High ISO

[deanr1968]

I’m not sure I understand this requirement for high ISO, I’ve not been in to photography long but I’ve only ever used ISO800 once (and that was messing about)

Then I'm not sure you're photographing in environments where you need it or you might need glasses.

Try photographing a wedding service in virtually any church in the UK and you'll very quickly realise the benefit. The alternative is being sued by the couple for handing them a series of blurred images all shot at shutter speeds around 1/10s

I photographed a wedding on midwinters day last year and my meter gave me 1/60s f/2 at iso 1600 inside the church, Try playing with those numbers and see where it gets you with ISO200 or 400.

--
--------------------
dNo

 

[sunshine sequel]

No need for a rant.

The OP told us he's a newbie.

He just hasn't come upon a situation where higher ISO would get a shot that ISO 200 can't capture.

When he does, he'll "get it".

I’m not sure I understand this requirement for high ISO, I’ve not been in to photography long but I’ve only ever used ISO800 once (and that was messing about), I just use ISO100 and maybe 200 as an exception.

I’m seeing the rumour that the A77 will have ISO into the hundreds of thousands – WHY???? What is the point?? What is this going to give me??

The below rant is not specifically aimed at you (the OP of this thread), but is more of a general observation on the countless similar threads like this one

There seem to be a couple recurring themes in all forums, all over Dpreview, and in other forums I follow:

1 - "My way is the only way"

Whatever aspect of camera performance we have, be it high iso, fast AF, fast framerate ... Anything that has been improving over time, there are always people asking:

"I don't use [ insert level of technical performance here ], and I cannot understand why anyone else need it?"

And often enough (not the OP of this thread who is unusually polite), the question is also followed by more or less subtle comments to the effect that anyone using [ insert level of technical performance here ] is only doing that since they are lacking in skill as a photographer.

Basically there seem to be very widespread idea that whatever technology I myself do not need or use, nobody else really need, nor should use either. In short: My way of using a camera is the proper way of using a camera. And anyone using it differently only does that because they are incompetent.

2 - "Evolution - who needs it"

Whenever we get incerased performance in any way, there always will be somone arguing along the lines of

"Photographers used to be able to take great pictures back in the [ insert decade of choice here ], and I cannot understand why we need higher performance?"

Which begs some questions: Are we forever stuck taking the same pictures our grandparents captured? Should we never try new things, or old things in new ways?

I for one, want to be able to take pictures we have not yet been able to take. I want to be able to take pictures in new ways. I want to evolve as a photographer.

The need, or rather desire, for high iso

Whenever someone ask "how high isos do we need?" I have a standard answer: When we get a camera where I can shoot with good image quality at 1/4000 and f11 in so weak light that can I just barely see where to aim ... Then I do not any need higher iso. Not much anyway

Why? Because if can see something with my eyes, I want to be able to capture it with my camera. And I do want the full creative freedom in choosing how to capture it (as in what aperture and shutter speed to use). When technology gives me that, I am content. Until then - I want more high iso!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[goetz48]

3/4 of my shots are ISO 800 or above. And if I have to use a polarizer I would like to have much more. And I remember shooting with Kodachrome K 25 and Ektackrome Highspeed 400. I hardly would like to shoot ISO 25 again. What should it be good for?

 

[Grevture]

No need for a rant.

Oh, they ar always needed

The OP told us he's a newbie.

I got that, and its exactely why I started out saying

The below rant is not specifically aimed at you (the OP of this thread), but is more of a general observation on the countless similar threads like this one

But you maybe missed that part?

He just hasn't come upon a situation where higher ISO would get a shot that ISO 200 can't capture.

When he does, he'll "get it".

He most probably will, most sensible peole does. But a slecet few never does, and those wre the ones I was picking at. Which I thought was made pretty clear, but none the less, it can be stated again just to be sure.

I’m not sure I understand this requirement for high ISO, I’ve not been in to photography long but I’ve only ever used ISO800 once (and that was messing about), I just use ISO100 and maybe 200 as an exception.

I’m seeing the rumour that the A77 will have ISO into the hundreds of thousands – WHY???? What is the point?? What is this going to give me??

The below rant is not specifically aimed at you (the OP of this thread), but is more of a general observation on the countless similar threads like this one

There seem to be a couple recurring themes in all forums, all over Dpreview, and in other forums I follow:

1 - "My way is the only way"

Whatever aspect of camera performance we have, be it high iso, fast AF, fast framerate ... Anything that has been improving over time, there are always people asking:

"I don't use [ insert level of technical performance here ], and I cannot understand why anyone else need it?"

And often enough (not the OP of this thread who is unusually polite), the question is also followed by more or less subtle comments to the effect that anyone using [ insert level of technical performance here ] is only doing that since they are lacking in skill as a photographer.

Basically there seem to be very widespread idea that whatever technology I myself do not need or use, nobody else really need, nor should use either. In short: My way of using a camera is the proper way of using a camera. And anyone using it differently only does that because they are incompetent.

2 - "Evolution - who needs it"

Whenever we get incerased performance in any way, there always will be somone arguing along the lines of

"Photographers used to be able to take great pictures back in the [ insert decade of choice here ], and I cannot understand why we need higher performance?"

Which begs some questions: Are we forever stuck taking the same pictures our grandparents captured? Should we never try new things, or old things in new ways?

I for one, want to be able to take pictures we have not yet been able to take. I want to be able to take pictures in new ways. I want to evolve as a photographer.

The need, or rather desire, for high iso

Whenever someone ask "how high isos do we need?" I have a standard answer: When we get a camera where I can shoot with good image quality at 1/4000 and f11 in so weak light that can I just barely see where to aim ... Then I do not any need higher iso. Not much anyway

Why? Because if can see something with my eyes, I want to be able to capture it with my camera. And I do want the full creative freedom in choosing how to capture it (as in what aperture and shutter speed to use). When technology gives me that, I am content. Until then - I want more high iso!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[tbcass]

The biggest problem some of you have is when I say high iso is overrated you think I mean it's of little use. That is far from the truth. Good IQ at high iso's certainly is useful at times. When I say it's overrated it's because many in these forums appear to base their buying decision on whether a camera has the best possible high iso performance while seemingly ignoring some other advantages one camera has over another. There are many factors that go into the decision to buy a camera. High iso performance is is one of those factors but, unless you have an overriding need for it, shouldn't be the most important one.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[lunartown]

The biggest problem some of you have is when I say high iso is overrated you think I mean it's of little use. That is far from the truth. Good IQ at high iso's certainly is useful at times. When I say it's overrated it's because many in these forums appear to base their buying decision on whether a camera has the best possible high iso performance while seemingly ignoring some other advantages one camera has over another. There are many factors that go into the decision to buy a camera. High iso performance is is one of those factors but, unless you have an overriding need for it, shouldn't be the most important one.

A very clear part of the "digital" age is the competion in specifications, first there was the megapixel race, now the high ISO race has taken over, specifications are so easy to compare and important for commercials.

Yes, lots of pixels and high ISO is nice, but as you say there are other important factors also.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

--
.... really, matter of fact it's all dark.

 

[alan996]

In this church the Priest calls the shots. No high ISO no pictures of a good family and a special day for them. Do you get the picture?

http://alan996.smugmug.com/Other/Anthony-Christening/8167377_eeNFV

 

[random78]

Lets see ...

I don't understand why people care about having 5/7/10fps modes, I always shoot in single shot mode

I don't know why cameras have 16MP ,I don't need more than 6 or 8MP

I don't know why cameras waste resources on JPEG engines, I only shoot RAW

and so on ....

But I love that cameras have good high ISO capability. 50% of my shots are indoor shots of friends and family and for that I routinely use ISO 800 and 1600. And thats even if I am using a fast prime and bounce flash (even if I use bounce flash I need enough exposure to get a good amount of ambient background). Taking sports pics with a long lens> -- often need high iso. Taking graduation pictures in a covered venue? -- need high iso. Taking pictures at a wedding? -- need high iso. Honestly I think that other than landscapes on tripods and studio shots / flash only shots, everything else benefits from high iso.

 

[sunshine sequel]

No need for a rant.

Oh, they ar always needed

The OP told us he's a newbie.

I got that, and its exactely why I started out saying

The below rant is not specifically aimed at you (the OP of this thread), but is more of a general observation on the countless similar threads like this one

But you maybe missed that part?

No, I didn't miss that part. But "general observations on the countless other threads" sounds more like an excuse to complain than provide any useful information.

He just hasn't come upon a situation where higher ISO would get a shot that ISO 200 can't capture.

When he does, he'll "get it".

He most probably will, most sensible peole does. But a slecet few never does, and those wre the ones I was picking at. Which I thought was made pretty clear, but none the less, it can be stated again just to be sure.

Ahh, the "slecet few"! Its good of you to help the less fortunate!

I’m not sure I understand this requirement for high ISO, I’ve not been in to photography long but I’ve only ever used ISO800 once (and that was messing about), I just use ISO100 and maybe 200 as an exception.

I’m seeing the rumour that the A77 will have ISO into the hundreds of thousands – WHY???? What is the point?? What is this going to give me??

The below rant is not specifically aimed at you (the OP of this thread), but is more of a general observation on the countless similar threads like this one

There seem to be a couple recurring themes in all forums, all over Dpreview, and in other forums I follow:

1 - "My way is the only way"

Whatever aspect of camera performance we have, be it high iso, fast AF, fast framerate ... Anything that has been improving over time, there are always people asking:

"I don't use [ insert level of technical performance here ], and I cannot understand why anyone else need it?"

And often enough (not the OP of this thread who is unusually polite), the question is also followed by more or less subtle comments to the effect that anyone using [ insert level of technical performance here ] is only doing that since they are lacking in skill as a photographer.

Basically there seem to be very widespread idea that whatever technology I myself do not need or use, nobody else really need, nor should use either. In short: My way of using a camera is the proper way of using a camera. And anyone using it differently only does that because they are incompetent.

2 - "Evolution - who needs it"

Whenever we get incerased performance in any way, there always will be somone arguing along the lines of

"Photographers used to be able to take great pictures back in the [ insert decade of choice here ], and I cannot understand why we need higher performance?"

Which begs some questions: Are we forever stuck taking the same pictures our grandparents captured? Should we never try new things, or old things in new ways?

I for one, want to be able to take pictures we have not yet been able to take. I want to be able to take pictures in new ways. I want to evolve as a photographer.

The need, or rather desire, for high iso

Whenever someone ask "how high isos do we need?" I have a standard answer: When we get a camera where I can shoot with good image quality at 1/4000 and f11 in so weak light that can I just barely see where to aim ... Then I do not any need higher iso. Not much anyway

Why? Because if can see something with my eyes, I want to be able to capture it with my camera. And I do want the full creative freedom in choosing how to capture it (as in what aperture and shutter speed to use). When technology gives me that, I am content. Until then - I want more high iso!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[TomvL]

Lot's of opinions to show the importance of high iso.
I hope the OP reads it and uses it in his favour.

And perhaps shares a shot that otherwise could not have been made without using flash.

Another one, iso 1600 1/20s 4.5

 

[Michael Fritzen]

Hi,

as others already said a good high ISO performance may be a very interesting feature against: a) subject movement and/or b) camera movement (shake) both under less than bright daylight conditions.

Other than that in my understanding there exists a great illusion since higher ISO doesn't add light to the scene. So shadows remain deep, colours so-so to dull.

There was one reply that stated the sufficient ISO would be getting an exposure of 1/4000s at f/11 in a almost dark scene. But to photograph what exactly in pure practical terms? Thinking about a mine worker down in the mine or something similar? Ok. Though the varity of such subjects and the interest is limited. It may be a challenge to try and pelasing to succeed. But it's always a subject in the dark iluminated by a minimum light source - for sure not a very successful shooting mode let's say for a wedding. My understanding is that high ISO has little or nothing to do with the demand for (additional) light, be it flash, be it constant light. The usage of high ISO means a decrease of DR of the sensor at the same time as typical low light situation have extreme contrasts. So while the shot may be virtual free of noise, the shadows get black, the lights burnt and the colours washed. Photography is the art of capturing light - just in those scenes there isn't hardly any light anymore. What remains perhaps is of some interest for the military area or for some secret service.... ;-)
--
Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

 

[camperbc]

Ah, never mind. I was about to reply, but really, what's the point? It isn't even worthy of a reply. I'm going outside to take some pictures. So I'll just say "no comment" and leave it at that!
Glen



Fogo Island Photography: http://www.FocusOnNewfoundland.com
Fogo Island Journal: http://www.fogoislanders.blogspot.com

 

[Lucas_]

Hi,

as others already said a good high ISO performance may be a very interesting feature against: a) subject movement and/or b) camera movement (shake) both under less than bright daylight conditions.

Other than that in my understanding there exists a great illusion since higher ISO doesn't add light to the scene. So shadows remain deep, colours so-so to dull.

There was one reply that stated the sufficient ISO would be getting an exposure of 1/4000s at f/11 in a almost dark scene. But to photograph what exactly in pure practical terms? Thinking about a mine worker down in the mine or something similar? Ok. Though the varity of such subjects and the interest is limited. It may be a challenge to try and pelasing to succeed. But it's always a subject in the dark iluminated by a minimum light source - for sure not a very successful shooting mode let's say for a wedding. My understanding is that high ISO has little or nothing to do with the demand for (additional) light, be it flash, be it constant light. The usage of high ISO means a decrease of DR of the sensor at the same time as typical low light situation have extreme contrasts. So while the shot may be virtual free of noise, the shadows get black, the lights burnt and the colours washed. Photography is the art of capturing light - just in those scenes there isn't hardly any light anymore. What remains perhaps is of some interest for the military area or for some secret service.... ;-)
--

--
Always having fun with photography ...

http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/

 

[tbcass]

You missed the whole point. You point out the exception. PS, I have never photographed a wedding in any church that didn't allow flash. I or nobody else is claiming that high iso's are never useful.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[goetz48]

I totally disagree with your statement.

I shot a lot of objects in museums. Flashlight is forbidden and light sources often are very poor to show the darkness of history or so. Sometimes one nedds a polarizer and loses two further steps. Shall I stop photographing because of you? It is practically impossible to get nice photos from such objects. Making copies from books is a poor solution, and not all things are in artbooks. So I am presently using my A700 and waiting for the A77. Then I will decide between A77 and A55.

Btw.: Last year I made the first photo documentation of large parts of the public part of the mineral collection in the Museum of Natural History in Vienna. Of course there exist table top photos of most parts, but the collection has never been documented 'in museo'. So I am waiting for better high ISO performance. Don't need more pixels. Make several pictures with 6 Mpix.

 

[Grevture]

as others already said a good high ISO performance may be a very interesting feature against: a) subject movement and/or b) camera movement (shake) both under less than bright daylight conditions.

And even less light then that

Other than that in my understanding there exists a great illusion since higher ISO doesn't add light to the scene. So shadows remain deep, colours so-so to dull.

I would say that your understanding is a bit misinformed. Higher iso sure does not add light, but it makes better use of the light available .

The really exciting thing is that we today have cameras that really do shoot with excellent DR and good color at stunning iso levels.

There was one reply that stated the sufficient ISO would be getting an exposure of 1/4000s at f/11 in a almost dark scene.

That would be me

But to photograph what exactly in pure practical terms? Thinking about a mine worker down in the mine or something similar?

I mainly shoot pictures of people. People quite often hang out in less then bright ambient light. And no, quite often both tripods and flashes are strictly no-no.

And the point about 1/4000 at f11 in light where I barely can see is rather extreme, I am aware that. My main point with that statement is that while I now often can shoot for example indoor sports even in rather badly lit arenas at say 1/500 and f2.8. That is a huge improvement compared to just a few years back. But as a photographer I want my creative freedom. Just because I can shoot at 1/500 and f2.8, why should we stop development there if technology can help me achieve 1/4000 and f11 in the same situation? Not that I would always need it, but I want the chocie . I want as much creative freedom as possible and not being limited by technology.

Ok. Though the varity of such subjects and the interest is limited.

You do not seem to have shot a lot of sports ...?

It may be a challenge to try and pelasing to succeed. But it's always a subject in the dark iluminated by a minimum light source - for sure not a very successful shooting mode let's say for a wedding. My understanding is that high ISO has little or nothing to do with the demand for (additional) light, be it flash, be it constant light. The usage of high ISO means a decrease of DR of the sensor at the same time as typical low light situation have extreme contrasts. So while the shot may be virtual free of noise, the shadows get black, the lights burnt and the colours washed. Photography is the art of capturing light - just in those scenes there isn't hardly any light anymore. What remains perhaps is of some interest for the military area or for some secret service.... ;-)

But you seem to miss the point altogether - the desire for higher iso is exactely about mainaing color fidelity and DR also in less bright situations. If high iso was about shooting with less color and less DR, then there is no need for development, that can be done with very old cameras ...

Great things really started to happen some 5-6 years ago when the Mark II generation of Canons 1D/1Ds models came out. Those cameras, humble in iso performance as they might seem todays standards, really revoloutionized professional photography. Suddenly PJ shooters, sports photograpers and nature shooters could crank iso up to 1600-2000 and get images good enough for magazine and book printing. This changed professional photography (and more or less killed film for most pro users in the process).

Today we get even better iso performance (with good color and DR) in consumer grade cameras, just look at the performance of the NEX cameras or the latest Alpha cameras. Stunning!

This expands the possibilities of photography. This enable us to shoot new things and to shoot old things in new ways. I like this, don't you?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[OldClicker]

My main interest is shooting for club competition and I shoot almost exclusively at ISO 200. If I don't have enough light, I get more or go shoot something else.\\But I also like to go shoot other things for fun like yesterday's Dog Agility Competition. It was in an indoor soccer rink with terrible lighting and FAST dogs. I think they would have killed me if I set off a flash when the dogs were competing. Here is an attempt with the lens wide open (f/4) and ISO 2500 which gave me a shutter speed of 1/100 sec. Wish I had the "ISO into the hundreds of thousands" - could have used it.

 

[tbcass]

Ok. Though the varity of such subjects and the interest is limited.

You do not seem to have shot a lot of sports ...?

Indoor sports, in the grand scheme of things is a limited area of photography. Outdoors iso400-1600 is good enough. You have to admit that most people don't need high iso's most of the time. I like the fact that I can get what I consider acceptable results with my A55 up to iso3200 for the occasional times I need it but it's a bonus, not a super important feature. In the end for a few people high iso performance is an important feature. For most it is not.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[Grevture]

Ok. Though the varity of such subjects and the interest is limited.

You do not seem to have shot a lot of sports ...?

Indoor sports, in the grand scheme of things is a limited area of photography.

Not to parents

Outdoors iso400-1600 is good enough.

I don't know from where you are, but where I live, outdoor light is all over the place - good in summer days, much worse then indoors at autumn, winter and spring nights. Most of the times I have really needed and used iso 12800 and beyond has been outdoors.

Sports was just one example - how often do you not shoot indoors at the bewildering amount of social gatherings we humans participate in? All kinds of events, PJ shooting, nighttime street photography, and general personal shooting among friends and family at dinners, parties etc. There are so many situations where flash ruin the ambience and tripods are less then useful.

In short, any type of ambient light shooting in less then optimal light.

You have to admit that most people don't need high iso's most of the time.

No, rather the contrary - I actually think far to many photographers are stuck in old habits and old ways of thinking, only shooting where there is lots, and lots of available light. And missing out shooting in nice situations who used to be no-go for cameras, but actually are available for us today with modern equipment.

I like the fact that I can get what I consider acceptable results with my A55 up to iso3200 for the occasional times I need it but it's a bonus, not a super important feature. In the end for a few people high iso performance is an important feature. For most it is not.

I think that is a bit of backwards thinking: Why should we stop shooting at some arbitrary light level just because cameras used to suck at those light levels?

And at those light levels where you use iso 3200, can you choose whatever shutter speed and aperture you want? probably not. For that you probably need much, much higher isos.

I really, really do think many people look on this issue backwards. If I can get a camera that enables me to shoot creatively (at the aperture and shutter speed of my choosing) in all the different light leveles where I am active ... That to me is a important aspect of a camera. And I really do think it is important to lots of people once they let go of old habits formed simply because older cameras had much more severe technological limitations then todays and future cameras.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[3up1down]

Where did the OP go? Every time somebody asks about high ISO the low light crowd comes out in force. I realize that money can be a problem for many people but if high ISO was your main concern WHY did you buy a Sony. If you shoot a lot of low light get a camera that fits your needs like a Nikon D3, D3s or D700 or one of the Canon models. Does anybody use Topaz Denoise 5 etc. When I bought my A700 I knew it wasn't a low light camera. On the occasions when I up the ISO I will post process the hell out it and live with the results. OP where are you.