Thinking particularly about buildings interior photography using available natural light, where for example capturing vital detail of old carpentry (joints between beams, rafters etc) high up in dim dusty corners requires tripod and even 30sec or more exposure.
This follows from, as I say, conventional wisdom, which suggests small aperture e.g. f11, for Depth of Field, plus low or ‘native’ ISO e.g. ISO100, for low noise.
Even leaving aside those 30sec extra-dim details, often just going round the walls needs exposures that can’t be hand-held.
But if the kind of lo-noise performance described for these latest cameras at considerably higher ISO is OK for photogrammetry, then most of the work can be hand-held, without going into post-processing - makes a huge difference.
The question is, based on the test info given, is such much-higher ISO OK for photogrammetry, or not?
AFAIK you just need to look at the sample images at the ISO settings you are interested in. If there is no or very little noise, it should be ok. There is no secret about high ISO. The sole difference is that a really good camera has a better image (as in less noise) at, say, 6400 than a crappy one at 100.
When I chose my new camera (Fuji X-T20 with 10-24), I found this comparison very helpful (with quite a few surpsises, e.g. that the LX100 is really quite good for it’s class):
So the question is ‘what figure (or visual impression) counts as ‘no or very little’ noise adequately for RC?’. Armed with that, then yes it’s easy to check out different cameras, at higher ISO settings, in dpreview etc.
Great that you’ve got a shiny new toy! Looks interesting in many ways incl tilt screen (tho wd be viewable as well as controllable on laptop). I guess you researched it from top to bottom?
So how do you go about checking noise at higher-than-minimum ISO - try out different cameras ‘in the flesh’? If no figures, the test-card pics don’t tell much on a computer screen.
no, don’t have the budget and/or patience to do testing.
I find the comparison extremely helpful. You can select the ISO level your’re interested in and zoom in on a black colour square. You can see that the X-T20 is on a similar level than the D850, the ultimate choice for photogrammetry at the moment, according to some. The A 7 R II is even a bit worse. My good “old” LX100 is not far off either. Of course, I wouldn’t use 6400 for photogrammetry, but it’s a good way to compare the noise since at lower levels it gets less and less pronounced.
OK done comparatives at ISO100, 400, 1600 and the visual result is startling - only ‘native’ 100, maybe 200 will do, affects apparent sharpness as well as noise.
That means condemned to tripod and remote/tethered camera control, with many shots above 1 sec, for domestic interiors - either that or handheld with a strong diffused flash rig.
Any recommendations on the latter? On the camera, or on a stand(s)?
