What do you consider the effective ISO limit of your camera?

Started Nov 8, 2011 | Discussions thread
mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
Re: OMG! You guys are crazy!

Nowhere in my post did I say, "serious photography can only be performed at low ISO," but noisy digital images being presented as "serious" work is the exception and not the rule.

Wanting clean, clear and sharp images has nothing to do with "modern day sensibilities," but has always been a general asperation... sure, there were some interesting and good photo taken on recording film (early ASA 3200 film) and later with cell phones, but still, clean, clear and sharp images are usually better than grainy and noisy ones.

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

Of course it doesn't, but if I required high ISO performance I wouldn't be using a m43 camera in the first place... that would be "realistic" for me.

Of course everyone has their own needs and sets their own bar for what is acceptable. There's also a big difference between "snapshots" and photographs that the photographer takes seriously. Sure, if my intended use is just posting to Facebook I'd have no problem shooting at ISO 1600, but I always shoot with the intent of being able to make quality enlargements. I basically am only talking about serious photography.

Lots of serious photography has been done over the years with noise levels much worse than a m4/3 camera at ISO 1600 with terrific results. Despite modern day sensibilities adverse to noise, it's not nearly as big a problem in general as some make it out to be. Of course YMMV on a personal level and that's fine, but to say that serious photography can only be performed at low ISO is flat out silly.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow