High ISO Anyone?

[Loupey]

There was a recent discussion in the Nikon Forum here regarding the use, importance, capabilities, and qualities of high ISO on modern dSLRs.

It made me wonder if there is a perceived mental hurdle that people have in general of using high ISO's. Perhaps from the days of film, ISO 400 seems to be what many people consider as the upper limit of "low ISO". I know I was adverse to cranking up the ISO originally a few years ago, but technology has come a long way since then. No longer taboo? Just how high is "high ISO" anymore anyway? Is there really any difference between 100 and 200? How about 200 to 400? Anyone still using 50?

I'm not particularly interested in seeing pixel level examples of high ISO shots, but perhaps we can discuss the pros/cons of current high ISO capable dSLR's. Some uncropped (or lightly cropped) examples with text regarding why high ISO was/wasn't used might be very helpful to those considering buying new equipment.

It just might open older eyes as well

[mjs1973]

I'm still a little gun shy when it comes to cranking up the ISO. I keep it as low as I can. Usually at ISO 100 or 200 but will go up to 320 or 400 regularly. I think shooting with my DRebel for 4 years has conditioned me to keep my ISO low because of it's poor handling of noise. With my DRebel, 100 & 200 were fine, but 400 was too noisy for me. I have found it to be a challenge to break away from that. I still don't like to go up to 400 or higher with my 40D, but I know I can if/when I have to. (Old habits...)

As far as using ISO 50 with digital, I never do. If I need a slower SS I will use a polarizer of an ND filter to block some light. From what I have read, using the extended ISO range (you need to use this to get to ISO 50 on my 40D) increases the noise, even when you go down to ISO 50.

If I do want to shoot at ISO 50, I grab a roll of Velvia.

[Ultra Magnus]

I for one run my iso setting around just as much as any other setting, all depending on the situation. For ambient light photography, three settings control the exposure, shutter speed, aperture, and iso. We all know this, and it doesn't make sense to me to focus on the first two and omit the last one. For flash photography, aperture, iso, and flash power setting control the exposure (fewer people know this)- same deal. Then, if you are mixing flash fill light + ambient light, it becomes critical to know what settings to use to get an acceptable image, and often that includes running the iso up.

This image was shot @ F5, 1/250th, iso800, ambient light only (shade on an overcast day)-


this one @ iso1600 ambient + flash-


BM

(edit: 2nd image was missing)

[jetrim]

Since I use a virtual antique, 400 *is* about the upper level for me, Higher than that and I can clearly see a sensor pattern superimposed on the image. Conversely, I bumped into a guy the other day with one of the full frame Canon's bragging that he could crank it up to an ISO of 64,000 (why anyone would want to is beyond me...) So I'll follow this thread closely to see what's really acceptable these days.

[photophorous]

I recently sold my Nikon D70s and bought a Canon 450D, and this has changed my opinion of high ISO digital. With the Nikon, I hated to shoot anything above 400 ISO, but with the Canon, I'll use 1600 with out worrying. But, how high I'm willing to go depends greatly on the subject matter and intended use of the photo. I would never shoot a landscape at 1600 ISO. If I'm too lazy to pull out my tripod I'll go as high as 400 with landscape shots, but most of the time I'll have a tripod and I'll be shooting at 100. Pretty much any other type of shooting I will take it all the way up to 1600, and maybe even push it to 3200 if necessary.

Paul

[mjs1973]

If anyone is interested, here is a sample image from Moose Peterson using the D3X at ISO 1600.

http://www.moosenewsblog.com/zoomify/d3xnoise.html

[Cathathome]

I push the ISO as high as it will go (1600) when I can't get a fast enough shutter speed or decent exposure. However, my images usually suffer and any dark areas in the scene often look like crap; sometimes the whole image will have to be scrapped because too much detail was lost. Those are the times I really want a new camera.

My XT doesn't go lower than ISO 100.

In good light, I do find it easier to get consistent exposures in the 100-400 range with nice detail. Flash photography is still new to me, so it's often hit or miss while I look for the right balance. Figuring the flash output while getting the camera settings right is still a challenge, but I'm going to keep BM's note in mind about playing with the ISO when mixing ambient with flash.

Ta,

[Ultra Magnus]

...but I'm going to keep BM's note in mind about playing with the ISO when mixing ambient with flash.

Ta,

Aperture and Iso are the ony two settings that affect both ambient and flash exposure. Shutter only affect ambient, flash power, obviously only affects the part of the image that's exposed by the flash.

Often, when shooting in low light, you are already wide open on the aperture, so cross that off the list of settings that boost ambient. Shutter speed is often dictated by the focal length rule, because even though the flash freezes motion, if you are mixing ambient w/ flash, so you still can get motion blur or camera shake (though IS helps w/ the latter) on the part of your image that's lit by ambient light. So, all you have left, when you've run out of those options is to boost iso. Iso also has the added benefit of effectively boosting your flash range. If your are boucing light in a small room at iso 100, chances are your flash is doing full power bursts, or close to it. This kills batteries fast, and slows down recycle time. If you run up your iso and can get acceptable exposures at 1/4 or 1/8 power, your batteries last longer, and you'll miss fewer shots due to the flash not being ready to fire when you need it.

Personally, I turn in camera high iso NR off, and handle it on my own in post. Also, I shoot raw. The more info you have to work with, the better your images can handle edits and look acceptable. When shooting at higher iso's, do not underexpose. Havign to turn up the brightness in post only amplifies the noise. It's better to over expose and bring it down in post. Actually, I've read about crazy techniques where they shoot at iso3200 +1 or +2 ev, and bring it down rather than shoot at iso1600 0ev... Doesn't make sense to me, but I haven't tried it, and am lazy to do these kinds of experiments.

BM

[Speed]

It depends on the film or digital sensor. I remember seeing photo's taken with ISO 400 film during the 70's that was so grainy it was laughable. When I got my N80 (Chirstmas 2001), ISO 400 was my everyday film. The advances in film technology, especially in the late 90's early 2000's, were incredible. I used ISO 100 films and slides for landscapes and the like. The 160 speed films were my primary portrait films. I tried a couple of rolls of ISO 800 film, but it just wasn't all that. It was light years ahead of ISO 400 films from 10 years earlier, but it couldn't produce good quality large prints.

With my D200, I kept it on ISO 100, bumping it up to ISO 400 for low light shots and anything needing flash. At ISO 800, you could see the noise. Even flash shots taken at ISO 800 would have the subject well lit - to the point that I couldn't tell the difference between ISO 800 and 400. But the background would have so much noise in it, that it basically ruined the shot (at least for me).

Now that I have a D300, I don't hesitate to use ISO 800, 1600 and 3200 when the light is low. I still use the lowest ISO I can, but thanks to technological advances, I can use higher ISO's with confidence.

Below are photo's taken at ISO 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 by moonlight. All shots were shot at f5.6 for 30 seconds, with only the ISO changed. These were not processed, just resized for PR.

[Cathathome]

Thanks, Speed - I've just gone from "I want a new camera" to "darnit, my camera doesn't get shots like that in low light, I Need a new camera!" ;)

The comparisons between what was available in the '70s, early 2000s, to present is quite interesting, really. From what I have read so far, those of us with "older" cameras produced in - gasp! - the middle of this decade or earlier, are somewhat limited with what we can do with higher ISOs, but it seems that if the camera supports it, people are willing to crank it up high.

Thanks,

[adina]

i prefer higher iso's. i love the noise/grain, whatever you want to call it. and i add it if it's not there. regularly use 1600 or 3200, and skip the whole "noise reduction" stuff.

i'm all about the noise. that smooth "digital" finish doesn't do it for me. especially right now when skin smoothing is so popular in post processing. heck, sometimes my image isn't even sharp.

all that aside, for paying clients, i try to be in focus, and less noisy.

[OldClicker]

It seems to me that the camera makers are just as slow to accept ISO as an equal to shutter and aperture as photographers are. Why don't cameras have auto-ISO as well as auto-shutter speed or auto-aperture? Set any two and the third one is set by the light meter. Or even any one and the other two go to an intelligent 'Program'. Seems that this would be of more value than another 'creative scene' setting. - TF

[Medley]

I'm not as gun-shy about high ISO as I used to be. I was doing an experiment one day, shooting a static scene at different ISOs, for comparison sake. Later that evening, I shot a birthday party, forgetting to reset the ISO back down from 1600. The images weren't suitable for printing anything larger than a 5X7, but I did get quite a few good shots.

Since then, I've been less finicky about pushing the ISO boundary to get a shot.

- Joe U.

[mjs1973]

Why don't cameras have auto-ISO as well as auto-shutter speed or auto-aperture?

Some of them do now. I know some of the higher end Nikon's have this feature, but I'm not sure about Canon or the others brands. For example, if you're shooting in shutter priority mode, and turn on the auto ISO feature. The camera will automatically adjust both the aperture, and the ISO to maintain the SS you selected.

[Ultra Magnus]

Some of them do now. I know some of the higher end Nikon's have this feature, but I'm not sure about Canon or the others brands. For example, if you're shooting in shutter priority mode, and turn on the auto ISO feature. The camera will automatically adjust both the aperture, and the ISO to maintain the SS you selected.

I've read a lot of posts in other forums where people were wishing for auto iso in manual mode to be an option. So, you can set your shutter, aperture, and let the iso float around for the shot. I see this as kind of a limited use setting, but useful nonetheless.

BM

[Singletracklovr]

Below are photo's taken at ISO 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 by moonlight. All shots were shot at f5.6 for 30 seconds, with only the ISO changed. These were not processed, just resized for PR.

Cool Test Speed, That is one clean CCD you got there...

With the almost full moon out tonight I think I will try the same moon light test. Here's hoping the clouds say away.

I got to ask. You did say 30 seconds and did not mean 3 seconds?

OC, My d80 has Auto ISO however it's not as flexable as you are suggesting.
I can limit the slowest SS to 1/125 and when the exposure requires a 1/60th the ISO goes up and SS stays at 1/125th.
I can also limit how high the ISO goes up.

[Loupey]

With so many purposes of the image, it does stand to reason that the "degraded image" of high ISO shots may not be as important as before when just about everything had to be printed out in order to be used.

Whether the images are passed around via email, posted to sites like this, or used in a presentation, the transfer mechanism doesn't require the images to hold up like those we wish to print. So if I know that my work is primarily for websites, it frees me to be more aggressive with the ISO settings. For those I wish to mainly print, I still have a mental block at around 640/800.

I've now shot quite a few situations at ISO 1600 and some even at ISO 3200. I've also wondered at times whether all these tools are making me lazy. High ISO's and image stabilization have changed the way I shoot. I hardly ever use the tripod anymore even with 500mm and 600mm setups - actually I've NEVER used a tripod with either of those two lenses (the 600mm being a 300mm+2x combo). But at the same time, I realize that these tools are pushing me to shoot subjects and situations that I never dreamed of before. Laziness or new opportunities? Perhaps both

I'll try to find some examples tomorrow.

[jorgemonkey]

I've never really shot at higher ISOs. I'd always shoot in situations where I could shoot at 100-400 and get great results. Now that I've started working for the school newspaper I've been shooting at 1600-3200 ISO on my D200. As long as I nail the exposure, the images come out great.

I think the benefit from being able to shoot at higher ISOs on new cameras is you gain more latitude on your exposure.

[starriderrick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldClicker
Why don't cameras have auto-ISO as well as auto-shutter speed or auto-aperture?


The camera I'm currently shooting with ( D90 ) has this manual mode auto iso option, I find it to very useful in nailing the exposure.
I like what Scott said " you gain more latitude on your exposure."


Rick

[Speed]

Yes, all those shots were 30 seconds long. I mounted the camera on a tripod, so nothing changed between shots except the ISO.

I loaded them in this order: ISO 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200. For some reason, PR uploaded them in a different order. It loaded them with the ISO 800 first, then 400, then 200, then 1600, and finally 3200. It's pretty evident looking at them which was which.

BTW, these were shot with my D300. I did it as a test of the ISO capablities. I was impressed.

[OldClicker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldClicker
Why don't cameras have auto-ISO as well as auto-shutter speed or auto-aperture?


The camera I'm currently shooting with ( D90 ) has this manual mode auto iso option, I find it to very useful in nailing the exposure.
I like what Scott said " you gain more latitude on your exposure."


Rick

Does it allow you to limit the auto-ISO range? - TF

[starriderrick]

Does it allow you to limit the auto-ISO range? - TF


Yes...it does.

Rick

[Singletracklovr]

Does it allow you to limit the auto-ISO range? - TF


Yes...it does.

Rick

The d80 also allows you to limit the ISO range.
I have my ISO set to auto with a range of 200-400

I am hoping to be able to increase that range once I find out how to test the ISO properly.
I am hoping this thread will offer up some good examples.

[starriderrick]

Bob, I have posted a low light example called Auto iso 3200 in my member gallery.

Rick

[Singletracklovr]

Bob, I have posted a low light example called Auto iso 3200 in my member gallery.

Rick

Thanks Rick,
Your noise level at ISO3200 is equal to my noise level at ISO320.
If you do additional testing I would be very interested in seeing your results.


I had heavy clouds last night so no moon lite/30second exposure test yet.