dSLRs very high ISO - what uses?

[RaymondC]

<p>I am wondering what you guys think are some applications for very high ISO? I was just playing around with ISOs of Hi1 and Hi2 ie - 12800 and 25600. </p>

<p>I usually shoot ISO on a tripod etc. but what kind of uses would you find for Hi1 and Hi2 and for a print how large would that be? Concerts, walkabout night time alleyways of Tokyo, inside train stations? Speaking of a Nikon D600 which is what I have.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Ray, there are thousands of uses for higher (and usable) ISO's. For instance wildlife demands fast shutter like 1/1250sec or higher (particularly birds) and even if you you shoot at nominal opening of F4.0 or 5.6, you still have to crank up the ISO's if the subject is in deep shade. Typical gym or interior game will force you to be on the edge of **acceptable** quality (think, hockey, wrestling meet, etc, etc). It's wonderful that these high ISO's can be had on demand and allowing solution - think how limiting the film is/was.</p>

<p>The beauty is that they are there (accessible) to be used....tho no one is forcing anyone. Just because you may not be using higher ISO's, the photog next to you may need them (in the worst way).</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sports, wildlife, most of all. The main context in which I've used the higher ISOs are theatrical performances. When shutterspeed matters, light is good but dim.<br>

Many people seem to love the idea that you never have to use flash "because you can just push up the ISO"; I find the idea that it's great to shoot everything in available light a mistaken one. Often the low light is just horribly flat, dull and yielding zero contrast. So, for casual use, I think ISO1600-3200 is quite enough actually. If light levels drop below that, y're in very questionable circumstances. But of course there are cases where this is not the case, and where the ultra-high ISOs can get you the photo which otherwise would not be possible.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Apart from the D4s, I've yet to see a camera that has a convincing (or even useable) image quality at an ISO speed higher than 6400. Even so that's about 6 times faster than any film could achieve.</p>

<p>My use for high ISO's is music or theatrical performances, where even small amateur stages are usually lit well enough to keep the ISO at or below 3200. I also like the ability to shoot land and cityscapes handheld in fairly low light conditions. Twilight especially shows some wonderful lighting that just doesn't occur at any other time of day, and having the ability to catch fleeting light conditions like that is one of the many reasons I love modern DSLRs. By the time I'd set up a tripod the light would have completely changed or gone.</p>

<p>Only once have I pushed the ISO to its max, and that was in a dimly lit music club. The amount of post-processing needed to reduce the general noise and red speckles was painful, but I think the end result was worthwhile for at least one of the shots. It's not something I'd like to repeat too often though.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If you ever watch detective movies and saw them detectives taking pictures in low light, long lens and hand held then even the highest H4 would not be fast enough. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Wow - from the title, I was <i>absolutely</i> expecting a "given Nikon's use of Sony sensors, who would like the A7s sensor in a Nikon DSLR?" question. :-) (RJ - for reference, the recent tests of the A7s show it to be very similar with other current-generation sensors around ISO 6400, and it starts pulling ahead above that point (at which point, whether the result is "convincing" depends on what you're doing with it, but it's pretty impressive compared with everything else). The Df and original D4 sensor is peerless at ISO 1600, which one could argue is a very useful point for it to be good.<br />

<br />

I quite often take hand-held shots of indoor events that aren't very well lit (tiddlywinks, in particular). It's not unusual for me to be between ISO 3200 and 6400. Honestly, I usually try to avoid going above 6400 unless I absolutely have to - which has been a policy both on my D700 and on my D800 - but if I'm already maxing out the lens and I'm struggling, I'll do it. I'd be somewhat less scared of doing this with a D3s, Df or D4. I've often had to push things - candlelit (group) dinners, weddings (as a guest) where the father of the bride was lit almost entirely by the iPhone from which he was reading his speech, even the occasional post-sunset landscape. Flash isn't always an option - either because of the scale of what I'm shooting or because there are people there who care more about not being disturbed than in my photography. Mobility and subject motion precluded me from using a tripod. The first time I pushed the ISO on my D700, it was when people were dancing at a friend's wedding disco - lit mostly by Christmas tree lights, and at a distance. The scary bit is how well the human eye holds up under those lighting conditions.<br />

<br />

I don't think the light is <i>always</i> flat - especially if we're talking about a small window in a pub, illuminated through British rain clouds, or candles - but I concede that it sometimes is. High ISO is a compromise - if you need the shutter speed (or the depth of field), you need it. I'd be vaguely interested to see DxO plot effective resolution at which a given image quality is achieved vs ISO for their camera tests (given that they already have screen and normalised numbers). Obviously the acceptable image size tends to drop as the result gets noisier (or blurrier, depending on your noise reduction), though DxO's latest noise reduction technology is pretty effective. It depends a lot, also, on the light distribution in the scene - if there are a lot of deep shadows, they may be noisy even at quite low ISO, whereas a high-ISO scene that's mostly bright regions may be fine. And, of course, a bit of noise isn't the end of the world, especially in a monochrome conversion.<br />

<br />

While the D4s seems to have a significant jump over the D800 and D600 sensor at ISO 25600, I certainly wouldn't dismiss any chance of getting a decent-sized print out of it. But I don't make a lot of poster-sized prints anyway...</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Just think of those lovely National Trust houses here in the UK that allow photography but NO tripods and NO flash..........and period lighting. </p>

<p>The results of ISO <em>SILLY </em>are not necessarily publication quality, but if the Gift Shop has nothing helpful, they do provide something useful. With careful exposure whilst taking full advantage of VR and taking multiple shots of the same scene, some remarkably good images can be got.</p>

<p>Downsampling 24MP RAW D5300 files does a-lot to help noise reduction too.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I use moderately high ISO in the classroom when documenting lectures and dissertations. This is something like ISO 2000. I could use lower ISO if I used f/2 or f/1.4 primes but the 70-200mm range is convenient so it leads to high ISO. When the room lights are off and the projector is on, if I want to capture the face of the speaker, I may have to go ISO 4000-6400. In evening parties at restaurants following the dissertations, I frequently have to use ISO 6400 with an f/1.4 lens to get acceptable shutter speed for available light, usually black and white images. I could use flash but it would be very distracting; I prefer to capture people's expressions without making them explicitly aware that I'm photographing them at that very moment (if I used flash they would start looking around and posing for the camera which would change the look of the pictures). There are some caves where the walls are dark and lighting comes from above, and the lighting doesn't look flattering in that case, and so flash use must be considered, but I try to limit it and even when I'm using flash I still want the background to be lit by available light so usually the ISO is still at least 1600 for those shots.</p>

<p>For weddings I find ISO 6400 is often needed in dark churches during the ceremony, especially if I'm to capture some expressions in the guest rows. In some brighter lit churches ISO 1600 may be enough. In the evening reception sometimes the light gets so weak that I am at ISO 6400, f/1.4, 1/30s. Again same thing about flash: it could be used but the subject behaviour would change. In Finland most weddings tend to be in the summer, where there is enough natural light to shoot outdoors with even up to 11pm, but at that hour the exposure can be maybe f/2.8, 1/200s, ISO 6400 so it is approaching difficult levels, but the light can be very soft and beautiful, and there isn't really any point in using flash due to the beautiful character of the natural light. If the reception continues further in the night then it becomes again useful to use flash since the existing light can be so dim, but usually the couple and the guests are leaving around this time. If the wedding continues indoors after the window light dims then I am usually able to work with the room lighting that is there, going with a black and white rendering, but the possibility of remote flashes can be considered. The problem with this has been for me that there is usually very little space to set up stands and with modern cameras and lenses I've been able to get good results even just using the existing light. But this assumes the character of the light indoors is at least decent (white or near-white walls do help). For me the kind of flashy lighting that some photographers use with multiple remotes and direct flash just doesn't feel right, these shots fail to capture the mood and character of the people, so even though the image quality at ISO 6400 is not as good as it might be at lower ISO and flash, I still usually prefer to go with the available light.</p>

<p>I also shoot some indoor concerts where the lighting is dim and ISO 6400 is needed with f/2.8 lenses. In the winter it is so dark that evening concerts even outdoors are in artificial light and there I might get away with ISO 1600, if I'm using f/2 lenses and if the stage lighting is meant for television. But in clubs ISO 3200-6400 becomes often needed. The twilight is around 3pm in the winter so if there is some event outdoors on the street, it can also require the use of very high ISO.<br>

<br />Finally I like to photograph people in the street, and in summer evenings the subtle light in the Nordic countries can make for some beautiful images but to stop the movement often moderately high ISO can be needed (1600-3200 at around 9-10pm; higher for 11pm). </p>

<p>Quite many applications for high ISO in other words, though I have never used 12800-25600 as I find my cameras get too noisy and fast lenses have allowed me to capture what I've needed to capture at ISO 6400 or lower. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Andrew, I did not mean to imply the light is always flat and muddy - certainly not. But it happens enough - the people I hear most lamenting noise show me photos shot in interiors which are dimly and indirectly lit, with no contrast and everything looking a muddy, noisy grey. And then they want ISO12800, because this camera already has noise at ISO1600 or something.<br>

So, not arguing with any of the points in favour of high and ultra-high ISOs - it sure has its uses. But I think a large audience see these ultra-high ISOs as a solution for a lack of decent light, and that it isn't.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I really need at least ISO around 8000 to shoot BBall in my son's poorly lit high school gym. This has cost me a lot of $'s as cameras have gotten better throughout his career, so I have upgraded continuously. The D600 is good enough barely, could not justify a D4.</p>

<p>He just graduated, so no upgrades for a while for me!</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Very valid points, Wouter - and ones that ought to improve my photography. Although I won't stop me having mild A7s lust (at least, if I could mount any of my fast lenses on it properly...) next time I think "is it dim in here, or is it just me?"</p>

 

<blockquote>He just graduated, so no upgrades for a while for me!</blockquote>

 

<p><i>Sure</i>... :-)</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>High ISO is an absolute LUXURY. Anybody who shot Tri-X pushed to 800 and Fuji Press pushed to 1600 knows exactly what I mean. Pure LUXURY :-)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Many people seem to love the idea that you never have to use flash "because you can just push up the ISO"; I find the idea that it's great to shoot everything in available light a mistaken one. Often the low light is just horribly flat, dull and yielding zero contrast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

While I agree with the first part of this, the second I don't find to be true for what I often shoot, which is music and dance performance on stages with interesting but very low levels of light and quite a bit of movement. It's common not to allow flash in larger venues.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I need high ISO because for many situations I just simply love the way the lights on the subject. When I shot film which I only use ISO100 or 160 I had to use very elaborate lighting equipment to imitate that light but at higher level. This high ISO capability is the most important benefit for going digital instead of film. </p>

[dan_beauvais]

<p>I've found the high ISO performance of my D800 to be very liberating. I've recently enjoyed exploring hand held compositions in crowded dimly lit country stores, places where a tripod would be a nuisance, at best. I used Auto-ISO, capped at 6400. But seeing the results, I'd consider going higher. The noise is remarkably low, seems limited to luminance rather than color noise, and cleans up very easily. This manner of shooting is unthinkable on my D300.</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I frequently shoot dance shows at 6400 as it is a necessity, and this is OK, but I am loath to go higher. 3200 I use very frequently and in a way, for me, is the equivalent of me using 800 ISO film in the old days. This is with the Canon 6D. It's nice to have when you need it.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>For me, if you have it, you use it when the situation arises. I did this shot with my D7100 last year when a fire truck was checking out a fire call in the neighborhood. There was no fire, fortunately. I am amazed how good the color is considering the lighting was mostly streetlight. I also utilized the VR of the kit lens shooting at 1/13 sec and the shot is sharp. </p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Here's a 2 inch crop showing the grain and detail. Not bad considering the iso, especially if you grew up shooting Tri-X!</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>And (without this sounding too much like an advert) please bear in mind what good software denoising can do. DxO's <a href="http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/dxo-optics-pro/features/denoising">PRIME</a> can really be quite effective, although whether I really buy "four stops" is another matter; other denoisers are available. :-) It can certainly recover some otherwise desperate images, if you're not in a hurry. It's not magic, but it does help. (Which reminds me, I must see what it can do with the images from DPReview's comparison of other cameras with the A7s.)</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I'm quite happy with the ISO 6400 of my D800. I can get reasonable DOF and shutter speed.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>This thread made me realise that I hadn't bothered to go past ISO 3200 with my D800 as it serves me very well - in fact it amazes me when I compare it to my previous cameras at ISO 800.</p>

<p>Sure at 100% in the Lightroom sharpening box I can see some grain/noise, the style of which I find quite engaging in some situations, particularly if I describe it to myself as "interesting grain" rather than "ugly noise".</p>

<p>It made me see what ISO 25600 looked like, I even sharpened it up to 100% without any noise reduction and liked what I saw - a very usable creative effect that if used judiciously in appropriate situations could substantially enhance some pictures.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>sorry meant to up load a the picture but failed - will try again in a minute</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Yeah, you have people that say don't go too high. I was communicating to a local pro here outside the USA, and he says he shoots wedding at ISO 3200 with a D700. I scan my film in small sizes and the odd frame at a higher resolution with my Coolscan which is now kapuf. From my lot, D600's Hi2 is tighter grain than Ilford HP5+ (rated at 400) developed in ID-11 but film has more appealing grain character to me at least. The D600 Hi2 was also tighter than Fuji NPH400 rated at 400 (prior to ProH).</p>

<p>The Coolscan pulls out thr grain or film base whatever it is. I gave a Velvia 50 or 100, cannot remember scanned file to a lab to print, I did use NR in LR but you could still see the noise whatever the lab did there was no noise. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Flickr didn't seem too friendly went via Facebook - ISO 25600 + 100% sharpening in Lightroom<br /> <img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10446647_783008108398573_2763151596334700178_n.jpg" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

[cc_chang1]

<p>WOW, these ISO 6400 shots from the D800 are very nice ...</p>