Any interest in high ISO performance?

[George181996]

Good morning everybody,

When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous 15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity higher than ISO 800.

So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values, but not over ISO 800.
What do you think? Is there more interest than I think in high ISO values?
regards,
George

 

[nickoly]

When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at> high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous> 15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity> higher than ISO 800.> So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,> but not over ISO 800.> What do you think? Is there more interest than I think in high ISO> values?

I think the emphasis on higher ISO performance is important because this is a feature that sets DSLRs apart from the rest. With non-DSLRs, working at high ISO can be problem due to noise issues caused by their small sensors. DSLRs have larger sensors hence less of a problem.

While you may rarely have used film faster than 800, 400 film is quite common, particlarly with cheap P&S 35mm. This is about the top of the range with a P&S digital and I understand it is dangerous territory.

 

[JaamC]

Yes, thats one thing that makes it worthwhile buying a DSLR, although high ISO performance is IMHO a very fluxuating concept, even with DSLRs.

For example in full sunlight (no deep shadow areas which are in the point of interest) I wouldn't hesitate using ISO values up to 1250 or in very good light, to get shutterspeeds to very high levels, ISO 1600 with my D70, and expect very usable results.

OTOH using ISO values over 640 in low to very low light situations will bring you quite a lot of noise along.

This is relatively the same for P&S cams, so that ISO 400 will give you slightly more noise than ISO 1600, and high ISO performance depends heavily on available light.

One thing to remember is that P&S cams inherintly have a much larger DOF, which either works for your advantage or against depending on your goals in the picture. This also applies to needed ISO values, because if you need the same shutterspeed with the large DOF you get with a P&S, you need to stop down a lot when using a DSLR. This means upping the ISO considerably, so in worst case, you might not have any advantage of using a DSLR, if you are considering the ISO performance aspect alone.

I think the emphasis on higher ISO performance is important because
this is a feature that sets DSLRs apart from the rest. With
non-DSLRs, working at high ISO can be problem due to noise issues
caused by their small sensors. DSLRs have larger sensors hence less
of a problem.

While you may rarely have used film faster than 800, 400 film is
quite common, particlarly with cheap P&S 35mm. This is about the
top of the range with a P&S digital and I understand it is
dangerous territory.

 

[L. Lerusse]

Hi George,

I have not much experience but here are my thoughs.

I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity
higher than ISO 800.

Why not? Because you always take photo when there is enough light or that you can have long exposure. It can be because you didn't like the grain of the film with high ISO, or because It was anoying to change film in between different shoting situation?

If it is the first case, You don't need higher ISO. the best quality is with lower ISO.

If it is the second, then you can find that the clean image at high ISO is acceptable for some of your picture and using it will maybe allow you to take pictures in condition you would not have think possible to get nice picture.

You have to think that with digital, you can swap ISO from a picture to the next, you don't need to take several exposure at that speed.

It is not because you didn't use it with film that you will not discover its usage in digital.

Constructor and reviewers still advise to use higher than 800 ISO only in case of emergency.

So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.

Now, the CCD and CMOS are good, the construcor can not show real improvement in low ISO images from one generation to the next. Then they show it in high ISO.

Controling noise at high ISO have probably implication also in low ISO in the shadow area but it is more subtle, less easy to show.

Regards

Laurent

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

George wrote:
[snip]

I love hand-held available-light photography. With film, I always felt that "life begins at f/1.4@ISO 400". The higher usable ISO's of digital have opened up a whole new world of creative possibilities -- for example, the possibility to use darker but otherwise nice lenses in low light, or, of course, the possibility to shoot in even lower light.

While ISO 800 and bright primes are very very nice, I would love more headroom in the sensitivity department. But not at any cost.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[marlinspike]

So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.

Each one is different, but you can find out which ones are good at high ISO by reading the reviews on this website. The first page of "photographic tests" always discusses the cameras ISO performance. I think the 20D is the king daddy, at least of the affordable ones.
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list

 

[Noel C]

I think the 20D is the king daddy, at least of the affordable ones.

At this moment, judging from the sample images that have begun to appear, it's quite possible the 20D is the king daddy at any price, short of the kind of money spent by DoD, NASA, etc.

Go look at the 20D ISO 3200 shot on this site. The one of the tank.

Even better, the image stands up to mild noise reduction marvelously well.

-Noel

 

[Heechee]

George wrote:

[snip]

I love hand-held available-light photography. With film, I always
felt that "life begins at f/1.4@ISO 400". The higher usable ISO's
of digital have opened up a whole new world of creative
possibilities -- for example, the possibility to use darker but
otherwise nice lenses in low light, or, of course, the possibility
to shoot in even lower light.

While ISO 800 and bright primes are very very nice, I would love
more headroom in the sensitivity department. But not at any cost.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[stephenmelvin]

T-Max p3200 is capable of pushing to ISO 50000. I know, because I've done it. Shot a test at 1/2000 in a hotel room with a single 60w bulb as the light source. Don't remember the aperture...

 

[Ken Burns]

Good morning everybody,
When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at
high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous
15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity
higher than ISO 800.
So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.
What do you think? Is there more interest than I think in high ISO
values?
regards,
George

Over the last several decades I've shot well over a thousand rolls of film at ISO 1600 in the local theater, so high ISO performance is extremely important to me. I started out pushing Tri-X and switching in later years to Konica 1600 color neg film. I've been using a Nikon D100 of late at ISO 1600 and even the 3200 equivalent called HI-1. Digital performance at these high speeds leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the depths of the dark shadow areas. I always have to use noise reduction software to help as much as possible, but sometimes that is just not enough. So, to me performance at high ISO settings is extremely important. I've been considering going back to film.

 

[George181996]

Digital performance at these high speeds leaves a lot
to be desired, especially in the depths of the dark shadow areas.
I always have to use noise reduction software to help as much as
possible, but sometimes that is just not enough. So, to me
performance at high ISO settings is extremely important. I've been
considering going back to film.

Shooting at such high ISO values, you probably are the exception.

So, which procedure do you follow? I presume, that since you intend to proccess your pictures, you shoot RAW. And which noise reduction software do you use?

Going back to film, is probably not advisable! I suppose you have been reading the news about Ilford and Agfa.
regards,
George

 

[George181996]

I love hand-held available-light photography. With film, I always
felt that "life begins at f/1.4@ISO 400". The higher usable ISO's
of digital have opened up a whole new world of creative
possibilities -- for example, the possibility to use darker but
otherwise nice lenses in low light, or, of course, the possibility
to shoot in even lower light.
While ISO 800 and bright primes are very very nice, I would love
more headroom in the sensitivity department. But not at any cost.

"life begins at f/1.4@ISO 400" : Nice definition Petteri! I guess, generally you are right, and as other posters have noted, with digital cameras you don't need to change film to try higher ISO values. So, in fact your phrase "digital has opened up a whole new world of creative possibilities" has more essence than initially noticed.
regards,
George

 

[George181996]

Now, the CCD and CMOS are good, the construcor can not show real
improvement in low ISO images from one generation to the next.
Then they show it in high ISO.
Controlling noise at high ISO have probably implication also in low
ISO in the shadow area but it is more subtle, less easy to show.

Laurent, what you say is true, at higher ISO values you can better differentiate performance. However, I have seen quite a few tests where one camera perfroms better up to ISO 400, and then another camera performs better at higher ISO.
regards,
George

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

T-Max p3200 is capable of pushing to ISO 50000. I know, because
I've done it. Shot a test at 1/2000 in a hotel room with a single
60w bulb as the light source. Don't remember the aperture...

How did it turn out?

(I've gone to ISO12800 on my 10D -- shoot in RAW at ISO3200 and push digitally by two stops. The result looked... unusual.)

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[Ken Burns]

Shooting at such high ISO values, you probably are the exception.

I might well be the exception, but I still need to get acceptable quality at high ISO settings.

So, which procedure do you follow? I presume, that since you
intend to proccess your pictures, you shoot RAW. And which noise
reduction software do you use?

I shoot RAW with noise reduction in Neat Image.

Going back to film, is probably not advisable! I suppose you have
been reading the news about Ilford and Agfa.

Yes, I've read about Agfa selling off their consumer film division as well as Ilford's economic woes. Agfa never was a major player in the consumer game around here anyway. Ilford's B&W operation will probably be seperated from their other operations and sold off. It will probably continue elsewhere on a smaller scale. Kodak and Fuji, the 2 major competitors in consumer color films, are still in business. And Kodak has just recently made a major investment in their B&W mfg operation. Film,especially color, isn't going to disappear anytime soon. So, if film gives better quality, why should I stay with digital?

 

[Chris101]

that means Mega ISO, or ISO 1,024,000 which is what you get if you set your camera to ISO 6400 then push it four more stops with Photoshop's ACR plug in. Here's a shot I did last winter at ISO (Actually EI) 256,000, or a quarter MISO:



That's an evening photo showing the sky around Pegasus and Andromeda. The fussy thing near the center is the galaxy in Andromeda, M31.

Ultra high ISO is something that's finally possible without jumping through hoops, like developing reversal film as a negative, or whatever.

Good morning everybody,
When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at
high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous
15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity
higher than ISO 800.
So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.
What do you think? Is there more interest than I think in high ISO
values?
regards,
George

--
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/categories/photos/

 

[David Martin]

Taht is absolutely stunning - have you got a link to the ACR plug-in?

That's an evening photo showing the sky around Pegasus and
Andromeda. The fussy thing near the center is the galaxy in
Andromeda, M31.

Ultra high ISO is something that's finally possible without jumping
through hoops, like developing reversal film as a negative, or
whatever.

Good morning everybody,
When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at
high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous
15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity
higher than ISO 800.
So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.
What do you think? Is there more interest than I think in high ISO
values?
regards,
George

--
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/categories/photos/

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[Dennis]

Good morning everybody,
When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at
high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous
15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity
higher than ISO 800.

I've shot a handful of rolls of b&w at 3200, but mostly ISO 50-400 and occasional 800. I shoot 50-100 from a tripod and 100-800 handheld. I'd happily to faster, but ISO 400 is my usual quality/speed compromise point. Give me good ISO 1600 and I'll use it frequently for low light handheld photography. Give me AS and I'll find uses for it, too, but plenty of shots of moving subjects that still require faster shutter speeds.

So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.

I'm the other way around - I assume any DSLR produces fine prints from 100 to 400 and that they distinguish themselves at higher ISO. But in the end, there are so few DSLRs available that it's still system-first, then, if there are any options (such as Nikon & Fuji) pick the camera.

• Dennis

 

[Dumont]

Gee man, you'd better exchange your camera. It has too many stuck and hot pixels

I am waiting for higher ISO sensors in "fixed" lens cameras like the Dimage

A1/A2 (I have a 7Hi). It would be great to go upto 1600/3200 on a camera like that. I don't want to carry lenses around.

Brgds
Dumont
http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/579
http://www.phototalk.net/dumont/

That's an evening photo showing the sky around Pegasus and
Andromeda. The fussy thing near the center is the galaxy in
Andromeda, M31.

Ultra high ISO is something that's finally possible without jumping
through hoops, like developing reversal film as a negative, or
whatever.

Good morning everybody,
When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at
high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous
15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity
higher than ISO 800.
So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.
What do you think? Is there more interest than I think in high ISO
values?
regards,
George

--
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/categories/photos/

 

[Chris101]

Adobe Camera Raw, it's the raw converter plug in that's included with Photoshop CS. They had a plug-in for PS7, I don't know if it's still available seperately.

That's an evening photo showing the sky around Pegasus and
Andromeda. The fussy thing near the center is the galaxy in
Andromeda, M31.

Ultra high ISO is something that's finally possible without jumping
through hoops, like developing reversal film as a negative, or
whatever.

Good morning everybody,
When I read about a new camera, I rarely note its performance at
high ISO values (more than ISO 800). Using film for the previous
15-20 years, I did not use more than 20-30 films with a sensitivity
higher than ISO 800.
So, I am interested to read how a dSLR performs at low ISO values,
but not over ISO 800.
What do you think? Is there more interest than I think in high ISO
values?
regards,
George

--
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/categories/photos/

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/categories/photos/