ISO Performance (Page 2): Big “Amen” to that !

User ID

dsmeltz wrote:

Real world trumps DXO every time. They are still ... (show quote)

Big “Amen” to that !

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

jeep_daddy wrote:

I never use it because it will double the length of time an exposure takes. So if you take a 30 sec exposure, the camera won't be ready to take another image for 60 seconds.

With my camera it only works for one second or longer exposures, where I usually have plenty of time between shots anyway. When I need faster shutter speeds, high ISO performance is important.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

It seems to me that every day there is a unique, different, and obscure newfangled way of rating cameras as to sensor performance and a long list of ultra-minuscule microscopic standards that most probably would not to the average photograher- even advanced amateur and professionals. This ISO Performace has some relevance but is not, in my opinion, the singular determining factor in invest in a camera system.

Here's a link to an explanation of ISO performance.

https://vasphotography.wordpress.com/tag/iso-performance/

It kind of a gauge of signal to noise kinda thing. It is a measurement of noise at given ISO sensitivity settings- even low numbers like ISO 100 or 200. So a camera with a better rating will show less noise at high settings like 1000, 1600, 3200, etc.

This rating has nothing to do with the camera's maximum ISO setting in and of itself. It gauges performance at all the ISO settings that the camera offers.

The attribute factors in of you are printing or exhibit your work at great degrees of enlargement, especially if you are in many "black cat in a coal mine at midnight: situations and especially if you need to have high ISO settings, smaller apertures for depth of field, and faster shutter speeds to stop motion.

Depending on the kinds of work you are doing, comparing camera "A" to camera "B"- I would suggest there are many other factors to consider including ergonomic handling, format, lens and accessory selection, weight, portability, general build and quality, SLR or Mirrorless, and more- not to mention price and budget considerations!

Decades ago, in the film era, low light shooting involved high-speed coarse-grained film pushed processed in dynamite-like developers. This would yield excessive gran and oftentimes lack of shadow detail but a story-telling image was to be had. Nowadays in digital photography, even a high ISO setting- and even on some of the order mode cameras, the NOISE is not all that terrible. I have made mural-size display prints shot with an old D-300 and D-700 at ISO 800 and 1600 that were surprisingly "grainless"!

Simply works backward from the work you intend doig, the exhibition size, the light levels you may find yourself in, the need for high IOS settings, fast shutter speeds and small apertures and asses YOUR requiremets on that basis. If you really need that extra ISO performance- by all means, consider it. The ultimate test is in the results. Before investing in a system I want to get a thorough demonstration. Written specifications and claims are fine bit I wanna SEE the difference!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

An insignificant difference.

User ID

TriX wrote:

An insignificant difference.

For sure. So close it might be little more than measurement slippage.

I had no idea what was being measured but I could see that whatever it was the measurements are basically alike just by common sense.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I will make it simple with my answer. If you need better low light performance you should select the camera that performs better in low light. If your camera is a recent model and I do not know what you have, those cameras perform pretty good in low light.
There are very good noise reduction programs that do a spectacular job and Topaz Denoise AI is one of them.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jradose wrote:

I am one of those people who needs more detailed explanation, so please, help this dummy. In comparing two cameras, I see something like this for ISO performance: Camera A 2980 Camera B 2853, So Camera A has better low light performance. Now, to me, that doesn't satisfy my curiosity. Just how much better is Camera A in taking photos in low light conditions, is it dignificant enough to sway me over to camera A?

The real difference between camera A and camera B is your ability to obtain a quality image.
In other words, if your already a competent photographer, it really doesn't matter. The difference is only a score of 27, I doubt you could see the difference.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

CHG_CANON wrote:

How high of an ISO do you want to use? At that ISO level, how does your current camera look? Is using a flash a better approach than a new camera?

If the candidate cameras have been out for a while, there will be detailed reviews and example images from ISO-100 through their highest ISO. Compare those examples against each other and against your current camera's results. Look at the 1:1 pixel level details.

Make an informed decision using these freely available resources.

AMEN BROTHER.....

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Go to this site and enter cameras to compare. Then change the ISO and compare results.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7774764205/fujifilm-x-t30-sony-a6400-added-to-studio-test-scene

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

It seems to me that every day there is a unique, different, and obscure newfangled way of rating cameras as to sensor performance and a long list of ultra-minuscule microscopic standards that most probably would not to the average photograher- even advanced amateur and professionals. This ISO Performace has some relevance but is not, in my opinion, the singular determining factor in invest in a camera system.

Here's a link to an explanation of ISO performance.

https://vasphotography.wordpress.com/tag/iso-performance/

It kind of a gauge of signal to noise kinda thing. It is a measurement of noise at given ISO sensitivity settings- even low numbers like ISO 100 or 200. So a camera with a better rating will show less noise at high settings like 1000, 1600, 3200, etc.

This rating has nothing to do with the camera's maximum ISO setting in and of itself. It gauges performance at all the ISO settings that the camera offers.

The attribute factors in of you are printing or exhibit your work at great degrees of enlargement, especially if you are in many "black cat in a coal mine at midnight: situations and especially if you need to have high ISO settings, smaller apertures for depth of field, and faster shutter speeds to stop motion.

Depending on the kinds of work you are doing, comparing camera "A" to camera "B"- I would suggest there are many other factors to consider including ergonomic handling, format, lens and accessory selection, weight, portability, general build and quality, SLR or Mirrorless, and more- not to mention price and budget considerations!

Decades ago, in the film era, low light shooting involved high-speed coarse-grained film pushed processed in dynamite-like developers. This would yield excessive gran and oftentimes lack of shadow detail but a story-telling image was to be had. Nowadays in digital photography, even a high ISO setting- and even on some of the order mode cameras, the NOISE is not all that terrible. I have made mural-size display prints shot with an old D-300 and D-700 at ISO 800 and 1600 that were surprisingly "grainless"!

Simply works backward from the work you intend doig, the exhibition size, the light levels you may find yourself in, the need for high IOS settings, fast shutter speeds and small apertures and asses YOUR requiremets on that basis. If you really need that extra ISO performance- by all means, consider it. The ultimate test is in the results. Before investing in a system I want to get a thorough demonstration. Written specifications and claims are fine bit I wanna SEE the difference!

It seems to me that every day there is a unique, d... (show quote)

If someone is using ISO performance as the primary purchase criteria, there is not much hope for the outcome.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Were we this minutely critical during the SLR times?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

jradose wrote:

I am one of those people who needs more detailed explanation, so please, help this dummy. In comparing two cameras, I see something like this for ISO performance: Camera A 2980 Camera B 2853, So Camera A has better low light performance. Now, to me, that doesn't satisfy my curiosity. Just how much better is Camera A in taking photos in low light conditions, is it significant enough to sway me over to camera A?

The difference, 2980 vs. 2853, (I'm assuming a Nikon D600 vs. D810) would hardly be noticeable in the resulting images.

bwa

User ID

dsmeltz wrote:

If someone is using ISO performance as the primary purchase criteria, there is not much hope for the outcome.

They’ll wind up with 12MP plus excellent video capability. Nothing wrong with that ... but acoarst it will never generate very much envy here in Hogsville.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Yes.
Absolutely!
Perhaps even more so.

The cost of film used to be the barrier to dilatant photographers. With the low, low per image cost of digital, results and higher expectations are all that is left.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I suggest you spend some time looking at the info and charts at:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/

Much more detail and more easily comparable than DXO's numbers, in my opinion.

What's nice about that site is you can do comparisons of two or more cameras of your choice. For example, I shot for 5 years with a pair of the original Canon 7D. I knew from using them that, for my purposes, up to ISO 1600 was usable and that I could push it to ISO 3200 with some extra post-processing. By using this noise comparison chart https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D_14,Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II_14 I was able to predict that Canon 7D Mark II (black) under consideration would be able to produce images at ISO 6400 that were more noise free than the old 7D's (blue) at ISO 3200. Other charts there suggested I could expect a similar improvement in dynamic range performance (which is also effected by the ISO setting). There is lots and lots of additional info at that web site.