Aperture vs ISO

Which is more important/useful to you? Larger aperture or higher useable ISO?

Thinking of switching to a Nikon system (D3s, 21 zeiss, 50 1.4, 100 zeiss) but afraid I'm going to miss shooting the Canon primes wide (or close to) open too much.

So which is it for you?

ISO (which equals the Nikon for me)
or Aperture (Canon)

I don't think I can answer your question the way you pose it, but my lenses are too important to me to consider a switch to Nikon. And overall I'm not unhappy with my Canon bodies.

... I don't know what you mean.... because they are complementary :
-> ISO is mainly use to get the right speed to freeze the subject,
-> Aperture is mainly use to get the right dof to isolate as much as possible the subject and get smoothest bokeh if it's wished.


I would say, I trust 5DMKII iso till 3200 iso, so I can set my body to auto and use the right aperture to obtain the right DOF and consequently the get best isolation of my subject and get the smoothest bokeh.
So, I only use 24L1.4II, 85L1.2II and 300L2.8 to get as much margin as possible to get small dof for far subjects, and not be obliged, like with slow zoom, to be on my subject.

smugfuzz wrote in post #10905995
Which is more important/useful to you? Larger aperture or higher useable ISO?

Thinking of switching to a Nikon system

Would you actually switch systems based on what's important to someone else?

Depends how high of an ISO one needs. I shoot ISO3200 regularly with my 5DII and occasionally 6400. I see no need for higher ISO that cannot be replaced by fast enough lenses. I have no idea what you shoot or how large you print...so I have no idea why high ISO is important to you. If you don't print large or you only post to the web then high ISO is a moot point. imo. I think I have 2 shots on my site, taken with the 5DII, that have had any noise reduction added and that was an ISO6400 pushed 2 stops. Came out quite nice after downsizing.

So, for me..... give me a 5DII and glass.

I suppose if I were an indoor sports shooter, ISO would be more important...who wouldn't want a camera with super-clean ISO 102400? I think the big question there isn't so much "would you prefer high ISO performance or wide apertures" as it is "is it worth ditching all of my glass and buying a camera that costs twice as much as mine just to get (admittedly substantially) better high ISO performance?" And the answer to that, of course, is "it depends on why you need it."

Personally, half of the point of an SLR is DoF control. So I'd take a 35L, 85L, and 135L over a D3s any day of the week.

(Donations are accepted, by the way!)

A good philosophical question, for sure. Really would depend on your subjects more than just a "yes or no" answer, or at least that's what I'd think. Lenses can only go so fast due to limits of physics and design (and COST!), but it looks like ISO can be pushed up incredibly. Everything comes into play with this question, and I certainly have no answer. I rarely ever shoot any faster than 1600, and that's a rarity itself. With so much available in PP, does one really need extreme ISO or expensive ultra-fast lenses? I would guess for fast moving subjects only, and if you aren't shooting sports, what would be the need to go radically higher in ISO over having faster lenses? Comments, anyone? Just to satisfy my own curiosity!

Aperture. If you couldn't let enough light in, you're at a disadvantage from the get-go.

Not uness you can boost the ISO and get good results. This is why the answer is not cut and dry.

Well I dont shoot High ISO's that often so give me the fast lenses any day.:p

These two are different things but if I have to choose just one - I'd say aperture for sure as aperture does many other things as well.

Nikon only looks better at super high ISOs which are still too ugly for real work. So I think the premise is flawed.

Gedanken wrote in post #10906737
Aperture. If you couldn't let enough light in, you're at a disadvantage from the get-go.

+1, I think the only time I bump up the ISO is if the lens I'm using is not fast enough for the given lighting conditions. Of course, if you have really good ISO performance then you have a larger buffer you can fill between your lens aperture and the lighting conditions.

Both are important to me, hence I didn't vote.

5D II is eminently usable at 3200 iso, and at 6400 iso there is just a little less detail. Same with 1D Mk III, although the noise on the 1D III at 6400 iso can be reduced to nothing if you want, whiel retainign all detail (see here: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=720571).

Since I somehow never have enough light, I need both high iso and wide apertures.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #10906845
Both are important to me, hence I didn't vote.

Right, me too, I think Canon has a pretty good mix of the two..