D7200 - pushing the ISO?

<p>I am new to the D7200 and have what could be a difficult shooting assignment. I have to shoot band pictures in a small vault. For vault visualize a small pitch black cellar about 2.5m high which holds the band, equipment and about 60 people. The stage lighting will be limited and in photography terms will vary rapidly from pitch black to intense light. Having checked out the venue I will have to use fast 35 or 50mm primes to frame the shots and to keep the shutter speeds up but just how high can I take the ISO on the camera, bearing in mind I need to get publishable pictures?</p>

Use auto ISO such that the camera picks a good ISO for that moment, while maintaining a reasonable shutter speed. I

suppose you'll eventually use mostly the brighter images for publication. If you really need high ISO results, is it possible

to rent an FX body?

<p>Hi Shun,<br>

Auto ISO is an option but I would still want to limit the ISO so I don't get, to use the old terminology, overly grainy images. What would you suggest as the max ISO to get "clean" images?</p>

<p>Geoff, it is hard to answer for others - what one finds unacceptable, others find OK. Some scrutinize photos magnified at 100% at a screen, others judge at a normal print size what would work, and when the artifacts become visible. Someone I know complained about the "excessive noise" at ISO800 with a D90, while I used a D300 (same sensor) and didn't see massive issues with proper exposed and post-processed ISO3200 as long as it didn't need to become huge prints.<br /> The way you post-process also can make a vast difference, both in terms of the quality of the noise reduction used as well as the look you try to achieve. Best bet is to really try for yourself, and see at which point you stop liking what happens. It's quite easy to try at home in a darkened room.<br /> <br /> In my view, ISO3200 should be usable, and ISO6400 if exposure is spot on and you can avoid heavy operations in post-processing also should still be quite usable. Depending on the kind of picture, though, I think grainy B&W images for music live performances can work really well (as a 'look'), which could be a way to rescue images that are noisier than you'd like.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...I think grainy B&W images for music live performances can work really well (as a 'look'), which could be a way to rescue images that are noisier than you'd like.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Considering how lighting is often used by bands, slaved flash units with colored gels?</p>

Go as high as you need to get the picture. The picture is the thing. Everything else is secondary.

<p>I agree with Ellis, but will add that the usual usage of band photos is on Facebook and noise isn't really a problem. People look at a small image and that's about it. If it's for large display or printing, it could be a factor but good software can often take care of things. I shoot concerts in tiny to large venues regularly and put the ISO up to 12800 regularly. Different camera, probably better high ISO performance, but they look fine even as large web images. If there's really no light, I use a flash if the venue allows it. But in the end, people are looking at the picture, as Ellis says, not the technical detail.</p>

<p>I wouldn't cap the ISO anywhere but am not familiar with your camera. - What is <em>your</em> definition of "publishable"? - AFAIK you have 24MP to start with. If you 'll have to denoise pixelbinningly you'll still end with 6MP for sale. - I'm sure newspapers printed 1.5MP back in the days.<br>

What is grain-free camera shake worth? - In doubt: Nothing. <br>

If you have the time: do test shots at home and figure out which publishable sizes you 'll get from each (insane) ISO. - it makes little sense to compose a 12" Vinyl cover in almost absolute darkness but if you want to print a few thumbnails on the inner envelope to spice up song lyrics published there you could go for band close ups at any light during the performance.</p>

<p>Nikon D7200 is virtually ISO-less. That means it does not matter much what ISO you shoot, lifting exposure in post yields the same results as raising ISO. So you can just worry about what is the slowest shutter speed necessary. Now if the question is whether the results will be good enough, no-one knows because that depends on exactly how dark it is. As someone already said, FX will be a stop better. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon D7200 is virtually ISO-less. That means it does not matter much what ISO you shoot, lifting exposure in post yields the same results as raising ISO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? Could you elaborate on that?</p>

<p>Noise and poor quality is more the result of underexposure than merely high ISO. There is no magic ISO where it is always acceptable below it and unacceptable above it. If you artificially limit yourself to a certain ISO, you may end up with some super slow shutter speeds and/or underexposure. Occasionally some subject motion could be artistic, but in most cases it'll make your image useless.</p>

<p>If you really need good low-light results, I would use FX (full 35mm frame). For an APS-C camera, the D7200 has very good high-ISO results. As Ellis and other said, I would first pay attention to shutter speed and exposure, and use whatever high ISO that is necessary for each situation, not the other way around.</p>

<p>Again, if the lighting is changing from bright to dim quickly, chance is that most of your better images will be with better lighting. And if you must use a slower shutter speed while there is subject motion, capture more samples so that you will have more selections afterwards. It doesn't matter how many rejects you'll end up with. Only the good ones count.</p>

<p>I don't often shoot crop sensor cameras at anything over ISO 3200 unless I have to up the ISO even further to get the shot. Even better is to shoot at ISO 1600 or lower. At ISO 1600 and lower, there simply is not much noise, even in the shadows under ordinary lighting. </p>

<p>For me, that is, ISO 3200 is sort of a dividing line between clean and noisy photos. I try to stay under that number because even ISO 3200 often simply is not that clean.</p>

<p>For full-frame cameras, on the other hand, a lot depends on how many megapixels have been crammed onto the sensor. On the D3s (with twelve megapixels), I can use ISO 6400 and even 12800 and get away with it, but those settings are often far too high for cameras with more megapixels.</p>

<p>Make your own test shots under different lighting conditions and see for yourself what pleases your eye. Then look at what happens to the same pictures after post-processing has been applied. Depending on what you do in post, you can get some surprising results--and the surprises are often not all that pleasant.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>If you shoot raw and use good quality current image processing software, you can obtain high quality noise fee images with very reasonable detail even at ISO 6400.</p>

Looking at dxomark data, with the D7200 you gain about 2/3 stop of dynamic range by taking the ISO to 6400 instead of

using the camera at ISO 100 at the same exposure (shutter speed and aperture). In low light there isn't extra image

quality to throw away on a whim - every little bit of image quality improvement is welcome. I don't have a D7200 myself

but I would probably use ISO 6400 if necessary to get the shot. However, if the lighting is variable, chances are the shots

with brighter light will be significantly better.

<p>Since I suggested using auto ISO (such that the D7200 will automatically select a lower ISO when there is plenty of light and a high ISO when it is dim), one thing to keep in mind is that as long as the maximum ISO for auto ISO is within ISO 10000, the D7200 will give you a buffer of 15 frames, shooting 14-bit, lossless compressed RAW. However, if the maximum auto ISO is set to 12800 or higher, the buffer will drop to 6 frames.</p>

<p>If you always capture one frame at a time, the buffer size probably won't matter much. When you capture a series of frames (e.g. to get more sample images to choose from), it doesn't take much to full up that 6-frame buffer.</p>

<p>What Elliott said. Shoot jpeg+NEF. In RAW conversion you can select the amount of noise reduction that you prefer. Compare it to the jpeg and you have another choice. <br>

Scout before hand and experiment with increasing ISO values. You might be surprised how well the camera can do in uncharted ISO territories. Also manually set white balance. That can add a little exposure margin with warm light sources. <br>

I shoot live music in dim venues, and a test session is invaluable for knowing what to expect and to be fully ready to shoot. </p>