LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


ISO vs. Fast Lens

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 07 Jul 2012 (Saturday) 20:44   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
kpritts
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2010
307 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I have been reading quite a bit on the forum about high ISO performance. I guess I have not run into an issue with that as I tend to use a fast lens in low light situations. As a result, low light situations have not been an issue for me. Using the right lens (granted if you have it/them available) seems to be a better issue than bumping the ISO very high.

Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Post #1, Jul 07, 2012 20:44:46


KDPritts Photography (http://kdpritts.comexternal link)
Canon 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II; Canon EF 8-15L fisheye, 16-35L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 24-105L, 50 f1.8 II, 70-200 f2.8L II, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8L macro, 100-400L, 300 f2.8L; Canon 1.4x III & 2x III extender; Canon 430EX II, 530EX II. Travel Kit: EOS M, 11-22, 18-55, 22, 55-200.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
1Tanker
Goldmember
1Tanker's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
4,470 posts
Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
[MORE/SHARE]

Yes, wide apertures reduce DoF..sometimes to the point of being useless, high ISO doesn't. ;)

Post #2, Jul 07, 2012 20:47:04


Kel
Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
smorter's Avatar
Joined Nov 2007
4,466 posts
Melbourne, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

I find in my low light situations I need fast lenses AND high ISO

Post #3, Jul 07, 2012 21:20:15


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
sandpiper's Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
7,000 posts
Merseyside, England
[MORE/SHARE]

kpritts wrote in post #14685264external link
Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

As mentioned by the posters above, a wide aperture may not be suitable for the shot in every case, you may need a small aperture for DoF, or you may need both a wide aperture and high ISO if the light is really low.

I think what you are missing is that ISO and wide aperture are two very different things, that will affect the image in very different ways. You could just as easily say to use a slow shutter speed instead of high ISO in your opening post. Of course, you would say there comes a point where the shutter speed gets too slow and camera shake or subject motion would be come a problem. However, the same holds true with aperture as there usually comes a point when you are too wide to get sufficient DoF.

The general rule of thumb isn't to particularly use one of the three to adjust for low light, but to find the best combination of all three for the results you want to achieve. So, you choose a shutter speed that is fast enough to avoid any motion blur (or slow enough to show it, if that is your intent) and an aperture that will deliver the DoF that you want, which may well be a wide aperture for shallow DoF, but could equally be a small aperture for deep DoF. Having set your shutter and aperture to where you need them, you can then adjust ISO to ensure a correct exposure.

ISO is the only one of the three that won't alter the look of the image (other than with noise), so it is the one where you have most latitude for changing exposure in low light.

Post #4, Jul 07, 2012 21:43:25




LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Scatterbrained's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
6,910 posts
Suffolk, Va
[MORE/SHARE]

Kpritts, I don't see anything on your website that would illustrate the need for both, but suffice it to say that sometimes you need the DOF, sometimes the light is just too low. When iso 6400, 1/50th, f/1.2 isn't enough, you really can't go any faster (aperture), and likely can't go any slower (SS), which leaves iso. . . . .

Post #5, Jul 07, 2012 21:53:38


VanillaImaging.comexternal link"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500pxexternal link
flickrexternal link
1xexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
kpritts
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2010
307 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts. As mentioned, I guess I have not yet hit the need for the combination of both issues. This forum is great for helping everyone grow.

Post #6, Jul 07, 2012 22:27:52 as a reply to Scatterbrained's post 34 minutes earlier.


KDPritts Photography (http://kdpritts.comexternal link)
Canon 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II; Canon EF 8-15L fisheye, 16-35L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 24-105L, 50 f1.8 II, 70-200 f2.8L II, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8L macro, 100-400L, 300 f2.8L; Canon 1.4x III & 2x III extender; Canon 430EX II, 530EX II. Travel Kit: EOS M, 11-22, 18-55, 22, 55-200.

LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
Cream of the Crop
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
8,323 posts
minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

most of us needed fast glass (F/2.8 or F/2.0 ) because we needed a much light as possible to keep the ISO under 1600. The 1Ds3 ,5DC, 1DMKIII changed the game and allowed us to get to 3200 ISO and keep it reasonable clean. Fast glass was still a great option because we could get faster shutter speeds and sharper images.

The 5D3, MKIV and 1Dx have changed the game. 8000 ISO is now usable and the 1Dx looks like 12800 is clean and 25K may be usable---This changes the game because F/4 glass which is cheaper is probably a better option and our primes could be delegated to shallow depth work or for Wide open work in extremely dark conditions

With ISO being as clean as it is on the new generation cameras..you might not have to invest in as much F/2.8 glass to get the jobs done

Hope thats what you were after.

Post #7, Jul 07, 2012 22:34:56 as a reply to Scatterbrained's post 41 minutes earlier.


Mike
www.umphotography.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
kpritts
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2010
307 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

umphotography wrote in post #14685718external link
most of us needed fast glass (F/2.8 or F/2.0 ) because we needed a much light as possible to keep the ISO under 1600. The 1Ds3 ,5DC, 1DMKIII changed the game and allowed us to get to 3200 ISO and keep it reasonable clean. Fast glass was still a great option because we could get faster shutter speeds and sharper images.

The 5D3, MKIV and 1Dx have changed the game. 8000 ISO is now usable and the 1Dx looks like 12800 is clean and 25K may be usable---This changes the game because F/4 glass which is cheaper is probably a better option and our primes could be delegated to shallow depth work or for Wide open work in extremely dark conditions

With ISO being as clean as it is on the new generation cameras..you might not have to invest in as much F/2.8 glass to get the jobs done

Hope thats what you were after.

Have recently moved to 1D Mark III series bodies (1D and 1Ds). So far the fast glass has been fulfilling the majority of my needs with some bump in ISO.

Thanks for the feedback. I will continue working with these bodies before I look at a move to the Mark IV or higher. So far I am really enjoying the shots with the 1D series. The compliments and purchases on my shots with the 1D Mark III have already exceeded every purchase done prior to using those bodies. The colors jump out at people that much.

Again, I appreciate your thoughts and all others who have jumped in on this.

Post #8, Jul 07, 2012 22:39:11


KDPritts Photography (http://kdpritts.comexternal link)
Canon 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II; Canon EF 8-15L fisheye, 16-35L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 24-105L, 50 f1.8 II, 70-200 f2.8L II, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8L macro, 100-400L, 300 f2.8L; Canon 1.4x III & 2x III extender; Canon 430EX II, 530EX II. Travel Kit: EOS M, 11-22, 18-55, 22, 55-200.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
Joined Apr 2003
6,535 posts
British Columbia
[MORE/SHARE]

kpritts wrote in post #14685264external link
I have been reading quite a bit on the forum about high ISO performance. I guess I have not run into an issue with that as I tend to use a fast lens in low light situations. As a result, low light situations have not been an issue for me. Using the right lens (granted if you have it/them available) seems to be a better issue than bumping the ISO very high.

Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Yeh, fast lens means a large aperture which means shallow depth of field. What if you want more than the tip of ones nose in focus?

Post #9, Jul 07, 2012 23:30:36




LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
smorter's Avatar
Joined Nov 2007
4,466 posts
Melbourne, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

umphotography wrote in post #14685718external link
most of us needed fast glass (F/2.8 or F/2.0 ) because we needed a much light as possible to keep the ISO under 1600. The 1Ds3 ,5DC, 1DMKIII changed the game and allowed us to get to 3200 ISO and keep it reasonable clean. Fast glass was still a great option because we could get faster shutter speeds and sharper images.

The 5D3, MKIV and 1Dx have changed the game. 8000 ISO is now usable and the 1Dx looks like 12800 is clean and 25K may be usable---This changes the game because F/4 glass which is cheaper is probably a better option and our primes could be delegated to shallow depth work or for Wide open work in extremely dark conditions

With ISO being as clean as it is on the new generation cameras..you might not have to invest in as much F/2.8 glass to get the jobs done

Hope thats what you were after.


I have the 5D, 5D2 and 5D3

My max ISO is still ISO 3200 on all 3 cameras.

Recent technology has improved JPG noise reduction, not RAW noise

Post #10, Jul 07, 2012 23:45:27


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
x_tan's Avatar
Joined Sep 2010
7,836 posts
ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
[MORE/SHARE]

^You must be ultraconservative ;)
Try some shoots used my 5D3 ISO @ 25600 with my 200mm f/2.8L II, f/2.8 during my kid's award ceremony, which were more than happy just after some quick editing.

http://www.flickr.com ...7453319382/in/photo​streamexternal link
http://www.flickr.com ...7453374066/in/photo​streamexternal link
http://www.flickr.com ...7466073894/in/photo​streamexternal link
http://www.flickr.com ...7466158472/in/photo​streamexternal link

5D3 is totally new generation camera in high ISO preferment; very very handy.

Post #11, Jul 08, 2012 04:03:57


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
smorter
Goldmember
smorter's Avatar
Joined Nov 2007
4,466 posts
Melbourne, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

My 5D2 was fine for ISO 12800 for small output etc, I concede the 5D3 is a bit more usable at ISO 12800-25600, but under ISO 6400 they are practically identical

How does your 5Dv perform? :D

Post #12, Jul 08, 2012 04:09:34


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
FlyingPhotog's Avatar
Joined May 2007
57,560 posts
Probably Chasing Aircraft
[MORE/SHARE]

No doubt cleaner high ISOs put slower f/4 lenses in play until you need what f/3.5 or faster actually looks like...

Post #13, Jul 08, 2012 04:12:20


Jay
Crosswind Imagesexternal link
Facebook Fan Pageexternal link

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
x_tan's Avatar
Joined Sep 2010
7,836 posts
ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
[MORE/SHARE]

smorter wrote in post #14686428external link
...
How does your 5Dv perform? :D

Broke the Nikon D900F out of water :lol::lol::lol:

Post #14, Jul 08, 2012 04:28:52


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
DC Fan's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
5,729 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

kpritts wrote in post #14685264external link
I have been reading quite a bit on the forum about high ISO performance. I guess I have not run into an issue with that as I tend to use a fast lens in low light situations. As a result, low light situations have not been an issue for me. Using the right lens (granted if you have it/them available) seems to be a better issue than bumping the ISO very high.

Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Yes. Shutter speed and the need to stop action. In indoor situations, a correct exposure can be achieved with a slow shutter speed and slow lens, and the result is useful as long as the subject is not moving.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Focal Length: 18.0mm
Aperture: f/3.5
Exposure Time: 0.025 s (1/40)
ISO equiv: 320
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: program (Auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

But, when the subjects are moving and motion blur would not create a useful image, it's time to set the exposure for a fast shutter speed.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Focal Length: 97.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
ISO equiv: 6400
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Color Space: sRGB
Focal Length: 110.0mm

Also, now that noise reduction software has been invented, high ISO performance is no longer a major factor. Imagenomic Noiseware was used for this basketball image.

Post #15, Jul 08, 2012 07:00:40




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
1,819 views & 0 likes for this thread
ISO vs. Fast Lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00135 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
855 guests, 722 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Alex3uerfuer

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.