How important is ISO 3200 and 1/8000 shutter speed?

[ghart999]

Debating between Canon 40D or Canon XSi. 40D has 3200 and 1/8000 shutter and the XSi does not. For shooting in a house under normal lighting is 3200 important?

Also when might I need 1/8000 shutter over the typical 1/4000?

Thanks.

[Grandpaw]

For me neither one is important. Both are waaaaay past anything I would ever use, Jeff

[ianjenn]

If you do any wedding, night sports, concerts etc. 3200 ISO will be needed. 8000 for a shutter is pretty fast. But if you had a fast lend like F2.8 or more and were out in mid day maybe you want to fade away the back and the only way is with that high a shutter....

[fx101]

ISO 3200-- not very important since you'll find that it will produce a ton of noise.

1/8000s shutter speed-- I use it all the time if I need to capture a fast moving insect's wings, or it's really really bright out and I need to shoot at f/1.8 to produce the DOF I want. Or... if you decide to do a quicky pano (i.e. shoot a 12 shot burst at 1/8000s of a second while moving panning the camera handheld).

[ghart999]

Thanks all. Yeah I guess there are some advantages I need to consider.

[AgingEyes]

They mean opportunities.

[Franglais]

Choose your camera according to your needs. What are you going to be taking pictures of? We all do different things. Which is why I disagree with FX101.

3200 ISO is VERY useful - even essential - if you're going to do photos indoors of things that move quickly, and you can't use flash - stage productions and sports are two examples. Even with a f2.8 constant zoom wide open you're hard pushed to get above 1/180s and when you're working at the equivalent of 200-300mm (in film terms) camera shake is a problem.

Second usage is when you're touristing with a walk-around zoom that does f3.5-f5.6 and you go into a dark place like a church and you want to zoom in a bit on detail.

Third case is for friends and family events without flash (your case). You can get quite good results by room lighting without flash. To get the best results you would have to use an external flash and bounce it off the ceiling. The light produced by the flash built into the camera is horrible but that's what everybody uses

I don't know the 40D but on my D300 the noise at 3200ISO is quite pleasant. It certainly isn't a problem.

As for 1/8000s shutter speed - I have no use for it. If I do a picture of a racing car going past I want to pan and have the motion blur in the background. 1/8000s it's going to look like it's standing still.

[fx101]

Choose your camera according to your needs. What are you going to be taking pictures of? We all do different things. Which is why I disagree with FX101.

3200 ISO is VERY useful - even essential - if you're going to do photos indoors of things that move quickly, and you can't use flash - stage productions and sports are two examples. Even with a f2.8 constant zoom wide open you're hard pushed to get above 1/180s and when you're working at the equivalent of 200-300mm (in film terms) camera shake is a problem.

Second usage is when you're touristing with a walk-around zoom that does f3.5-f5.6 and you go into a dark place like a church and you want to zoom in a bit on detail.

Third case is for friends and family events without flash (your case). You can get quite good results by room lighting without flash. To get the best results you would have to use an external flash and bounce it off the ceiling. The light produced by the flash built into the camera is horrible but that's what everybody uses

I don't know the 40D but on my D300 the noise at 3200ISO is quite pleasant. It certainly isn't a problem.

As for 1/8000s shutter speed - I have no use for it. If I do a picture of a racing car going past I want to pan and have the motion blur in the background. 1/8000s it's going to look like it's standing still.

I didn't mean to say that ISO 3200 is unimportant itself, but that on the 40D it has so much noise that it isn't actually useful (my clients would scream if they saw wedding shots at 3200 with a ton of grain). Granted, the 40D is useable a little below that so its an advantage to consider over the 30D.

The use of 1/8000s would never be shooting race-cars or planes anyhow. 1/8000s is used for capturing insect wings or a hummingbird's wings if used with a dedicated burst lighting system (super fast flash) or if you are forced to use it to retain depth of field. Trust me, shooting at f/1.4 or 1.8 in full daylight at ISO 100 can sometimes warrant 1/8000s exposures.

[Loupey]

Difficult to say without seeing what/how you normally shoot. Our experiences may be vastly different than what you will experience.

But I'll give you my experience since you asked

I have the 40D currently and having used the 30D and 10D before it, I can tell you exactly how many times I've used speeds faster than 1/4000s: zero. In fact, I had to go get my 5D body out to see how fast that one goes (it goes to 1/8000 as well) because I've never hit those speeds. I've only used 1/3000s and 1/4000s on only three occasions.

I can also tell you how many times I've used ISO 3200: zero. The 40D has a somewhat linear noise-to-speed ratio up to about ISO 1250. After that, the noise gets way out of hand IMO.

I shoot mostly ambient light scenes, nature/wildlife FWIW. And I shoot a lot

[AgingEyes]

I didn't mean to say that ISO 3200 is unimportant itself, but that on the 40D it has so much noise that it isn't actually useful (my clients would scream if they saw wedding shots at 3200 with a ton of grain). Granted, the 40D is useable a little below that so its an advantage to consider over the 30D.

Read that @ ISO3200, D300 does better in the noise reduction/control department than 40D does.

If you shoot indoor sports, ISO 3200 is very useful.

1/8000s is used for capturing insect wings or a hummingbird's wings if used with a dedicated burst lighting system (super fast flash) or if you are forced to use it to retain depth of field. Trust me, shooting at f/1.4 or 1.8 in full daylight at ISO 100 can sometimes warrant 1/8000s exposures.

Actually, from what I've seen of those hummingbird photos that were shot with multiple flash lights, none of them were shot with very fast shutter speed (usually less than 1/500).

On the contrary, here's one of my hummingbird shots @1/8000 sec, day time, no flash:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com...&ppuser=264534

[ghart999]

Thanks all. I appreciate the responses. Since I have never attempted to shoot something over a P&S with a max ISO of 800, I have no idea if and when I would miss 3200.

If the D40 sucks at 3200 anyway, I assume I would never use it then. Hence, the XSI seems fine. I agree that I would probably not use 1/8000 either, as I have gone through many of my photos and never come close to 1/2000 let alone 1/8000.

Again when I have better equipment I may wish to have these features, but that's what upgrades are about. I want to focus more money on lenses and upgrade the body down the road if I feel the need.

Thanks again.

[Loupey]

...I want to focus more money on lenses and upgrade the body down the road if I feel the need...

Excellent decision.

If you find that you have to shoot at extremely high ISO's and/or high shutter speeds regularly, it would be "better" to buy lenses of the f/1.2 or f/1.4 variety in order to gain the low light/high shutter speed capability rather than trying to force the camera to do it (and compromising image quality).

[Photo-John]

Here's a link to our Canon EOS 40D ISO 3200 studio sample photo:

Canon EOS 40D ISO 3200 Sample

And here's a link to the studio sample photo directory: http://www.photographyreview.com/samplephotoscrx.aspx

For me, neither ISO 3200 nor a 1/8000th second shutter speed are important. And I shoot action sports. I have a 40D, but mostly for the 6.5 FPS burst rate. My guess is, very few people actually have a need for those two settings. But you may be one of those people. If so, ISO 3200 doesn't look too bad to me. But again, that is going to depend on what you shoot and what your expectations are. Personally, I don't know that I will ever use it. I would encourage you to go with a less expensive camera and invest the money saved in lenses. For most photographers, lenses are a better investment.

[Grandpaw]

I think Loupey and PJ are giving you some good advice, Jeff

[Anbesol]

The 40D certainly doesn't "suck" at ISO 3200, it is very functional and usable for prints even sometimes up to ~8x10. It even runs neck and neck with the D300 in noise performance at 3200 (D300 only having a slight edge) - 40D @ 3200, D300 @ 3200. I personally get use out of 3200, not all that often but it happens, fortunately I have 1/3rd stop ISO's so I usually cap off at 2000 on most projects. I never thought before that 1/3rd stop ISO's would be useful. That might be another feature worth looking into.

Anyway, I agree with PJ as to how you should invest in your next system, I think the 30D is a great fit for your interest, solid body, great noise performance, various on-body function switches and the famous canon rotating control dial. I would certainly take the 30D over the modern consumer-line SLRs which are priced ~ the same or even more.

[Photo-John]

Anyway, I agree with PJ as to how you should invest in your next system, I think the 30D is a great fit for your interest, solid body, great noise performance, various on-body function switches and the famous canon rotating control dial. I would certainly take the 30D over the modern consumer-line SLRs which are priced ~ the same or even more.

I'd take an XTi or XSi over the 30D, unless the 5 FPS frame rate is critical. Image quality from the XTi and XSi are both much better than the 30D. And build quality of the pro cameras is not as important as most people believe. I know very few people who abuse camera bodies the way I do. And I have used my XTi and XSi and a lot more than my 40D.

[Anbesol]

You really think the Rebels offer better IQ than the 30D? Even the XTi?

[Jon, the elder]

For most shooters, the shutter speed might be a bit more important than the ISO of 3200. I've used 3200 in a few really dark barns, but not more than a couple times a year at most.

[Photo-John]

You really think the Rebels offer better IQ than the 30D? Even the XTi?

Yes. The XTi has 25% more pixels, effectively minimizing noise. Plus, the sensor is a generation newer than the 30D so it should have better noise-reduction technology. Unfortunately, we didn't do a pro review of the 30D so I can't pull up back-to-back studio tests. But I bought the XTi over the 30D because of the price and the extra resolution. I think it was a good decision.

[Stephen Lutz]

I still have my old 10D specifically for 3200 ISO. I find I use it a lot. I have been taking a lot of photos of in-home renovation projects and found that flash ruined the details I was looking to capture. Flash has a tendency to flatten everything and wash out subtle textures. Here is an example. A photo I took while doing some wiring work in the basement. This was the existing wiring configuration before I rewired it. ISO 3200, 10D, 16-35 2.8L

[JETA]

My circumstances are probably different then most, but I use 8000 ss for track and 3200 iso every single hs football game I shoot. I really need both, but would pick 3200 iso hands down over 8000 ss because I shoot way more football then track.

[AgingEyes]

The way I see it, it's better to have it and not need it, than need it but don't have it. As mentioned, I do shoot indoor sporting events sometimes, and not all locales are well lit (most are not in my cases). To get an acceptable shutter speed, ISO 3200 could be the only way to go. Unless you're not going to expand your photography experiences, otherwise, you never know, one day you may find them useful.

[Loupey]

I dug out some examples which I think may be helpful here.

These were all shot at only 1/2000s - about the maximum speed that I ever use/need.


I suppose I could have used 1/4000s or even attempted 1/8000s to freeze the action even more - but with telephoto lenses (f/4 max aperture) I would have had to shoot wide open or use high ISO's - both of which are things I don't like to do except as a last resort.


EXIF data included.

[Loupey]

A few real-life examples at what I consider "high" ISO's (all at ISO 1250).

The first street scene (of the security guards taking a snack break underneath the tent) was extremely dark - dark enough that I could barely see the bikes just behind the tent. But was still able to get the shot at 1/45s, f/2.8, using ISO 1250.

Lots of ways to get the job done. Don't let the spec's alone dictate your decision. Would one base the maximum speed of a minivan as the deciding factor for a purchase?


EXIF data included.

[Kajuah]

I think after 1/6000 you start to freeze motion jetplanes b2 bombers roaring over your head.

I love the way everyone on this thread turned the question into an epic battle of the XSI vs the 40D (which happens everywhere you go when you encounter the two products in the same sentence).

To answer this:

Debating between Canon 40D or Canon XSi. 40D has 3200 and 1/8000 shutter and the XSi does not. For shooting in a house under normal lighting is 3200 important?

I guarantee you won't use over 1600 in normal lighting in a house.

Also when might I need 1/8000 shutter over the typical 1/4000?

Read above my post, and below your post.