Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Actual working ISO
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
Dec 10, 2018 01:57:03   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
Cameras are matched against each other and praised for their high ISO (performance?). But what do they really deliver? What is the actual functional or shall we say acceptable/usable ISO? My personal limit is ISO 6400. It seems beyond that, any of the cameras I've used shows varying degrees of (unacceptable) noise. It may seem trivial because that is still pretty high compared to the ASA 800 film of the olden days when we now have 6 digit ISO numbers. But do those high ISO really matters or are they just sales candy? Thoughts anyone?

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 02:04:23   #
Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.
 
Wallen wrote:
Cameras are matched against each other and praised for their high ISO (performance?). But what do they really deliver? What is the actual functional or shall we say acceptable/usable ISO? My personal limit is ISO 6400. It seems beyond that, any of the cameras I've used shows varying degrees of (unacceptable) noise. It may seem trivial because that is still pretty high compared to the ASA 800 film of the olden days when we now have 6 digit ISO numbers. But do those high ISO really matters or are they just sales candy? Thoughts anyone?
Cameras are matched against each other and praised... (show quote)


The Nikon and Sony high ISO's work for me. Sure, some models of Nikon and Sony go higher, but I'm happy with what I have got. FF and Crop.

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 02:29:58   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
Wallen wrote:
Cameras are matched against each other and praised for their high ISO (performance?). But what do they really deliver? What is the actual functional or shall we say acceptable/usable ISO? My personal limit is ISO 6400. It seems beyond that, any of the cameras I've used shows varying degrees of (unacceptable) noise. It may seem trivial because that is still pretty high compared to the ASA 800 film of the olden days when we now have 6 digit ISO numbers. But do those high ISO really matters or are they just sales candy? Thoughts anyone?
Cameras are matched against each other and praised... (show quote)


Wallen, ISO 300K is probably pretty useless but I'll bet a pic of bigfoot at that ISO would be worth a pretty penny!
Sometimes a grainy pic is better than no pic at all.
Though I prefer to shoot at ISO 100, I'll shoot at whatever it takes to get an image and it not all movement blurred.
This was shot at 25600. Is It perfect, absolutely not, and it may not meet your standards but it was good enough to be published.
I don't usually shoot this high but sometimes one has to.
This is basically SOOC, no PS or noise reduction other than in camera. Shot with a Canon 1Dx.
SS


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Dec 10, 2018 02:33:03   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
I often go higher than 6400 on my 5DIV and 80D and D500 and even G1X III and M50 with acceptable results. Also, removing noise in post processing is fairly easy to do. Sometimes you have to up the ISO to get the photo. Would you rather mis the oic or deal with some noise. Not every photo has to be spot on tack sharp crystal clear perfect.

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 03:20:40   #
Bipod
 
Wallen wrote:
Cameras are matched against each other and praised for their high ISO (performance?). But what do they really deliver? What is the actual functional or shall we say acceptable/usable ISO? My personal limit is ISO 6400. It seems beyond that, any of the cameras I've used shows varying degrees of (unacceptable) noise. It may seem trivial because that is still pretty high compared to the ASA 800 film of the olden days when we now have 6 digit ISO numbers. But do those high ISO really matters or are they just sales candy? Thoughts anyone?
Cameras are matched against each other and praised... (show quote)

The price of high ISO is noise.

Random noise represnets the loss of information from the image file.
Maybe you don't care about information, but you probably care about money.

At ISO 100, your $1800 lens looks like $1800.
At IS0 200, it looks like a $900 lens
At ISO 400, it looks like a $450 lens.
At ISO 800, it looks like a $225 lens.
At ISO 1600, it looks like a $112.50 lens.
At ISO 3200, the photo look like it was taken with a $56.25 lens...
with fingerprints on it.

The choice is yours.

There are alternatives: faster lens (e.g, a prime), good off-camera flash,
lights, or just wait for better light.

There is a way to have high ISO without noise, used in space telescopes:
cryo-cool the sensor. Short of that, there is no way to turn up the sensitivity
without getting more "static". There is always thermal (Johnson-Nyquist)
noise.

Since solid backgrounds are more common than speckled ones, clever processing
can hide th enoise by filling in tiny white spots in a dark backgroun. But is the
background really had tiny white spots, you lose. Or if there are tiny black
spots in a white background--since these are very common in real scenes.

The trouble with random noise is...it's random. It destroys information.
had tiny white speckles,

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 05:38:36   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
SharpShooter wrote:
Wallen, ISO 300K is probably pretty useless but I'll bet a pic of bigfoot at that ISO would be worth a pretty penny!
Sometimes a grainy pic is better than no pic at all.
Though I prefer to shoot at ISO 100, I'll shoot at whatever it takes to get an image and it not all movement blurred.
This was shot at 25600. Is It perfect, absolutely not, and it may not meet your standards but it was good enough to be published.
I don't usually shoot this high but sometimes one has to.
This is basically SOOC, no PS or noise reduction other than in camera. Shot with a Canon 1Dx.
SS
Wallen, ISO 300K is probably pretty useless but I'... (show quote)


Great, I'm with you shoot high ISO's if needed.

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 05:45:56   #
Say Cheese Loc: Eastern PA
 
What if the picture is of your son or daughter winning a race at dusk with poor light. The picture is not perfect but you got what is important, the crossing of the finish line. Sure you used a very high ISO but you got a picture that will be cherished forever of them winning their first race. Content is also important not just quality.

Reply
 
 
Dec 10, 2018 06:07:39   #
Shutterbug57
 
It all depends on the camera. My D500 looks better at 25,600 than my D70s at 800 or my D200 at 1,600. It is also about a stop getter than my X-T2. Depending on the situation, I can see going to 52K to get a shot. That would be pretty extreme, but I can see where that may be needed. But most of my needs are at or under 12,800. Shooting night time HS sports under poor HS lighting conditions is possible with the D200 and I did it for years, but it is far easier with the D500 and the results are better.

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 06:09:57   #
Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.
 
Wallen wrote:
Cameras are matched against each other and praised for their high ISO (performance?). But what do they really deliver? What is the actual functional or shall we say acceptable/usable ISO? My personal limit is ISO 6400. It seems beyond that, any of the cameras I've used shows varying degrees of (unacceptable) noise. It may seem trivial because that is still pretty high compared to the ASA 800 film of the olden days when we now have 6 digit ISO numbers. But do those high ISO really matters or are they just sales candy? Thoughts anyone?
Cameras are matched against each other and praised... (show quote)


It all depends on your goals. Are you recording events or attempting the next great landscape. For the first you will use whatever is required to capture the moment, while the 2nd will need settings that will capture the best IQ.

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 06:19:30   #
martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida
 
Photography is so much more than about noise levels, soft corners, or so sharp it would poke your eye out. If the photos you capture above ISO 6400 have unacceptable noise levels then maybe they are just snap shots. Capture a shot where you look beyond the cameras failures, or keep snapping at acceptable levels for you........

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 07:10:06   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
Wallen wrote:
Cameras are matched against each other and praised for their high ISO (performance?). But what do they really deliver? What is the actual functional or shall we say acceptable/usable ISO? My personal limit is ISO 6400. It seems beyond that, any of the cameras I've used shows varying degrees of (unacceptable) noise. It may seem trivial because that is still pretty high compared to the ASA 800 film of the olden days when we now have 6 digit ISO numbers. But do those high ISO really matters or are they just sales candy? Thoughts anyone?
Cameras are matched against each other and praised... (show quote)


When I buy a new camera, I don't rely on someone else's idea about how high the acceptable ISO is. I do my own ISO tests so I will have first hand experience of the noise at various speeds and can make an informed decision about how high I want to go. Your personal limit of 6400 doesn't seem to be based on any particular camera, so some might be capable of more or less noise at that speed. If you shoot a lot of low light photography, the camera can definitely make a difference.

Reply
 
 
Dec 10, 2018 07:35:42   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Bipod wrote:
The price of high ISO is noise.

Random noise represnets the loss of information from the image file.
Maybe you don't care about information, but you probably care about money.

At ISO 100, your $1800 lens looks like $1800.
At IS0 200, it looks like a $900 lens
At ISO 400, it looks like a $450 lens.
At ISO 800, it looks like a $225 lens.
At ISO 1600, it looks like a $112.50 lens.
At ISO 3200, the photo look like it was taken with a $56.25 lens...
with fingerprints on it.

The choice is yours.

There are alternatives: faster lens (e.g, a prime), good off-camera flash,
lights, or just wait for better light.

There is a way to have high ISO without noise, used in space telescopes:
cryo-cool the sensor. Short of that, there is no way to turn up the sensitivity
without getting more "static". There is always thermal (Johnson-Nyquist)
noise.

Since solid backgrounds are more common than speckled ones, clever processing
can hide th enoise by filling in tiny white spots in a dark backgroun. But is the
background really had tiny white spots, you lose. Or if there are tiny black
spots in a white background--since these are very common in real scenes.

The trouble with random noise is...it's random. It destroys information.
had tiny white speckles,
The price of high ISO is noise. br br Random nois... (show quote)


I think Sharpshooter's image blows your analogy completely to pieces.

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 08:22:29   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
Bipod wrote:
The price of high ISO is noise.

Random noise represnets the loss of information from the image file.
Maybe you don't care about information, but you probably care about money.

At ISO 100, your $1800 lens looks like $1800.
At IS0 200, it looks like a $900 lens
At ISO 400, it looks like a $450 lens.
At ISO 800, it looks like a $225 lens.
At ISO 1600, it looks like a $112.50 lens.
At ISO 3200, the photo look like it was taken with a $56.25 lens...
with fingerprints on it.

The choice is yours.

There are alternatives: faster lens (e.g, a prime), good off-camera flash,
lights, or just wait for better light.

There is a way to have high ISO without noise, used in space telescopes:
cryo-cool the sensor. Short of that, there is no way to turn up the sensitivity
without getting more "static". There is always thermal (Johnson-Nyquist)
noise.

Since solid backgrounds are more common than speckled ones, clever processing
can hide th enoise by filling in tiny white spots in a dark backgroun. But is the
background really had tiny white spots, you lose. Or if there are tiny black
spots in a white background--since these are very common in real scenes.

The trouble with random noise is...it's random. It destroys information.
had tiny white speckles,
The price of high ISO is noise. br br Random nois... (show quote)


it's all meaningless unless you specify which camera you are talking about. I doubt any current camera will cut the quality of the lens by half going from ISO 100 to 200. And if you are in a dark gym shooting a basketball game, waiting around for better light won't work, and supplemental light may not be allowed.

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 08:31:40   #
richandtd Loc: Virginia
 
The performance of my D810 does a great job at high ISO where my D70 was very poor so it depends on your camera

Reply
Dec 10, 2018 09:06:59   #
srt101fan
 
Gene51 wrote:
I think Sharpshooter's image blows your analogy completely to pieces.



Reply
Page 1 of 8 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.