The High ISO Obsession

Started Aug 18, 2011 | Discussions
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,853
Re: A suggestion.

Leo wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Had you instead shot the same pic at f/5 1/40 ISO 100, you could have gotten a better pic if you applied a different tone curve -- you could have retained detail in the windows that was blown because you shot at ISO 9000.

Here's a little discussion of that amazing ISOless sensor in the D7000:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37235114

I have tested it and the method has very limited range as it should. Setting the HI ISO allows using the full A/D range. Inputing to to the A/D converter lets say 0.2V instead of 5V output very poor result. For limited use lets say instead of nominal 5V input to D/A converter 2.5V the loss would not be so obvious. (I am using voltage values just for demonstration - not real values)

I'm afraid I don't know what you are taking about. On the D7000 (or any camera using an ISOless sensor), using a higher ISO simply results in blowing more highlights (due to the limited bit depth of the output), as your photo clearly demonstrates. Using base ISO and applying the "appropriate" tone curve allows maximum use of the DR the sensor can give, as the link provided above demonstrates.

I would read the thread later. Thank you.

Enjoy!

pedroboe100
pedroboe100 Regular Member • Posts: 296
Re: The High ISO Obsession

Well yes, a typical dangerous subject on any four thirds forum, bound to excite the masses. A valid argument nonetheless.

Wether you are a fanboy or troll, realize that its a free market and move on to another brand...

I did, got a K 5 and a few of their "limited "lenses. Yet, I Still grab my Ep2 and 17 mm for the gorgeous jpegs and colors. There is no argument that there are better high iso cameras out there. The moment I saw the first 3200 shot from my K5, I simply could not believe my eyes. Then I tried 6400, just as great!

I got rid of my E30, PL 25 mm, GF 1,etc. But not all is perfect in the land of APSC. Some of my Pentax lenses are soft, they need fine focus adjustments, they are screw driven, etc. I don't recall ever having this kind of trouble with my many olympus and panaleica lenses.
But I do remember having noise issues, for sure.

I am now a lurker here, and I don't post on the Pentax forums for pure shame and confusion about my migration. Go ahead : try another brand. You will be back here and I suspect there are many migrated lurkers here too!

Do you live with the noise and enjoy trouble free and well made product, or do you venture into more resolution at the expense of bizzarre lenses with strange shortcomings and shoddy quality control?

I guess you can't really have everything in life? This is the plight of olympians...
have a good weekend and do some shutter therapy!

 pedroboe100's gear list:pedroboe100's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Pentax MX-1 Olympus PEN E-P2 Pentax Q Pentax K-01 +11 more
CharlesB58 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,133
Re: The High ISO Obsession

ThePhilips wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

has replaced the Megapixel Obsession.

The Marketing Guys have done a great job, congrats : it seems that the "most important" criteria to evaluate a camera is it's High ISO performance.

The fun part is that 99% of users will likely shoot 99% of the time under 800 ISO.

Allow me a car analogy. High ISO is the same as the electronics in the cars. Many of us would find it impossible (and very unsafe) to drive faster than 90km/h without all the bells and whistles under the car's hood. The car electronics made (relatively) fast transportation accessible to the masses. Driving fast a fully manual car (and not dying) takes years to master. High ISO in the cameras allows many amateurs to make decent photos, without spending years learning photography.

Before digital revolution, to make good photos one had to be both: a technician who understands the camera's inner working and an artist to compose the photos/capture the moment. This days, an artist can take a camera, start making photos and get results - all that without delving into tech details. That's called "progress." High ISO is part of it too: good lighting was (and still is) one of the hardest parts of the photography, but now more and more relegated to a minor inconvenience.

I have to disagree to a certain extent. There are just too many photos showing up on various sites in which yes, the high ISO capability allowed the person to capture the image, but the image really is worse than if they had used flash.

Of course, we really have to divide the issue into at least 2 camps. In the one camp are the people described above-those who otherwise wouldn't get what they consider acceptable images. I would have to say that probably 90% of what they capture are snapshots that wouldn't require more technical knowledge anyway. Which is fine because they are also mostly the people who are simply taking photos for their own memories and scrapbooks.

The other camp are those who do, or at least intend, on producing "serious" photos. Many of them consider themselves enthusiasts or even "pro level" photographers. Unfortunately, I see too many in this second category still thinking like those in the first camp. They don't bother learning the techniques which take those low light high ISO shots beyond the realm of the snapshot.

A couple years ago, we had a thread which provided a good example of what I mean. Someone posted a photo which appeared to be taken at high ISO in available light. They raved about how the camera produced so little noise at what the OP imagined must have been at least ISO 3200.

The problem was, the photo was taken at ISO 200 (Using as I recall a Nikon D2). The appearance of available light was accomplished through the skilled usage of multiple strobes, repleat with gels, scrims, softboxes et al.

Therein lies my point: a number of people assume that a given photos is taken in available light because they don't know enough about lighting set ups (whether strobe or continuous) to understand how to give the appearance of available light at lower ISOs. This in turn feeds the high ISO obsession as relatively ignorant people assume the only way to accomplish a given effect is with a fast lens at max aperture at high ISO.

Granted, there are times when that is indeed the only way to get the shot. But the more experienced photographers will, as much as possible, work to control light in order to use the lowest ISO possible and still get the image.

Having worked camera retail sales, I can tell you that the bottom line is indeed the marketing people trying to sell cameras by creating a perception of need. That and a perception of superiority based on numbers. ISO 12800 capability must mean that camera will produce better images than one with only ISO 3200 capability, right?
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Leo Veteran Member • Posts: 6,294
Re: A suggestion.

Great Bustard wrote:

Leo wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Had you instead shot the same pic at f/5 1/40 ISO 100, you could have gotten a better pic if you applied a different tone curve -- you could have retained detail in the windows that was blown because you shot at ISO 9000.

Here's a little discussion of that amazing ISOless sensor in the D7000:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37235114

I have tested it and the method has very limited range as it should. Setting the HI ISO allows using the full A/D range. Inputing to to the A/D converter lets say 0.2V instead of 5V output very poor result. For limited use lets say instead of nominal 5V input to D/A converter 2.5V the loss would not be so obvious. (I am using voltage values just for demonstration - not real values)

I'm afraid I don't know what you are taking about. On the D7000 (or any camera using an ISOless sensor), using a higher ISO simply results in blowing more highlights (due to the limited bit depth of the output), as your photo clearly demonstrates. Using base ISO and applying the "appropriate" tone curve allows maximum use of the DR the sensor can give, as the link provided above demonstrates.

I would read the thread later. Thank you.

Enjoy!

There is a basic ISO (RAW out of the sensor). In dim light the pixel charged to a lesser level (let say for example - half). Then this signal enters a D/A converter lets say 12 bits. Then instead of 12 bit conversion the output result would be only 11 bit conversion. To avoid it the camera allows to amplify the analog signal from the sensor before converting it digital. For 1EV underexposure at ISO 200 not to loose the data in the A/D camera converter people would set camera ISO to 400 (analog signal from the sensor will be amplified x2 times before A/D conversion would be performed).

The Dynamic range definition is: the ratio of the Max light signal level to the noise level. The Dynamic range of the sensor signal would be reduced proportionally for the higher ISO set in the camera because when underexposed the sensor noise level stays the same however the Maximum light signal level is smaller.

That how it works.

The D7000 dynamic range at ISO 100 (set on the camera) is 14EV, at ISO 200 is 13EV, at ISO 400 is 12EV ... etc The 1EV equal x2 times. For comparison a dynamic range of E-620 at ISO 400 is 8EV, which is 4EV (or 16 times less). That simply translates to a higher noise level at the higher set ISO)

Usually the set on the camera ISO is higher than the actual camera ISO. For example on E-620 (love the camera) when ISO set to 800 the actual ISO will be 528. When the camera in JPG mode then in-camera processing compensates the difference. However, when the camera in RAW mode it is the photographer who should compensate by setting Exposure Compensation to +0.7EV. You may skip the compensation and compensate in RAW converter (lets say ACR) by adjusting Exposure slider +0.7EV or so. In this case the noise will be slightly higher (as it explained above).

For Nikon D7000 for the set ISO 800 the actual ISO is 658. Little better, however for the best results in RAW exposure compensation should be set to +0.3EV/+0.5EV. When photographing in JPG the compensation should be set 0EV or to -0.5EV/-0.3EV to avoid highlight overexposure.

Also it worth to note that when photographing in RAW the displayed Histogram corresponds to JPG and always will show overexposure. It makes the mode RAW+JPG setting not very practical. It is not on ly applied to Olympus and Nikon but Sony, Canon and etc.

That how it works.

I am sorry for the lengthy reply. Hope it would be helpful.
Leo

 Leo's gear list:Leo's gear list
Pentax K-S2 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL HD Pentax DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED WR
Leo Veteran Member • Posts: 6,294
Re: The High ISO Obsession

pedroboe100 wrote:

Well yes, a typical dangerous subject on any four thirds forum, bound to excite the masses. A valid argument nonetheless.

Wether you are a fanboy or troll, realize that its a free market and move on to another brand...

I did, got a K 5 and a few of their "limited "lenses. Yet, I Still grab my Ep2 and 17 mm for the gorgeous jpegs and colors. There is no argument that there are better high iso cameras out there. The moment I saw the first 3200 shot from my K5, I simply could not believe my eyes. Then I tried 6400, just as great!

I was shocked in the same manner with D7000 (the same Sony sensor) ... 800, 1600, 3200 ... could not believe. Now after ISO 6400 ... ISO 9000 I do believe.

I assume that the next Sony sensor would be even cleaner. The price for Nikon is not only x3 dollars but bulk, weight and confusing lenses. I am planning to keep one E-620 with a small and light 14-40 kit lens but the rest will go. I have got D7000 not to loose a paying job which required a 14 bit pixel depth - who know why. May be to weed off the crowd.
Leo

 Leo's gear list:Leo's gear list
Pentax K-S2 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL HD Pentax DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED WR
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,853
Re: A suggestion.

Leo wrote:

There is a basic ISO (RAW out of the sensor). In dim light the pixel charged to a lesser level (let say for example - half). Then this signal enters a D/A converter lets say 12 bits. Then instead of 12 bit conversion the output result would be only 11 bit conversion. To avoid it the camera allows to amplify the analog signal from the sensor before converting it digital. For 1EV underexposure at ISO 200 not to loose the data in the A/D camera converter people would set camera ISO to 400 (analog signal from the sensor will be amplified x2 times before A/D conversion would be performed).

I'm going to skip addressing the above, as it it irrelevant to the points I'm going to make.

The Dynamic range definition is: the ratio of the Max light signal level to the noise level. The Dynamic range of the sensor signal would be reduced proportionally for the higher ISO set in the camera because when underexposed the sensor noise level stays the same however the Maximum light signal level is smaller.

That how it works.

Yes, and that's why, in terms of maximizing IQ, it's best to use base ISO on a camera with an ISOless sensor.

The D7000 dynamic range at ISO 100 (set on the camera) is 14EV, at ISO 200 is 13EV, at ISO 400 is 12EV ... etc The 1EV equal x2 times. For comparison a dynamic range of E-620 at ISO 400 is 8EV, which is 4EV (or 16 times less). That simply translates to a higher noise level at the higher set ISO)

Yes, except the sensor in the E620 is not ISOless, and the read noise lessens at higher ISOs, resulting in a rather flat DR until the higher ISOs.

Usually the set on the camera ISO is higher than the actual camera ISO. For example on E-620 (love the camera) when ISO set to 800 the actual ISO will be 528. When the camera in JPG mode then in-camera processing compensates the difference. However, when the camera in RAW mode it is the photographer who should compensate by setting Exposure Compensation to +0.7EV. You may skip the compensation and compensate in RAW converter (lets say ACR) by adjusting Exposure slider +0.7EV or so. In this case the noise will be slightly higher (as it explained above).

Basically, the ISO is irrelevant. What you want to do is get as much light on the sensor as you can, without blowing "too much" of the photo. The problem is that, in lower light, getting more light on the sensor requires a longer shutter speed (increasing the risk/amount of motion blur/camera shake) or a larger aperture (resulting in a more shallow DOF and/or less sharpness).

So, you need to balance how much light falls on the sensor with blown highlights, motion blur / camera shake, and DOF / sharpness. But ISO doesn't really figure into it, except inasmuch as higher ISOs have less read noise for non-ISOless sensors.

For Nikon D7000 for the set ISO 800 the actual ISO is 658. Little better, however for the best results in RAW exposure compensation should be set to +0.3EV/+0.5EV. When photographing in JPG the compensation should be set 0EV or to -0.5EV/-0.3EV to avoid highlight overexposure.

Also it worth to note that when photographing in RAW the displayed Histogram corresponds to JPG and always will show overexposure. It makes the mode RAW+JPG setting not very practical. It is not on ly applied to Olympus and Nikon but Sony, Canon and etc.

Again, since the sensor in the D7000 is ISOless, you will maximize the IQ of the capture by shooting base ISO in M mode. In other words, if you have the time, you can meter the scene in whatever AE (auto exposure) mode you are using, then flip to M mode, set the f-ratio and shutter speed, and take the pic at base ISO. Then apply the "appropriate" tone curve in the RAW conversion.

That how it works.
I am sorry for the lengthy reply. Hope it would be helpful.

I hope my equally lengthly reply was as helpful.

Pixnat2
OP Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,655
Nice post Charles

CharlesB58 wrote:

ThePhilips wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

has replaced the Megapixel Obsession.

The Marketing Guys have done a great job, congrats : it seems that the "most important" criteria to evaluate a camera is it's High ISO performance.

The fun part is that 99% of users will likely shoot 99% of the time under 800 ISO.

Allow me a car analogy. High ISO is the same as the electronics in the cars. Many of us would find it impossible (and very unsafe) to drive faster than 90km/h without all the bells and whistles under the car's hood. The car electronics made (relatively) fast transportation accessible to the masses. Driving fast a fully manual car (and not dying) takes years to master. High ISO in the cameras allows many amateurs to make decent photos, without spending years learning photography.

Before digital revolution, to make good photos one had to be both: a technician who understands the camera's inner working and an artist to compose the photos/capture the moment. This days, an artist can take a camera, start making photos and get results - all that without delving into tech details. That's called "progress." High ISO is part of it too: good lighting was (and still is) one of the hardest parts of the photography, but now more and more relegated to a minor inconvenience.

I have to disagree to a certain extent. There are just too many photos showing up on various sites in which yes, the high ISO capability allowed the person to capture the image, but the image really is worse than if they had used flash.

Of course, we really have to divide the issue into at least 2 camps. In the one camp are the people described above-those who otherwise wouldn't get what they consider acceptable images. I would have to say that probably 90% of what they capture are snapshots that wouldn't require more technical knowledge anyway. Which is fine because they are also mostly the people who are simply taking photos for their own memories and scrapbooks.

The other camp are those who do, or at least intend, on producing "serious" photos. Many of them consider themselves enthusiasts or even "pro level" photographers. Unfortunately, I see too many in this second category still thinking like those in the first camp. They don't bother learning the techniques which take those low light high ISO shots beyond the realm of the snapshot.

A couple years ago, we had a thread which provided a good example of what I mean. Someone posted a photo which appeared to be taken at high ISO in available light. They raved about how the camera produced so little noise at what the OP imagined must have been at least ISO 3200.

The problem was, the photo was taken at ISO 200 (Using as I recall a Nikon D2). The appearance of available light was accomplished through the skilled usage of multiple strobes, repleat with gels, scrims, softboxes et al.

Therein lies my point: a number of people assume that a given photos is taken in available light because they don't know enough about lighting set ups (whether strobe or continuous) to understand how to give the appearance of available light at lower ISOs. This in turn feeds the high ISO obsession as relatively ignorant people assume the only way to accomplish a given effect is with a fast lens at max aperture at high ISO.

Granted, there are times when that is indeed the only way to get the shot. But the more experienced photographers will, as much as possible, work to control light in order to use the lowest ISO possible and still get the image.

Having worked camera retail sales, I can tell you that the bottom line is indeed the marketing people trying to sell cameras by creating a perception of need. That and a perception of superiority based on numbers. ISO 12800 capability must mean that camera will produce better images than one with only ISO 3200 capability, right?
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

Happy to see that there's still some smart people with Common Sense.

Have a nice day!
--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +8 more
Pixnat2
OP Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,655
Sorry pedroboe100

pedroboe100 wrote:

Wether you are a fanboy or troll, realize that its a free market and move on to another brand...

I shoot Canon FF and Oly 4/3/m43 for many years, so sorry, I can't fit the fanboy definition.
And I respond to posts, so I'm afraid I don't fit the troll definition too.

I am now a lurker here, and I don't post on the Pentax forums for pure shame and confusion about my migration. Go ahead : try another brand. You will be back here and I suspect there are many migrated lurkers here too!

Do you live with the noise and enjoy trouble free and well made product, or do you venture into more resolution at the expense of bizzarre lenses with strange shortcomings and shoddy quality control?

I guess you can't really have everything in life? This is the plight of olympians...
have a good weekend and do some shutter therapy!

Considering the aggressive way you wrote your post, think if you can take this last advice is for yourself?
--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +8 more
Pixnat2
OP Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,655
Leo,

Leo wrote:

Here is a straight out of camera nightshot with NO TRIOPD (hand held) ISO 9000, F5. 1/40s

It's a great technical performance "noisewise", I agree.

But except the fact that you can look this pic at 100% on your computer screen and think "wow, it's nearly noisefree" (which I concede can bring some kind of joy), are you considering it's a keeper?

And another question : do you have many keepers at ISO 9000?
--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +8 more
Pixnat2
OP Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,655
Hi Stu,

Hi Stu

Stujoe wrote:

I agree that higher and higher ISO that are not really clean or useable are meaningless to me.

However, actual high ISO will only cease to be an issue for me when 'clean ISO' on a 4/3rds or APS-c sensor goes up to 6400 or 12800 and 'usable ISO' is 25,600. At that point, I will be able to have enough shutter speed to shoot wildlife with a long lens, stopped down, in lower light conditions nearer dusk and dawn. And, at that point, higher and higher ISO will begin to be as useless to me as higher and higher megapixels...no matter how clean the ISOs are.

That's a good reason! I've recently seen a magazine that published pictures of this photographer : http://www.vincentmunier.com/ with a D3s at very high ISO. They're magical. You can see noise, but the pictures are simply breathtaking, not because of the technical high ISO performance, but because of the photographer's skill.

-- hide signature --
 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +8 more
Pixnat2
OP Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,655
Hi Greg

daddyo wrote:

I truth is that there are not that many instances where ISO higher that 1600 is really needed. The problem is that most newer photographers don't won't use a tripod -- ever, and look at virtually every image on the computer at 100%. What people seem to forget is that 100% is the equivalent of viewing a 40X30 in. print from 2 feet away.

View the image, at say 11X14 size, and noise becomes a virtual non-issue for any properly exposed image at ISO 1600 or below with present day Oly cameras. My E-5 gives me usable images at ISO 3200.

I've never, ever had a client tell me they had a issue with a 'grainy' image.

When I was shooting weddings with film, I never needed to shoot anything faster than ISO 400.

Many photographers these days expect the camera to cover poor shooting technique, with high ISO, IS, and near perfect AF.

I feel if someone really shoots regularly in very low light situations without using flash. they need to look at Nikon or Canon FF systems.

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

Yes, you're absolutely right! My concern is that all those super power cameras are used by photographers who don't want to learn photography. They just think that if the get the latest and greatest, they will produce Fine Art Pictures.

But we can't really blame them because it's what the marketing techniques are telling to them : buy this "on steroid" camera, and you'll be the next Ansel Adams or Cartier-Bresson.

-- hide signature --
 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +8 more
olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 26,175
Re: The High ISO Obsession

costas ear wrote:

my friend, ...

Please stop calling me "my friend". As far as I know we are not friends, just two members of this forum.

 olyflyer's gear list:olyflyer's gear list
Nikon Z7
Pixnat2
OP Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,655
You want to see HQ High Iso Pictures?

Look at the work of this photographer :

http://www.vincentmunier.com/

For him, the D3s is a blessing. He can unleash his creativity and push his style even further, thanks to the High ISO performance of his camera.

But if the pictures are breathtaking, it's thanks to its wonderful photographer's skills and not to his material.

In other words, a D3s in the hands of a soccer dad will take crappy pictures, even with its fantastic caracteristics.

To close this thread, I hope my message has grown in the brain of at least 1% of forum members :

Don't let you fooled by marketing hypes!

Think about what you really need : if you're buying a camera to take 10 test pictures at high ISO, look at 100% in your computer screen and say "wow, it's noisefree", and after take 99% of the time snapshots at normal ISO, up to you, but IMHO you have badly spent your cash.

Who wants to be a sheep?

-- hide signature --
 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +8 more
kermitG9 Contributing Member • Posts: 701
Impressive selection..

Having had a look at his pictures I spotted a few things :

In general, he's doing pretty much the opposite of what we're discussing here:

  • We judge IQ by ultra-sharpness => he's consistently "smoothes" his pictures.. sometimes quite extremely.

  • We want a max. of DR => he consistently blows highlights to just keep the focus on the main subject. On the other hand, he underexposes quite regularly.. something I wouldn't do but now realize that it adds some kind of "mystery" to the subject.

  • Plenty of his pictures are noisy and have slight color aberrations. I can't judge at which ISO settings he's shooting .. but that's no my main point: The framing and subjects are so impressive that he's not bothered even applying stronger noise filtering.. which would have fixed his pictures quite easily.

  • And ultimately, he's taking pictures of scenes that the average photographer wouldn't even spot or consider worth taking. Plenty of scenes are "milky" and offer low contrast .. and yet, they're breathtaking.

So everyone who keeps believing that upgrading camera with every generation will turn them into a better photographer .. should think twice about it. This guy will still shoot superior pictures with a P&S camera than most people here.

cgarrard
cgarrard Forum Pro • Posts: 15,673
Frederic

Funny Consumer World

You are smack on the money. I notice trends by manufacturers and some reviewers all the time wherein the intent is in the end to energize sales of cameras by starting hype about a particular feature or what not.

I have an Alpha A580 that has the best high ISO performance I've seen in an APS-C DLSR (especially in multiframe ISO mode), but it's only one of the many features I find useful in the camera- certainly not worth the hype I see generated.

In the end I think there are some photographers that generally need the best high ISO performance in a camera- typically low light shooters or sports shooters etc, but they are a fraction of the overall nebular photographic community.

-Carl

-- hide signature --

http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/

"Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude; nothing can help the man with wrong one."
-Thomas Jefferson

JLTaylor Senior Member • Posts: 1,093
Re: the High ISO - mitigation

tko wrote:

People are brainwashed to use their cameras in certain ways. Bright sun, or indoors wide open with slow shutter speed.

Suppose you want to stop action, indoors, with good DOF? Suppose that's what your vision requires. Do you have any idea what ISO 1/500th and F5.6 indoors requires? Depending on the lighting, even ISO 3200 may not do.

If by good you mean not shallow, this is one of the few areas where
equivalence helps 4/3's offset the sensor limitations.

If you mean using DOF to isolate a subject, lenses also matter. With micro four thirds I started takeing fast primes which narrows the performance gap a bit.

Either way, it is not a high priority for me.

Nah, you'd never shoot under these conditions. Because camera's in the past couldn't do that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't do that.

You really need to keep an open mind to the possibilities of high ISO. Maybe you do't need high ISO. You might only shoot flowers in bright sunlight. That doesn't mean others don't need it.

I also now carry a UWA and fisheye which have added possibilities that I would not have had with other systems. Sometimes the trade off for small size is more important than performance. Last trip 5 lenses fit in 1/4 of a small carry on bag.

-- hide signature --
JLTaylor Senior Member • Posts: 1,093
Lilliput and Blefuscu, star belly seetches

There seems to be two camps - probably doomed to argue forever.

For some of us photography is all about the light, and go to great lengths to get good light. Get up before the sunrise and hike in the dark, camp in remote areas, sit for hours waiting for the right conditions, or spend a fortune on studio lighting.

Others have a need to capture the best image possible in whatever conditions they get. Photojournalists, wedding photographers, street shooters, and parents.
Perhaps they are vampires.

I am interested in a few good shots, and have selected equipment that is portable and has great lenses. The shots I take in less the ideal conditions don't get printed, and at best hit with a bunch of noise reduction and seen on a HDTV a couple of times. Better high ISO performance would be nice, but is not a high priority for me.

-- hide signature --
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,644
damn marketers!

No amateur needs a high ISO camera.

In fact, no amateur needs a camera at all.

What is all this technology that the marketers have suckered us into? What was wrong with film? For that matter, what's wrong with paper and paint?

If only people would understand our way of thinking, the Olympus 4/3rds standard would take over the world.

Stupid people (except us, of course).

Leo Veteran Member • Posts: 6,294
Re: A suggestion.

I see your points and understand the reasoning, however do not agree with some.
I photograph only RAW ... I would not be paid for JPG.
All the Best and happy photography.
Leo

PS The Nikon Forum is not very interesting. Olympus forum may be just another reason to keep E-620

 Leo's gear list:Leo's gear list
Pentax K-S2 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL HD Pentax DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED WR
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,853
Re: A suggestion.

Leo wrote:

I see your points and understand the reasoning, however do not agree with some.

Fair enough -- give it time.

I photograph only RAW ... I would not be paid for JPG.

All of what I said applies to RAW only.

All the Best and happy photography.

To you as well!

PS The Nikon Forum is not very interesting. Olympus forum may be just another reason to keep E-620

It's the "entertainment capital" of DPR!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads