# Do you need a really high ISO?



## Diko (Sep 10, 2014)

Since the rumors of the 100 - 12 800 (native) ISO in 7D m2 I wonder why they don't pay enough attention?

I begin asking myself: Am I the only one that looks for an affordable body for low-light shooting?
I know Lenses should be faster. But lense is not everything. I say 3/4 the glass needs another quarter push from the body.

So if you remember: *the fireflies* perhaps about exactly a year ago there was this small discussion. And now have the things changed? 
Aside from my unchanged disappointment I ask you about it. 

That way I might be able to reset my expectations...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2014)

One thing that hasn't changed is that size matters. The low-light CMOS sensor you linked is FF...the 7DII/X won't be. 

The 'affordable body for low-light shooting' is called the 6D – you can buy one today at retailers everywhere!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 10, 2014)

The fact that the manufacturer has named as "native" does not mean it has good image quality.  If someone really needs to use ISO above 3200 should go to full frame. : I would only use ISO12800 on APS-C cameras if I'm desperate in darkness and without flash. :-\


----------



## Diko (Sep 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> One thing that hasn't changed is that size matters. The low-light CMOS sensor you linked is FF...the 7DII/X won't be.
> 
> The affordable body for low-light shooting is called the 6D – you can buy one today at retailers everywhere!



Quite a good point: 
*Canon 6D vs Canon 70D: Noise Comparison (Low Light, High ISO) Video*

The quite new *70D* is an enormous step for CANON... is not that much for me. 

Neuro, your comment is a strong point. We all know the well size DOES matter. However I started this topic with another intention. As I see my start wasn't that clear. 

Need for ISO not as a general. Of course FF is better - MF the best. What I mean as next iteration of a model.
Let me rephrase: Will 7Dm2 finally jump over current CANON CMOS performance?

So far what we see recently is everything else but a good update over the under 50% QE. So far the statistics show that QE of about 55% a steady increase to be expected. Meanwhile some rivalry cameras can show off with QE of 67%.

I at least hope that the there will be some improvement over the older *7D* as there is between the *6D* and *7S*.

I know there are from different vendors, but I hope you get my point. ;-)


----------



## lo lite (Sep 10, 2014)

Diko said:


> Since the rumors of the 100 - 12 800 (native) ISO in 7D m2 I wonder why they don't pay enough attention?
> 
> I begin asking myself: Am I the only one that looks for an affordable body for low-light shooting?



I am a long standing night time shooter (hence my nickname  ), in the nineties the Kodak TMZ 3200 was my favorite film (ISO 3200 was enormous at this time). Currently I am using my 5D3 up to 12800 ISO, above this the noise is to strong IMHO (and I had no objections towards grain when I still shot film so I am also somewhat tolerable towards some noise). I'd really like to have much higher usable ISO since I mostly shoot handheld, sometimes with a monopod and rarely with a tripod. So let's see what's in the cards for the 5D4.

Btw. here are two test shots I took at ISO 102400 (H2) with the 5D3, developed from RAW in DxO Optics Pro with the normal noise reduction:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/14862757116/in/set-72157645945822928/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/14699123138/in/set-72157645945822928/

The PRIME noise reduction feature would reduce the noise somewhat more but then those images really start to look unrealistic. Another thing you don't see that much in those pictures is a purple spot in the lower right corner of the images and that famous banding jrista is always talking about. Those are sensor quirks which are much more visible in the JPEGs, DxO did a pretty good job here.

cheers from Hamburg!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2014)

Canon rating of ISO is for jpeg images in camera with NR applied.

When you try to get the real high ISO of a camera sensor, you must use RAW. The dual processors in a 7D MK II may be able to apply some decent noise reduction due to computing power. This will mislead people who just read the hype. The better camera hardware/software might bump the High ISO rating by 2 stops over a old camera model with little or no change in the sensor.

Improvement of real ISO from one generation to the next is usually a fraction of a stop, 1/8 to 1/2. 1/2 a stop is a huge improvement and not often seen. We are approaching the theoretical limits for sensors, so making them better is extremely difficult. A different approach is needed to break thru the current barriers. Reducing sensor noise helps, but its not a break thru.


----------



## pwp (Sep 11, 2014)

Q: Do you need a really high ISO?
A: Day to day? Hardly ever.
A: Occasionally and perhaps unexpectedly? Yes! I love the fact that with my 5D3 and to a lesser extent the 1D4 I can ramp up the iso to 6400 and occasionally beyond. If 25,600 was viable I'd use it. I use 1600 & 3200 at evening or indoor events all the time. I light subjects with a touch of fill flash (bounced preferably) and still hold enough background for good effect. For someone who once regarded to then amazing Fuji 800 neg film as a gift from the gods, the option to push out another 3-4 stops opens previously undreamed of creative options. 

Hell, I used to think Kodak Tri-X was fast (industry standard 400 iso B&W neg film for those born recently).

-pw


----------



## benperrin (Sep 11, 2014)

One thing about high iso (from my understanding) is that it affects live view. The higher you go the more useful liveview will be at night or with dark nd filters. That may or may not matter to you but it's a nice bonus. But it doesn't matter so much for me in the traditional sense. I rarely need over 3200.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 11, 2014)

I use it all the time, gives one a lot of freedom! I shoot a lot of interiors using small portable speed lights, they are relatively weak so higher iso helps if you want to shoot at f11/16. Also I have had superb results shooting at iso25000 doing school plays etc. high iso quality depends very much on available lighting, lots of dark backgrounds with bright highlights work well, whereas flat scenes with lots of grays give poorer results. The 6D of course, imo, is much better at high iso than the 7d/70d and if you want the best high iso quality, imo, I would seriously consider FF...

Pic of airplane below, and 100% crop, at at25000, no way else to shoot it!

Pic in restaurant and 100crop, also at 10000iso

In all the above, I needed the high iso to keep shutterspeeds high enough to avoid camera shake.

more high iso pics here: http://thelazytravelphotographer.blogspot.com/2014/03/eos-6d-review-part-3-homage-to-tri-x.html


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

Diko said:


> Aside from my unchanged disappointment I ask you about it.



Higher iso is great for raising shutter speed, resulting in more keepers on scenes with movement. The limiting factor is the drop in dynamic range, and we don't know how the 7d2 or upcoming cameras will do. You can apply good noise reduction nowadays, but blown highlights keep that way not matter the export size.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2014)

lo lite said:


> The PRIME noise reduction feature would reduce the noise somewhat more but then those images really start to look unrealistic. Another thing you don't see that much in those pictures is a purple spot in the lower right corner of the images and that famous banding jrista is always talking about. Those are sensor quirks which are much more visible in the JPEGs, DxO did a pretty good job here.
> 
> cheers from Hamburg!


I have had similar experiences, but if you use the Advanced (or whatever they're called) sliders under the PRIME adjustment, you can bring it back to more a more natural looking image. 

I have found that the results from the 1D X are considerably better than the 5DIII once you go over ISO 6400 especially in terms of color retention and less patterned noise. If Canon can come close to matching the 5DIII or 6D with the 7DII up to about ISO 3200, I think that would be a big improvement.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > The PRIME noise reduction feature would reduce the noise somewhat more but then those images really start to look unrealistic. Another thing you don't see that much in those pictures is a purple spot in the lower right corner of the images and that famous banding jrista is always talking about. Those are sensor quirks which are much more visible in the JPEGs, DxO did a pretty good job here.
> ...



Sadly the 1D series is out of my financial reach. I waited several month after the release of the 5DIII for the prices to come down (I got it for € 2650 including VAT in october last year). 

Is the 1D X that much better? How does it compare to the 6D in high ISO?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2014)

lo lite said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...


It took me a long time to buy the 1D as well so I completely understand. I don't know about the 6D, but comparing real-world results (not DxOMark measurements and such), I'm pretty happy with the 5DIII results (with DxO PRIME) up to about ISO 6400 where it's pretty similar to the 1 DX. With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!


----------



## CTJohn (Sep 11, 2014)

I've gotten a real lesson in high ISO needs. I just received the Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 lens and have been testing it on my 7D and 6D. f/5 and 6.3 are really slow! I can add 3 stops of light on the 6D (ISO 6400 vs, 800 on the 7D) which makes the lens a lot more usable. That won't help on BIF, so I'll be stuck shooting in good light on the 7D (really would like to have a 5D!!


----------



## Besisika (Sep 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!


+1
I shoot ISO 6400+ 75% of the time. I had 5d MK III and kept on disappointing my clients/friends. That changed when upgraded to 1DX. I shoot at f2.0


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 11, 2014)

YES, I always want cleaner high ISO.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Today I took some time to fiddle around with PRIME. I set the luminance (the only control there) to a very low value of 10 (out of 100) and I am still getting splotchy results that look somewhat like a water color painting. I guess PRIME is not for me or not for totally noisy images (like the ones you get at 102400 ISO on the 5DIII). Hence I decided to go no higher than 12800 ISO (except for the exceptions  ).


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

CTJohn said:


> I've gotten a real lesson in high ISO needs. I just received the Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 lens and have been testing it on my 7D and 6D. f/5 and 6.3 are really slow! I can add 3 stops of light on the 6D (ISO 6400 vs, 800 on the 7D) which makes the lens a lot more usable. That won't help on BIF, so I'll be stuck shooting in good light on the 7D (really would like to have a 5D!!



I've heard the 6D is even better than the 5DIII in low light. But I did not test this since I never used a 6D.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...


I don't think any camera (other than maybe the new Sony) is going to look very good at 102,400, PRIME or not.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > With the 1D X, however, I've been getting very good results at 12,800-25,600 which is where the 5DIII seems to fall apart in terms of color loss and pattern noise. This assumes a sharp and good exposure (or ETTR) exposure. All photos above ISO 6400 are still somewhat softer but I have printed them up to 12x18" without problems. It's not miraculous but for a lot of subjects the quality is plenty good - and it blows away the ISO 400 shots on some of my earlier digital cameras!
> ...



Can you post some high ISO examples of the 1D, preferably higher than ISO 12800? And I assume you're shooting with prime lenses when you say you shoot at f/2.0, right?


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I did some more experiments and it seems to depend on the content of the picture if PRIME is appropriate or not. Right now when I am writing this I am going to create a testshots set on flickr where I can show you my findings. PRIME seems to be better when there is high contrasty detail in the picture (like in that bright tree in the left half) but subpar when there are subtle contrasts that the human eye still sees in a sea of noise but get eaten by PRIME. I'll post the shot in a minute.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


I have a shoot this week-end. I didn't visit the site yet so I can't say what the ISO would be. 
Yes, I am at 1/640s f2.0 and whatever ISO the ring gives me (lens 85mm 1.2). I will try to use both 1DX and 5D3 for comparison. If I won't forget, I will take some 12800 shots as well (my head will be on the fights so forgive me if I forget the very high ISO).


----------



## helpful (Sep 12, 2014)

Absolutely.

It would be impossible for cameras ever to reach a point where a still higher level of ISO sensitivity would no longer be useful/needful for me.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...



Took a bit longer than expected, the uploads were failing. But here is the comparison


"traditional" DxO NR:







larger: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/14699123138/in/set-72157647492489522/

You see details in the dark area on the right side


"PRIME" DxO NR, luminosity set to 0 (gives the best results for that particular image):






larger: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/15025345118/in/set-72157647492489522/

You see finer details in the tree on the left but blotchy spots in the dark area


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

Besisika said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > Besisika said:
> ...



Thanks for your efforts!


----------



## Besisika (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...


I put on Google drive some JPGs. I shot raw+JPG for fast hand-over that day.
Link is below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9-bWPVk3E7OZDBCS2ZOaDFNMkU/edit?usp=sharing_eil
Let me know if you can download them. They are straight from camera, unchanged (and exceeded the limit size of CR).


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

Besisika said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > Besisika said:
> ...



Hi Besisika,

downloading worked like a charm. Great captures btw! 

I had a look at the noise which seems very well controlled. Although it's a bit hard to tell how the 1D X behaves in really extreme situations from those images. Everything below 6400 ISO is also very good on the 5DIII with which I am trying to compare here. Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements). So I limit my maximum ISO to this. Unfortunately the only shot with ISO 12800 from you is scaled down so it's a bit hard to compare for me but I would say the noise is lower than in my ISO 12800 shots. You can have a look at some of them here for instance (not all are on ISO 12800, some are just ISO 1600 and everything between since I used Auto ISO): https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/sets/72157645603164131/


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements).



No surprise, iso 128k on the 5d3 is just 6400 with a digital push - you can simply underexpose the latter to get the same result.

Although the 1dx very like uses about the same sensor gen as 5d3/6d, the premium model's image pipeline if much more fine-tuned (see the dynamic range curve 5d3/6d vs 1dx). The pipeline several analog and digital stages, and the Magic Lantern devs are currently working on backporting this to the lesser cameras. The first result is a (internal beta) module that boots your dynamic range by about 1/3-1/2 stop, just like that. Canon only bothered to put that much work into the 1d.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements).
> ...



That's interesting indeed. I wonder if Magic Lantern work will affect Canon's honor so they come up with a firmware update that addresses just that. Btw. where can I see those curves and which ISO are native and not just a digital push?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Can you post some high ISO examples of the 1D, preferably higher than ISO 12800? And I assume you're shooting with prime lenses when you say you shoot at f/2.0, right?


I don't have access to all of my files but here's one from the other day at ISO 16,000 - f/2.8 1/160s with the 50L. As you can see it's a little soft, but still a very workable file and one that hasn't been sharpened:

Full size: 





100% crop (as attachment below):


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

And another with the 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III at ISO 12,800 f/5.6 1/160s:





Note that neither photo has really been processed much (other than using PRIME) as these aren't photos I'd consider selling. I would definitely fine tune them if they were, but as minimally processed photos, they are good examples for this purpose of this discussion.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Hi Besisika,
> 
> downloading worked like a charm. Great captures btw!
> 
> I had a look at the noise which seems very well controlled. Although it's a bit hard to tell how the 1D X behaves in really extreme situations from those images. Everything below 6400 ISO is also very good on the 5DIII with which I am trying to compare here. Above 12800 ISO the 5DIII gets critical at least for my standards (others may have other requirements). So I limit my maximum ISO to this. Unfortunately the only shot with ISO 12800 from you is scaled down so it's a bit hard to compare for me but I would say the noise is lower than in my ISO 12800 shots. You can have a look at some of them here for instance (not all are on ISO 12800, some are just ISO 1600 and everything between since I used Auto ISO): https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/sets/72157645603164131/


If Google drive works for you I can put the CR2 files there tonight for two scenarios: 
1DX 12800 on 200mm f2.8
5D MK III 6400 (or 5000 - I don't remember by heart) on 200mm f2.0
then you can decide whether to go with a better body or better lens. Remember though, 200mm 2.8 is a no match for the 200mm 2.0. Shooting 1DX with 200mm 2.0 is a pure definition of pleasure.

I like your environmental story telling. 
I shoot low light events as well but I do mainly fusion and when shooting the photo part, I use bounce flash in order to focus on someone's expression (I use Einstein), while the video part to tell about the environment so I don't use any additional light at all. Unfortunately, I cannot post these due to customer requirements, I can post only self-assigned stuff. 
Your scene is not really that dark. Using a 1.4 aperture you can go down to ISO 3200 (or I prefer 2500 on 5D) and the 5D III can handle that very well.
I have shot videos at 1/60th, ISO 6400 and 1.2 on 1DX and they are very useable, if the distance from you and the subject is far enough (environmental like your shots) the dof is good enough. That is what I call low light.
The good news is that literally, yours is the only video that the customer can use. Uncle Bob's is useless.

I use ISO 12800 mainly when shooting fast-paced sport, like volleyball where the shutter speed is at least 1/1000. Most of the time 6400 is the standard for me. Since I am not a sport pro I rarely have access to better ISO, at least here in Montreal. 
What I am saying is that shooting above 12800 is not really necessary (unless you desperately wants 2.8), while camera with 1600 useable ISO is not low light in my opinion.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> And another with the 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III at ISO 12,800 f/5.6 1/160s:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks really great but we both know what PRIME is capable of. So this tells more of your skills to use the right tools in the right way than of the 1D X sensor. I'd rather see some unaltered JPEGs


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > And another with the 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III at ISO 12,800 f/5.6 1/160s:
> ...


I honestly didn't do much to these photos, but I'll try to remember to do some comparison RAW+JPEG shooting at high (and really high!) ISOs next time I'm out shooting. It may be a week or so before I can do it, at least with real-world stuff. I could do some simple stuff around the house in the next few days, though.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

Besisika said:


> If Google drive works for you I can put the CR2 files there tonight for two scenarios:
> 1DX 12800 on 200mm f2.8
> 5D MK III 6400 (or 5000 - I don't remember by heart) on 200mm f2.0
> then you can decide whether to go with a better body or better lens. Remember though, 200mm 2.8 is a no match for the 200mm 2.0. Shooting 1DX with 200mm 2.0 is a pure definition of pleasure.



That would be really great! Thanks a lot, so I can finally get an idea what 1D X high ISO raws are like!



Besisika said:


> I like your environmental story telling.
> I shoot low light events as well but I do mainly fusion and when shooting the photo part, I use bounce flash in order to focus on someone's expression (I use Einstein), while the video part to tell about the environment so I don't use any additional light at all. Unfortunately, I cannot post these due to customer requirements, I can post only self-assigned stuff.
> Your scene is not really that dark. Using a 1.4 aperture you can go down to ISO 3200 (or I prefer 2500 on 5D) and the 5D III can handle that very well.
> I have shot videos at 1/60th, ISO 6400 and 1.2 on 1DX and they are very useable, if the distance from you and the subject is far enough (environmental like your shots) the dof is good enough. That is what I call low light.
> ...



Thanks for your kind words! I was shooting with the 16-35/2.8, sometimes just from my hip. I had packed my flash to but decided not to use it to preserve the atmosphere and to be less invasive. There where other photographers at the event, shooting with flash: http://bit.ly/1qBI8Ij , the first pictures on that page are from http://www.claudiahoehne.com/ , she used a bounce card, while the other guy (which I don't know by name) was using direct flash (the darker pictures further down are his). Since I don't have a fast wide angle prime and I like the flexibility of zoom lenses I am limited to f/2.8 but this is not so bad since this way I retain at least some depth of field. I have the Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG (not the new ART version) but I use it rarely.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Thanks for your kind words! I was shooting with the 16-35/2.8, sometimes just from my hip. I had packed my flash to but decided not to use it to preserve the atmosphere and to be less invasive. There where other photographers at the event, shooting with flash: http://bit.ly/1qBI8Ij , the first pictures on that page are from http://www.claudiahoehne.com/ , she used a bounce card, while the other guy (which I don't know by name) was using direct flash (the darker pictures further down are his). Since I don't have a fast wide angle prime and I like the flexibility of zoom lenses I am limited to f/2.8 but this is not so bad since this way I retain at least some depth of field. I have the Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG (not the new ART version) but I use it rarely.


Judging from the photos, the ceiling is actually ideal for bounce flash. It is white (or close to it) and approx 3-4 higher than people's size (which is not too high, nor too low). If you put your flashes at the same distance as the ceiling height (or further), you should get loop lighting (instead of office lighting). Gel the flash to match the ambient. Then make it powerful enough so that the main contributor is the flash, which will freeze the motion. 
If you use an on-camera flash (but bounce to the ceiling) then use a telephoto, otherwise you would receive raccoon eyes (as your distance from the subject needs to be minimum the ceiling height).
Advantages are: low ISO, easy white balance and less evasive (your flash is far from you and you don't hit people straight into their face) - besides after few shots they are going to be used to it. But most of all, if you gel it properly you preserve the ambiance of the background.

As for your lens, I am not familiar with Sigma lenses but 50mm at 1.4 if sharp enough should do the trick in low light.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> One thing that hasn't changed is that size matters. The low-light CMOS sensor you linked is FF...the 7DII/X won't be.
> 
> The 'affordable body for low-light shooting' is called the 6D – you can buy one today at retailers everywhere!



Neuro hit the nail on the head if you want high ISO buy full frame. 

That said I really need usable ISO 3200 in a crop sensor for wildlife use. I simply cannot afford the big whites for full frame use. The 7D2 should be close for my purpose. I will settle for ISO 1600 and 2/3 stop boost in post. 

Without radical change in sensor tech ISO 3200 usable on crop is probably the best we can expect.


----------



## Richard8971 (Sep 16, 2014)

In daylight shooting, I have gone as high as ISO 3200 for super high shutter speeds (1/4000s ~ 1/8000s) with my 7D to capture hummingbird wings in flight and the photos have been fine with a little post processing. Usually though, I rarely go over ISO 1600.

I have shot indoors with poor lighting and not being able to use a flash and I used a friends 5D mark 2. I shot at ISO 6400 and the photos were VERY usable, very clean. I could have NEVER pulled that off with my 7D.

A professional photography friend of mine showed me some wedding shots she got with her 5D3 at ISO 102400 and they looked amazing in print. I would have never guessed they would have been so good. 

It all depends on what you shoot and when. For the most part, I shoot wildlife in decent lighting so my 7D works just fine 99% of the time.

D


----------



## Besisika (Sep 16, 2014)

lo lite said:


> That would be really great! Thanks a lot, so I can finally get an idea what 1D X high ISO raws are like!


Here is a link from last week-end fights. It took place at "Ali Nestor Academy" in Montreal - Canada. Lighting at the academy was good, I cannot complain. 
Please do not use outside of CR, these are customer files. 
They are at ISO 3200, 6400 and 12800; 1/800s, resp f2, 2.8 and 4, shot with 85mm 1.2. 
Let me know if that is what you are looking for.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9-bWPVk3E7OZUNjRWd2cWZETzA/edit?usp=sharing_eil


----------



## tomscott (Sep 16, 2014)

I have my 5DMKIII set to max at 6400. At weddings indoor shooting in venues this is fairly norm. 

I have shot up to 12,800 but just don't like the results I get.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Of course I need high ISO.
> 
> I need to take photos of black cats in mines chasing mice and to stop that action.



Black mice nontheless. And shooting with lens cap is a given too


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

Besisika said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > That would be really great! Thanks a lot, so I can finally get an idea what 1D X high ISO raws are like!
> ...



Thanks for those! 

I'll just have a look at them in DxO for evaluating the noise and will never put them anywhere else of course, that means I'll delete them after I looked at them. From a first look I can't spot a huge difference in the amount of noise compared to some ISO 12800 5D3 shots of mine but the noise looks different, more fine grained or even where as the 5D3 noise also seems to have lower frequencies, e.g. larger spots. You know what I mean? But it's a bit hard to tell because the shots are different and I can only use my eyes (I have no software for metering noise). I guess at some point I'll have to rent a 1D X and try for myself …


----------



## Besisika (Sep 16, 2014)

lo lite said:


> I guess at some point I'll have to rent a 1D X and try for myself …


+1
Besides, low light body is not the only one solution. Whenever you can use flash, that I found always the best one.
If flash is not allowed, then yes. You can go the path of a better lens as well. So, rent ones before buying. It is hard to buy in order to own them all. I very often rent lenses for special need.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



As soon as you swap lenses to achieve the same framing it's not an issue. That only becomes a problem when you start to hit wide angles (the crop sensor's achilles' heel).


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 16, 2014)

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....


----------



## jrista (Sep 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.
> 
> My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.
> 
> Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....



+1!


----------



## EdB (Sep 17, 2014)

I didn't read through this whole thread but there is no way I'd capture images like this back in the film days. They don't mean anything to anyone but me and my friends but without high ISO they aren't happening when lit by firelight.


----------



## Richard8971 (Sep 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.
> ...



+1 again.

This is very true. Good cameras have always been expensive and out of the hands of most people. Now however, we in the digital age have gotten spoiled some with the advances in technology and I think the "noise" comparisons between film and digital are largely being forgotten. 

I don't really stop and think about what ISO I need my 7D to be at to get the shot. I use whatever ISO I need to get the shot I want. I have said this in the past that I have shot as high as ISO 3200 with hummingbirds in flight and after processing the images look fantastic, both on screen and in print.

Guys are doing today with digital that could never have been accomplished with film back in the day. I think noise levels today are very acceptable even with crop sensors and you should buy the camera body that you need at the price you can afford and then use the heck out of it.

I also think because of computers too many people have become "pixel peepers" and look way too closely at the images they take. I usually print my photos at 11 x 14 and even at higher ISO's with my 7D they look great. Looking at an image zoomed in at 100% will destroy just about any image and I think any camera would have a hard time holding up to someone who is convinced that viewing them at that large of size is the only way to judge a camera's worth. 

The way I look at it is, once I have processed my RAW image (regardless of what ISO I used on my 7D) and converted it to Jpeg and if the image looks good on screen, then make a print to be sure... good to go!

My 2 cents.

D


----------



## jrista (Sep 17, 2014)

Richard8971 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Maybe we are spoiled...however, maybe we are on the cusp of another revolutionary leap forward in IQ again. Ten years from now, we could be looking back at today, and saying the very same thing about noise levels today as we are about noise levels with film.

Yes, we have amazing technology today, and it's allowed for wonderful things. However, counter to "We have it great" is, we could have it better. And, we likely WILL have it better. Most companies are rocketing forward at lightning speed on all camera capability fronts. I know that Samsung doesn't have a great lens selection yet...but, YET. They have a 7D II killer on their hands (well, with the exception that the high speed 15fps rate is 12-bit RAW, which is kind of a Samsung killer ). All they really need is a great lens selection and a reliable support department. Those things simply need time to accumulate and build up. 

Same goes for Sony...they are redefining a lot of the market today, and like Nikon, throwing out a lot of products to see what sticks (although I actually think Sony is doing a better job with product naming and whatnot than Nikon has ever done). It is, again, only a matter of time before Sony's lens lineup bulks up, and they have the benefit of Zeiss behind their glass.

Ten years from now, 14-16 stops of DR (maybe even as much as 20...there are already video sensors that do that with multi-bucket exposures) and ultra, ultra low noise, even at ultra high ISO settings, will be so common that we'll be looking at todays cameras like we look at film. For me, I honestly wonder if Canon will be a big player in that future. They may have lenses and support, but their products, technologically, are being matched or surpassed by even the likes of Samsung.... ???


----------



## Richard8971 (Sep 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Maybe we are spoiled...however, maybe we are on the cusp of another revolutionary leap forward in IQ again. Ten years from now, we could be looking back at today, and saying the very same thing about noise levels today as we are about noise levels with film.
> 
> Yes, we have amazing technology today, and it's allowed for wonderful things. However, counter to "We have it great" is, we could have it better. And, we likely WILL have it better. Most companies are rocketing forward at lightning speed on all camera capability fronts. I know that Samsung doesn't have a great lens selection yet...but, YET. They have a 7D II killer on their hands (well, with the exception that the high speed 15fps rate is 12-bit RAW, which is kind of a Samsung killer ). All they really need is a great lens selection and a reliable support department. Those things simply need time to accumulate and build up.
> 
> ...



Good point. 

D


----------



## tat3406 (Sep 17, 2014)

Higher ISO will more convenient in photography, I had imagine the day will come that I no need tripod for shooting:
1)milky way
2)macro without flash


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Richard8971 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



jrista, I 100% agree with you. Currently I see the following trends:

1) Sony - its superb sensor is used in many cameras, 35 mm and MF. Recently they introduced super autofocus http://petapixel.com/2014/09/16/heres-glimpse-sonys-new-4d-autofocus-technology-looks-feels/. Combine Sony's sensor with such autofocus and Zeiss lenses and you will get product that puts Canon products at least few generations behind. Of course, Neuro will say his famous words "but Canon's financial situation is better than Sony and Canon sells more cameras", however, he should try not to behave like Canon fanboy but start looking and other companies' innovations more seroulsly.
2) Samsung - look at Samsung NX camera and you will see significant improvements compared with 7D Mk II. Taking a look at Samsung and their innovations pace I would bet on Samsung rather on Canon which became very stagnant company. It is pathetic that after 5 years Canon released 7DMkII, without any innovations (it included current autofocus technology from 1Dx which already paid-off few years ago).
3) Tamron and Sigma - looking at their lenses quality, e.g. Sigma 35 mm Art. Sigma 50 mm art, Sigma 150-600 mm, Tamron 24-70, Tamron 150-600, I see that significant lens market share will be overtaken bu these 2 companies in the future. Canon will be relleasing 7.000-10.000 USD lenses, which will be interesting to some millionaires or lucky sports journalists.


----------



## sgs8r (Sep 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.
> 
> My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.
> 
> Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....



Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is? In other words, how much higher does the "usable" (admittedly not well defined) ISO need to get for the camera to perform as well as the human eye, with comparable detail, noise, etc.?

In the early days of digital, there was constant discussion about how many MP were needed for digital to be comparable to film, even though the image characteristics are somewhat different (14 MP was the generally agreed upon answer, as I recall). My question is sort of in the same spirit.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 19, 2014)

sgs8r said:


> Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is?



Not an easy question to answer as the human eye really does not have much in common with a camera.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
http://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-sensitivity-and-iso-of-the-human-eye/ This site says that the ISO of the human eye is 1-800. Is this right? Dunno

If you really want to find out how tough this is to answer, access Scholar.google.com and search for Sensitivity of Human Eye. But beware, Google Scholar gives very technical responses.


----------



## Actionpix (Sep 19, 2014)

I am one of those dinosaurs who still is used to ISO-100 or lower. Setting higher than 100 ISO to me just feels unnatural. I understand there are people who want to make images I do not think of now. But really. I am still so used to film I just don't realise the possibilities and still manage well with ISO 100, sometimes even combined with an ND filter as I often even have to much light to make the shot I want. Some times I could use more ISO but as said, I just don't consider that at first.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 19, 2014)

sgs8r said:


> Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is? In other words, how much higher does the "usable" (admittedly not well defined) ISO need to get for the camera to perform as well as the human eye, with comparable detail, noise, etc.?
> 
> In the early days of digital, there was constant discussion about how many MP were needed for digital to be comparable to film, even though the image characteristics are somewhat different (14 MP was the generally agreed upon answer, as I recall). My question is sort of in the same spirit.


One of the problems with that is that in the daylight we have high res colour vision and at night we have low res b/w vision.... Also, note how long it takes for the eye to adjust to darkness..... about 5 minutes for full sensitivity... we can't just rotate a knob like on a camera


----------



## lo lite (Sep 19, 2014)

Besisika said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > I guess at some point I'll have to rent a 1D X and try for myself …
> ...



I am not such a friend of using a flash as it in most cases destroys the atmosphere. Besides using it for artistic purposes like here of course: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/sets/72157645482355359/


----------



## lo lite (Sep 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.
> 
> My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.



In the film days I was a big fan of the Kodak TMZ P3200, later, after having no longer a private lab available and switching to color I used the Fujicolor Superia 1600 a lot. Which reminds me that I finally have to scan all those negatives.


----------



## sgs8r (Sep 19, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> sgs8r said:
> 
> 
> > Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is?
> ...



Interesting reading, though somehow the estimated ISO of 500-1000 for the eye seems low. Informally, I imagine sitting out on a patio on a summer night (or in a dimly lit restaurant or bar) and trying to capture what I see with a camera. I don't think ISO 800 will get the job done. Maybe ISO 6400 on a newer camera. 

Here's a possible experiment: In a low-light situation, set up an optometrist's eye chart and determine the smallest line you can read. Then take a camera with a 50mm (or equivalent) lens at f/1.4 (not really sure what makes sense here) and 1/60 and shoot the chart at various ISOs. Make prints with minimal postprocessing and view them in good light at a distance where chart image subtends the same angle as the original chart. And determine the smallest line you can read on each one. Then the ISO of the chart where the smallest readable line matches your performance in the original test would be one measure of the eye's ISO.


----------



## JMZawodny (Sep 19, 2014)

sgs8r said:


> Interesting reading, though somehow the estimated ISO of 500-1000 for the eye seems low. Informally, I imagine sitting out on a patio on a summer night (or in a dimly lit restaurant or bar) and trying to capture what I see with a camera. I don't think ISO 800 will get the job done. Maybe ISO 6400 on a newer camera.
> 
> Here's a possible experiment: In a low-light situation, set up an optometrist's eye chart and determine the smallest line you can read. Then take a camera with a 50mm (or equivalent) lens at f/1.4 (not really sure what makes sense here) and 1/60 and shoot the chart at various ISOs. Make prints with minimal postprocessing and view them in good light at a distance where chart image subtends the same angle as the original chart. And determine the smallest line you can read on each one. Then the ISO of the chart where the smallest readable line matches your performance in the original test would be one measure of the eye's ISO.



Why limit it to 1/60th of a second? The brain has a profound ability to filter noise and integrate signals. I'm not sure what the appropriate exposure should be for such a comparison. Perhaps we would need the observer to have their exposure limited with a shutter as well in order to make this a fair comparison.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 19, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...


Not sure what you mean by "destroys the atmosphere". Are you referring to bothering people? Or the quality of light.
If you refer to the second, remember that studio photos are made mainly with flashes (strobes) and I would say that the majority of fashion and beauty shots are flash based while these are the most advanced in terms of lighting requirement.
Flashes allows you to get the quality, power and direction as you wish. 
My Idol is Neil van Niekerk. Check his work if you haven't yet. 
Like many, I prefer window light but you won't have it always (or always you never have it when you need it). I shoot 1DX but whenever it is allowed, I choose using flash all the time in low lighting condition. 
Many photographers are considered light controlling freaks and I can consider myself one of them. Whenever the light is too weak, too harsh or in the wrong direction; I ask for permission and pull out my strobes.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Sep 19, 2014)

I photograph a lot of dance competitions where my Shutter speed must be at least 1/500 and Aperture is at f2.8 on a 5dmk3 (any faster aperture and I risk being out of focus too often). Since many competitions are in poorly lit environments I often have to rely on ISO 3200 - 6400.

Attached Image settings:
1/400, f4, ISO 3200 (no noise reduction in post - to illustrate the out of camera noise levels)
Lens: Canon 16-35 f2.8 v2
Camera: 5Dmk3


----------



## sgs8r (Sep 19, 2014)

JMZawodny said:


> sgs8r said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting reading, though somehow the estimated ISO of 500-1000 for the eye seems low. Informally, I imagine sitting out on a patio on a summer night (or in a dimly lit restaurant or bar) and trying to capture what I see with a camera. I don't think ISO 800 will get the job done. Maybe ISO 6400 on a newer camera.
> ...



The 1/60 assumed the camera was hand-held ("bio-stabilized", like the eye ). With a tripod, arbitrarily long exposure times would be possible but that would assume a stationary subject. Again, I'm envisioning trying to capture what the eye sees. The eye (once adapted) doesn't require a long exposure or a stationary subject. So 1/60 seemed a reasonable value. Particularly for this type of ad hoc, apples-to-oranges type of comparison.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 24, 2014)

As a wildlife photograph I stand up early when the sun is still down. So I really need high ISO performance and a crop body also... Hoping the 7D mkII rules there ! 8)


----------



## nc0b (Sep 24, 2014)

There was a comment that light falls off at an inverts square standpoint as one backs away from a subject. That is true if you are using on-camera flash. With existing light there is no change in the brightness of the subject regardless of distance to the camera. The subject gets smaller, bit its brightness doesn't change at all. Take the moon as an example. It is really far away from the camera, but the exposure is the same as one would use to take a picture of a person standing 10 feet away in sunlight. (There are some variables here depending on whether the moon is in the umbra or penumbra shadow from the earth, but I am talking about a more general case of a sun-lit moon.)


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 24, 2014)

nc0b said:


> There was a comment that light falls off at an inverts square standpoint as one backs away from a subject. That is true if you are using on-camera flash. With existing light there is no change in the brightness of the subject regardless of distance to the camera.



That is correct because it still follows the inverse square law. This can be one of the more difficult things to learn about off camera flash. It is the distance from the light source (sun or flash) to the subject that is important, not the distance from the camera to the subject.


----------

