jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

When I photograph my grandson's rock band, nearly always in very dark bars with poor lighting, it's either shoot at ISO 12,800-25,600 or don't shoot at all (I won't use flash). I set the camera to about 1/125 to 1/200 at f3.5 and still get usable results with my 6D.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Ron,

I think what you’re espousing is the underexpose and raise-in post-with “ISO invariant” cameras rather than raise the ISO for a “correct” exposure idea. Just a couple of comments.

First, while some blur in the Butterfly wings or an airplane propeller might add to that shot’s realism, it certainly isn’t acceptable in most wedding photos or sports photographs - it’s just a blurry photograph. You can achieve similar amateurish results by being out of focus.

Secondly, the concept of ISO invariance has been kicked around a lot, but there isn’t universal agreement on the definition. In various UHH posts, it’s either been defined as a straight slope of decreasing DR with increasing ISO, or as the idea (which I think you’re endorsing) that underexposing and bringing up in post will produce the same result as correctly exposing with a higher ISO initially. Some cameras tolerate this approach well, while others (including my Canons) don’t, and since Canons account for a pretty large percentage of professional sports photos (which typically require high shutter speeds which in turn drives high ISO), you can see why this approach doesn’t work well for a substantial percentage of “action” shooters. The last thing you want to do with a typical Canon (although it varies from body to body) is to underexpose. On the other hand, a 5D4 or a 1DX produces excellent low noise results at high ISOs, hence the popularity of the IDX2 for pros shooting sports.

Finally, I would note that while high DR often correlates with low noise at high ISOs, that’s not always the case. A Nikon D5 has a lower DR than the D750, 800 or 810, but has superior high ISO low noise performance to the other three. I certainly agree that sensors are improving and shots that would have been impossible or produced poor results a decade ago are now commonplace. Personally, I AM very much obsessed with sharpness (and low noise) for most (but not all) work and make no apologies for it. I note that on a different thread, another D500 user is bemoaning the high ISO noise of his body at ISO 5000 which had the result of his otherwise good shots being rejected for publication. A D5 would fix that problem albeit at a high cost.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

In my brief tests with my Nikon D4s I have noted that underexposure at low ISOs when lightened in post produces more acceptable results than underexposure at high ISOs that are lightened in post.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

This is due the the DR being limited by the higher ISO, a known side effect.

Basically you need to know your camera DR capabilities to exploit it and that is valid only for raw shooting.

Steamboat

We yes! But would you really under expose by 3 or 4 stops just to get to the native ISO 200?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Low light and action require a higher ISO to eliminate blurring!

bwa

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

No. In dynamic range tests that I have seen the D4s actually does better at ISO 400 than its native ISO 200. So native ISO doesn't mean that much as a goal to strive for. But I will not be so quick in jettisoning my underexposed shots anymore.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I use high ISO a lot. Having said that, I always try to use the lowest ISO setting consistent with image quality. If that means I have to raise the ISO to get a reasonable shutter speed, so be it.

Bobnewnan

I love high ISO! With the good noise reduction software, (Neat.com) anything goes. Last month I was shooting sandhill cranes 20 minutes before sunrise as they left their overnight roost in the shallow lake. 1/1500 with an ISO of 25,000. Not going to get the shot if you don't go that high and not going to get clear wing tips with less speed. Cleaned up the image in post and have some unusual shots that I like. Won't win any prizes but I like them and that's what counts.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

It's debatable as to the degree in which we were impeded. I had a Pentax K1000 with an f/2 lens and often used 400 ISO and even occasionally 1000 ISO film to capture images in relatively low light. I think back then we understood the limitations of very low light photography, without the use of a flash, and simply made whatever compromises we had to in order to get the best shot we could. The operating term here is "compromises". Secondly, the film grain of fast 1000 ISO films was far more pleasant than the digital noise of today's sensors. High ISO shots today really need the application of noise reduction in post to get the best from them.

ELNikkor

I was shooting wedding candids for a friend, while the "professional photographer" was doing all the main shots. When I saw he had a Hassleblad and a big Metz flash, I realized he was probably shooting ISO 100 film with an aperture of f11, and a shutter speed around 1/500th sec. I immediately put some Ektar 1000 in my trusty FE2, put my flash in my bag, and shot from every conceivable angle in the lovely Spanish style hacienda resort in Miami. Sure enough, all of his photos were cruelly sharp, a bit bluish, and totally black behind his subjects, whereas mine captured the lovely, romantic ambience of the event. Higher ISO might lead to a bit less resolution, but it can also lead to photos which better serve the photographer's vision.

Steamboat

True enough
We still need to understand the limitations of very low light photography.
And we still need the make the appropriate compromises.

But now we are working Digitally ....different limitations, different compromises.

I wonder if we never knew film grain, would we still think noise was ugly?
TriX to 1600 in Acufine was still pretty grainy and contrasty.
We thought it was great because we were able to capture a moment ....unattainable with slow films.

Shooting Digitally with an understanding of history is a Joy!

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

In addition to what others have said, many places don't allow tripods or monopods or flash. So there you are, with nothing but your hands and breath to hold the camera steady... a high ISO gives you a shot (!) of handholding with a higher shutter.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Not always a choice when shooting indoor sports under low light. Base ISO is not an option. Higher ISO is king.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

and stopping action / avoiding blur is much more important than Dynamic Range