Nikon D300: ISO 3200 f/6.3 @ 1/30 – Tamron 18-270mm @ 270mm
I’ve spent much too much time reading stuff about Leica’s M9 and X1. I’m not really even interested in owning either one, but I am very much interested in the interest that people have in them, moreover, the things that people are speculating about. One peculiar thing that always gets mentioned is the high ISO performance. How much noise does this camera, or that, have at ISO 1600, 3200, 6400, etc and why don’t they go higher?! This is in direct contrast to the number of photos that I’ve ever seen shot at such high ISOs.
I do find high ISO performance useful. It was useful when I had my D2x, which could go up to 3200. Mind you, 3200, though useful, was very noisy, but it beat coming home without the shot. So, in that respect, it was useful; however, it would not have been a deal breaker. That is, I certainly could have done quite well without it. Enter the D300, which stepped up the game quite a bit. It’s ISO 3200 performance was leaps and bounds above the D2x!
The photo that accompanies this text was taken at ISO 3200. What’s impressive is that even without using any noise reduction software, it looks pretty good. Even at print size, it’s a nice shot. I took it when I went to see my niece graduate from college. This speaker was quite animated and a joy to photograph, very expressive. I was standing quite a bit back from the stage using my Tamron 18-270mm, racked all the way out to 270mm. She was even smaller in the frame than this. This represents about a 55% crop, based on original pixel size and cropped pixel size. As you can see, it doesn’t really look very noise, at least not to my eyes.
Other useful places for high ISO are gymnasiums. They may look well lit, but believe me, our eyes are great at compensating to available light. Depending on the lens that I have, I will usually have to shoot somewhere between 1600 and 3200. Expressed as a percentage of shots, I use high ISO about 0.5% of the time, so you can see why it would not be a deal breaker for me.
So, in some cases, especially indoor sports, I can see why one would use/need high ISO with reduced noise; however, for the general population, those arguing in the forums, I can see little use for it. Most of the blogs/galleries that I might visit that show EXIF information, the images are shot at ISO 400 or less.
Would you look for high ISO performance in your next camera? Would it be a deal breaker for you if it didn’t have it? If you have good high ISO performance, how often do you use this feature?
Related posts:
18 Responses to “High ISO : Manufactured need or real”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I guess it’s a matter of wants and taste. With my photography sometimes, well, most of the time, I try to grab the slowest ISO to be able to shoot in a slower shutter speed for motion. i.e., water movement etc… This is quite a telling photograph and really very good.
High ISO is deal breaker for me. I probably shoot 40% of my work at ISO 1600 or higher and I really do need at least 3200 available on a regular basis.
That said, I’m a lot less picky about the level of performance than many, finding my current Olympus/Panasonic gear to deliver clean enough files for colour at 1600 and B&W at 3200, I’d love another stop of performance though (one thing I miss about the D300, even if its ISO 6400 was really the same as my G1′s ISO 3200, neither camera has accurate ISO settings at high ISO’s).
It’s interesting that you ask that question. If someone had asked me about the importance of high ISO performance before I bought the 5D MK II 2 weeks ago, I would have said, “yes, it’s important”. Important because I need it when I’m at an indoor function with my grandchildren (like school functions). Yet, like you, I rarely use high ISO settings otherwise. And there are times when I should use a much higher ISO. Like last weekend. I was shooting the kids’ football game (at 400 mm) under cloudy skies. Even at ISO 400 (at f/8) my exposure times were only about 1/125 sec. Really too slow for 400 mm. I should have bumped it up to about ISO 1600, but didn’t.
I think that goes back to my early DSLR’s (Canon D60, 10D) where noise at even ISO 400 was a bit of a problem. I guess I have to get out of that “old” mindset and take the plunge. Old habits die hard…..
@Tom: Thanks. Sometimes all of the elements just come together. I was browsing through my few high ISO photos and found a few of these. Upon closer inspection, I noticed the faces and expressions. Certainly this was good fortune as I was mainly focusing on the speaker.
@Adam: I can certainly see why it would be a deal breaker for you given that you shoot 40% of your shots at the higher ISO levels.
@Paul M: I would imagine that you’ll use the higher ISO levels for a while, just to see what they can do, but then you’ll drop back down to the familiar ISO speeds where you would normally shoot.
it’s one of those things you don’t know you need until you’ve got it. This year I discovered two distinct applications where it is very useful: end of day wildlife, especially the long lens stuff (where small aperture and fast shutter are necessary) and night street photography (where light levels are really low). Good 3200 & 6400 would be useful. None of my cameras do really good beyond 800, although 1600 has some use in a couple.
I think photographers have constantly adapted their work to the tools available. It can be hard to conceive of uses when you’ve not got the capability. And sure, very few of my photos have been with high ISO but that’s because there’s been no point. Give me a camera with good capabilities there and that proportion would immediately jump.
I’ve never really explored using ISO’s like 3200. My brain is still in “shooting film mode.” I never had ISO 3200 when I used film so I don’t think too much about using it now. I shoot my D300 more like a film camera with ISO 400 film in it (dare I say ASA?). Someday I’ll have to look into using higher ISO’s and what can they offer.
My film perspective is saying, “get to 800 or higher, you’ve got grain (noise).”
Paul, Like you I don’t use high ISO that often and while ISO range is not a deal breaker in purchase decisions, it is a valid consideration. I’d much rather have a camera that has more capability then I normally use or need then one with less.
Martin is right: As soon as you get it you learn you need it!
Personally, I do regard high ISO performance as really important. For one thing, I don’t like to use a flash – in many cases it destroys the mood or makes you obvious. And street photography in the higher latitudes (geographically) gets seriously difficult without high ISOs. I remember my week in China when I was so glad about the good image quality I got with ISO 1600 – many pictures in the evening, in smoggy situations or at night would have been impossible. But I would have preferred ISO 3200 – many times the shutter speed was really on the low side.
I found that the noise at higher ISO was the main reason I wanted to upgrade to full frame, and I’m 100% glad I did. I use it all the time, when I’m shooting a wedding it’s mostly available light, and mostly there isn’t that much light available! And when I do macro stuff, I have a very shaky hand so I need something to compensate for not being able to handhold my 100mm at less than 1/250th without shake.
I suppose it’s kind of like how you’re happy with your lens that goes from 18-300mm, but i’d rather be stuck with 50mm if it’s a f1.4. Just shows you how we all work in such different ways – and I think that’s what makes our work our own…
High ISO is imperative for me. I shoot a lot of concert venues where flash is absolutely prohibited as are tri-pods, so high ISO is the only way I can work under those restrictions.
With the D700 9 times out of 10 no noise reduction is needed. Only occasionally in the Red and Blue luminance in some situations, like the night shot I have posted today, I might need to apply noise reduction at ISO 3200 or 6400. When I shoot the concerts my lens of choice is my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. It gives me the range I need so I am not disruptive during a performance.
Congrats to your niece!
This shot doesn’t seem to have any noise. Well done.
@All: It would certainly seem that, though it is not necessarily a need, the creation of it created the need. I’ve seen some fine examples of it in use and, upon further thought, can think of another few of my own examples where I have used it because I didn’t want the false look of flash, or used it in places where tripods weren’t allowed. The D300 does a great job of high ISO. You can barely notice it unless you do some pixel peeping, then it becomes kind obvious.
Since I’m still in my film shooting mode, for the most part, I used low ISO (Yes, Robert, you can say ASA) film. I am tempted to try some film pushing with Tri-X, though. More on that later.
Oh yes, I could live without high iso in about 90% of my shooting situations. The other 10% are mainly high-speed action time. I’m a runner, you know, and I also make photographs from running competitions sometimes, for articles on my running club’s webb site. Clearly, my camera suck already when it gets cloudy. I need at least 1/500s, and I don’t get that if I don’t raise the ISO. At 800, my camera suck, it is probably worse than what your camera give at 3200. For these rare occasions, I could make use of a more capable camera. But, 90% of my photography is made when I have all the time in the world, no matter the light conditions. So, no, I could live without it, despite my problems photographing races on the tracks. I have to find other angles and adapt to what my camera is capable of.
@Ove: As you have a camera that sucks at high ISO, let necessity be the mother of invention. Perhaps you could practice your panning technique and catch the runners in motion! I would bet that would be some really nice photography!
When I was shooting that street project in Tempe, I needed ISO 800, and if I had a fast-focussing digital that gave me quality at ISO 1600, I would’ve been a happy man. I guess it depends on the situation. It’s not a deal breaker for most of my work.
That’s what I’m doing, Paul, making more artsy fartsy pictures instead.
Well, for me it’s night street photography. About a third of the year it’s dark when I go to work or leave work, thus so many of my images in winter are taken at night. Going from the D200 to the D300 has really made a difference. I suppose going to the D700 would be a similar step, but then, the D300 is something that I can really live with
As already mentioned before, no real need – but certainly a great icing on the cake, eliminating the need for a tripod. Current DSLRs really have reached a level of ISO performance that was completely unthinkable only a couple of year ago. Problem is that most small P&S still suck…
And actually, it’s not only the quality at say 3200 ISO – in my experience, a camera that performs well at those really high ISOs also performs better at intermediate ISO (say ISO 400-8000).
And Paul, your picture is the final proof that high ISO performance can really be put to apt use!
I take a fair number of pictures of animals, mostly horses, in motion. The ability to shoot at a higher ISO allows me to maintain the shutter speed I am looking for (1/1000). In addition, I much prefer shooting handheld and higher shutter speeds help compensate for my less than steady hands. I could list more reasons, but I think it’s clear that I am in the bring on higher ISO with less noise camp.