ISO 3200 - Why not all the time

Depends what you want to capture. I had posted this a year ago in this forum:
300D, 50/1.4 at f1.4, 1/40sec, ISO 3200
http://www.bidencap.de​/StMartin.jpg

Do you care about the noise? I don't.

By the way: keeping the ISO 3200 out of the "normal" ISO range of a camera is just marketing.

--Jens--

Jens, I think I already commended you on that very nice image when you first posted it.

With a little help from FREE Noiseware Community Edition, it looks like this (second is the original you linked).
Definitely could be better with working from the high resolution original, but this was a 35 seconds job.

Please tell me if you do not want me to work on your image, then I'll remove it.

Best regards,
Andy

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thanks, Andy, that looks good. To my eyes it's close to the "plastic look" of de-noisers but still acceptable in that respect. It proves the usability of ISO 3200.
Whenever I post a picture I'm thankful for constructive comments, including modifications of the posted picture. I think that's what this forum all about.
--Jens--

Glad you don't mind.

As I told, it was a 35 seconds job, and you definitely could do a lot better tweaking a bit with the settings and working from an original file.
I agree with the 'plastic look'

If anybody is interested in Noiseware Community Edition, you can download a completely free version that has minimal constraints (standalone, input only JPG, output size limited to something like 600KB JPG) at http://www.imagenomic.​com

Best regards,
Andy

You should use the ISO on a digital the same way you would with film... That is keep it as low as possible to obtain the aperture or shutter speed needed to obtain the result you are looking for, or for special effect... Have you tried ISO3200 in the B&W mode to get a real atmospheric journalistic shot?.. By the way I have the 3200 enabled on my 5D and 20D as it saves having to go through the cfn menu and turning it on when you need it in a hurry, if it's there why not have it enabled is my view...

I use 3200 all the time at night and low light....I use noise ninja and the results are amazing. Just remember that if you actually need 3200 for a speed...you should expect the results that you get with it....it should be no suprise if there's noise....noise ninja does a great job of getting the noise out...that's my standard operating procedure at night...I'll be down Atlantic City again this weekend shooting at 2:00am......and later......3200 is my bread and butter then.......don

Folks,

Thanks for all the comments, but my original questions were:

"Is there any reason why I would disable the H 3200 ISO C-Fn 8 in my 20D?
Does anything bad happen when this option is turned on? If not, why is it an option?"

Not regarding whether or how I should use it, which is where this thread seems to have gone. I still don't understand why Canon makes it an option......

Thanks for an interesting read.

I don't understand that either. Neither do I understand why some functions is hidden in th C-Fn mess instead of accessible trough normal menus with normal names.
I left ISO 3200 pressing off to not use it by mistake, tried it when the camera was new and found it unusable because of the noise.

I think Tim answered your question 'why Canon did it' most astutely:

The rest of the discussion was centered around whether *you* should use it ... mainly as a reply to some posts saying you really shouldn't use it because the results are not good. I think you have to make your own call to see whether it's useful or not.

And this example might nicely round it, if you think it can be useful for you

Best regards,
Andy

I guess nobody believes me

"It's because the 3200 was not approved by ISO (International Organization for Standardization). From what I understood it's not a real 3200, it's just iso 1600 on steroids (so to speak)."

It isn't, because, if you read the rules on posting, you'll find that reposting images without the permission of the original poster is prohibited.

On topic, inspired by this thread to experiment, I just set my 20D to "H" and opened my front door and took this picture at 4000th at f8. Not particularly good but I hope you'll agree uasable in an extreme situation. I did run the image through Noiseware and the exif data has been erased.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

David is correct.

That's why I explicitely asked you if you do mind (not 100% in line with forum regulations, but using a somehow pragmatic approach).

The issue was discussed once with the suggestion, that anybody who doesn't mind his images being edited by others, should add a corresponding statement to his signature line (see mine ).

On the other hand, David, if you DO mind, you might also put it in your signature to save yourself and others unpleasant situations.
Might be as brief as 'No editing, please', and everybody will respect that.

Best regards,
Andy

heres some of the results i get with 1600iso out of my 300D

exif:
1/60th (ouch)
f/4.5
34.0mm focal
compulasry flash fired.
Tv mode

now, let me assure you it looks 10 times worse full size
photos like this that i take, are for the web only - i shoot for a car website.
i relise the lighting is off. heres the dilema:
i take about 300 of these photos.
i don't have time to run each one through noise reduction software
most are acceptable, most are well lit.
but the ones that aren't well lit, need a levels adjustment in photoshop
once i lighten in up in photoshop - the noise is increased dramatically.

how would i avoid this?
are 300D's like this, or do you think i have a problem?
personally - i find 1/60th too slow for these shots, and in with the better shots, i was closer in, with less zoom, so the flash would clear it up a bit and make it better - but then the flash tends to only light the front of the car.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

heres another - wasn't a shot i needed, but it's an indication of how bad the noise can be for me

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Hello Matty

Having until recently owned a 300D - a camera I still have much respect for - I must tell you that one of my main reasons for upgrading to a 20D was precisely because it produces much less noise at high ISO.

However, my image above was quite noisy prior to my running it through noise reduction, so maybe that's an option open to you if you can somehow find the extra time. If you shoot in RAW, you could lessen the time by batch processing.