- Index page with recent astrophotos
- Leeuwenboschfontein weekend starparty 2016 Mar 4-6
- Events observed by me from 2003 latest: Mercury transit 2016 May 9
- Page with sky pictures with the EOS 6
- Lunar and planetary images and phenomenas
- Page with sky pictures with the EOS 40 from Bali jan 2009, feb 2010 and 2012
- Page with sky pictures from La Palma Jan / Feb 2011
- Total lunar eclipse of 2011 Jun 15
- Solar eclipse visible as deep partial in Indonesia on 2009 Jan 26
- Old 1973 Polarex 80mm spotting scope refurbishment.
- New 2015 Robtics ED110 refractor
- Using a telephoto lens as a small handheld telescope
- Nice sky pictures taken from a plane in full flight
- How to see stars in the daytime ?
- How I learned Astronomy
- Astronomik CLS filter test
- Simple Eclipse calculations
High ISO test with the EOS 40
On the DPReview forum there was a lot of discussion on the higher ISO capability of the EOS 50 (introduced in August 2008) than the EOS 40. There were lots of pictures posted with both cameras so I decied to test the capabilities of the EOS 40 with super high ISO values up till 25000. I set the ISO value to "H" (3200) , set the exposure to two (12500) or three (25000) stops underexposed, took the pictures in RAW (or sRAW), processed them with Photoshop CS3 and CS4 (Adobe Raw 4.5 / 5.0) and set the 'Exposure value' to +2 resp. +3. At first the pictures were rather grainy/noisy when I set to 100% view. All I had to do was set luminance noise reduction to high value and a little bit lower contrast. The result was somewhat grainy but for postcard size prints or 15" screen view is is OK. Far better than (noise reducing poocessed) 1600 ISO pictures with the Powershot G9. The latter contain far more chroma noise which the 40d nearly lacks even at ISO 12500. Moreover the pG9 pictures have far less contrast.
In June 2011 I tested with ISO 200 000 by taking pictures of the garden in deep twilight, the camera recommended 3 sec @ F/4 @ ISO 3200. But I selected 1/20 sec and the pictures appeared nearly black. I processed them in Photoshop CS5 and pushed them to +6 stops. The RAW version (with Adobe Raw) couldn't be pushed more than four stops. And the qualiry of the processed RAW is even worse with a lot of false color. Of course this cannot be used for serious photography, but those are at least usable newspaper quality photos.