A1 owners, post some low light shots

[Brownie]

I shoot at ISO 8000 and above way more than I like. The new A9III is supposed to be a low-light monster, but if the rest of the features don't fall in line, then I am probably just going to suck it up and get an A1.

I do a LOT of research and sometimes I let numbers get in my way. Looking at charts, the A1 isn't as good in low light as my current cameras, the A7 IV and the A7R III. The differences appear to be minimal, but I fret over them nonetheless.

Rather than wonder or dig through countless internet photos looking for high ISO shots, how about you folks post some? Looking for anything clean from 3200 and up.

The 'displayed' exif was stripped from this first image due to the process of NR in Affinity>PNG>then processed in DT. If you want to click through to Flickr and click on 'show exif', it's there. For those who don't care to, this was at ISO 12,800 with a shutter speed of 1/1000. Obviously low artificial light.

DSC05171 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

ISO 8000:
DSC04129 by telecast, on Flickr

ISO 10000:
DSC04207 by telecast, on Flickr

ISO 16000:
DSC04264 by telecast, on Flickr

There are things that could be done to reduce ISO, like a tripod, faster lens, etc. but the question for the purposes of this thread is how the A1 performs at higher ISO, under similar circumsances as shown above. I've never shot above 16000 and rarely do even that, but anything is possible.

 

[iamdlewis]

I have my ISO limited to a max of 8000 as I found just upping the exposure in post seems to be a better option for anything beyond that.

The B&W Owl was more no light than low light.

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 8000

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 270.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/50 sec
• ISO 8000

This was a slow shutter speed but still you know what track lighting is like and this was well after sunset

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 294.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 6400

The light here might have been fine if it wasn't a hummingbird

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 8000

 

[Brownie]

I have my ISO limited to a max of 8000 as I found just upping the exposure in post seems to be a better option for anything beyond that.

Good point. I've been checking shadow improvement on various sensors, and what you've found bears out. There isn't much advantage from 8000 to 12800, but you do get a bit at 16000 with a slight but steady rise from there. The improvement at the sensor's second native ISO is dramatic.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Good point. I've been checking shadow improvement on various sensors, and what you've found bears out. There isn't much advantage from 8000 to 12800, but you do get a bit at 16000 with a slight but steady rise from there. The improvement at the sensor's second native ISO is dramatic.

View attachment 49209

Interesting that boosting exposure from lower ISO gives better results than the opposite of deliberately over exposing and taking the exposure back down. This is what I do when facing high ISO, my thinking being that raising the exposure stretches the pixels further and v=creates more noise, doing the opposite shrinks them and is easier to correct in my experience. I limit to t 10k, but will add compensation if things are still too dark.

 

[spudhead]

I would suggest you rent a a1 and try before you buy, I dont think you will get much feedback from a1 users on here Tim, and I will keep my thoughts to myself

 

[RogerSmith]

Here is an ISO6400, processed in Lightroom with modest use of the AI denoise function. I'll just say I unabashedly love my A1. I got a lightly used one off KEH and its been my favorite camera I've ever owned, hands down.

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 6400

 

[Brownie]

I would suggest you rent a a1 and try before you buy, I dont think you will get much feedback from a1 users on here Tim, and I will keep my thoughts to myself

There are a few that don't visit every day, so I reckon a few days will yield some results.

 

[Clix Pix]

Ahem.....yep, I'm one of those who doesn't pop in here every day and sometimes several days go by before I do! I belong to several forums,a few related to photography and also several to other topics, and of course in addition to spending time online I need to be out doing things in the real world such as grocery shopping, meeting up with friends, etc. In addition I need to spend some time editing the images I shoot, as I tend to shoot something with at least one of my cameras pretty much every day. Reviewing/culling/editing images takes time, too!

Moving on to the topic at hand: I think that there is a distinct difference between the ability to handle high ISO in cameras which have fewer megapixels, as opposed to those with higher MP count. I suppose it makes sense, actually, as the cameras with higher MP count are dealing with more pixels and usually other technological demands than those with fewer MP.

Unfortunately I can't really be all that helpful in providing specifics in how my A1 performs at higher ISO levels; actually, I have it set on Auto ISO most of the time and usually I'm using that camera to shoot wildlife under reasonably good light conditions in the first place....and I often have a 1.4x TC on there as well, which also presumably will affect the light values, too.

One reason I wanted that camera, though, was for the higher megapixel count, as very often I do need or want to crop my images and the minute I read the specs of the A1 I said, "OK, this is the camera body for me!" Previously I had already been considering the A9 II as a complement to my A7R IV, as the latter really was not good with the fps speed required for shooting wildlife. Once I heard about the A1 the answer was there, and I did indeed subsequently purchase one and love it.

It really will be interesting to see what the A9 III has to offer......

 

[iamdlewis]

For these the primary light sources were the fire shown and another on the other side of the field, the two light stands really didn't provide much light.

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS (SEL24105G)
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 6400

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS (SEL24105G)
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 6400

 

[Brownie]

Moving on to the topic at hand: I think that there is a distinct difference between the ability to handle high ISO in cameras which have fewer megapixels, as opposed to those with higher MP count. I suppose it makes sense, actually, as the cameras with higher MP count are dealing with more pixels and usually other technological demands than those with fewer MP.

Good grief, no kidding. Why do you suppose I'm asking for specific samples?

FWIW, it has nothing to do with technological demands, it has everything to do with smaller pixels on higher resolution cameras and the fact that they collect less light per pixel. That's also the reason Sony chose 12MP for the S series. However, improvements in sensors and processors are narrowing that gap significantly, to the extent that I'm not sure we'll ever see another S camera. If the A9III is as sensitive as is being predicted, there would be no need for a 12MP sensor. In the meantime, I want to see how the A1 performs under the same conditions as my lower resolution cameras.

 

[iain clyne]

Here's one @12800 from the A1 nothing done to it, it is as it came out of the camera.

 

[Tim Mayo]

Just one I have handy shot at ISO 6400. SOOC JPEG.

• ILCE-1
• FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 6400

And this is cropped in a little tighter.

• ILCE-1
• FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 6400

 

[Tim Mayo]

Just a few quick garden shots. Had to push the shutter speed for the higher ISO's as the suns out for a change

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/5000 sec
• ISO 10000

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 6400

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/6400 sec
• ISO 10000

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 5000

 

[Brownie]

Just a few quick garden shots. Had to push the shutter speed for the higher ISO's as the suns out for a change

View attachment 49244

View attachment 49242

View attachment 49243

View attachment 49241

Crop is pretty impressive. Are these processed RAW or OOC jpegs?

 

[Tim Mayo]

Crop is pretty impressive. Are these processed RAW or OOC jpegs?

They are all SOOC jpegs. The pheasant isn’t cropped at all and the others I cropped to 6000x4000px.

 

[Brownie]

Here's one @12800 from the A1 nothing done to it, it is as it came out of the camera.
View attachment 49236

Same questions. Crop? Processed RAW or OOC jpeg?

 

[iain clyne]

SOOC Tim, nothing done.

 

[Brownie]

I'm going for a Halloween photo walk at some point today. Going to shoot in jpeg. You guys are inspiring me.

 

[spudhead]

So did you learn anything you didnt know before?

 

[Brownie]

So did you learn anything you didnt know before?

I think so! I learned not many A1 people shoot high ISO!

 

[spudhead]

I think so! I learned not many A1 people shoot high ISO!

Ok Tim does the A1 get anymore ticks in the plus side of the box? In a few days the a9iii may be unveiled and it could be more than people expect so, if not will you go A1 or just make do?

 

[Brownie]

Ok Tim does the A1 get anymore ticks in the plus side of the box? In a few days the a9iii may be unveiled and it could be more than people expect so, if not will you go A1 or just make do?

Yeah, I think so. I still want to see the A9III. Also, would like to see some RAW files in high ISO where NR is done in post, but not sure I'm going to get any.

 

[iain clyne]

Yeah, I think so. I still want to see the A9III. Also, would like to see some RAW files in high ISO where NR is done in post, but not sure I'm going to get any.

Not off me as I don’t shoot raw.

 

[Paul stuart]

Barn owl cropped iso 10,000+ on the A1 the others on sony my a7r3 which does a better job at controlling iso noise in higher regions although you can get a colour shift like all high mp sensors ,i have been trying out my new a7r5 today at bushy pushing high iso 12,800 and cropping you are in trouble but up to 6400 it holds its own against most with some tweeking , i usually like to expose to the right if i can ,a lot is lens dependant also if you are using primes you can push the envelope more becuase the overall image holds more detail.But really there is a reason why astro users use the a74 not at extreme iso but in the mid range 3200-8000 it serves better than either a low mp count or really high mp 50-60 plus ,best of both ,guess this where a a9mk3 will score really well although stacked sensors seem to suffer a little more with dynamic range than if unstacked .

• ILCE-7RM3
• SAMYANG AF 135mm F1.8
• 135.0 mm
• ƒ/1.8
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 6400

• ILCE-7RM3
• SAMYANG AF 135mm F1.8
• 135.0 mm
• ƒ/1.8
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 12800

 

[Brownie]

Barn owl cropped iso 10,000+ on the A1 the others on sony my a7r3 which does a better job at controlling iso noise in higher regions although you can get a colour shift like all high mp sensors ,i have been trying out my new a7r5 today at bushy pushing high iso 12,800 and cropping you are in trouble but up to 6400 it holds its own against most with some tweeking , i usually like to expose to the right if i can ,a lot is lens dependant also if you are using primes you can push the envelope more becuase the overall image holds more detail.But really there is a reason why astro users use the a74 not at extreme iso but in the mid range 3200-8000 it serves better than either a low mp count or really high mp 50-60 plus ,best of both ,guess this where a a9mk3 will score really well although stacked sensors seem to suffer a little more with dynamic range than if unstacked .
View attachment 49473View attachment 49474View attachment 49475

Thanks. Yes, the low light challenges of the RV are one of the reasons I've steered clear. That barn owl at 12800 is impressive, what I've been looking for. The A7 IV seems to have a sweet spot around 8000, and I can reclaim 12800 and 16000 pretty well. The R III does very well too. Not quite as good as the A7 IV, but close.

 

[Paul stuart]

one with a7r5 at 12,800 ,struggles a bit and also in compressed raw so might take a hit , all the high mp sensors are around the same just limit it to 12,800. with lower mp sensors i guess limit it to 25,600 to be honest noise does not bother me too much it is the soft and low dynamic range that additions with higher isos guess we will not see sensor improvements until a global shutter becomes a option

• ILCE-7RM5
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 12800

 

[Merlinator]

Here's a few.

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 10000

• ILCE-1
• FE 600mm F4 GM OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 20000

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 6400

An iso of above 8000 to me is high iso. The only thing I have done is brighten up the images a little. I use a linear profile and the images usually have to be brightened a bit. None of these images has been cropped.

 

[Williams359]

• ILCE-1
• FE 35mm F1.4 GM
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 4000

• ILCE-1
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 6400

• ILCE-1
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 4000

• ILCE-1
• FE 35mm F1.4 GM
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/3.5
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 6400

• ILCE-1
• FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM
• 16.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/15 sec
• ISO 3200