting film.

 

[TME]

this is a flawed logic. shooting RAW does not mean you are a pro, and vice versa. RAW is a capability of a DSLR that many PNS and prosumers do not have.

personally speaking, i shoot RAW 99.9% of the time. If your camera lets you do better things, why not use it. for a DSLR, i find that shooting JPEG is a "bloody waste of time". if i want to shoot JPEG, i wouldnt have gotten a DSLR in the first place.

granted, JPEG is there to 'make things easy'. but still, a 'waste of time' imo.

How is it a flawed logic? My question does not imply that shooting RAW = pro. What it meant was that with the extra time and effort put in to processing RAW, most often it is the pros who would bother since the quality of their pictures earns them their keep.

For amateurs, to each his own... if you have the time and inclination, why not?

I believe most hobbyists use DSLRs not for RAW, not that extra edge of adjustment that RAW gives but the much superior image quality a larger sensor and excellent lenses afford, as well as the immense flexibility in focal lengths that allow them to capture almost anything they see... For that reason, I'm predicting that new EP-1 and GF-1 are going to be really hot in the next few months if the marketing gets it right... it's everything a hobbyist looks for plus compactness to boot... and many travellers would love it too... so would I!!!!

 

[XkaOnslaught]

How is it a flawed logic? My question does not imply that shooting RAW = pro. What it meant was that with the extra time and effort put in to processing RAW, most often it is the pros who would bother since the quality of their pictures earns them their keep.

For amateurs, to each his own... if you have the time and inclination, why not?

I believe most hobbyists use DSLRs not for RAW, not that extra edge of adjustment that RAW gives but the much superior image quality a larger sensor and excellent lenses afford, as well as the immense flexibility in focal lengths that allow them to capture almost anything they see... For that reason, I'm predicting that new EP-1 and GF-1 are going to be really hot in the next few months if the marketing gets it right... it's everything a hobbyist looks for plus compactness to boot... and many travellers would love it too... so would I!!!!

unfortunately, most hobbyist are also pretty cautious with their wallets. and most hobbyist wouldn't care about the compactness of their cameras, if image quality was their main priority. hence DSLRs will still be the best price/performace digital cameras.

many PNS upgraders would not get the GF1 or EP1 right off the bat. i think the hot buyers will be owners of current DSLR systems, who wants a compact backup camera for quick shots, but do not want to go back down the PNS path.

 

[TME]

unfortunately, most hobbyist are also pretty cautious with their wallets. and most hobbyist wouldn't care about the compactness of their cameras, if image quality was their main priority. hence DSLRs will still be the best price/performace digital cameras.

For travel, it would matter... I think I've heard quite a few people here in this forums mention that they don't want to take their full gear overseas... too heavy but wouldn't want to sacrifice the ability to take good pictures and the flexibility... none of the bridge cameras can cut it... save for the R1... which is already out of production...

 

[XkaOnslaught]

For travel, it would matter... I think I've heard quite a few people here in this forums mention that they don't want to take their full gear overseas... too heavy but wouldn't want to sacrifice the ability to take good pictures and the flexibility... none of the bridge cameras can cut it... save for the R1... which is already out of production...

i know you travel alot la, so for you is already settled liao :bsmilie:

this is going to specific kind of photograhy liao. if the photog knows want kind of photography he likes, he will know what camera to get liao.

 

[TME]

i know you travel alot la, so for you is already settled liao :bsmilie:

this is going to specific kind of photograhy liao. if the photog knows want kind of photography he likes, he will know what camera to get liao.

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
But there is no chance to like rent the equipment in S'pore and try... and you spend so much for a trip, it's kinda wasted if you bring along a camera you're not familiar with and cannot capture what you want... need to like take a plunge... :think:

 

[Getz10]

For those who dun use manual mode, RAW is indeed a life saving

 

[XkaOnslaught]

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
But there is no chance to like rent the equipment in S'pore and try... and you spend so much for a trip, it's kinda wasted if you bring along a camera you're not familiar with and cannot capture what you want... need to like take a plunge... :think:

actually i find that its pretty stupid to be buying a DSLR right before one goes on a trip. DSLRs, however simple they have become over the years since SLRs still need time to get used to. even thought there is that pao-ka-liao Auto mode on most entry DSLRs. its still worthwhile to prolly spend a week or so getting to know your camera better

 

[TME]

actually i find that its pretty stupid to be buying a DSLR right before one goes on a trip. DSLRs, however simple they have become over the years since SLRs still need time to get used to. even thought there is that pao-ka-liao Auto mode on most entry DSLRs. its still worthwhile to prolly spend a week or so getting to know your camera better

Yeah of course... but it's still a plunge cos you pay like $2K for the camera and then you decide you can't live with its limitations... then what?! Cameras are very personal things... just I can't stand using a Canon but probably can live with a Nikon if forced to... No Panasonics or Olympus for me too although Fuji is tolerable...

 

[Drudkh]

Yeah of course... but it's still a plunge cos you pay like $2K for the camera and then you decide you can't live with its limitations... then what?! Cameras are very personal things... just I can't stand using a Canon but probably can live with a Nikon if forced to... No Panasonics or Olympus for me too although Fuji is tolerable...

can list out why you dislike the other brands?

 

[XkaOnslaught]

lol. i have no brand preference. a camera is a camera. a tool to take pictures. give me any DSLR, and i will use it to its fullest potential. after awhile, i have already learnt to live with sony's limitations, and instead, turn the limitations to my advantage. its pretty simple really. i have been using my a200/300 for a year now. recently i have been playing with my friends 500D, and the D90 as well. each camera has features that i like, but ultimately i still take the same photos the same way.

Edit: the only thing i dont like in a camera is a boxy look LOL. i live for elegance.

 

[TME]

I have no brand preference per say but it's the way the cameras are built and the algos written that has made me stick to SONY/KM/Minolta despite the obvious deficiencies in other areas... although I feel these deficiencies don't outweigh the good points... and the deficiencies of the other systems outweigh the obvious advantages... that's of course my personal take... your mileage may vary...

Canon - I simply don't like the ergonomics of the camera and the rather counter-intuitive user interface. The buttons and dials on the camera don't work intuitively... I had to ask my student how to change the exposure compensation when on most other cameras, the +/- button obvious or in A mode, one of the two dials would do that... I was using an 1D Mark II & III and 5D. I also don't like the grip of the camera... it doesn't suit me... I find it rather uncomfortable to hold for long periods... and the menu system leaves a lot to be desired actually... and a lot of functions are very menu-driven. And it's hard to know what the items on the menu mean... it's certainly less intuitive than the Nikon or Sony systems... of course the Sony system inherited theirs from KM which was one of the best then... the only one thing I love about Canon is the speed of the AF... especially the 1D with a good fast USM lens... beats anything that SONY has hands down I think... especially the wide area AF... wooo... pretty accurate and fast...

Nikon - the ergonomics are ok, just that I'm not used to it. But I don't like the use of the top LCD panel for info. It's too small, says too little, and I don't understand why the '0' must be half the size of the other numerals... for heaven's sake it's the 21st century, I'm sure they can do away with that archaic system which was necessary for older mono crystal displays... even the A900 has a better lettering... and since for the Nikons, that little panel is so important to check settings... I get plenty annoyed... same for Canon actually... just use the back LCD, big full colour and very clear and sharp with a 920k panel. I'm looking at the D70, D80, D300 which I have tried. I also love the AF speed on the Nikon and the AF accuracy... like for the Canon... but the A900 isn't too shabby either...

Olympus - Too menu driven. Can't stand it after coming from a 7D... It's that bad... I used the E420 I think, again a friend's camera. Dim viewfinder... plus the buttons are in the wrong place (but to be fair the camera is a lot smaller than the 7D and so less space for buttons). AF ain't that good but I am comparing different classes, so not fair there... had no chance to use the E-3 so can't tell... but it's the menu-driven system that drives me nuts...

I've not tried Panasonic DSLR yet. Did have a chance to try the Fuji S2 some years back and since that's a Nikon body, same comments.... never tried the new S5 - it's rarer than a Leica in Singapore me thinks... Never bothered with Samsung either... yet to try Pentax, no chance.

That's all... Drudkh, back to you...

 

[XkaOnslaught]

lol you hit the nail on the head there. i also come from a LCD menu based generation, as opposed to those diehard top panel display. so if i do change systems, id prolly forget about that top lcd display there lol. haha. actually egronomics wise, imo canon is the worst. their grip is only ok to hold on the xxD onwards. their entry levels really abit too shallow liao. maybe good for small hands bah. nikon's grip is actually ok. the D90 is pretty nice to hold, and they have the best VF i find out of the entry level cameras.

anyway if i want change system also hard la, i dun wan to part with my 70200 haha. i like to get some more experience using every brand's system.

 

[TME]

lol you hit the nail on the head there. i also come from a LCD menu based generation, as opposed to those diehard top panel display. so if i do change systems, id prolly forget about that top lcd display there lol. haha. actually egronomics wise, imo canon is the worst. their grip is only ok to hold on the xxD onwards. their entry levels really abit too shallow liao. maybe good for small hands bah. nikon's grip is actually ok. the D90 is pretty nice to hold, and they have the best VF i find out of the entry level cameras.

anyway if i want change system also hard la, i dun wan to part with my 70200 haha. i like to get some more experience using every brand's system.

I would simply love to have the Panasonic GF-1 for one weekend with the 14-24mm zoom lens.. I might ditch my chunky A900 for it if it works as well as Michael Reichmann describes it...

 

[MontoyaSG]

For those who dun use manual mode, RAW is indeed a life saving

be it shoot in manual or other modes RAW is useful.

for events lighting may change & if not compensated properly the jpg shots would the a goner while you can pull back the details if shooting in RAW.

 

[Getz10]

be it shoot in manual or other modes RAW is useful.

for events lighting may change & if not compensated properly the jpg shots would the a goner while you can pull back the details if shooting in RAW.

I think I did mention about the 2-stop allowance already in-case u r not reading earlier posting.

 

[VisionTechnik]

The whole idea of the agorabasta setting is to find a setting that will give good high ISO low light image quality in JPEG... none of these will affect RAW. So you can have your cake and eat... Shoot cRAW + JPEG. Use the JPEG if it's good enough, and then RAW if it's not... the point is do you really need RAW if you're not a pro? I don't print beyond A4 much... I have printed A3+ only a couple of times... the better detail, tonality really can't be seen in an A4 print... so save me the trouble and hard disk space lor...

Need to correct this, Agorabasta's setting does affect RAW. Actually the main setting is Zone Matching (ZM) which alters the tonal curves of the image.

I do not use Agorabasta setting but when i shoot high ISO, i will set ZM to -1 which will somehow help to reduce chroma noise significantly in the RAW file.