Sony A1 So how dark can it be and still get an ok image?

[iamdlewis]

I have been processing photos from my trip to Ecuador last year (hope to finish before the 1 year anniversary of the trip) and a few of the images were taken when there was, lets call it very little light. The 3 images are no processing, processed and finally denoised. I wouldn't say the final image is good but it is good enough for a reference and "what I saw on my trip".

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

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

 

[Brownie]

Interesting. I can't believe you pulled anything out of that first shot.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Sometimes you just have to accept that you f@cked up, delete it and move on, even if you badly wanted it to work.

Although it is pretty miraculous what you have done here in post processing..!

 

[iamdlewis]

My thought process in taking this shot was "Don't think we'll get another chance at seeing this owl in any better light so lets see how this turns out".

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

wow, impressive editing!

 

[Brownie]

With the A1's IBIS it seems you'd have been further ahead with a static subject to slow the shutter a few stops. If we assume 1/400 would be the minimum SS with no IBIS, and the A1 is rated @ 5.5 stops, then you should've been able to get the shutter down to about 1/20. Even assuming Sony's 5.5 is fairly ambitious and overstated (and they usually are), you could've gained 3 stops by slowing to 1/50. Was that a consideration, or was there no time, or...?

 

[iamdlewis]

With the A1's IBIS it seems you'd have been further ahead with a static subject to slow the shutter a few stops. If we assume 1/400 would be the minimum SS with no IBIS, and the A1 is rated @ 5.5 stops, then you should've been able to get the shutter down to about 1/20. Even assuming Sony's 5.5 is fairly ambitious and overstated (and they usually are), you could've gained 3 stops by slowing to 1/50. Was that a consideration, or was there no time, or...?

I've found in good conditions and me feeling well I can get down to 1/100 or 1/120. On that day, at that time and location the 1/320 was the best I could do.
I also don't know that a 1/100 would have been good just because the owl was looking around.

 

[Jeff A]

I have been processing photos from my trip to Ecuador last year (hope to finish before the 1 year anniversary of the trip) and a few of the images were taken when there was, lets call it very little light. The 3 images are no processing, processed and finally denoised. I wouldn't say the final image is good but it is good enough for a reference and "what I saw on my trip".
View attachment 40376View attachment 40377View attachment 40378

What program did you de noise with?

 

[Brownie]

I've found in good conditions and me feeling well I can get down to 1/100 or 1/120. On that day, at that time and location the 1/320 was the best I could do.
I also don't know that a 1/100 would have been good just because the owl was looking around.

I have to remember to take into account other's physical limitations. So far, I've been fortunate not to be affected much by age. Even at that I find the A7 IV is about 1-1/2 stops less than as advertised with a longer lens. I can get 5 out of it with a wider lens, but they don't need much anyway.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

It can be quite amazing what can be recovered. I find the RiV to be exceptional because of the dynamic range

 

[Brownie]

It can be quite amazing what can be recovered. I find the RiV to be exceptional because of the dynamic range

Sony does a pretty good job with DR across the line. The cameras are very comparable from 800 and up. More differences show up in the lower ISO settings, and especially the native setting where the worst (A9) has about 1-1/2 stops less DR than the best (A7R5). The A73, A74, R3, R4, and R5 are virtually tied at ISO 100. It's interesting to review the comparison and see where the dual range amplifier kicks in on each camera.

Also interesting to note the differences between the cameras models where the successor was released with the same sensor, in each case showing slight improvement.

I kept this to Sony's 'current' FF models for the most part.

 

[iamdlewis]

What program did you de noise with?

Topaz v3.6.2 - it has been over a year since I've had it updated.

I have to remember to take into account other's physical limitations. So far, I've been fortunate not to be affected much by age. Even at that I find the A7 IV is about 1-1/2 stops less than as advertised with a longer lens. I can get 5 out of it with a wider lens, but they don't need much anyway.

I don't know what they use to calculate the IBIS but pretty sure it isn't a long lens. I have found that is biggest contributor to poor stability is how tired I am. In that photo it was day 5 of the trip at around 9pm on the 3rd straight day of 4am starts and we had already done 10 hours of birding, so I was done.

 

[Gaz]

I have been processing photos from my trip to Ecuador last year (hope to finish before the 1 year anniversary of the trip) and a few of the images were taken when there was, lets call it very little light. The 3 images are no processing, processed and finally denoised. I wouldn't say the final image is good but it is good enough for a reference and "what I saw on my trip".
View attachment 40376View attachment 40377View attachment 40378

Amazing. If it was a Kodachrome i would have had to bin it!

 

[iamdlewis]

Amazing. If it was a Kodachrome i would have had to bin it!

If it was Kodachrome I wouldn't have tried and since I was like 8000 images in at that point I would have needed to sell the camera to pay for the development to see if it did come out