Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Why are low iso settings best?
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
Apr 6, 2017 19:26:14   #
dgolfnut Loc: Bear, DE
 
I have read many posts and watched instructional videos and almost every pro says using ISO settings below 200 is where they prefer to shoot -- even in dark conditions. I understand that very high ISO settings tend to introduce noise, but going up to 1200 or 2400 with a camera that goes up to 12000 seems like it should not be a problem. Why do so many limit their ISO below 200?

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 19:29:42   #
BebuLamar
 
You have the lowest noise images when using the camera at its native ISO. This ISO varies from camera to camera but generally 100 or 200. But if the lighting condition is low or you need very fast shutter speed then accepting some noise to use higher ISO is acceptable.

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 19:50:35   #
Photocraig
 
dgolfnut wrote:
I have read many posts and watched instructional videos and almost every pro says using ISO settings below 200 is where they prefer to shoot -- even in dark conditions. I understand that very high ISO settings tend to introduce noise, but going up to 1200 or 2400 with a camera that goes up to 12000 seems like it should not be a problem. Why do so many limit their ISO below 200?


To add on to Babu's post, ISO in a digital camera is, as you know, a measure of sensitivity. The way that is achieved in a digital sensor camera is to amplify the signal to each pixel. Consider the analogy to max volume on a Stereo or radio, or revving to the max reading on a car's tachometer. While you CAN max them out, it doesn't mean you should. The sound of the Stereo, for example at MAX volume will be greatly distorted and any and every flaw in the recording medium will be amplified to the maximum. Similar results, assuming survival, occurs when maxing out the tachometer on a car, red line ignored. And the smooth Interstate pavement becomes quite jarring and swerving. (Hint: That's what cause those smoking race cars and green flags on the track.

Keeping to a low ISO, or the Camera's "base ISO" gets the best results. High possible ISO settings are an entry in what the electronics and performance products industries call "Big Specsmanship." Often abbreviated BS.

It is easy to experiment and view the results on your Computer Monitor--better than on the Camera screen,. Just pick a scene and shoot a series with equivalent exposures starting with ISO 100 and take it up from there. Remember every ISO doubling, increases the light (and sensor electronic amplification). Then you'll define your own camera's red line based on your personal tolerance for "noise" and artifacts.

Reply
 
 
Apr 6, 2017 19:58:44   #
oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA
 
dgolfnut wrote:
... using ISO settings below 200 is where they prefer to shoot ..... going up to 1200 or 2400 with a camera that goes up to 12000 seems like it should not be a problem. Why do so many limit their ISO below 200?

I try to stay around ISO200 on my D810 because ISO800 introduces image degrading noise
and anything over ISO1600 forces an in camera noise reduction that softens the image and cannot be turned off.

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 19:59:49   #
agillot
 
i shoot with a older nik D300 , dont see much difference up to iso 2000 .so newer cameras are much better in that department .do you want a blurry picture when shooting at iso 200 and way low speed with a long lens , like 600 mm and up , or a nice shot at iso 2000 and at 2000/sec or higher.it all depend what you are shooting .a landscape on a tripod , yes go low iso .

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 20:58:26   #
dgolfnut Loc: Bear, DE
 
Thanks all. So I tried the experiment in my dimly lit living room from iso 200 to 3200 and the best looking shot on my computer monitor was iso 1600 (which happens to be what the automatic ISO setting chose). I didn't notice any objectionable noise but at iso 200 the shot was blurry as the exposure was .5 sec @ f2.5. Interesting.

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 21:08:09   #
mrpentaxk5ii
 
If you shoot landscapes you can use your lowest ISO if the shutter speed falls to a point that you can't hold by hand set up a tripod, but I will tell you this trying to shoot birds in flight at ISO 200, good luck with that.

Reply
 
 
Apr 6, 2017 22:01:21   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
ISO levels nearest the "native ISO" of the sensor (i.e. the ISO the sensor is designed for) give you not only the lowest noise levels but also the highest dynamic range. As you raise the ISO, you are not raising the sensitivity of the sensor, which is fixed. You are applying amplification to the signal you get from the sensor to make it look like it's more sensitive. However, sensors work by counting photons, so they produce a number. The more photons the sensor collects during an exposure, the higher the number that the sensor gives you. Amplification multiplies that number by a constant.

Noise in sensors is produced by the natural variability in the numbers due to random processes. Natural variation of a number (assuming gaussian statistics) is approximately the square root of the number. So the signal to noise level of the sensor data is proportional to the inverse of the square root of the number. When the amount of light collected by the sensor is small, the numbers are small and so the inverse of the square root of the number is large (i.e. more noise). For this calculation you have to use the actual number collected by the sensor, not the amplified number.

As far as dynamic range is concerned, look at this chart from Bill Claff showing dynamic range as a function of ISO: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 22:34:00   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
dgolfnut wrote:
Thanks all. So I tried the experiment in my dimly lit living room from iso 200 to 3200 and the best looking shot on my computer monitor was iso 1600 (which happens to be what the automatic ISO setting chose). I didn't notice any objectionable noise but at iso 200 the shot was blurry as the exposure was .5 sec @ f2.5. Interesting.


Hi,

If you are shooting fast-moving subjects you must increase your ISO if the light is not sufficient. It is better to have a little noise, which can be somewhat mitigated, than a blurry image. I routinely photograph animals, including birds in flight, and I generally use around 1000 ISO to get them sharp, although I have used up to ISO 3200 on my D500. The D800 does not handle high ISOs as well but still does a good job at 1000 ISO. Still subjects can most often be shot at 100 ISO, although it depends on the light and your choice of aperture.

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 23:04:37   #
oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
...... dynamic range as a function of ISO: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


As dirtfarmer suggests, here is another reason i don't use high ISO settings


(Download)

Reply
Apr 6, 2017 23:29:39   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
dgolfnut wrote:
I have read many posts and watched instructional videos and almost every pro says using ISO settings below 200 is where they prefer to shoot -- even in dark conditions. I understand that very high ISO settings tend to introduce noise, but going up to 1200 or 2400 with a camera that goes up to 12000 seems like it should not be a problem. Why do so many limit their ISO below 200?

Regardless of the capabilities of modern sensors the lower the noise the better. While 3200 ISO may give relatively noise free images on the best sensors, there will still be more noticeable noise than at ISO 100 or 200. For discerning photographers noise is the enemy.

Reply
 
 
Apr 7, 2017 01:15:34   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
dgolfnut wrote:
Thanks all. So I tried the experiment in my dimly lit living room from iso 200 to 3200 and the best looking shot on my computer monitor was iso 1600 (which happens to be what the automatic ISO setting chose). I didn't notice any objectionable noise but at iso 200 the shot was blurry as the exposure was .5 sec @ f2.5. Interesting.


That is not a fair comparison. Put the camera on a tripod and see how ISO 200 looks vs ISO 1600

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 01:51:32   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
I did not read an of the other response so if I'm repeating something someone else said, brilliant minds think alike.

Keeping ISO under 200 with a high quality modern DSLR and modern post processing software is kind of like intentionally handicapping one's self. Cameras like my 6D or D500 or 5D IV can shoot at amazingly high ISO'S and still produce perfectly acceptable images. The older folks, and I'm not in the young category, grew up in a world where 800 was pushing it and 1600 was extremely pushing it. But that's not the case today with quality digital cameras. Sure, there's still electronic noise, but the engineers are getting better at dealing with it and PP software is getting better at removing it, so don't be afraid to crank it up a little, or a little more, if the ambient light requires you to.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 02:10:00   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
oldtigger wrote:
As dirtfarmer suggests, here is another reason i don't use high ISO settings

At ISO 1000 the dynamic range is 8.0 fstops. That means a properly exposed image will not have any noise at all when displayed on a computer monitor. At ISO 3200 the dynamic range is 6.6 fstops, which can be printed with zero noise.

The D5 is just about 1 fstop (or 2x the ISO) better.

Reply
Apr 7, 2017 02:26:51   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
dgolfnut wrote:
Thanks all. So I tried the experiment in my dimly lit living room from iso 200 to 3200 and the best looking shot on my computer monitor was iso 1600 (which happens to be what the automatic ISO setting chose). I didn't notice any objectionable noise but at iso 200 the shot was blurry as the exposure was .5 sec @ f2.5. Interesting.


Try the experiment again, this time with the camera on a tripod. Make sure the scene has some bright areas and some areas in very deep shadow. Then process all images exactly the same way. Now compare the images at 100% and closely examine the bright areas and the areas in deep shadow. Now try to brighten the deep shadows so that you can see some detail in each image. Now compare the enhanced deep shadows from each test image. Very often the noise in deep shadows is not a problem until you try to coax some detail out of the deep shadows - then you see the noise. Just comparing the unedited images on your computer only tells you that the noise is not an issue yet, however the issue arises when you try to edit those high ISO images.

Reply
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.