So, which ISO? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 12:16:32 PM · #1

Assuming you're using a fast lens (ie 2.8), which ISO do you use for the following situations? (to shoot with no flash and stop motion)

bright sunlight
overcast day
dusk
indoors, well lit
indoors, poorly lit

Thanks,
Eric

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 12:18:36 PM · #2

100 or 200
200 or 400
400 or 800
800 or 1600
1600 or 3200

Ennil

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/02/2005 12:18:45 PM · #3

bright sunlight-100
overcast day-400 (I like grain, yum)
dusk-200 (I try 100)
indoors, well lit-400
indoors, poorly lit -800/1600

It's all up to the preference and possibilities as well.

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 12:22:12 PM · #4

bright sunlight - 100
overcast day - 100 with Image Stabaliser
dusk - 100 with tripod
indoors, well lit - 100 with flash(s)
indoors, poorly lit - 100 with flash/tripod

why add noise when you can get rid of it by using a different technique

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

11/02/2005 12:28:34 PM · #5

While everyone is here...
Higher ISO, more grain or noise, film and digital respond in a similar manner. so this begs the question...

With film, the lower the iso the more the color saturation. Does this hold true with digital as well?

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

11/02/2005 12:31:24 PM · #6

bright sunlight - 100
overcast day - 100 (as long as it stays above 1/30th sec at f2.8, then maybe 200)
dusk - up to 400 handheld, then when that gets too slow, 100 with tripod
indoors, well lit - up to 400 handheld, or if that's too slow, 100 with flash or tripod
indoors, poorly lit - 100 with flash or tripod, or up to 800 handheld if that's not an option.

I try to avoid 1600/3200 if at all possible, unless I really want the noise or if it's a throwaway snapshot.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 12:31:59.

Ennil

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/02/2005 12:40:16 PM · #7

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Well from experience, it does just a little bit but not as much as film though.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/02/2005 12:45:24 PM · #8

I rarely use anything but 100. Then again, I rarely shoot without the tripod and remote release. When I am hand-holding the long lens I use 400 mostly. But that's not often, frankly.

Robt.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/02/2005 12:45:40 PM · #9

Actually Higher ISO does not equal more grain as is evidenced by the many comments on this photo. This was ISO 1600 on a sunny day and the consistent comment during the challenge was "smooth, no grain, where's the grain" etc. Therefore I can only conclude that the claim of High ISO = grain is a mis-nomer. The evidence is in the comments.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 12:46:54.

11/02/2005 12:47:57 PM · #10

Originally posted by Flash:

Actually Higher ISO does not equal more grainas is evidenced by the many comments on this photo. This was ISO 1600 on a sunny day and the consistent comment during the challenge was "smooth, no grain, where's the grain" etc. Therefore I can only conclude that the claim of High ISO = grain is a mis-nomer. The evidence is in the comments.

You won't notice the grain/noise much on a shot like that. It typically only becomes objectionable on a dSLR when there are large areas without detail, such as lots of sky or substantial masses of darkness.

Robt.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

11/02/2005 12:53:08 PM · #11

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Flash:

Actually Higher ISO does not equal more grainas is evidenced by the many comments on this photo. This was ISO 1600 on a sunny day and the consistent comment during the challenge was "smooth, no grain, where's the grain" etc. Therefore I can only conclude that the claim of High ISO = grain is a mis-nomer. The evidence is in the comments.

You won't notice the grain/noise much on a shot like that. It typically only becomes objectionable on a dSLR when there are large areas without detail, such as lots of sky or substantial masses of darkness.

Robt.

Robt, I think flash was just being a smart ass...

11/02/2005 01:18:36 PM · #12

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Robt, I think flash was just being a smart ass...

Even if so, many/most reading his statement might not know that, and the "explanation" is valid regardless :-)

R.

Brent_Ward

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

11/02/2005 01:23:22 PM · #13

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Robt, I think flash was just being a smart ass...

Even if so, many/most reading his statement might not know that, and the "explanation" is valid regardless :-)

R.

lmao! and very much true. ;o)

Flash

Nikon D700

11/02/2005 01:26:26 PM · #14

Originally posted by bear_music:

Both of you, I trust will agree, that the perception of high ISO equaling an unacceptable grainy picture, is dispelled by the example posted. Therefore, although it is true that grain/noise is related to ISO, it may not be significant enough to matter. So, for anyone, new or experienced, that is getting caught up in the hype of low ISO being REQUIRED to minimize "noise", there are examples that prove that not the case. A high ISO selection, can and does produce photographs with acceptable levels of grain/noise.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 13:31:28.

eslaydog

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 01:28:29 PM · #15

I'll take grain & noise over unintentional motion blur ANYTIME...

11/02/2005 01:32:20 PM · #16

Originally posted by Flash:

Both of you, I trust will agree, that the perception of high ISO equaling an unacceptable grainy picture, is dispelled by the example posted. Therefore, although it is true that grain/noise is related to ISO, it may not be significant enough to matter. So, for anyone, new or experienced, that is getting caught up in the hype of low ISO is REQUIRED to minimize "noise", there are examples that prove that not the case. A high ISO selection, can and does produce photographs with acceptable levels of grain/noise.

Absolutely; which is exactly what I was saying. I can get perfectly acceptable images at ISO 1600 with the 20D. However, this is somewhat less true of point 'n shoot cameras with their small sensors; in these cameras high-ISO noise can be VERY aggressive.

R.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/02/2005 02:57:40 PM · #17

whether the noise is objectionable or not depends on many factors, such as subject matter and or artistic intent.

And then you can use NI to reduce it, or sometimes it only becomes an issue when you do certain PP operations (converting to b&w for one) or printing large.

I have shot some weddings where no flash was permitted at times, and using a tripod was not feasible. On screen I see the noise, bit it does not look too bad. Print it at 8x10 and it can get real bad real fast.

ngremour

Nikon D70

11/02/2005 03:01:44 PM · #18

With my D70, I try whenever I can to keep it at it's minimum ISO 200. I have found that above that, grain gets very noticeable, and the camera is basically no good at all above ISO 400. At least, this is what I've found in my experience.

Nick

troberge

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/02/2005 03:02:33 PM · #19

I think I better go and check my camera manual. From what I can see, I can only go so low as ISO 200. I must be missing something on the settings.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/02/2005 03:07:50 PM · #20

Originally posted by troberge:

I think I better go and check my camera manual. From what I can see, I can only go so low as ISO 200. I must be missing something on the settings.

Different camera have different ISO ranges.
My rebel is 100-1600, but with the Undutchables firmware hack, i get 3200 as well. In some pics i cannot tell, in others, YUK!

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/02/2005 03:09:07 PM · #21

Originally posted by troberge:

I think I better go and check my camera manual. From what I can see, I can only go so low as ISO 200. I must be missing something on the settings.

If this s7000Z is your camera, then no, you're not missing it (ISO 100)--but your camera is.

petrakka

11/02/2005 03:21:00 PM · #22

well even if that boogyboardin shot doesn't have noticeable noise/grain, shooting at a higher ISO will sacrifice the dynamic range in your photo if im not mistaken.

troberge

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/02/2005 03:38:27 PM · #23

Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by troberge:
I think I better go and check my camera manual. From what I can see, I can only go so low as ISO 200. I must be missing something on the settings.

If this s7000Z is your camera, then no, you're not missing it (ISO 100)--but your camera is.

Thanks Kadi, I think that may explain a lot!

eslaydog

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 03:46:15 PM · #24

What ISO do you use for a dimly lit room WITH a flash? I know the perceived ideal is ISO 100, however, that is often not possible if you want sharp images (and I shoot with an IS lens).