Croasdail wrote:
Gavin taught me.... at least what I understood him to tell me.... was to adjust ISO just as you would Shutter Speed or Aperature. I now lock in both of those and start moving ISO up as the sun goes down. It is only when I have hit either ISO 800, 1250 or 1600 depending on the camera that the shutter speed starts moving down. It has worked very well for me. I wish Canon had a mode where ISO was the variable. But I do have to keep some tricks in my pocket before the masses figure it out.
Hope I stated that right Gavin - correct me if I said it wrong. Cheers.
That sounds right Mark...
For football I like to shoot at or near wide open, with a shutter speed of 1/1000s or a little faster. Like you say, I start with the lowest ISO possible, gradually increasing the ISO as the light fades.
I only slow the shutter speed down once the ISO hits 1250 or 1600, reducing from 1/1000s down to 1/500s, before I move up to ISO3200. Then, once I hit 1/320s, I go to the bar for several beers.
If I do end up shooting at ISO3200, I will sometimes shoot RAW if I'm not on a tight deadline. This can give a slightly better result 'noise-wise' than a straight jpeg.
For me, a sharp (i.e. not blurred) image is more important than some noise. Also with a good noise reduction package and the correct noise profiles, even ISO3200 can produce some very nice images that will still be OK for (most) publication purposes.
KIPAX - I'm not sure what publications you're dealing with... so this may not be a definitive answer. However, in my experience most publications will prefer an image were the action is stopped rather than players that have become unrecognisable blurs.
The other consideration is sharpening. If you're shooting jpeg at high ISO and you've got the in-camera sharpening turned on, the resulting noise will be even more noticeable. Ideally set the sharpening to zero, do your noise reduction in PP and add your sharpening as a final step.
Also, you will find some togs that won't shoot above ISO1600. They will deliberately underexpose rather than go to ISO3200... This is a tough one. I've dabbled with this approach and I find that there is a decrease in dynamic range when salvaging the underexposed image at ISO1600 compared to shooting (without underexposing) at ISO3200. Also underexposing introduces more noise into the equation. Thus I prefer to get a better exposure at ISO3200 and play with a bit of noise reduction (if the publication so demands). I'm sure there will be differences in opinion on this one.
The good thing is that you should be blessed with some reasonable floodlighting this season, so you might not need to enter ISO3200 territory very often 
---- Gavin
