High ISO

[MakeMeShutter]

I know this subject is totally subjective, but what do you feel is an acceptable level of ISO for your own images and with what camera?

ISO 800 seems to be the max for me with my 40D.

After that the grain appears to be a bit much for my taste.

[superdiver]

I do 3200 all the time... but I do alot of indoor sports so welcome to my world...lol

[Sibil]

ISO 1600 for my 40D, with the proper exposure.

However, I often find myself in ISO3200 for shooting basketball.

[darosk]

I try to not go past 400 on my 40D - though I've shot lots of stuff at 1600 with much success

[mspringfield]

I am not afraid to push my 1D MkII or my 1Ds MkII to 3200 and my 1d MkIII to 6400.

Michael

[silvrr]

Depends on what you are going to use it for and how big your are going to display/print.

@ISO 1000 on my 40D

Smaller picture/print it is not noticeable.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2578/3669750469_b1ec2dc10b.jpg

Larger you can start to notice it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2578/3669750469_b1ec2dc10b_b.jpg

On the orignal sRAW file you can see the noise but it is quite even and doesnt seem to effect the detail in the subject. No noise reduction applied BTW.

[MakeMeShutter]

How it is used and displayed certainly makes a difference as well as post process. I am just trying to get a feel for what others consider exceptable to each individual. As I stated originally it is "SUBJECTIVE" in many ways.

[JeffreyG]

Assuming that I'm shooting something that might be printed moderately large (say, up to 12x18 ) I like to stop at ISO1600 on the 5D and ISO3200 on the 1D3.

When I used to have a 1.6X body the same comfort limit was around ISO800.

[tkbslc]

I shoot with a Rebel XS/1000D. I feel like 100-800 are all good enough that I don't think about noise. ISO 1600 I am comfortable with but will do noise reduction. I have pushed underexposure to ISO 6400 and it is OK, but I can get banding. It has saved some shots I would not have had otherwise, though.

On my SD1100 compact, 200 is the upper limit :)

[Tony-S]

1000 with my 30D, 3200 with the 5Dii.

[DStanic]

I use up to ISO800 on my XTi/30D without even thinking twice. If I need to, I WILL use ISO1600- exposed properly and it's still quite good. Noise reduction on ISO1600 sometimes, but not always. I have not had the need to use ISO3200 yet on the 30D, if I do I will definatly use NR for that.

[JCH77Yanks]

I use up to ISO800 on my XTi/30D without even thinking twice. If I need to, I WILL use ISO1600- exposed properly and it's still quite good. Noise reduction on ISO1600 sometimes, but not always. I have not had the need to use ISO3200 yet on the 30D, if I do I will definatly use NR for that.

I agree about exposing properly - that's the main thing. As far as noise goes, I think it can add character with certain looks, like with anything desaturated or monochrome.

[Socket7]

I don't like going above 800 ISO on my SXi unless I'm shooting in B&W, then it just looks like film grain.

[mbellot]

I've printed severely cropped (50% or so) ISO3200 shots from my MkIII @ 30" x 40 " several times.

No complaints from the paying customers, so it can't be that bad.

:D

[ebann]

We're too spoiled... any high ISO digital image is way cleaner than film... even the noisy 1D/1Ds (MkI) were better than film at high ISO. And when grain starts to appear, that's when it starts looking like real film, still well within acceptable limits. I shot ISO 1600 with a 1D and they were still great. Sometimes content is a lot more important than grain and chromatic noise.

[Brikwall]

I shoot ISO 3200 all the time with my 40D. Proper exposure is the key.

We're too spoiled... any high ISO digital image is way cleaner than film...

Agreed. Anyone who thinks their digital camera is noisy at 800 or 1600 should trying shooting some of the high-speed films. My 40D underexposed one stop at 3200 is still cleaner than Fuji 1600; I find there is less noise at 3200 than T-Max 400; even shooting at 1600 produces less grain than cheap Kodak Royal Gold 400.

Sometimes content is a lot more important than grain and chromatic noise.

If it's a question of getting the shot or not, grain/noise becomes a secondary consideration. And then there's atmosphere, emotion, etc...

I must say, though, that I get a good laugh from all the post-film digital fanboys who believe an ISO 6400 shot should be noise-free, and who then post-process their ISO 100 studio shots to have that classic, grainy, film look. :lol:

[JeffreyG]

The fact that film was grainier doesn't really matter.

My great grandpa lived almost his entire life before antibiotics were invented. People used to not have refrigerators. Cars were a lot less safe and before that people had to travel by horsecart, train or ship.

So what?

[tkbslc]

The fact that film was grainier doesn't really matter.

My great grandpa lived almost his entire life before antibiotics were invented. People used to not have refrigerators. Cars were a lot less safe and before that people had to travel by horsecart, train or ship.

So what?


So we are a bunch of spoiled brats?? I dunno. I think it is fair to judge our progress based on what we were shooting 10 or 20 years ago to put things into perspective.

[JeffreyG]

So we are a bunch of spoiled brats?? I dunno. I think it is fair to judge our progress based on what we were shooting 10 or 20 years ago to put things into perspective.

The OP asked what ISO people are comfortable with. This headed into a useful direction with people commenting on noise levels in general vs. print size and display options.

But as is usually the case with these discussions, somebody has to remind the whippersnappers how easy they have it and how tough things were in the bad old days. OK gramps, we know. You had to walk to school five miles both ways in the snow barefoot.

People do things today relative to large prints and close scrutiny at ISO1600 and ISO3200 that would have been impossible with color print film. That's called progress, and the only value in going over it again and again is to remind photographers today that if they are shooting high ISO routinely then they will probably not be happy trying to go to a film format, not that anyone is really considering that most likely.

[bjyoder]

After spending about the first six months with my 40D "stuck" at ISO 3200, anything below that is fantastic. :lol:

As a better answer, though. I will shoot up to ISO 800 if I am planning on printing, but have no reserve about going to 1600 if I need the shot. And if I'm back to live performances in dark bars, where the intended use is the internet, I have absolutely no reserve about using 3200.

[Bodog]

Is someone a little touchy here? The question was "what is your acceptable ISO level?" Brikwall gave his opinion and went on to explain why. Suddenly it's an "'us against them" thing. Lighten up!
My acceptable level was 100 on a point 'n shoot. Just about anything would be better than that. That's why I have the DSLR. :D

[DDCSD]

My cameras rarely get set below ISO1600, unless I'm using strobes.

I shoot at ISO 3200 very often with my MkIIn and 20D. In fact, there are many times that I have to underexpose 3200 and pull it up a bit to avoid motion blur.

I'd love to have the option of going to ISO 6400 or 12800, even if it were very noisy.

[Brikwall]

But as is usually the case with these discussions, somebody has to remind the whippersnappers how easy they have it and how tough things were in the bad old days. OK gramps, we know. You had to walk to school five miles both ways in the snow barefoot.

People do things today relative to large prints and close scrutiny at ISO1600 and ISO3200 that would have been impossible with color print film. That's called progress, and the only value in going over it again and again is to remind photographers today that if they are shooting high ISO routinely then they will probably not be happy trying to go to a film format, not that anyone is really considering that most likely.

Gramps? Not quite... just hit 40. Old for some but I think I'm just hitting my groove. :cool: And personally, I'll take digital over film most days for a number of reasons.

I did answer the OP's question - I stated that I regularly shoot at 3200 ISO, with proper exposure being the key. The one thing I didn't state is that I regularly print at 8x10 and 11x14, and I've printed as large as 12x18, and I've been pleased with the results.

But asking people what is the highest ISO they'll shoot at is like asking them for opinions on the best portrait lens, or who should win next year's best actor oscar, or what colour smarties to eat last. It's highly subjective, and everyone will have a different opinion based on their own preferences, perspective, experience, background, etc. What works for you won't work for me, and neither will work for the next guy.

I'm happy with the results I get at 3200 ISO because I have come from a film background. That experience makes me appreciate how much better the current crop of digital sensors is at high ISO compared to the high-speed films of 5, 10 or 20 years ago. But it also means that I'm less likely to complain about noise/grain in the digital world because even the slightest improvement over film grain is better than what I used to deal with. I may not be as discerning as someone whose experience with photography is limited to the digital world. But you wouldn't know that unless I had mentioned film and put my opinion in its proper context.

One of the other problems with forums like this is that many people offer opinions without qualifying them in any way. "I'd never buy that lens." "I only use this software." "I won't go above ISO 800." All that's well and good but tell us why (or why not). It's hard to make a valid comparison unless we know the reasons behind people's decisions. I'm happy with the results I get at ISO 3200, and you know why I'm happy.

Oh... and just so you know... I'm Canadian... I didn't have to walk to school, I went by dogsled instead! :lol:

[JeffreyG]

Oh... and just so you know... I'm Canadian... I didn't have to walk to school, I went by dogsled instead! :lol:

Uphill both ways?:D

[Brikwall]

Uphill both ways?:D

Downhill both ways. Easier on the dogs and I never had to worry about falling backwards off the sled (especially once I hit high school and started raiding the old man's liquor cabinet). :lol:

[Gibbo]

I think nobody should go passed 400 on their 400d, or any Rebel body as a matter of fact. 800 is just pushing the boat out a little TOO far..

Although sometimes you have no choice, and would much rather prefer a noisy shot over a blurry one :)

[lauderdalems]

For indoor sports, If I don't shoot at 1600 or 3200 then I don't shoot. SS gets too low without the high ISO. There is also a reason I sometimes use noiseware.

[Gibbo]

For indoor sports, If I don't shoot at 1600 or 3200 then I don't shoot. SS gets too low without the high ISO. There is also a reason I sometimes use noiseware.

What body are you using Joe?

[RandyMN]

Somehow this thread became extremely difficult to follow... Who's arguing what? Were posts deleted? Where did film come into play and who cares?

Gramps? I guess this can become personal to me since I shot with T-Max!

I love what digital has done for reducing film grain to digital noise that is almost non-existant from back in the days I used to walk 20 miles to school barefoot in the snow. (uphill both ways)

Now back to the point the op asked, My 50D seems to show noise even at 400 ISO while my 5D MKII shows barely nothing at 1600. My 40D hasn't been pushed much but seems to perform better than the 50D and the 20D is usually kept to 800 or lower.

[Trainboy]

I've shot at 6400 without worrying -too- much, just don't expect to be able to saturate a picture afterwards.

[lauderdalems]

I'm using a 40D

[Radtech1]

With each new camera, the bar gets raised. When I had the 10D, I would comfortably shoot at 400, and if need be (really, really be) I could go to 800. 1600 was worthless.

The slowest shutter speed I could reasonably hand hold and still hope to have a better than 50% chance of a motion free image is 1/10. So lets call that baseline.

Next up was the 5D. 800 was highest preferred ISO, but I would go to 1600 without hesitation if the situation called for it. So at 1600, the same baseline shot can be done with two more stops, 1/40th instead of 1/10. At this point, all I have to do is pay attention and I am all but guaranteed a motion free shot.

Now I have the 5d Mk II. 3200 is a pretty standard ISO, with 6400 a "no brainer" if I want a little faster shutter. So at 6400, I can shoot the same scene at 1/160th.

Below are some shots that I got at the Long Beach Aquarium. Nothing special, just family snapshots, but I was still able to get some pretty good results in the darkened displays in their "walk through" section of the tanks. All were at 3200 ISO, as shutter speeds of 1/10th to 1/20th of a second. These are images that would have been completely out of the question, don't even bring the camera, for the 10D. And even the 5D would have been a "hold your breath, cross your fingers, squeeze the shutter, and then fire up Noiseware" proposition. The 5D Mk II, however has no noise at all - even at 3200 ISO, even in the shadows.

The full frame version, and the 100% crop. In all cases these are straight "out of the camera" JPGs - no post processing what so ever.

Rad

[Radtech1]

More - No noise even in the sold blue expanse. Again, this is 3200 ISO.

[Radtech1]

Skin tones without any artificial ruddiness from noise.

[sry407]

I think nobody should go passed 400 on their 400d, or any Rebel body as a matter of fact. 800 is just pushing the boat out a little TOO far..

Although sometimes you have no choice, and would much rather prefer a noisy shot over a blurry one :)


I just finished shooting an event on my 400D, and had to go 800 often. After processed in ACR & a run through Noise Ninja, these shots turned out very useable, even cropped. A few were at 1600 even, and turned out useable as well. Granted, they weren't award winning, but I got the shot and it was a keeper.

I think it's whatever it takes to get the shot when you talk about this. I would rather have a shot w/ some noise than no shot at all.

Just my opinion though...

[bsaber]

I have no hesitation to going up to 3200 on the 40D and 1DsII. Rebel I'm comfortable up to 800. On the 1DsII I'm comfortable pushing it to 6400 if I do my job right and nail the exposure.

[Invertalon]

I have no problem shooting at ISO 1600 on my Rebel Xsi. I just wish you at least had the OPTION of going to 3200 or higher.

At ISO 1600 you notice the noise, but it really is not bad at all when exposed correctly. I try not to shoot over 800 though unless I need to, which in that case I have no issue going to 1600.

Example, ISO 1600:
(Which is miles better IMO then most P&S at 400... So I am happy!)

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh280/invertalon/Photographs/IMG_4780.jpg

[mbellot]

I have no problem shooting at ISO 1600 on my Rebel Xsi. I just wish you at least had the OPTION of going to 3200 or higher.


If you shoot RAW you can emulate ISO3200 functionality.

Simply underexpose by one stop (-1 EC dialed in at time of capture) and then adjust the exposure +1 EC during RAW conversion.

That's the way most of the xxD series bodies achieve ISO3200.

[alt4852]

We're too spoiled... any high ISO digital image is way cleaner than film... even the noisy 1D/1Ds (MkI) were better than film at high ISO. And when grain starts to appear, that's when it starts looking like real film, still well within acceptable limits. I shot ISO 1600 with a 1D and they were still great. Sometimes content is a lot more important than grain and chromatic noise.

film never had chroma/luminance banding. ;)

[fotographee]

iso 1600 with my XS

[TooManyShots]

ISO 2000. 1dmarkIII, without any noise reduction used. At 3200, some slight noise reduction used is required. Here is a shot under ISO2000. The background a bit grainy or a grainy bokeh. A bit of background blur is needed. The subject still retains its details very well.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3648/3688145303_9e7283eac7_o.jpg

[Christopher Steven b]

I use a 5d mk i and I find that going to about ISO 5000-6000 [3200 pushed in post] is absolutely usable for me--and I am a certified pixel peep. Also--in terms of NR I generally don't do anything more than a little chroma NR.

I almost forgot what shooting with the 400D [my erstwhile camera] was like; but I do now remember not feeling too good about going above 400ISO. Perhaps I had a dud :)

[Christopher Steven b]

btw, can I get confirmation on something: If I shoot at 1600 and push exposure to +2 in, say, LR, is that 'equivalent' to ISO 6400?

[The Moose]

We're too spoiled... any high ISO digital image is way cleaner than film... even the noisy 1D/1Ds (MkI) were better than film at high ISO. And when grain starts to appear, that's when it starts looking like real film, still well within acceptable limits. I shot ISO 1600 with a 1D and they were still great. Sometimes content is a lot more important than grain and chromatic noise.
I have a 1D classic and I shoot all the way up to ISO 3200 if I have to.

I think nobody should go passed 400 on their 400d, or any Rebel body as a matter of fact. 800 is just pushing the boat out a little TOO far..

Although sometimes you have no choice, and would much rather prefer a noisy shot over a blurry one :)

I also have a 400D and I shoot to ISO 1600 if I have to as well. I honestly don't care for noise. Obviously I wish I had a 5D2/1D3 combo so I can shoot up to ISO 6400 without a worry but I barely worry about ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 on my 400D and 1D :p

[Goshawk]

My cameras rarely get set below ISO1600, unless I'm using strobes.

I shoot at ISO 3200 very often with my MkIIn and 20D. In fact, there are many times that I have to underexpose 3200 and pull it up a bit to avoid motion blur.

I'd love to have the option of going to ISO 6400 or 12800, even if it were very noisy.
Wow. It is amazing how how situations differ. I will shoot at the lowest ISO(ISO 100) and only go higher as the situation demands it. Yes I do shoot at ISO 3200 sometimes but only if I cannot shoot at a lower ISO. I am not a great fan of Noise Removing software.
I can only presume you do indoor sports or something where every drop of light counts and flashes is forbidden.
Although I shoot mostly at ISO 100 I will sometimes during a long shoot up the ISO a bit to conserve battery power on my flashes.(getting a Quantum Turbo:lol: next week which would solve that problem)
OP
Today's cameras allow you to get very good images at high ISO so it is more a situation of what kind of photography you do which will predict individual comfort levels.
For me it is why shoot at ISO 1600 if I can comfortably shoot at ISO 100.
For someone else it could be why restrict himself at ISO 100 if he can shoot more comfortably at ISO 1600 and get a better shot. The camera can do it both ways so why not.
So it depends more on the kind of photography you are going to do. But I think you can rest assured that anything between ISO 100 and ISO 3200 is considered comfortable these days with today's modern cameras.

[DC Fan]

Indianapolis 500 car at ISO 100.

http://www.fansview.com/racing/20090524a1373.jpg



Indianapolis 500 car, 28 minutes later, at ISO 1600.

http://www.fansview.com/racing/20090524a1990.jpg

As someone who started photography with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye (http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/kodak_hawkeye.html) and a Polaroid Land Model 95, (http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10244714) and once rushed to get rolls of Kodak Royal Gold 1000 to a minilab after an event, 21-century DSLR's sure do spoil you.

[mbellot]

btw, can I get confirmation on something: If I shoot at 1600 and push exposure to +2 in, say, LR, is that 'equivalent' to ISO 6400?

Yep.

[ebann]

Indianapolis 500 car at ISO 100.

Indianapolis 500 car, 28 minutes later, at ISO 1600.

As someone who started photography with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye (http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/kodak_hawkeye.html) and a Polaroid Land Model 95, (http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10244714) and once rushed to get rolls of Kodak Royal Gold 1000 to a minilab after an event, 21-century DSLR's sure do spoil you.

Is it me or does the image at ISO 1600 lack color saturation? Perhaps it is due to changing light conditions?

[DC Fan]

Is it me or does the image at ISO 1600 lack color saturation? Perhaps it is due to changing light conditions?
It could be from any number of conditions, from minor differences in shutter speeds and angles and changes in exposure settings that might make one image slightly underexposed and the other overexposed to using different lenses and focal lengths from one picture to the next, to the number of fairies that came out to drink the morning dew from buttercups in the infield. :)

Camera body was the same Digital Rebel XTi in each image. The #23 was taken aperture priority with a Tamron 18-200mm at 63.0mm, 1/400, f/5.0 and ISO 100. The #17 was taken shutter priority with a Canon 70-300mm IS at 85 mm, 1/80, f/32 and ISO 1600.

[Goshawk]

It could be from any number of conditions, from minor differences in shutter speeds and angles and changes in exposure settings that might make one image slightly underexposed and the other overexposed to using different lenses and focal lengths from one picture to the next, to the number of fairies that came out to drink the morning dew from buttercups in the infield. :)

Camera body was the same Digital Rebel XTi in each image. The #23 was taken aperture priority with a Tamron 18-200mm at 63.0mm, 1/400, f/5.0 and ISO 100. The #17 was taken shutter priority with a Canon 70-300mm IS at 85 mm, 1/80, f/32 and ISO 1600.
I must say the ISO 100 shot looks really nice:D
Wow have never heard of anyone using f/32 before, oh well a good way to show us the dust on your sensor:lol:

[PIXmantra]

...It is only when you hit ISo25,600ec that the so-special "shine"-effect of the EOS 1D3 gives-in, and tonality becomes a bit more dilluted.

Here's a recent ISo 5000ec, courtesy of S.E.V. (Sevan), and executed on Lightroom + FlexNR-v2.0:
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/114312240/original

Here's an ISo4000ec /HDR/ conversion, also processed with FlexNR:
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/113415906/original

Here's are some ISo10,000ec-ISo12,800ec samples:
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/114689083/original
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/113262824/original


And here is the Canon EOS 40D shooting at ISo5,000ec, showing conversion progression from left to right (make sure you truly scroll on your web-browser):
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/114194894/original


Enjoy,

PIX

[Christopher Steven b]

^ The noise removal is one thing---but the preservation of detail in the 40D photos [haven't checked the other links yet] blows my mind.

[PIXmantra]

^ The noise removal is one thing---but the preservation of detail in the 40D photos [haven't checked the other links yet] blows my mind.


...Indeed, it is pretty well preserved. FlexNR is about to go live now for the 1D3 (commercially available), and then comes for 40D, which is 50% done, now.


...Check this out (micro-feather detail at ISo5000ec on 1D3, at 100% size):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/114312243/original


Love,

PIX

[DDCSD]

The #17 was taken shutter priority with a Canon 70-300mm IS at 85 mm, 1/80, f/32 and ISO 1600.

Why not shoot it at f/8 and ISO 100 though?