ISO reality...

[duhast]

I get the idea of not shooting at high ISO speeds, but really, what is a realistic upper limit? I know it is at least subjective, but it seems to me that the oft mentioned speed of 100 is kind of wonkishly low. I ask because one of the ways I like to shoot is from the hip, with a wide lens, pretty damn near the Magic Hour (street-type stuff, at the Fair, etc.). At 100, that means stopped down to a mid aperture is going to give a pretty darn slow shutter.

Only 3 sides to the triangle...

 

[Derrel]

Yes, a very good point...ISO 100 is wonkishly low. I have seen more images RUINED by shooting at base ISO than were ruined by going to 800 or 1,00 or even 1,250.

50mm f/1.8 lens, at ISO 125 gives 1/40 second at ISO 125....ugh...

_D3X2824_2016x.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com


Elevating the ISO to 1,000, in order to give a bit more "grit" to the image...Oops!!! NO GRIT!!! But, a speed of 1/250 second, also at f/5.

_D3X2829_2016x.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

 

[Trever1t]

You should use ISO as you would any other 2 sides of the triangle to achieve your desired result. I have fired away at ISO6400 with great results, when I had to. Use the lowest ISO you can to get the shot you want. Make sure your exposure is good, grain shows in the shadows first

 

[KmH]

ISO is adjustable, so that the image sensor response can be tuned to how much light is available.

Use the lowest ISO that's appropriate, not just the lowest ISO your camera is capable of.

Because of the way digital images work, the goal is to expose for the highlights in the scene within the context of the motion stopping, depth-of-field, and other artistic goals you have for the image.
Exposing to the right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Optimizing Exposure
ETTR

 

[Light Guru]

I get the idea of not shooting at high ISO speeds, but really, what is a realistic upper limit? I know it is at least subjective

Not as subjective as you think. It's entirely based on the sensor in the camera body.

Older DSLRs may look horrible at ISO 1600 but newer cameras do great at 6400.

 

[duhast]

I get the idea of not shooting at high ISO speeds, but really, what is a realistic upper limit? I know it is at least subjective

Not as subjective as you think. It's entirely based on the sensor in the camera body.

Older DSLRs may look horrible at ISO 1600 but newer cameras do great at 6400.

I was thinking in terms of how much noise is considered acceptable may vary from person to person, kinda like grain in film. Am I wrong to think of it like that?

 

[curtyoungblood]

I disagree, I think the topic at hand is entirely subjective. Sure, the amount of noise that enters the photo at a given ISO depends on the camera, the real question is how much noise the photographer sees as acceptable. That is totally subjective. For instance, I regularly shoot at 1,600 and higher to get a better shutter speed or aperture. I find the results acceptable, where I think a lot of people around here wouldn't.

 

[curtyoungblood]

I forgot to add that the answer to your question varies wildly across camera bodies. For example, on my 5dii I like being at 1600, can tolerate 3,200, and will use 6,400 only if there's no other choice. A 5diii, however can produce solid results at 8,000.

 

[Pallycow]

not to me you're not. i hate noise in my images, drives me bonkers.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think there are a number of variables - the light you're shooting in, the time of day, the subject, etc. I'm a longime film photographer but use similar settings and techniques using my digital camera - my starting point is usually 100 ISO outdoors, 400 indoors, then I raise it from there; I usually don't go slower than 1/125 unless there's a reason for it and I can get postioned/braced so I can support the camera well enough.

I think it gets to be a toss up and a judgement call sometimes what I sacrifice as I'm losing light, how slow a shutter speed I can manage or how high an ISO can I use and still get a good photo. I've gotten low light photos that can work as a 5x7 print but as won't work for an enlargement; if it's a bright sunny day obviously without needing a high ISO I can use a fairly fast shutter speed if I want or use a small aperture and get a lot of depth and get nice sharp photos. I think it just depends on the conditions in which you're shooting.

 

[TCampbell]

How much ISO your camera can handle completely depends on the camera. On my first DSLR, ISO 800 was ok, 1600 was a little noisy and 3200 was very noisy. On my 5D III I have to crank to ISO 12,800 before the noise is a problem (and even then, some would call it moderate but not yet "unnaceptable".)

But ISO is the one setting out of the triangle that can have an obvious negative look to the image. If motion isn't a problem then you can shoot any shutter speed and your image wont suffer. If DoF isn't an issue then you can shoot any aperture and not suffer for it. But crank the ISO too high... and you'll pay for that mistake.

 

[duhast]

So Tim, is the noise brand-dependent, or is it like fingerprints...every camera is different?

 

[Gavjenks]

ISO 100 is not wonkishly low... Obviously it depends on the situation. Several examples:

1) If you're trying to shoot a waterfall so that it is all blurred like people like to do, and it is daytime, you will be thankful you have ISO 100, because you want to slow down your shutter as much as possible, and even at f/16 or so, it might not be enough (and you don't want to go smaller for fear of diffraction).

2) Sometimes it is so bright out, that with the lens wide open at ISO 200, your camera can't work its shutter fast enough to give you proper exposure (for example, my camera only goes to 1/4000th of a second, and I will sometimes overexpose because I have it set to aperture priority and ISO 200, and it can't compensate automatically).

2.5) If you're shooting an old film camera or a view camera, the leaf shutters may only be able to go up to about 1/500th of a second, so ISO 100 (AND stopping down) is virtually required for shooting in daytime. They even sell ISO 50 film.

3) If you have enough light and are shooting something reasonably still, why would you NOT shoot at 100? It just makes it that much smoother...

 

[Austin Greene]

I get the idea of not shooting at high ISO speeds, but really, what is a realistic upper limit? I know it is at least subjective, but it seems to me that the oft mentioned speed of 100 is kind of wonkishly low. I ask because one of the ways I like to shoot is from the hip, with a wide lens, pretty damn near the Magic Hour (street-type stuff, at the Fair, etc.). At 100, that means stopped down to a mid aperture is going to give a pretty darn slow shutter.

Only 3 sides to the triangle...

Having previously owned a T3i, I wouldn't shoot at above ISO800 if I could avoid it. 90% of my photos were taken at ISO400 and below.

Now as an owner of a 6D, I can shoot at ISO3400 quite comfortably, ISO6400 in a push but still yielding perfectly useable results. Beyond that and your looking at a lot of mush being brought in from NR.


I should note though, that it entirely depends on the situation, and the camera. For me, as a macro shooter, I prefer to shoot at ISO100. Not only because I don't need the faster SS because my flash sync is rather slow, but also because shooting so low gives me complete control over my lighting. I'm using extension tubes, and at ISO100 the entire frame is black without a flash, so being able to choose which parts to light is very gratifying.

For example, this image was taken in full, bright as hell sunlight. The only light which made it to the sensor is light that I placed.

Face to Face by TogaLive, on Flickr

 

[KmH]

So Tim, is the noise brand-dependent, or is it like fingerprints...every camera is different?

It's camera model dependent.

Most of the gains in ISO performance in recent years result from in the camera software improvements.
DxOMark - SNR evolution over time