What does an ISO 102,400 pic look like, anyhow?

I'm looking at the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV SLR Digital Camera at B&H and their specs say it'll shoot that high an ISO.

Given that my lowly XTi has a virtual meltdown at 1600 in anything less than daylight/outdoors/dire​ct sunlight I have to wonder what such a high number would do in terms of grainy pictures.

What use whould it be to a photographer? Maybe cave shots for spelunkers?

Inquiring minds want to know (and maybe see a shot taken at that ISO.)

Some quick googling gave me a few images. Here's one.. it should come with a warninglabel because it's not pretty. Infact it's pretty horrible!

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Or a quick search here would have given OP this: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=560854

nepali wrote in post #12178802
Or a quick search here would have given OP this: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=560854

And you would have given him exactly what he wasn't looking for

Link
from my facebook account. dont know where the original files are, so that would do

Don't bother! I use the 1D4, and love it, but the expanded ISO range (H1,H2 + H3) is for emergency use only! Yes you can get shots at silly ISO numbers but are they worth keeping? The 1D4 performs well at 6400 (pretty impressive in my book) and OK at 8000. Many say the Nikon D3s has the edge in ISO performance, perhaps it has, but it does need longer lenses, does not compete in resolution and, IMHO no camera produces such useable files straight from the camera. Good prints can be done straight to printer, better ones with a little PP.
If you fancy the 1D4, and can afford it, my personal recommendation is to try one - then buy one. I have been VERY pleasantly surprised at how versatile this camera is, my FF Canon is looking for a new home!

Some of them ain't too shabby.

http://www.flickriver.​com/search/102%2C400/

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12178883
And you would have given him exactly what he wasn't looking for

LOL...I just realized the actual ISO number OP is looking for! Sorry OP!

Unregistered.Coward wrote:
=Unregistered.Coward;1​*179495]Some of them ain't too shabby.

http://www.flickriver.​com/search/10*%*C400/

The flickr search failed. It's culling results based on 10*-400.. many being file #s. That decent waterfall shot for instance; checked EXIF, and it's ISO 64 on an OLY P&S.

http://www.flickr.com …/59998490@N02/5​493665376/

1Tanker wrote in post #12180260
The flickr search failed. It's culling results based on 10*-400.. many being file #s. That decent waterfall shot for instance; checked EXIF, and it's ISO 64 on an OLY P&S.[/URL]

It's quite feasible to do a secondary scan of the results using Mark I Eyeballs and the grey matter behind them. Key indicators include phrasing such as "ISO 102400" which occur in the photo titles.

This should help:
http://www.engadget.co​m …mark-iv-iso-test/#2583647

butterfly2937 wrote in post #12192276
This should help:
http://www.engadget.co​m …mark-iv-iso-test/#2583647

12,800 looks pretty good there and you could probably make 25,600 useable in post.

johnf3f wrote in post #12179158
Don't bother! I use the 1D4, and love it, but the expanded ISO range (H1,H2 + H3) is for emergency use only! Yes you can get shots at silly ISO numbers but are they worth keeping? The 1D4 performs well at 6400 (pretty impressive in my book) and OK at 8000. Many say the Nikon D3s has the edge in ISO performance, perhaps it has, but it does need longer lenses, does not compete in resolution and, IMHO no camera produces such useable files straight from the camera. Good prints can be done straight to printer, better ones with a little PP.
If you fancy the 1D4, and can afford it, my personal recommendation is to try one - then buy one. I have been VERY pleasantly surprised at how versatile this camera is, my FF Canon is looking for a new home!

My experiences are slightly different, but after post processing of course...

12800 is very usable, if you watch exposure (much like on the 7D) and have developed a good post processing action you can run on it. I haven't shot too much at 25600 yet, it was unusable for me on the 7D and the 5D2, and I'm not expecting much on the 1D4 either. I tried 51200, and it was ugly.

Being able to shoot f/6.3 1/1600 for indoor sports is just nuts. I usually don't knock out that much light for outdoor sports.

Using a long slow lens requires the higher ISOs, and I usually shoot 1/1000th at high school games, but have found that on the professional circuit, there are times the players really get some speed. I don't like blur in most of the shots, so I go a little high. I cannot remember if I had this at auto-ISO, or if I just set it a bit high and locked in the shutter speed.

Here are a couple of much slower shutter speeds, based on all the shutter speeds that are varied, this was definitely where I locked in the higher ISO, and the shutter speeds varied from 1/500 to 1/1600... Plus I wanted to test 12800 and 6400, as I had already shot this team prior with a 7D and 5D2 at the same settings.