ISO 800

Nostromo

Nostromo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,236
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
ISO 800 used to be my maximum limit on my Canon aps-c cameras (50d, 80d). Maybe I'd push it up to 1000 on the odd occasion.
Now I have a Canon r7, which in theory, with it's 32.5mp crop sensor is certainly no better at higher ISO. But I really am not too worried about going to ISO 3200, more sometimes. The advent of good quality de-noise software has freed me up to just get the shot I want. Now I understand that some of this, no going over 800 was just down to me being over concerned about noise and getting the exposure right in camera does help keep noise down.
I just take photos for me, so I don't need super sharp, noise free, high quality photos.
 
I don’t have exactly the same camera as you, mine is a Canon R5, but do know what you mean
Camera sensors are improving all the time and as you say software is really good now
I shoot raw and routinely go up to ISO 3200 when needed
I have reprocessed old raws with modern software and it’s amazing what it can do
In my case I use DXO photolab to convert the Raws
 
I have my auto ISO set to a maximum of 3200 but I’ll go to 6400 if I have to (that’s very rare though). I have played with denoise software, but I tend not to bother, as I don’t mind the look of Fuji grain most of the time.
 
I don’t recall ever having a self imposed upper limit on ISO, and I’ve used Auto-ISO for as long as it’s been an option on cameras. A noisy photo is better than no photo in my opinion and in my urbex days I’d rather shoot at 6400 than use a tripod if it was practical to do so. Mind you the Nikon D700 didn’t go over that!

I agree with the point about denoise software - especially Lightroom - which has allowed me to improve some very noisy photos from the past, as well as some new ones where the ISO ended up being higher than anticipated. It’s not a panacea but it’s pretty damn good.
 
I mainly shoot digitally with an A7Riii & X100f - generally, I tend to shoot both in Av, minimum shutter speed set & Auto ISO with no upper limit (I don't think) - Unless I'm tripod sunrise/night sky/etc shooting obviously.

I don't use Topaz or any de-noising software. I don't even use the standard noise reduction in LR anymore.

I just embrace it :)
 
Nostromo said:
I just take photos for me,
Click to expand...

That's why I want crisp, clean and generally noise-free images unless I want it there.

Noise reduction? If the noise spoils the picture for me then I'll use reduction software, but otherwise not. If possible I'll shoot at 100, but if not then what ever the camera decides is needed including => 25600 and deal with it later.
 
Before I got DXO Pureraw 3, I used to worry about noise especially on my Canon aps-c cameras but now I use auto iso and don’t worry as much unless there’s a specific need for optimum image quality.
 
If you have good exposure and are not cropping in a lot then iso 10000+ is fine with modern full frame cameras. Only photographers notice it.
 
I still try to avoid ISO's over 800 (Nikon Z9, D850). Do I need to? No, not usually, especially if I'm just downsizing a 46MP image to 2MP for sharing online.

But my goal is to get the highest quality image with the greatest resolution/detail. And no version of noise reduction can eliminate noise without also eliminating fine detail; although it is quite possible that I fail to record any detail that fine due to other reasons.
 
I think how we look at pictures can matter especially if we pixel peep. If we look at a picture taken high mp count camera at 100% and see stuff we don't like it's worth remembering that when we look at a high mp count picture at 100% we are looking at a tiny portion of a massive picture. Look at it a little more reasonably and it may be acceptable. I think it helps to try and be a bit more realistic when we inspect pictures.
 
Back in the D70/D200 days, 400 was pretty much the upper limit for good, noise free shots but now, I'm happy using 1600 on the Fujis and higher on the FF Nikons. The bridge and compacts are more for holiday use so a bit of noise is perfectly acceptable.
 
sk66 said:
I still try to avoid ISO's over 800 (Nikon Z9, D850).
Click to expand...
Interesting...I'm just moving over to a pair of Z9's and an existing D850 and I'll regularly be at 64000 (and possibly above) doing gig photography.
The Z9's are replacing a pair to D5's which have been fine.
I don't find Nikon noise to be particularly unatractive (with stage lighting) and am usualy happy to just leave it be...however when I was shooting Fujis I hated the ugly high ISO noise they displayed.
Got an all day pub shoot tomorrow so I'll be giving the Z9 a thrashing!
 
Last edited:
Graham W said:
Interesting...I'm just moving over to a pair of Z9's and an existing D850 and I'll regularly be at 64000 (and possibly above) doing gig photography.
The Z9's are replacing a pair to D5's which have been fine.
I don't find Nikon noise to be particularly unatactive (with stage lighting) and am usualy happy to just leave it be...however when I was shooting Fujis I hated the ugly high ISO noise they displayed.
Got an all day pub shoot tomorrow so I'll be giving the Z9 a thrashing!
Click to expand...

I remember shooting gigs with my Nikon SLR and my one lens which was a f4 or maybe f3.5-5.6 zoom and ISO 1,600 film. Actually I think motion blur was more of an issue than noise. Happy days :D but I wish back then I'd had a camera as capable as the ones I have now.
 
Graham W said:
Interesting...I'm just moving over to a pair of Z9's and an existing D850 and I'll regularly be at 64000 (and possibly above) doing gig photography.
The Z9's are replacing a pair to D5's which have been fine.
I don't find Nikon noise to be particularly unatractive (with stage lighting) and am usualy happy to just leave it be...however when I was shooting Fujis I hated the ugly high ISO noise they displayed.
Got an all day pub shoot tomorrow so I'll be giving the Z9 a thrashing!
Click to expand...
IMO, it's all just a matter of priorities... for me it goes something like this:

Do I HAVE to/REALLY want to get the picture? Usually the answer is no, so I can use riskier settings (i.e. too low of shutter speed). And up to a point, a less sharp image due to technique/other settings isn't any worse than lack of detail due to noise/noise reduction; but this costs me more images than anything else.

Do I KNOW that the image will not be cropped heavily? If the answer is no; again I need to prioritize resolution/detail.

Do I KNOW the final output/use of the image? Usually I do not, so that prioritizes recording more resolution/detail.

Is it an arty image? I have some images where I've purposely created/added noise/texture; but they are few.

You can almost sum it all up as "Is the image for me, or for someone else?" If it is for someone else then I do have to get the image(s), and I do know the final use (usually smaller); in that case the ISO is the last consideration. As I said, I try to avoid ISOs >800; not that I do.
 
sk66 said:
You can almost sum it all up as "Is the image for me, or for someone else?" If it is for someone else then I do have to get the image(s), and I do know the final use (usually smaller); in that case the ISO is the last consideration. As I said, I try to avoid ISOs >800; not that I do.
Click to expand...

It's really refreshing to see someone else say clearly "I'm shooting for me, and I want the best image I can get" instead "It's only for me, so it doesn't really matter how much it sucks".
 
woof woof said:
I remember shooting gigs with my Nikon SLR and my one lens which was a f4 or maybe f3.5-5.6 zoom and ISO 1,600 film. Actually I think motion blur was more of an issue than noise. Happy days :D but I wish back then I'd had a camera as capable as the ones I have now.
Click to expand...
Haha...Yes, those were the days. Using my "Fast" f4.0 primes and bulk rolling HP5 and pushing it to ASA 1600!
 
I never go past iso 800 on my 5dmkii and use flash for dark images (indoors)
 
If you're going to reminisce about film, I shot a metal band in the late 80s using Agfa 1000 film on medium format and the prints at 12x16" were great. :)
 
I once printed some 6x9 Tri-X negatives for a friend,

The film was rated at 1600 ASA and developed (by him) to extinction in Rodinal. Enlarged to 15x12, they were surprisingly acceptable for images of a performance in a dimly lit basement. Mind you, the negatives looked worryingly thin when I took them out of their sleeves.
 
Cameras certainly got cleaner, particularly mid resolution full frame models. Chroma noise is but the past, banding is gone, and grain is more subtle.

Denoise software also works wonders like you say, and it also works on older camera files too.... 800 is no longer the limit with these
 
I shot ISO1600:on a 300d, without looking I think my max on the R6 is 25600

But honestly if I was still shooting weddings, id not have a max.
 
The software now is amazing. I recently put what was a super noisy ISO1600 raw from my 20D into PureRaw and it completely cleared it up.
 
Phil V said:
I’m fairly confident that even in the early 2000’s the 300d was better at 1600 than 35mm film, but it wasn’t as good at 100 as film was.
Click to expand...

Yup. Plus with the 300D I didn't have to suffer the poorly processed end results covered in hairs and spots that my local shops were giving me. That was the thing that pushed me to digital.
 
woof woof said:
Yup. Plus with the 300D I didn't have to suffer the poorly processed end results covered in hairs and spots that my local shops were giving me. That was the thing that pushed me to digital.
Click to expand...
The worst one was after I’d bought the 300d and was still using some film, so I took advantage of the ‘dev & scan’ at a high st processor, and got back some 200 pixel wide files on a cd :headbang:
 
Phil V said:
I’m fairly confident that even in the early 2000’s the 300d was better at 1600 than 35mm film
Click to expand...

"better" is personal.

I find film grain in a wet lab print from a well exposed/well developed negative looks beautiful, whereas digital noise from a DSLR or a mirrorless mostly sucks or leaves me indifferent.

Give me Delta 3200 exposed at 1000EI (its native speed) and developed in Rodinal 1+25 any day over any digital camera output.

Grain, in 2025 is a feature, not a bug.
 
My max ISO is whatever is needed to get the aperture & shutter speed I need; my goto process is...

  1. Aperture for the DoF needed
  2. Shutter Speed to avoid subject blur/camera shake (assuming motion blur is not an effect I'm after)
  3. ISO to make the two above work

If point 3 is less than 8000 I don't care at all, if its 16000 I'm not too bothered, the shot matters most, if its 32000 or above I go shoot something else :D
 
For wildlife i leave my Nikon Z8 on auto ISO with 25000 as the upper limit. For landscapes I keep it as close to 64 as i can.
 
I'll use whatever ISO I need to get the shot, modern sensors (and the software) are fantastic, and if noise is really ruining an image then I'm happy to use Lightroom or topaz denoise.

That being said, most of my shooting is probably at base ISO, and I can't remember the last time I went over 1000 iso.
 
Much like Dave in #30 above, with my D780 I rarely give ISO any consideration when getting a shot I really want. The camera has truly epic noise handling so (provided I have exposed correctly) anything under 10,000 needs no noise reduction at all, up to 20,000 I'll use LR to adjust the noise reduction and above that it's a trip to Topaz Photo AI.

The first of these images was shot at ISO10,000 and has no noise reduction applied; the second was shot at ISO40,000 and has been adjusted in Topaz.
DSC_4851.jpg
DSC_4847.jpg
 
Bristolian said:
Much like Dave in #30 above, with my D780 I rarely give ISO any consideration when getting a shot I really want. The camera has truly epic noise handling so (provided I have exposed correctly) anything under 10,000 needs no noise reduction at all, up to 20,000 I'll use LR to adjust the noise reduction and above that it's a trip to Topaz Photo AI.

The first of these images was shot at ISO10,000 and has no noise reduction applied; the second was shot at ISO40,000 and has been adjusted in Topaz.
View attachment 460780
View attachment 460781
Click to expand...
A beautiful shot of my favorite bird, I am biased though - I found a chick when I was five or six took it home and raised it as a pet.
It imprinted itself on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top