ISO.... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/24/2007 03:23:58 PM · #2

I have used 3200, but not often. I usually use 100, because that's as loww as the 20D will go. If I had 50, I would certainly try it and see.

By the way, a lot of underwater film stuff uses 50 or lower...

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/24/2007 03:27:59 PM · #3

Likewise. I'd use 50 if I had it, but I'm stuck with 100. I'll use any ISO that'll give me hand holding speeds when I'm wide open (which includes 3200).

I don't like to use too much flash and get the deer in the headlights look.

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/24/2007 03:29:44 PM · #4

I routinely use ISO3200 and when I use my strobes I routinely use ISO 50. During the sports season when I'm working almost every day its not unusual for my camera to see anything less then ISO1600 and 3200 is quite frequently used. I'd bet anyone here that shoots sports(except those that just shoot daytime sports) uses 1600 or 3200 frequently, and there are alot using the 1DMKIII that are getting and using stunning images at 6400(the only reason I want one)

MattO

swankFoto

Fujifilm X-E1

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/24/2007 03:55:18 PM · #5

When I get the rangefinder out I usually am pushing to 3200, Tri-X 400 3 stops and Delta 1600 1 stop.

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 16:01:56.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/24/2007 04:25:33 PM · #6

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Does anybody really use ISO 50 or 3200?

Rarely 3200, but 50 more often to do longer exposures in strong-ish light. I don't have ND filters.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Nikon

08/24/2007 04:28:25 PM · #7

ISO 1600 and 3200 quite often, I'd use 6400, 12800, 25600 if I had access to them and if they gave acceptable results.
Shot with Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at f/2.8 and ISO 3200

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 16:40:58.

vtruan

Nikon D5100

08/24/2007 04:32:12 PM · #8

I used to use ISO 50 Fuji film when shooting wildflowers and landscapes for very grainless detail.

hajeka

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM

08/24/2007 04:34:43 PM · #9

My favorite is ISO 400, but it isn't just a kind of choice. You can make a photo at ISO 3200 or not. It all depends on your lens and the light conditions. I just can say, with a very fast lens and very low light conditions, ISO 50 isn't an option.

bvlindalou

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

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

08/24/2007 04:42:52 PM · #10

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Does anybody really use ISO 50 or 3200?

My canon a620 has 50 and I use it most of the time......never have I used 3200.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/24/2007 04:52:09 PM · #11

I had to use ISO 3200 last week. There was a free concert last Thursday evening and when I was shooting at 400, 800, and 1600, my shutter speed wasn't fast enough to prevent blurring of the ever-moving subject. I had to zoom all the way in to 300mm (450mm equiv) and at that focal length, my aperture would only open up to f/5.6.

Even with those settings, my shutter speed was a whopping 1/90 of a second. Thank goodness for the Pentax image stabilization, since I wasn't using a tripod or monopod!

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

08/24/2007 04:58:23 PM · #12

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Does anybody really use ISO 50 or 3200?

On my two point and shoots, I use ISO 50 by default. 100 if necessary, 200 if I really have to, and 400 never - the noise is horrendous.

On my D200, I'll go to 400 without thinking about it and 800 without too much hesitation, but 1600 is bad and 3200 is useless. I guess if there were images I just had to get, I'd do it, but not otherwise.

08/24/2007 04:58:36 PM · #13

As someone who rarely ever shoots under ISO200, I think 50 would only be used in the rare conditions when I needed longer shutter speeds even with ND filter(s) and couldn't get it, like doing a blurry coastal scene or something. I really haven't found any difference between ISO100 & 200 besides 100 difference in the numbers. ;)
Now ISO3200 - heck yeah! Macros & very deep depth of field come to mind, as well as candids & low-light stuff.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/24/2007 04:59:45 PM · #14

Originally posted by Brad:

I really haven't found any difference between ISO100 & 200 besides 100 difference in the numbers. ;)

The camera actually has less dynamic range at every iso other than 100. Not that I have noticed it either really.

fotomann_forever

08/24/2007 05:01:08 PM · #15

Originally posted by Nullix:

I don't like to use too much flash and get the deer in the headlights look.

A good reason to start using it is to learn not to get the deer in the headlights look.

Anyway, back to the topic:
If I had ISO 50, I would certainly use it, especially in the studio. On the other side of the coin, I'd chose grainy (noisy) over blurry or underexposed any day. I don't like having to use high ISO if I don't have to, but will certainly go there if I must.

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 17:01:29.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6

08/24/2007 05:02:51 PM · #16

Yeah, some lab tests have even stated that 200 was a better choice, yielding slightly better contrast. Seeing as I basically never use a tripod, I'd much rather have 1/250sec than 1/125sec any day as an example.

Givemeashot

Nikon D200

08/24/2007 05:10:41 PM · #17

My question would be What kind of settings do you use high and low ISO?? I mean i shot a concert the other night and use 1600 ISO with a 50mm 1.8f lens.... like would you use 100 iso for like out doors and bright stuff??

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 17:11:05.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/24/2007 05:12:18 PM · #18

Originally posted by Givemeashot:

Yes, the opposite situation of the one in which you used iso 1600...

fotomann_forever

08/24/2007 05:15:48 PM · #19

Originally posted by Givemeashot:

Yeah...

actually my camera stays at ISO 100, unless a situation forces me to choose higher.

Even if I am using flash, it might not have the reach I need at ISO 100. If I can't get the flash close to the subject and can't open my aperture, I bump the ISO.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

08/24/2007 05:25:01 PM · #20

There are times when high ISO is needed though, such as wanting a deep depth of field (f/11 or higher) and a high shutter speed, such as 1/1000th sec. when doing macro work such as this:

ISO1600 - f/19.0 - 1/500th sec.

ISO1600 - f/11.0 - 1/1000th sec

(click on the 1024 size to get an idea that ISO1600 is NOT that bad if properly exposed)

tnun

Ricoh GR III

08/24/2007 05:26:40 PM · #21

Mostly use ISO 50. (Don't have 3200). But surely it depends on the camera. Pana FZ10 gets noise at 100, but image stabilization makes 50 feasible. And yes, I have missed a lot of shots because it is a nuisance to go to the menu to change ISO, which may be silly because the auto ISO is fairly intelligent, and 100 isn't all that bad, just I am a pixel peeper which also may be silly.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

08/24/2007 05:31:10 PM · #22

ISO is VERY dependent on the age of the technology also.
The newer cameras manage noise 100x better than the cameras of days past. My Olympus E-10 was a fantastic camera - rugged, did a nice job overall, except in the ISO/Noise department. ISO80 was about the only choice to use, as ISO160 was worse than my Canon 350D's ISO1600. Forget using ISO320 on the Olympus - it was horrible.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/24/2007 05:31:34 PM · #23

I use 1600 & 3200 quite a bit, often at f1.8 or f1.4, so I'd happily take lower noise and higher ISO

I've occasionally shot sports where f4/ ISO 1600 was far, far too slow to get useable results for example, 6400 or 12800 would be very useful for high school sports with sane costing lenses.

In most cases, unless I'm really pushing the aperture or shutter, it doesn't make much sense to use the software boosted modes though, but in some cases it does.

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 17:32:15.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

08/24/2007 05:35:04 PM · #24

Argh, Gordon, wish I hadn't seen those grasshoppers. Guess you really need a good camera to get one to land on your arm.

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 17:36:18.