Is ISO 100/200 really the Holy Grail?

Zarch

Zarch

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
Since getting my dSLR I'd got it in my mind that getting pictures down at 100/200 is what you have to strive for. But the more I shoot with my D3100 I'm finding it that isn't always possible.

I shoot mainly in Aperture Priority and I'm finding I'm having to quicken the shutter speed and so in certain circumstances I'm left with higher ISO pictures. (at longer focal lengths for example)

Better to have Sharp/ISO800, than Unsharp/ISO200 I suppose?

It seems to me that shutter speed is actually the most important factor. I take a lot of pictures of my little girl, so she has this annoying habit of not standing still. :love: Hence the shutter speed increase. (i'm finding i'm having to do focal length x crop factor + a little bit more (especially on my 18-70 with no VR))

Second on the importance list is Aperture. Either because you want to be creative (bokeh) or you want everything in focus (f10+).

So third and last, and dictated by 1 and 2 comes ISO.

That sound right?

Are perfect ISO100/200 shots just for snobs with the best gear? :lol:
Or on days where the light is perfect and your lesser kit can handle it? :clap:

Is there anything wrong with not shooting at ISO100/200?
 
I will go to ISO 3200 on my D3 and try to go no higher than ISO 800 on my D300s
as long as you don't underexpose you can go pretty high and still get very good quality images.

Of course I always stay as low as possible, but don't fear going higher if need be.
 
Hi Mick, well I mainly shoot rugby/football and I use a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lens and as rugby takes place in the winter months when its almost dark at around 4-4.30pm you'll find most of the sports togs on here will be shooting 3200/6400 and higher as we need to use high shutter speeds to cope with moving targets, I've known some of them shooting @ 12800 ISO.

I use aperture priority and usually when we kick off at 3pm I can be shooting ISO 800 to start with and as it gets darker and the floodlights come on then up goes the ISO.

I have on occassions been shooting ISO 6400 @ 1/250th sec and that is a nightmare, so at this time of year when the 'sun' comes out it's quite nice shooting around 100/200 ISO.
 
To get the iso/shutter/aperature you want and what you can actually get are always a compromise. With a tripod and great lighting you can normally get close to what your after only if there is little movement in the picture.
Thats the great thing about digital now, at least we can see if our choices have worked virtually straight away.



Don't forget back when we used film, we made the choice to load up with ie. 100 or 400 iso in the morning and was stuck with it for the rest of the day.
 
Last edited:
With most of the latest sensors, even with crop bodies you should get decent images at 400 ISO as long as you expose them correctly.

You'll get more noise on an under-exposed image shot at 200 ISO which you than have to modify in PP to get it right, than you will in a well exposed shot at 400, maybe even 800 ISO.

One thing to watch out for is the "non native" ISO settings as these tend to make noise worse. Always try and stick to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc if possible as these tend to generate less noise than the 1/2 or 1/3 stops in between.

Steve
 
IMHO low iso has its roots in history, not so long ago 400iso would give poor IQ but now top end cameras give good IQ at what was unheard of iso a few years back.
As sensors get better and better iso will not matter at all, however with your d3100 yes keep it as low as you can but it is the least important of the 3 set the shutter and/or aperture to get the effect you want and to hell with the iso just make sure you nail the exposure.
 
if a high ISO looks good to you and helps you achieve the depth of field or shutter speed you want then go for it. I regularly live in 1600 ISO on my 5DMK2's, make use of the modern technology we all pay so much for! :)
 
Depends on what you're shooting I spose.

If you can use a tripod, then 100 is fine......

If its a m/c scramble on a dull day where hand holding is unavoidable, up the ISO...

I know my camera does not respond well to above iso 800, so I try not to go there.
 
Last edited:
It's just a matter of using whatever ISO you need. And increasingly newer technology is allowing us to up the ISO higher and higher and shoot in circumstances where before the quality at higher ISO would have limited us.

But base ISO will always deliver the highest possible quality.
 
use the lowest ISO possible and only boost to get the shutter speed you want.

When you're under-exposing, first adjust aperture, then ISO, then finally shutter speed in that order if needed.

That being said, I'm really excited to see the ISO performance in 3-4 years time. The D3s has revolutionised ISO performance and I wouldn't be surprised if DX sensors have the same quality soon...I still remember my D2x that I couldn't shoot over 400!
 
Regardless of the camera I guess keeping the ISO as low as you can makes sense for optimum IQ.

People posting 'WOW look at this for amazing ISO 876876987563768686 really bugs me as it's often a shot of a Corn Flake box in decent light.

Shutter speed and Aperture are the 'ingredients' for my shots and what I can achieve with those two variables are 'limited' by the ISO that I'm willing to go to. Obviously it depends on the type of photography. Landscapes = tripod = lowest ISO and longer shutter speeds. Birds and Wildlife on the other hand - With a 40D and 1D Mark 2 - I'm reluctant to go much above ISO 800 but with f5.6 being my fastest available @400mm I don't always have a choice. With new DSLR's I'll certainly judge people's shots knowing that they can crank up the ISO - not for noise but to just use the required shutter speed to capture a shot that was otherwise not possible..
 
Last edited:
With my 50D I was reluctant to go much above 800 but the ISO performance on the 1D MK IV is leagues ahead which is great as it's letting me get shots in poor light that I would have failed to get before. I've only used it in anger up to 3200 and couldn't really see much noise at all. I tried a couple of shots in the garden at 102,400 and the noise was horrendous but you could still make out the subject (just). No good for most shots but I suppose for Paps it could mean the difference between getting the shot and not.
 
When I had a 350D and 450D I used to use 1600 ISO indoors then reduce the noise using Neat Image.

Now I use 3200 ISO indoors (the highest the 1Ds II has) and again reduce the noise using Neat Image.

Also reducing the pic size helps to reduce noise.

.
 
I try not to go above around 1000 ISO, but when it's the choice between fast shutter and ISO, shutter usually wins. Only ever used highest ISO once and that was on my 5D classic outside on fireworks night handheld. Not the nicest picture, but still prefectly usable.
 
Noise is the bane of the pixel peeper. Seriously, with the advent of digital photography we can all zoom in god knows how many factors of magnification to see an image at 100%. It seems to me that this has produced a generation of photographers obsessing over the sharpness of every single pixel, having forgotten about the image as a whole in the first place. An exaggeration perhaps, but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

In all honesty once the photo is in it's intended form, be it resized for web, or printed at whatever size, noise becomes far less of an issue. In fact so much of a non issue that you could probably use the highest native ISO setting on your camera and still get perfectly acceptable results. For example I've got some stuff that I did on a d40x at the highest native ISO (1600 in this case). On screen zoomed in it looks very messy, but printed up to A3 the noise is barely perceptible. Also reduced down to web size there's no perceptible noise to speak of.

That said, obviously it makes sense to aim for the best image quality achievable by using as lower ISO level as possible, but don't be afraid of pushing the ISO if that's what's required. That 3100 should be good for ISO1600 if not ISO3200. Sure you'll see noise, and the dynamic range will be diminished, but if the intended purpose of the photo is print, or web size then the differences will not really be that problematic.

Of course the heavy croppers amongst you will disagree with what I've said, especially the birders, and you would be right to disagree as your style really puts demands on the kit, but for photography that can be framed fully and correctly in the first place noise isn't really the problem that it's made out to be.
 
Slaphead said:
Noise is the bane of the pixel peeper. Seriously, with the advent of digital photography we can all zoom in god knows how many factors of magnification to see an image at 100%. It seems to me that this has produced a generation of photographers obsessing over the sharpness of every single pixel, having forgotten about the image as a whole in the first place. An exaggeration perhaps, but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

In all honesty once the photo is in it's intended form, be it resized for web, or printed at whatever size, noise becomes far less of an issue. In fact so much of a non issue that you could probably use the highest native ISO setting on your camera and still get perfectly acceptable results. For example I've got some stuff that I did on a d40x at the highest native ISO (1600 in this case). On screen zoomed in it looks very messy, but printed up to A3 the noise is barely perceptible. Also reduced down to web size there's no perceptible noise to speak of.

That said, obviously it makes sense to aim for the best image quality achievable by using as lower ISO level as possible, but don't be afraid of pushing the ISO if that's what's required. That 3100 should be good for ISO1600 if not ISO3200. Sure you'll see noise, and the dynamic range will be diminished, but if the intended purpose of the photo is print, or web size then the differences will not really be that problematic.

Of course the heavy croppers amongst you will disagree with what I've said, especially the birders, and you would be right to disagree as your style really puts demands on the kit, but for photography that can be framed fully and correctly in the first place noise isn't really the problem that it's made out to be.
Click to expand...



Agree 100% there's a quote by Jay Maisel that I really like 'I'm interested in picture quality, not pixel quality'.

He was referring to using the ISO that gets the job done, low ISO is no good if shutter speed is too slow and the shot is blurred.
 
Sometimes i wonder why the press togs have to have the top gear when most end up black and white grainy pictures in the newspapers, i saw a photo posted on here done by someone with a D3s in near darkness of a house in a london street @ 128000 ISO handheld !!
It was of superb quality which makes you think why it costs £3500 ... :)
 
It's swings and roundabouts really...

One instance you'll want a fast shutter speed so wide aperture and/or higher ISO come into play....


....the next, you want f/22 but there's not enough light so you either go long exposure or, if you can't tripod it, you whack the ISO up...

Either way you will have to make a compromise at some point in your photography and unfortunately, when that compromise is using a higher ISO. then you have to suffer the consequences.

Personally, I take the ISO (and resulting quality) into consideration but I won't let it ruin my chances of getting the shot....
 
18%grey said:
Don't forget back when we used film, we made the choice to load up with ie. 100 or 400 iso in the morning and was stuck with it for the rest of the day.
Click to expand...

Or we had 2 (or more) bodies loaded with different speeds - or possibly more, with slide in one and print in another and maybe B&W in yet another. It was always possible to swap film half way through but it was a PITA. Got easier when APS came along but by then, faster fims were getting much finer grain and that filtered up onto 35mm, so decent 400ASA films were almost as smooth as older 200 ISO.
These days, take some shots at increasing ISO settings and see how high you can go and still be happy with the results. Prints often look better than screenshots. On my D70, I'm happy going up to 800 while the D700 gives very little noise well up into the thousands.
 
Granddaughter on stage, 7D, 28-105mm, AV mode, f4/f8, 1000/2000iso, no flash, no probs, on back of chair, monopod, against a pillar etc., cable release, very acceptable.
Practice at home, delete, delete, change settings, lighting, white balance etc.
Aquariums, Atlanta, Chattanooga, 2ft thick glass, triffic shots,
Jim
 
I would suggest the answer entirely depends on how new and specialised in higher iso your camera is. If you can shoot at ISO xyz without significant noise, then shoot at ISO xyz if that gives you your desired shutter and aperture. Its an equal part of the exposure triangle, don't let people tell you otherwise - and there's an upper limit (depending on sensor), just as there's a lower limit on your f-stop (depending on lens) and on shutter-speed (depending on the subject movement).


However, it doesn't matter how good your sensor is, if the subject isn't lit well - regardless of how bright that light is - it still will make a lowsy photograph... the difference is that you can nowadays capture that subject when previously you couldn't. It still doesn't make something look good that wasn't good to start with!


High Iso war is the new mega-pixel race for manufactures the last year or two, and expect it to continue, as its the only area they can significantly improve to encourage people to replace their DSLR's in a saturated market.
 
Moving from my old 400D to a 7D made me realise that it's not all about ISO100......

Shooting a rugby match in December with my 400D and Sigma 170-500mm 5.6-6.5 I only got about 30 images in the first half as a combination of max ISO1600 and f6.5 meant I couldn't get the shutter speed fast enough to stop getting blurry images.

Fast forward to February with the same lens but a 7D, had to start off at ISO1600 but by the end of the match I was up at ISO6400, yes they were a little noisey but with a little PP they were perfectly acceptible images and a lot better than the ones I couldn't get in December ;)

My opinion is use as low ISO value as you can to get the shot you want/need but don't be affraid to shoot at higher ISOs if it means you get good, sharp images. Most people will not pick up on a little noise in the shot but they'll notice blurred images ;)
 
When I first started out, and before I really got to grips with exposure, I got stuck in the mindset that anything other than ISO100 was bad. The result was lots of soft & blurred images.

Once I got my head around it, I realised that pushing the ISO up is necessary most of the time. My photos improved no end!

via TP Forums for iPhone
 
MatW said:
When I first started out, and before I really got to grips with exposure, I got stuck in the mindset that anything other than ISO100 was bad. The result was lots of soft & blurred images.

Once I got my head around it, I realised that pushing the ISO up is necessary most of the time. My photos improved no end!
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the replies, really glad I started the thread.

But this one sums it up for me. I too have been playing quite a lot in the last few days and realised that the ISO is just what you end up at once you've set the correct Aperture and Shutter speed. Something has to give and it makes sense for it to be ISO and with my D3100 being quite capable at higher ISOs, so be it.
 
Here's a secondary question on this topic...who uses ISO Auto? I have tried this on my Canon 40d, I find that while it reduces workload significantly (for fast moving subjects in varying light conditions), the camera makes some odd decisions; bright sunny day, Av mode (aperture priority), f/4 selected, with ISO auto set it will somehow come up with ISO 400 at 1/8000!! In the same conditions, I'd have manually set ISO100 at 1/2000 or ISO200 at 1/4000. Anybody know why the camera logic works this way?
 
Last edited:
Lawrence F said:
Here's a secondary question on this topic...who uses ISO Auto? I have tried this on my Canon 40d, I find that while it reduces workload significantly (for fast moving subjects in varying light conditions), the camera makes some odd decisions; bright sunny day, Av mode (aperture priority), f/4 selected, with ISO auto set it will somehow come up with ISO 400 at 1/8000!! In the same conditions, I'd have manually set ISO100 at 1/2000 or ISO200 at 1/4000. Anybody know why the camera logic works this way?
Click to expand...
W

Would be interesting to take the photo at both settings and see which one is best ?
 
Lawrence F said:
Here's a secondary question on this topic...who uses ISO Auto? I have tried this on my Canon 40d, I find that while it reduces workload significantly (for fast moving subjects in varying light conditions), the camera makes some odd decisions; bright sunny day, Av mode (aperture priority), f/4 selected, with ISO auto set it will somehow come up with ISO 400 at 1/8000!! In the same conditions, I'd have manually set ISO100 at 1/2000 or ISO200 at 1/4000. Anybody know why the camera logic works this way?
Click to expand...


I never used to go near auto ISO but I've been trying it out lately after talking about it with people on here. I really like it for ambient light shooting. I'm using a nikon D3 and it always chooses the lowest ISO possible, and saves me having to change it manually. I also like how it can choose increments that are not available manually. When you've got seconds to get the shot auto ISO is wonderful, I don't have to risk going slower than what I can handhold or choosing a wider aperture to get it. Changing ISO is something I have to take my eye from the viewfimder to do, but with auto you can see what ISO is being selected by the camera in the VF and you can always still open up the aperture or drop the shutter speed to keep it low. So in a way it hasn't changed my control over what ISO I choose to use, its just made getting there a lot quicker.
 
I use auto iso 200-800, with the option to flick to ISO 3200 at a touch of a button for working indoors/dark/etc. Since i started doing this I've found it helps considerably for shots where you haven't got time to think about / check all the settings (I pretty much only shoot in Av mode, if that's of any relevance).
 
Love how my thread is progressing. LOL.

I always used to shoot auto ISO but never really understood why the camera was choosing the ISO it was choosing. Going to manual ISO though and getting my head around how shutter and aperture affect ISO really helped. I'm now much more confident putting auto ISO back on knowing what I can or need to change if I want the camera to choose a lower ISO.

Auto ISO just seems far more convenient and will probably leave me less likely to miss that instant/candid shot. (I shoot mainly in A too)

Sent from my Gingerbread driven HTC Desire using TP Forums
 
Last edited:
this thread is turning out to be very interesting, i know i posted a couple of landscapes for C & C at the weekend and the advice there was not to be afraid to put up the ISO, am going out on the Leeds meet in an hour or so, so will have this thread in the back of my mind, thanks for starting it
 
I shoot mainly Av, I am going to try auto ISO on the 5D Mk II. It's the only setting I find difficult to change without looking.

Anyone got any experience of this? Is it likely to misbehave (like iso800 on a sunny day etc)

via TP Forums for iPhone
 
MatW said:
I shoot mainly Av, I am going to try auto ISO on the 5D Mk II. It's the only setting I find difficult to change without looking.

Anyone got any experience of this? Is it likely to misbehave (like iso800 on a sunny day etc)

via TP Forums for iPhone
Click to expand...

Do you even notice when the 5D2 shoots at 800 ISO? It has a great reputation for handling noise so I wouldn't worry about it.

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
I have zero problem using up to 1600 iso with the option to go higher if necessary. If I pixel peep I'm not happy with loss of detail over 3200 so I don't pixel peep up there.
 
Jelster said:
Do you even notice when the 5D2 shoots at 800 ISO? It has a great reputation for handling noise so I wouldn't worry about it.

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
Click to expand...

Actually, at 800 it's fine. I've got shots at 3200 that I like and noise isn't an issue for me. Was just worried it might make odd decisions but I experimented last night and the results were great. Another convert to auto ISO!

It seems I spent ages learning how to use a camera manually, now I'm learning which jobs I can delegate back to it!

via TP Forums for iPhone
 
MatW said:
Actually, at 800 it's fine. I've got shots at 3200 that I like and noise isn't an issue for me. Was just worried it might make odd decisions but I experimented last night and the results were great. Another convert to auto ISO!

It seems I spent ages learning how to use a camera manually, now I'm learning which jobs I can delegate back to it!

via TP Forums for iPhone
Click to expand...



I think its best to understand what is happening so you can decide to open up the aperture etc if possible to get a cleaner shot, but yes its very handy.
 
MatW said:
It seems I spent ages learning how to use a camera manually, now I'm learning which jobs I can delegate back to it!
Click to expand...

:agree: ...but the important thing is, now you understand how the camera works manually, you can understand what decisions the camera is doing and why, and so know exactly what and when - or not - you are prepared to let it do things for you.

There are people who make amazing photos in full-auto though...:D
 
I have no problem bouncing off the ISO ceiling of whichever camera I use. I've printed or used ISO 12800's from the G12, ISO 1600's from the D-Lux4, and regularly use ISO 6400 out of the 550D to get the wintertime shutter speeds up for wildlife.

I bin a blurred shot out of camera; I'll keep a noisier but sharp shot anyday.
 
Jelster said:
One thing to watch out for is the "non native" ISO settings as these tend to make noise worse. Always try and stick to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc if possible as these tend to generate less noise than the 1/2 or 1/3 stops in between.

Steve
Click to expand...

Well I never knew that. I assumed this would be effectively a progressive (although exponential) scale. What is the reason for this, assuming you don't need a PhD to understand this?
 
I didn't like my auto setting on canon . it used low iso (fine by me) aperture wide open (whuuuttt?? I mean - if it's a f2.8 zoom I can live with that but if f1.8 or 1.4 ? ) and rubbish speeds like 1/30 . but that was just tourist mode . I preferred shutter speed priority and low iso as my 500d wasn't great at anything above 400. well - 800 looks ok, but if you compare it to 200 it's just a different world.

but everybody has their own preferences - some shoot sport, some birds, some portraits etc, etc.
 
Starastin said:
I didn't like my auto setting on canon . it used low iso (fine by me) aperture wide open (whuuuttt?? I mean - if it's a f2.8 zoom I can live with that but if f1.8 or 1.4 ? ) and rubbish speeds like 1/30 . but that was just tourist mode . I preferred shutter speed priority and low iso as my 500d wasn't great at anything above 400. well - 800 looks ok, but if you compare it to 200 it's just a different world.

but everybody has their own preferences - some shoot sport, some birds, some portraits etc, etc.
Click to expand...


Auto ISO shouldn't have an effect on what shutter speed or aperture you choose, it's just quicker than selecting the ISO yourself manually,

As for native ISO, I thought the native ISO was the lowest one the sensor can use (without going into the special low ones like Lo3 etc with Nikon, so the lowest is ISO 200 in that case).

But I think you can set the ISO steps so it will only choose the same ISOs that you can choose manually (set for full stop increments)? anyone know for sure, I'll have to check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top