Wide Aperture vs High ISO

[myjunk]

When I started photography, all I was fed was wide apertures, wide apertures, wide apertures for that Bokeh feel as well as for faster shutter speeds in low light.

I don't deny the fact that wide apertures are nice and all, but after shooting for a year and having amassed the 24-70L and the 135L (I started with the 50 1.8) I am progressing to wanting better ISO performance rather than relying on wide apertures.

The issue with wide apertures is the DOF or rather the lack of and of course handshake. eg: on the 135 f2, I tend to have softer pics due to handshake esp at f2 and I have to up the shutter to min 1/160 to ensure sharpness which sort of defeats the purpose of a fast prime. (to me)

So, now, I want high ISO performance, so that i can shoot at F4 and get more in focus and still get a reasonably acceptable DOF for that 'creative' shot.

What do you guys think?

High ISO trumps Wide Apertures?

Of course, if you have a FF(with good high ISO performance) and wide Apertures, it's like having your cake and eating it too.

PS : I shoot on a 400D.

------

http://flickr.com/photos/lotso

[KarlosDaJackal]

You need both, a 400d is not great with iso above 400, i recently got a 40d and find that with the same lens and light, i can easily get away with iso 1250 on the 40d with the same or less noise. I also find that using 1600 and occasionally 3200 is not that bad as the 40d noise seems to agree with the noise reduction software i use.

[myjunk]

of course the point about having your cake and eating it too is the holy grail.

but, if you only have 1 which would it be? (while saving up for the other)

Max I would normally go on my 400D is 800, but then again, for some shots, 1600 is the "no choice" option

[tim]

Is the 400D really that bad? Isn't it equilivent to the 20d? I shot that at 1600 all the time.

If I could have one or the other i'd have high ISO capability, but I don't shoot with lenses slower than F2.8 without a really good reason. I don't always shoot them wide often, but I often do.

[Fingertip]

I just picked up a 50mm 1.8 a couple days ago and was excited to see the low light capability, but soon realized that unless the subject was relatively still and you had time to focus, you were not going to get the shot. Maybe it just takes a lot of practice, but for now I have to keep it on 2.8 to 4 to get any usable shots.

I was told by a very good local photographer that when you get into a low light situation don't mess around and just go right to ISO 1600. I am using a 30d and found the noise was better than camera shake.