Full Frame or Crop

He is trolling, he has been through this before and cannot show examples of scenarios laid out by others, just some easy examples to prove his case, nothing challenging.

It started earlier in the thread. Doesn't really matter what he thinks of high ISO, I still make money shooting it.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18418744

DSMS wrote in post #18496751
I still don't understand this obsession with OUTRAGEOUS iso's...

I think I may have used ISO1000, once...just to see what it was like, the rest of the time, my camera does not move from ISO100.

And, If it had an ISO50 setting, it'd probably be stuck there...

Just saying...

I dont need outrageous ISO's, the issue is that really good high ISO's can translate to good moderate ISO's. I would love perfect skin tones @6400, but that doesnt happen, so I've got to PP more. Hell, even with flash, there are many scenarios where you'de have to go over 1600....

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18496771
He is trolling, he has been through this before and cannot show examples of scenarios laid out by others, just some easy examples to prove his case, nothing challenging.

It started earlier in the thread. Doesn't really matter what he thinks of high ISO, I still make money shooting it.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18418744

He is NOT trolling!

He genuinely does not understand the need for people to ramp the iso up to ridiculous levels to compensate for shooting an inappropriate subject/lighting condition.

Charlie wrote in post #18496772
I dont need outrageous ISO's, the issue is that really good high ISO's can translate to good moderate ISO's. I would love perfect skin tones @6400, but that doesnt happen, so I've got to PP more. Hell, even with flash, there are many scenarios where you'de have to go over 1600....

To anyone who used film a lot, trust me, 6400ISO IS outrageously high...

DSMS wrote in post #18496825
He is NOT trolling!

He genuinely does not understand the need for people to ramp the iso up to ridiculous levels to compensate for shooting an inappropriate subject/lighting condition.

I genuinely feel sorry for you. To limit yourself so heavily because of some falsely learned bias toward technological advancement is just silly.

DSMS wrote in post #18496826
To anyone who used film a lot, trust me, 6400ISO IS outrageously high...

Yes, and to anyone who used to shoot digital a lot 12mp IS outrageously high. Tech changes, it gets better. Just because in the past we were limited by how much light we were letting into the lens more than we are today doesn't mean we shouldn't explore those new advantages... what kind of mindless logic is that?

I really hope you're just trolling... I mean... come on

No, seriously...

I mean, I could accept the argument you make about technological improvements, if, the resulting high ISO images didn't result in such poor quality, but, seriously, come on; ISO6400 images and above may be possible, but they look horrendous...

DSMS wrote in post #18496826
To anyone who used film a lot, trust me, 6400ISO IS outrageously high...

Simply not true, I use to shoot 3200, both Delta and Tmax, for gigs and the shots rocked [ha!] so I'd hardly call one stop outrageously different. Good grain is a thing of beauty in an image, more so once you print it as the grain kinda fades or blends with the print.

There are plenty of uses for a higher ISO than base. ISO is just another part of creating and knowing your tools. You could be in a church where there is no flash allowed or perhaps you are using flash as your shutter and allowing the ambient light to build up around your subject by keeping the shutter open for 1/30 or so. You might be shooting indoor sports like basketball with f/4 lenses or f/2.8 even and need 6400.

DSMS wrote in post #18496877
No, seriously...

I mean, I could accept the argument you make about technological improvements, if, the resulting high ISO images didn't result in such poor quality, but, seriously, come on; ISO6400 images and above may be possible, but they look horrendous...

OK here is an example of a digital sensor shooting at 12800ISO. I can't see any noise either.

DSMS wrote in post #18496877
No, seriously...

I mean, I could accept the argument you make about technological improvements, if, the resulting high ISO images didn't result in such poor quality, but, seriously, come on; ISO6400 images and above may be possible, but they look horrendous...

Some people just don't know how to use their equipment and process their work, and thus they encounter horrendous results. That is on the person, not the current technology or daily needs by photographers. Most likely those folks simply don't shoot enough challenging situations and they cannot see outside their own box, nor really know how to perform post processing steps to glean the best from their work.

Also as we approach ISO-invariant implementations, your argument becomes even less viable. Shooting only ISO 100 works for you, but to go around calling everyone else that shoots high ISO ludicrous and their results horrendous is simply thoughtless and ignorant, and shows that you limit your work to those situations that can be shot at low ISO.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18496882
Simply not true, I use to shoot 3200, both Delta and Tmax, for gigs and the shots rocked [ha!] so I'd hardly call one stop outrageously different. Good grain is a thing of beauty in an image, more so once you print it as the grain kinda fades or blends with the print.

There are plenty of uses for a higher ISO than base. ISO is just another part of creating and knowing your tools. You could be in a church where there is no flash allowed or perhaps you are using flash as your shutter and allowing the ambient light to build up around your subject by keeping the shutter open for 1/30 or so. You might be shooting indoor sports like basketball with f/4 lenses or f/2.8 even and need 6400.

Exactly... and my photos are used for posters, marketing material and even sent out to sports outlets. I know my results aren't horrendous, or the Pacers wouldn't keep me coming back year after year. Too bad some have such a myopic look on photography.

This is one of about 4 shots from the last game that is creating some interest, regardless of the noise level. It was shot at what I consider to be an intermediate ISO level.

There were some bad blood between these teams.

DSMS wrote in post #18496826
To anyone who used film a lot, trust me, 6400ISO IS outrageously high...

there was this one time, I was inside a home, and there were people inside the home, and I was taking photos of them

Unless your saying that isnt worth photographing, you'll hit ISO 6400 easily.

DSMS wrote in post #18496877
No, seriously...

I mean, I could accept the argument you make about technological improvements, if, the resulting high ISO images didn't result in such poor quality, but, seriously, come on; ISO6400 images and above may be possible, but they look horrendous...

there are TONS of high iso samples in this thread: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1106101

astrophotogs use it all the time

DSMS wrote in post #18496825
He is NOT trolling!

He genuinely does not understand the need for people to ramp the iso up to ridiculous levels to compensate for shooting an inappropriate subject/lighting condition.

Go try and photograph an owl....

DSMS wrote in post #18496877
No, seriously...

I mean, I could accept the argument you make about technological improvements, if, the resulting high ISO images didn't result in such poor quality, but, seriously, come on; ISO6400 images and above may be possible, but they look horrendous...

Your ISO 6400 images may well look horrendous. That is not the camera's fault. Seems quite a few of us 'round these parts get very good results at 6400, and higher. It ain't the camera's fault. What else could it possibly be?

DSMS wrote in post #18496751
I still don't understand this obsession with OUTRAGEOUS iso's...

I think I may have used ISO1000, once...just to see what it was like, the rest of the time, my camera does not move from ISO100.

And, If it had an ISO50 setting, it'd probably be stuck there...

Just saying...

It is your gear. Waste its potential however you see fit. Sticking to ISO 100 on a 7D2 seems a bit like sticking to first gear in a Maserati.