Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 05 Mar 2012 (Monday) 07:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Super High ISOs - What do you use them for?

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
39,178 posts
Gallery: 116 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7667
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Mar 09, 2012 17:17 |  #166

RTPVid wrote in post #14056948 (external link)
I'm interested in hearing his reasons. Did he say why?

Not sure, but yes I think he is old-school and doesn't think that higher ISO images can actually be cleaner, or doesn't know how to process said images.

Hopefully the franchise likes my images and I have other opportunities next season. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Häakon
Member
32 posts
Joined Sep 2004
     
Mar 09, 2012 17:38 |  #167

I'm curious why they make "base" and "expanded" ISOs... are the base values the ones they personally feel are "acceptable" for normal use? If you can flip a switch and get expanded values, why just not make them all standard with the user knowing full well that if he/she pushes up to 120,000 or whatever that it's just going to be a giant field of noise?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bzollinger
Goldmember
Avatar
1,257 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2009
Location: The Great White North!
     
Mar 09, 2012 17:41 |  #168

It's a good question. I think that they make expanded modes for emergencies on the high end. I have to wonder what 50 ISO is going to look like on the 5dmkiii? Could 50 ISO look better than 100? If so then why not always use 50 when shooting landscapes on a tripod. If not then seriously what is the point??


5DMKIII | EOS M | 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon | 15mm f/2.8 fisheye | 16-35mm f/4 L | 24-105mm L | 50mm f/1.4 USM | 100mm Macro f/2.8 L IS | 580ex II | Benro C2980F Veratile legs w/ Manfrotto 468MGRC2 Head | www.alaskanphotographs​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h4ppydaze
Goldmember
1,329 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
     
Mar 09, 2012 17:44 |  #169

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #14057177 (external link)
Black and white lives! Love these shots--the grain only makes them better :)

thanks bud




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,643 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 132
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Mar 09, 2012 17:56 |  #170

Why would anyone only shoot at ISO 100?

I can't remember the last time I show below 1600, personally. Heheh




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bzollinger
Goldmember
Avatar
1,257 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2009
Location: The Great White North!
     
Mar 09, 2012 18:01 |  #171

^^Vampire! :) just kidding!


5DMKIII | EOS M | 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon | 15mm f/2.8 fisheye | 16-35mm f/4 L | 24-105mm L | 50mm f/1.4 USM | 100mm Macro f/2.8 L IS | 580ex II | Benro C2980F Veratile legs w/ Manfrotto 468MGRC2 Head | www.alaskanphotographs​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Häakon
Member
32 posts
Joined Sep 2004
     
Mar 09, 2012 18:01 |  #172

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14058571 (external link)
Why would anyone only shoot at ISO 100?

Check out the very last set of comparison photos at the bottom of this page:

http://www.imaging-resource.com …mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA.HTM (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ScubaDude
Goldmember
Avatar
1,104 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Waveland, MS
     
Mar 10, 2012 16:34 |  #173
bannedPermanent ban

While you may never need high ISO, how can it be a bad thing if it has it, just in case? And, a dollar spent on noise reduction software is worth $10 spent on a camera (from a purely noise perspective). Here's a shot I just took of my dog at [expanded] ISO 12,800 with my humble T1i, followed by a 100% crop.

Sure, you wouldn't want to use that light/those settings if you were shooting the Queen's official portrait, but it'll do for a web-sized image or a casual snapshot if you spend a few minutes in post. Beats no shot at all.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

2964 (external link) by ScubaDude1960 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

2964_cropped (external link) by ScubaDude1960 (external link), on Flickr

Canon [7D & BG-E7 grip] [T1i & BG-E5 grip] [400mm f/5.6L] [50mm f/1.8 II] [18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS]
Induro [AT313 tripod] [AM25 monopod] [GHB2 gimbal head]
My Flickr page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Mar 11, 2012 03:58 |  #174

[QUOTE=ScubaDude;14063​436]While you may never need high ISO, how can it be a bad thing if it has it, just in case? And, a dollar spent on noise reduction software is worth $10 spent on a camera (from a purely noise perspective). Here's a shot I just took of my dog at [expanded] ISO 12,800 with my humble T1i, followed by a 100% crop.

Sure, you wouldn't want to use that light/those settings if you were shooting the Queen's official portrait, but it'll do for a web-sized image or a casual snapshot if you spend a few minutes in post. Beats no shot at all./quote]

Let's twist that around. Why use the extreme ISO's when theres absolutely no need?


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
39,178 posts
Gallery: 116 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7667
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Mar 11, 2012 05:53 |  #175

Give it a rest already, you are just stirring the pot for fun, it is quite obvious at this point. Sure, you are going to reply with the previously repetitive answers as before to prove your point and say I am wrong, but it just won't work any longer.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Mar 11, 2012 06:25 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #176

OK, so I'll admit there is a part of that last that was stirring. But having said that, theres also a lot of truth there. The dog image is so obviously taken in reasonable light that a "normal" ISO would have worked just as well.

I really do want to know why these extreme ISO levels are so popular, but so far I've only seen the one example. All the rest could just as well be taken with lower ISO's.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
39,178 posts
Gallery: 116 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7667
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Mar 11, 2012 06:42 |  #177

Obviously the dog was shot in really low light. 1/20th at f3.2 at ISO 3200 (when you run the math) is actually quite a bit lesser light than the stage shots you so admiringly point out as examples.

Very simply put, for what you shoot high ISO just isn't needed. /thread... ;)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Mar 11, 2012 07:01 |  #178

Lowner wrote in post #14065954 (external link)
OK, so I'll admit there is a part of that last that was stirring. But having said that, theres also a lot of truth there. The dog image is so obviously taken in reasonable light that a "normal" ISO would have worked just as well.

I really do want to know why these extreme ISO levels are so popular, but so far I've only seen the one example. All the rest could just as well be taken with lower ISO's.

Okay what settings would you have used for the dog?


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,931 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 82
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 11, 2012 07:23 |  #179

Lowner wrote in post #14065954 (external link)
OK, so I'll admit there is a part of that last that was stirring. But having said that, theres also a lot of truth there. The dog image is so obviously taken in reasonable light that a "normal" ISO would have worked just as well.

I really do want to know why these extreme ISO levels are so popular, but so far I've only seen the one example. All the rest could just as well be taken with lower ISO's.

Did you look at the EXIF data on the dog? 1/80 sec, f/3.2, ISO 12800. That's pretty dark, and he couldn't have gone a whole lot slower because it was at 50mm focal length.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Foggiest
Senior Member
584 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2012
     
Mar 11, 2012 07:34 |  #180

Lowner wrote in post #14065954 (external link)
OK, so I'll admit there is a part of that last that was stirring. But having said that, theres also a lot of truth there. The dog image is so obviously taken in reasonable light that a "normal" ISO would have worked just as well.

The dog was shot at 1/80 at f3.2
Not much room for maneuver there .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

21,959 views & 0 likes for this thread
Super High ISOs - What do you use them for?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is grannysclutter
806 guests, 169 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.