Never thought I'd STOP fearing ISO1000

[DOrtiz]

Hey Guys!!

Well, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!! Today I went on a photojournalist assignment to cover a local Church serving Thanksgiving dinner those those who are less fortunate. In many ways it was nice to see all those folks getting a warm meal (with desert), but on the other hand it was sad to see so many of them. :-(

On the bright side, this cafeteria wasn't the best lit place, so I decided to go for ISO1000. Mind you I'd be hesitant to do this with my 40D and at best would go for ISO800 hoping for ISO400. Again that's WAS with my 40D, but with this 5D2 (the beast) I shot and couldn't believe the crisp clear noiseless images I was getting.

This is my FIRST FF, and I doubt as the years to by it will be my last. Once you go FF, you never go back (IMHO). AMAZING!

Not a picture to brag about (photojournalist assignment), but I am displaying it so we can look at the noise levels at ISO1000. Pretty darn clean, I think. I also used my Light-sphere cap for s quick custom WB .. seems to have worked pretty well.





In closing, I have an event I need to photograph soon and am suddenly torn between WHCC and MPix. Mpix is slightly more money but allows additional items to be ordered. Any feelings on these two labs in comparison with one another?

--
Regards,
Dave

 

[Desifinado]

Yep, it's clean. Congratulations on the assignment, and on breaking the ISO 1000 trepidation frontier.

 

[djharmonix]

I don't hesitate to bump the ISO to 3200 and even 6400 on the 5d2 for photojournalism and web. If it helps getting enough dept of field and fast enough shutter speed.

Ideally I will put whatever ISO it needs to be at F4 and 1/90 with flash and 1-2 stop faster without.

 

[T3]

So what took you so long? I've been shooting ISO 1600 since the 20D. Sure, you can see noise at 100%, but so what? The way I considered it was that I could barely see noise in prints (if at all) and I could barely see noise in web-sized images (or not at all), so I didn't see any reason not to use ISO 1600 when I needed it. These days, with newer bodies, I don't fear using ISO 3200 or higher! My point is, don't live in a pixel-peeping world where you judge every image at 100% pixel-level viewing, because chances are that no one other than you is ever going to see the noise you're seeing at 100% pixel-level viewing. And frankly, I couldn't imagine being limited to ISO 1000 shooting these days. I find that shooting indoors at night with typical home lighting, with an f/2.8 lens and no flash, easily needs ISO 1600+ to get a barely handholdable shutter speed. At least it does in my house and a lot of other indoor venues I shoot in. So by necessity, I essentially had to stop fearing using ISO 1000 or higher. And fortunately, based on the practical results, there really isn't any valid reason to fear it anyways, especially when it means the difference between getting a sharp shot or a soft motion-blurred shot. So now that you've overcome your fear of ISO 1000, I'd recommend getting over your fear of ISO 3000!

 

[Jon Laye]

One of my staff has the 30D and gets great results even at ISO 1600 as long as the exposure is on the money

 

[cityphotographer]

I shoot 3200 ISO all the time with a 1D2N , since forever
it may be a new thing for you.. I mean

 

[DOrtiz]

I shoot 3200 ISO all the time with a 1D2N , since forever
it may be a new thing for you.. I mean

Do you have a few samples of that ISO3200? That would be most interesting to see.
--
Regards,
Dave

 

[foxikk]

even if you shoot in iso3200 and resize to the same size you did for sample with iso1000 you won't see any difference with noise

 

[cityphotographer]

exactly
lately this high ISO mania brought funny stuff and a big contradiction:

high ISO pictures stink, all of them. Only a restricted category of professional photographers who can't post-process need it but only for small sizes. the contradiction? the rest of the photographers pursuing more megapixels and the fanatics with only the tests on the screen as the "photographic" outcome jump up and down with those ugly and heavily noise reductions (in da camera) with no details (so what's the "megapixels" thing is for?)

if I shoot my fuji F10 at 1600 ISO and then my 1DsII at 1600 ISO and then reduce both to 400x300 they look exactly the same

but 3200 are needed to keep the shutter speed high, still the pictures stink but then you file'em reduced and most importantly weill be published even reduced more.

high ISO is when you don't know how to use the lighting or you can't use a flash and you don't care if they stink.

now posting small high ISO pictures in here and then chanting the outcome all excited means:

a- you don't understand that there are photographers in here

b- you don't understand that we all know how high ISO stinks and who doesn't want to see it then must ask for the lalaland citizenship and move there, sooner is better.

even if you shoot in iso3200 and resize to the same size you did for sample with iso1000 you won't see any difference with noise

 

[DOrtiz]

Hi City -- yes, as always you hit the nail on the head. I have NO IDEA what lighting is, and quite frankly have no earthly idea what exposure is composed of. I know there are three elements to exposure, but ...... hmmmmmm, I wonder what they could be.

Oh well, guess I'll go back to my Canon G2 PnS unit where we'll make a better "couple" and live happily ever after in lalaland.

high ISO pictures stink, all of them. Only a restricted category of professional photographers who can't post-process need it but only for small sizes. the contradiction? the rest of the photographers pursuing more megapixels and the fanatics with only the tests on the screen as the "photographic" outcome jump up and down with those ugly and heavily noise reductions (in da camera) with no details (so what's the "megapixels" thing is for?)

if I shoot my fuji F10 at 1600 ISO and then my 1DsII at 1600 ISO and then reduce both to 400x300 they look exactly the same

but 3200 are needed to keep the shutter speed high, still the pictures stink but then you file'em reduced and most importantly weill be published even reduced more.

high ISO is when you don't know how to use the lighting or you can't use a flash and you don't care if they stink.

now posting small high ISO pictures in here and then chanting the outcome all excited means:

a- you don't understand that there are photographers in here

b- you don't understand that we all know how high ISO stinks and who doesn't want to see it then must ask for the lalaland citizenship and move there, sooner is better.

even if you shoot in iso3200 and resize to the same size you did for sample with iso1000 you won't see any difference with noise

--
Regards,
Dave

 

[joseph costa]

i use f2.8 lenses and can handhold ISO 400 and 800 shots easy inside my home. f2.8 in no way require ISO 1600 or higher unless maybe shooting indoor sports, like volleyball, basketball, etc.

 

[DOrtiz]

Hi Joseph,

i use f2.8 lenses and can handhold ISO 400 and 800 shots easy inside my home. f2.8 in no way require ISO 1600 or higher unless maybe shooting indoor sports, like volleyball, basketball, etc.

I normally use my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L when shooting H.S. football in poorly lit fields. I shoot wide open and go as high as I can with the ISO settings which is usually ISO1600 on my 40D. Anything higher on my 40D would yield unacceptable results, especially since the lighting is bad and patchy (haven't shot such an event with the 5D2 yet).

With the posted picture, I used my Canon 17-40 f/4L lens, so f/4 was the fastest (widest) I could go. One thing I also noticed is I have to be careful with f/2.8 or faster lens with the FF body. DOF is VERY shallow on this FF and it does take some getting use to (especially when subjects are in "close" proximity). :-(

Thanks for the feedback my friend.
--
Regards,
Dave

 

[cityphotographer]

Hi City -- yes, as always you hit the nail on the head.

I know

I have NO IDEA what lighting is, and quite frankly have no earthly idea what exposure is composed of.

oh well

I know there are three elements to exposure, but ...... hmmmmmm, I wonder what they could be.

you wonder?

Oh well, guess I'll go back to my Canon G2 PnS unit where we'll make a better "couple" and live happily ever after in lalaland.

OK.

 

[RoccoGalatioto]

I believe that in the end it will be high ISO and improved DR that will separate the great cameras from the more mundane ones. First we must get away from the higher mega pixel race. There's a point where resolution will actually become a problematic. We already have reasonably high resolution so we must insist now that camera makers continue to improve on ISO and DR performance. This will free us from all our attachments to the film days. We can use digital cameras in new ways and finally take advantage of their strengths. This opens up new ways of taking pictures both useful for professional applications and for creative ones. We can shed all our film mannerisms. Not that film mannerisms are bad; they apply to film.

This is not a film Vs digital debate as both have their strengths and weaknesses. This is a plea that we begin to use our digital cameras in ways that we could never do with film and push the creative envelope further, I hope that the camera maker's are listening. We can only hope. And yes it's great not to fear high ISO shooting.
--

All the best,
Rocco Galatioto

http://galatiotophoto.blogspot.com

 

[djharmonix]

i use f2.8 lenses and can handhold ISO 400 and 800 shots easy inside my home. f2.8 in no way require ISO 1600 or higher unless maybe shooting indoor sports, like volleyball, basketball, etc.

you're right, if it works inside your house it must be ok for any situations...

But wait! Do you have a cat in your house to photograph because cats move pretty fast! You might wanna bump the ISO to 1000... Push it to the extreme!!

LOL

And city, for once I have to strongly disagree.

Using high ISO doesnt me poor lighting control, coming from you I thought I'd see a more constructive comment.

Maybe for your application, it is not good to use high ISO but alot of different fileds require those kind of performance levels.

 

[PenguinPhotoCo]

My 40D was fine at 800 and below, but at 1000 and up yeah, I too felt it was too noisy.

Then I got a 5D2 and 1600 is a no brainer and 3200 isn't scary either, but it does show some noise, loss of detail and DR limitations.

 

[DOrtiz]

Remember to "put a check" in the box seen here. That will resolve all your issues. ;-)



--
Regards,
Dave

 

[DOrtiz]

Hi Rocco!

I believe that in the end it will be high ISO and improved DR that will separate the great cameras from the more mundane ones. First we must get away from the higher mega pixel race. There's a point where resolution will actually become a problematic. We already have reasonably high resolution so we must insist now that camera makers continue to improve on ISO and DR performance. This will free us from all our attachments to the film days. We can use digital cameras in new ways and finally take advantage of their strengths. This opens up new ways of taking pictures both useful for professional applications and for creative ones. We can shed all our film mannerisms. Not that film mannerisms are bad; they apply to film.

This is not a film Vs digital debate as both have their strengths and weaknesses. This is a plea that we begin to use our digital cameras in ways that we could never do with film and push the creative envelope further, I hope that the camera maker's are listening. We can only hope. And yes it's great not to fear high ISO shooting.

I couldn't agree more with you here my friend. In fact, since my days of the 10D I always longed for a FF camera. After that, I went for the 20D, skipped the 30D, purchased the 40D (was heavily into sports at that time), skipped the 50D and started looking at the 7D (but still a 1.6 decided to forgo that one too).

Then I started looking at used 5D1s on eBay etc. I wasn't interested much in the added resolution (40D 10mp to 5D 12mp wouldn't yield much difference) but the FF sensor would prove better for my static subjects (dynamic range, etc.). I finally decided on the 5D2 niot because of the 21.1mp or the HD Movie capabilities, but mostly for the FF and newer processor (which BTW this seller has them at under 2,400 new stating a "Black Friday Blow-Out Sale" http://www.us1photo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=7402 ). I felt the 5D2 after seeing good reviews was/is the FF camera I always wanted, and one I can certainly grow into.

I appreciate the low ISO noise, the dynamic range, the detail it produces and I'm confident I can tackle just about anything with it.

In closing, I agree with you fully ... (besides "cramming 18mp into a 1.6 sensor is asking for trouble), let's focus (no pun intended) on better DR, superior ISO performance and less "shutter-lag."
--
Regards,
Dave

 

[cityphotographer]

no really

what makes you even remotely believe that I allow you to tell me what to do?
I don't

what are we friends now?

keep your advice for yourself or give it to somebody who cares.
OK?

Remember to "put a check" in the box seen here. That will resolve all your issues. ;-)

 

[DOrtiz]

Hi pityphotographer ..

I'm genuinely glad to hear you don't need my help and that you've achieved the ultimate level of expertise that "you" feel you need no-one's help. Unfortunately, (especially for yours truly) not all of us can be at the same level of "professionalism" you are. Wait, did I say professionalism?

None-the-less; I will not feed further into your level, so I'll be the first to resolve this by .....



CLICK!

Nice knowing you. ;-)

Regards,
Dave

no really

what makes you even remotely believe that I allow you to tell me what to do?
I don't

what are we friends now?

keep your advice for yourself or give it to somebody who cares.
OK?