Can ISO handling ever 'replace' fast glass ?

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Moving subjects - we've all been there - needing more light.......

Subject - Dog running about in the garden

Typical suck it and see steps when shooting in 'manual'........

1 = blurry running dog.
2 = use a faster shutter speed.
3 = Used a faster shutter speed but it's too dark
4 = need more light so I must use a wider aperture
5 = aperture wont go big enough to allow enough light in at the shutter speed I need.
6 = Need a (faster) lens with a wider aperture.
STUMPED
7 = Increase the ISO on my camera
8 = Upped ISO & got the shot OK but there's loads of noise.

If 6 wasn't an issue I wouldn't need 7

If 8 wasn't an issue then I wouldn't need 6

I know fast (wide aperture) glass provides us with dof advantages but for correct exposure - can we expext ISO improvements to reduce the need for faster lenses in the same way that Image stabilisation has ?
 
Just read that over again and it didn't really seem like I got my question over fully....

I guess I'm wondering whether or not improved ISO technolgy can be a match for optical quality when the 3 variables (aperture / shutter speed / ISO) are combined.

To me (old school) aperture and shutter speed were the 2 key factors and changing the ISO (the type of film) was a 'need'.

Now we see such good high ISO on DSLR's - it must mean that a lot of people might not decide to buy faster lenses ?
 
The ISO improvements are already there, just look at the D3s. ISO is the new Megapixels war with Digital SLRs, but you'll still always want that fast glass. Like you said DOF advantages.

Bearing in mind that wide open isn't generally the sweet spot aperture for a lens, I'd much rather be shooting my 70-200 f/2.8 at f/4 than a 70-300 f/4-5.6 at f/8 or f/11, even if ISO6400 was as noiseless as ISO100.

Also, you'll still always get better clarity, colour, lens flare control, less distortion, CA, etc. with higher end fast glass. IS hasn't really eliminated the need for fast glass either. In fact, most of Nikon's higher end fast glass has VR. 70-200 f/2.8, 105mm f/2.8 Macro, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, all VR.
 
Eventually we'll get to the stage where there will be no loss in image quality caused by use of higher ISO settings - I think that's what manufacturers are aiming for - iso itself will become an obsolete concept - the camera's sensitivity will become an automatic feature (since there will be no corresponding change of image quality) and the only user-programmable settings that remain will be shutter speed and aperture - as they affect how the image appears.
 
Fast glass also offers better AF performance and a brighter viewfinder, and will make manual focusing easier too. As already mentioned there is the DOF benefit as well. So high ISO performance is not substitute for fast glass. IQ will go down and you'll lose a load of other benefits too. Good high ISO performance is nice to have, possibly essential, but it is seldom a good substitute for having the right glass.

You would not want to try shooting indoor sports at 6400 ISO with an f/5.6 lens if you could shoot at 1600 ISO with an f/2.8 lens or 800 ISO with an f/2 lens, even if the 6400 ISO IQ looked good.
 
I think it's already pretty close, ISO is definitely becoming a very sought after feature on higher end cameras. Some of the photos I've seen from the D3 and its variants are unbelievable at ISO 3200+. Even the D700 is an unreal performer. I don't think the need for fast glass will ever be completely replaced from a "need more light" perspective. I think we'll get to the stage (or are already at the stage) where if you're constantly in challenging low light situations you'll consider both iso and fast glass, it won't really be an either or situation.

In regards to ISO becoming an obsolete concept, I wouldn't like this to happen, because the camera is effectively left to decide what the correct exposure is. Sometimes I want a dark picture and I don't want to have to rely on post processing to achieve this, I'd rather get it as close as possible in the camera. I think what will happen is that cameras will eventually be defaulted to an auto iso setting, possibly even not adjustable on consumer DSLRs, but it will always be overridable on pro and prosumer cameras. If I'm taking a photograph of a black wall with a couple of brown marks on it I don't want the camera upping the ISO, because it has calculated I'm in a low light situation :lol:
 
karmagarda said:
I think we'll get to the stage (or are already at the stage) where if you're constantly in challenging low light situations you'll consider both iso and fast glass, it won't really be an either or situation.
Click to expand...
That's spot on for me.

I did have fast glass with the Canons and still spent a lot of money getting the D700's because I found that even with fast glass and shooting at f2 I needed ISO1600 to get 1/60. So in essence I had nowhere else to go but to go higher ISO and the cameras I had would not go much higher without the image really suffering. So I made the decision that I would be better suited with a system that delivered both and good AF on top.
 
not really, as my friends 7d is a bitch to AF in poor light with an f4 lens and its got an EPIC af system. Whereas I nearly allways get a lock at f2.8 even with an inferior af system.

I'm with Ali on needing both too, I actuallly hit H2 last night on my 5dII and even then I needed to be dammed still to kill blur at 1/120 200mm

so really f2.8 IS and high iso is good :p

and occaisionally you have to use flash :(
 
Arkady said:
Eventually we'll get to the stage where there will be no loss in image quality caused by use of higher ISO settings - I think that's what manufacturers are aiming for - iso itself will become an obsolete concept - the camera's sensitivity will become an automatic feature
Click to expand...

I've wondered for a while how long it will be until "variable ISO" sensors come about - where the ISO per pixel is automatically adjusted to ensure a better overall exposure. Of course, this will only really be an option once there is so little noise difference between different ISO's
 
dinners said:
I know fast (wide aperture) glass provides us with dof advantages but for correct exposure - can we expext ISO improvements to reduce the need for faster lenses in the same way that Image stabilisation has ?
Click to expand...

I dont think so for the reasons mentioned above, and there is always the revenue side of things for the manufacturers :D

I think I saw a camcorder the other day online which boasted dual HD processors or something, tbh I reckon they have all got the technology waiting in the backrow to produce kit that surpasses anything most of us own at the moment, just a case of screwing us for a few more pennys along the way :thumbsdown:
 
I don't get the idea of auto iso, its handy (I wish my 5d did it in manual) but there are times I want manual control of the iso I mean an auto iso only camera would e a chocolate teapot in the studio tbh :p
 
karmagarda said:
In regards to ISO becoming an obsolete concept, I wouldn't like this to happen, because the camera is effectively left to decide what the correct exposure is. Sometimes I want a dark picture and I don't want to have to rely on post processing to achieve this, I'd rather get it as close as possible in the camera. I think what will happen is that cameras will eventually be defaulted to an auto iso setting, possibly even not adjustable on consumer DSLRs, but it will always be overridable on pro and prosumer cameras. If I'm taking a photograph of a black wall with a couple of brown marks on it I don't want the camera upping the ISO, because it has calculated I'm in a low light situation :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes I didn't think that through fully - obviously it wouldn't work like that - you'd still have to be able to over-under expose via manually adjusting aperture and shutter-speed - there would still need to be an ISO-override feature of some sort...
 
I experienced the down side of auto ISO last week at the snowman. It behaved perfectly for most of the cars but on the odd occasion that one had headlights on it fooled the camera into dropping the ISO down and underexposing.
 
a good fast lens will leave your choices open
i go for low iso ...all the time
but if i wanted speed and didnt have it in the lens it might be more pragmatic to do something to get rid of the noise rather than £££££ just for one shot
 
BouncyMelons said:
That's spot on for me.

I did have fast glass with the Canons and still spent a lot of money getting the D700's because I found that even with fast glass and shooting at f2 I needed ISO1600 to get 1/60. So in essence I had nowhere else to go but to go higher ISO and the cameras I had would not go much higher without the image really suffering. So I made the decision that I would be better suited with a system that delivered both and good AF on top.
Click to expand...

Ali, didnt you used to have the 5D mk II, is the D700 that much better in ISO noise handling ?
 
Apologies - I'd forgotten I'd even asked those questions last night :thinking:

Must have been something I'd eaten :)

I guess I was thinking about ISO allowing faster shutter speeds to be used on slower lenses where shallow dof isn't a must.

Kids and beer eh :nono:
 
HCK said:
Ali, didnt you used to have the 5D mk II, is the D700 that much better in ISO noise handling ?
Click to expand...

I had the 5D rather than the MkII. The MkII was my upgrade path if I had stayed with Canon but the D700 won me over with it's combination of high ISO and cracking AF.
 
dinners said:
Apologies - I'd forgotten I'd even asked those questions last night :thinking:

Must have been something I'd eaten :)

I guess I was thinking about ISO allowing faster shutter speeds to be used on slower lenses where shallow dof isn't a must.

Kids and beer eh :nono:
Click to expand...

it is, but I'd rather have both :p

BouncyMelons said:
I had the 5D rather than the MkII. The MkII was my upgrade path if I had stayed with Canon but the D700 won me over with it's combination of high ISO and cracking AF.
Click to expand...

the d700 af wins, but I think the mkII has superior iso (though that could be my friends processing style)
 
Not sure it'll ever replace it since the shallow DoF can't easily be replicated but fast lenses on a body with great high ISO performance make a fabulous combination. Interiors using available light and no tripod? No problem! Evening landscapes and no tripod? Again, no real problem. Lob some VR/IS/OS/VC into the mix as well...
 
dinners said:
Now we see such good high ISO on DSLR's - it must mean that a lot of people might not decide to buy faster lenses ?
Click to expand...
Be careful before buying into the 'great pics at high ISO' hype. Not all new DSLRs are as good as they say at high ISO. I swapped a D300 I wasn't entirely getting on with for a D90 after reading this Ken Rockwell group test only to find that the D300 did a better job where I was shooting. Saving up for a D700 now.

I have since gone the route of faster glass and I don't think there is a substitute. As was said earlier, when you have the glass and the ISO options then you are on the creative pig's back. Maybe that's just me - I like to shoot at 200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top