wgerrard
Veteran
Here's something that confuses me:
I usually shoot film, at 400 or below. I've never felt a need to use higher speed films. Now, when a digital is up for discussion, there is usually a lot of focus on its high ISO performance, i.e., noise.
Is there a reason why I would care if a digital is noisy at 800 and up, so long as it isn't noisy at 400 and below, where I would shoot it? Do you need to use higher ISO's with digitals? Is this an issue just for people who like to shoot in the dark?
I usually shoot film, at 400 or below. I've never felt a need to use higher speed films. Now, when a digital is up for discussion, there is usually a lot of focus on its high ISO performance, i.e., noise.
Is there a reason why I would care if a digital is noisy at 800 and up, so long as it isn't noisy at 400 and below, where I would shoot it? Do you need to use higher ISO's with digitals? Is this an issue just for people who like to shoot in the dark?
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
If you don't use higher ISO on a digital, don't lose sleep over it.
The last few years we have seen spectacular gains in hi-ISO performance, bringing us to values film cannot even hope to begin to match. You are probably aware that the Nikon D3s exceeds the magic ISO 100.000 barrier. Some have described its performance there as 'better than Tri-X at 1200'. That would mean an incomprehensible 6 and a half stop better performance.
I remember very well the heady days that I was limited by 1600ISO on my D70 when doing concert shooting. A few extra stops would have been a godsend and would have made for thousands of better images and thousands of images where no image could have been made before.
Undoubtedely someone will chime in that he pushed film X to whatever, but I really would like to see that equal a modern digital camera. Furthermore, if you would give a hardworking sixties pro the choice between a Nikon F and a D3s, what would he choose?
It's called progress.
By the way, next week I have a big concert photography assignment. I will shoot it on film. Firstly I don't own a D3s and secondly I can instruct the light guy
The last few years we have seen spectacular gains in hi-ISO performance, bringing us to values film cannot even hope to begin to match. You are probably aware that the Nikon D3s exceeds the magic ISO 100.000 barrier. Some have described its performance there as 'better than Tri-X at 1200'. That would mean an incomprehensible 6 and a half stop better performance.
I remember very well the heady days that I was limited by 1600ISO on my D70 when doing concert shooting. A few extra stops would have been a godsend and would have made for thousands of better images and thousands of images where no image could have been made before.
Undoubtedely someone will chime in that he pushed film X to whatever, but I really would like to see that equal a modern digital camera. Furthermore, if you would give a hardworking sixties pro the choice between a Nikon F and a D3s, what would he choose?
It's called progress.
By the way, next week I have a big concert photography assignment. I will shoot it on film. Firstly I don't own a D3s and secondly I can instruct the light guy
bmattock
Veteran
I've always felt a need for faster film, so I'm glad to see higher ISO ratings on digital cameras, especially when it means useful high-ISO and not just more noise or more noise-reducing mushy photos.
I often take photos in indoor environments where flash is either forbidden or would be very rude - such as athletic or dance competitions. And I cannot afford very fast long lenses, so sometimes I have to dance the edge of trying to balance aperture, ISO, shutter speed, and desired DoF just to get a halfway decent shot. So for such situations, more ISO always gives me more options, which is very welcome. Cheaper than super-fast long lenses, too.
pawel glogowski
Member
Of course not only. Its important for sports and wildlife photographers to use very short shutter speeds (moving subject+long telephoto=need for ISO).
Than again not everybody needs it. If You are fine with ISO 100-400, than no need to worry
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Yup. And often not for them either, if they have fast lenses. EDIT: And sports & wildlife, sometimes (thanks, Pawel).
More ISO speed is nice, and extremely useful for some people -- I commonly use 2500 on my Ms, and I'd like 10,000 -- but (like everything else) a lot of the people who get the most excited about it are indulging in empty specmanship.
Cheers,
R.
Olsen
Well-known
I had been a 100ASA guy for all my life. I found all the films faster to be inferior.
One of the real wonders of the digital world is that you can change ISO setting by just turning a knob. For a long time I stuck to my old 'setting', using only 100ISO on my first digital camera, the Canon 1Ds. Later I changed to 1Ds II and now a III, besides my Leica M8. The Canon 1Ds III is just incredible. I regularly shoot with ISO1600 without any disturbing noise at all. Possibly is this the least noisy camera, besides Canon's 5D II. I have not tried any higher settings, yet.
The Leica M8 I regularly use at ISO 640 - which matches Canon's ISO800 with very low noise levels. Film is far behind in this respect and can not compete with today's digital cameras regarding noise.
One of the real wonders of the digital world is that you can change ISO setting by just turning a knob. For a long time I stuck to my old 'setting', using only 100ISO on my first digital camera, the Canon 1Ds. Later I changed to 1Ds II and now a III, besides my Leica M8. The Canon 1Ds III is just incredible. I regularly shoot with ISO1600 without any disturbing noise at all. Possibly is this the least noisy camera, besides Canon's 5D II. I have not tried any higher settings, yet.
The Leica M8 I regularly use at ISO 640 - which matches Canon's ISO800 with very low noise levels. Film is far behind in this respect and can not compete with today's digital cameras regarding noise.
Lilserenity
Well-known
I see your point. I think on the whole it doesn't matter too much for general shooting, but the performance in low light is astounding if you want minimal grain/noise.
But on the whole I'd find little need to have high ISO performance for most of my shooting so I don't worry about it. I did have a young lad get somewhat confused a few months ago that I found it perfectly usable to shoot ISO 64 film in daylight!
Certainly though, modern digital's low light performance knocks film into a cocked hat, and definitely has its uses.
That said, it doesn't really impinge on what i do too much and I like grain so shooting T-Max/Delta 400 pushed to 1600 may be grainy compared to an EOS 5D at ISO 1600, but that's the look I like.
The one thing digital is great for is the ability to change your ISO on the fly.
So no, there is no reason. It's like my car (believe it or not) can go about 110mph, but I'd never drive it that fast, it's there, but it doesn't really impact me so I'm never bothered by the fact.
I do wonder why some peeps shoot at things like ISO 800 even somehow 1600 on a bright day, I guess the only reason is because the pictures come out just fine in most light so there's little impetus to change the ISO. Anyway, who am I to question other people's methods
Vicky
But on the whole I'd find little need to have high ISO performance for most of my shooting so I don't worry about it. I did have a young lad get somewhat confused a few months ago that I found it perfectly usable to shoot ISO 64 film in daylight!
Certainly though, modern digital's low light performance knocks film into a cocked hat, and definitely has its uses.
That said, it doesn't really impinge on what i do too much and I like grain so shooting T-Max/Delta 400 pushed to 1600 may be grainy compared to an EOS 5D at ISO 1600, but that's the look I like.
The one thing digital is great for is the ability to change your ISO on the fly.
So no, there is no reason. It's like my car (believe it or not) can go about 110mph, but I'd never drive it that fast, it's there, but it doesn't really impact me so I'm never bothered by the fact.
I do wonder why some peeps shoot at things like ISO 800 even somehow 1600 on a bright day, I guess the only reason is because the pictures come out just fine in most light so there's little impetus to change the ISO. Anyway, who am I to question other people's methods
Vicky
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I like being able to shoot with the equivalent of Neopan 1600. So if I can make a digital image look good at 1600 in B&W, I am happy. Both my digicams can basically do it.
c.poulton
Well-known
I regularly shoot ADOX CHS 50 (ISO 50), even on overcast & dull days and sometimes indoors without any problems, you just have to be careful with slow shutter speeds - fast glass does help though
Can you even go as low as ISO 50 on most dSLR's these days - it seems that the norm is much higher up the scale?
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I think the difference comes at those times when you want to take a photo in lower light. If you have a roll of 400 film in, you check, find you can't take the picture even on your widest aperture, shrug and move on, whereas with digital, you have the additional choice of upp'ing your ISO. I realize I'm not saying anything you don't know, just describing the slipperey slope from 400 to 2500 (6400??).
not_in_good_order
Well-known
I love that ISO 3200 allows for great exposures at around f2-2.8 1/60-1/100 sec indoors at night in a room lit by just a lamp or two.
wgerrard
Veteran
Agreed, and I understand the value of higher ISO's.
I guess what I was trying to get at in my original question, and which I stupidly left out, is this:
Are higher ISO's required to get the same shot someone can get with film at a lower ISO?
For example, assuming two cameras that are identical except that one is digital and the other uses film, and assuming that both use the same lens, are there any circumstances in which I'd need to shoot the digital at a higher ISO than the film camera to get an equivalent shot?
lynnb
Veteran
No, there's no need if you want an equivalent shot. Higher ISO is useful to photograph moving subjects in low light - think moving children indoors, and night street photos. Or where you want high shutter speeds and a small aperture.
wgerrard
Veteran
Right. I know. I'm just curious about the emphasis on high ISO's on digital cameras and trying to see if there's anything behind it other than a wish to shoot at high IOS's.
bmattock
Veteran
Speculation: I wonder if cameras that have higher ISO ratings also offer better dynamic range at lower ISO settings? One might suspect that such things might be related. However, pure guesswork on my part.
f/14
Established
[Speculation: I wonder if cameras that have higher ISO ratings also offer better dynamic range at lower ISO settings? One might suspect that such things might be related. However, pure guesswork on my part.]
There is no automatic/fixed relationship between high ISO and high dynamic range at low ISO, but the "best" cameras like the D3 series have close to 13 stop nominal dynamic range at lower ISOs. The "lesser" ones tends to have too much noise to give high dynamic ranges. For comparisons, see http://www.dxomark.com/.
With film you "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights". In digital cameras you "expose for the highlights and hope for the camera to have low enough noise for it to render the shadows".
As said several times here, the high ISOs of the best cameras enables you to take pictures with fairly good noise at light levels wher you would never dear to thread with film. Just adding an f/1.4 lens to film does not help much if you need depth of field for a specific picture. No miracles, it just adds a new style of low lihgt photography to all the styles we already have.
There is no automatic/fixed relationship between high ISO and high dynamic range at low ISO, but the "best" cameras like the D3 series have close to 13 stop nominal dynamic range at lower ISOs. The "lesser" ones tends to have too much noise to give high dynamic ranges. For comparisons, see http://www.dxomark.com/.
With film you "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights". In digital cameras you "expose for the highlights and hope for the camera to have low enough noise for it to render the shadows".
As said several times here, the high ISOs of the best cameras enables you to take pictures with fairly good noise at light levels wher you would never dear to thread with film. Just adding an f/1.4 lens to film does not help much if you need depth of field for a specific picture. No miracles, it just adds a new style of low lihgt photography to all the styles we already have.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The good high iso performance in digital cameras opens up new avenues to explore in what type of photo you can take that you could not take before. If you have no need of the extra performance offered you do not need to use it but it is there if you get curious. Personally I have tried shots that I never would have tried with film.
gavinlg
Veteran
See if you can go and borrow a d700 or 5d and a single fast prime and try shooting it around town at night. When you're shooting iso1600 to iso 12800 with fantastic colors/grain at sane shutter speeds, you'll understand why it's so good.
I have the mk1 5d and I'm happy shooting at ISO 3200 and even pushing a stop to 6400, and this is at f1.4, 1/20th shutter. Like seriously low light. Even with a f.095 lens you'd still need iso 3200.to achieve the same shutter speed.
I have the mk1 5d and I'm happy shooting at ISO 3200 and even pushing a stop to 6400, and this is at f1.4, 1/20th shutter. Like seriously low light. Even with a f.095 lens you'd still need iso 3200.to achieve the same shutter speed.
M4cr0s
Back In Black
I have a slightly different perspective to this discussion.
If you shoot say a standard crop sensor DSLR of 12mp or more with those rather tiny photosites (this is even more a problem on smaller high resolution sensors) you'll realize sooner or later that it's more difficult to get a sharp picture (at least viewing at 100 %) than with a lower resolution camera, even when taking into account the old "effective focal length = shutter speed" rule. Smaller photosites means the light moves over more of them during the exposure which increases the chance of blur. If this blur is perceivable depends on viewing distance of the end medium, be it print or screen, but down at the pixel level, blur is blur.
Basically, you might in fact need a higher shutter speed to have a reasonable chance of getting a sharp shot with digital compared to film at comparable exposure settings and focal lengths. Also, full frame cameras like the D3/D700s with a mp count of about 12 might also be able to get a sharp picture at more conservative shutter speeds compared to its crop sensor cousins with the same mp count.
I suspect this phenomenon might be part of the reason why so many sensors today are designed to start with the digital sensitivity equivalent of about ISO 200.
As for higher ISOs in daylight situations, several of the members of this excellent forum have already stated the obvious, it's down to your shooting style and preferences. However, devoid of a tripod and if you're going for an extreme shutter speed to freeze action or need/want more DOF thus dropping aperture down several stops, being able to comfortably pump ISO to say 800-1600 isn't a bad thing. At least I often have to do that on gray days, or the late summer's afternoon. Yeah, I know, bring a tripod and I completely agree. However, better ISO performance is just another tool in the box. I don't know about you, but I've always experienced photography as fighting against the technical limitations of the exposure triangle and I'll take anything that gives me more/wider exposure options.
/Mac
If you shoot say a standard crop sensor DSLR of 12mp or more with those rather tiny photosites (this is even more a problem on smaller high resolution sensors) you'll realize sooner or later that it's more difficult to get a sharp picture (at least viewing at 100 %) than with a lower resolution camera, even when taking into account the old "effective focal length = shutter speed" rule. Smaller photosites means the light moves over more of them during the exposure which increases the chance of blur. If this blur is perceivable depends on viewing distance of the end medium, be it print or screen, but down at the pixel level, blur is blur.
Basically, you might in fact need a higher shutter speed to have a reasonable chance of getting a sharp shot with digital compared to film at comparable exposure settings and focal lengths. Also, full frame cameras like the D3/D700s with a mp count of about 12 might also be able to get a sharp picture at more conservative shutter speeds compared to its crop sensor cousins with the same mp count.
I suspect this phenomenon might be part of the reason why so many sensors today are designed to start with the digital sensitivity equivalent of about ISO 200.
As for higher ISOs in daylight situations, several of the members of this excellent forum have already stated the obvious, it's down to your shooting style and preferences. However, devoid of a tripod and if you're going for an extreme shutter speed to freeze action or need/want more DOF thus dropping aperture down several stops, being able to comfortably pump ISO to say 800-1600 isn't a bad thing. At least I often have to do that on gray days, or the late summer's afternoon. Yeah, I know, bring a tripod and I completely agree. However, better ISO performance is just another tool in the box. I don't know about you, but I've always experienced photography as fighting against the technical limitations of the exposure triangle and I'll take anything that gives me more/wider exposure options.
/Mac
David Hughes
David Hughes
I've a different angle to this, too. My main problem with slow to medium film is that it needs fast glass in front of it at this time of year when there's little light and a serious telephoto is being used for wildlife. The problem for me is the weight of the equipment and the tripod especially. And I have to carry two cameras because on a two or three hour walk there's more to photograph nearby than on the horizon and changing lenses in a muddy field is often impossible. (And the equipment seems to get heavier and heavier as the day goes by... )
So I look and wonder at those super-zoom digital cameras. It seems they go from (say) 30mm out to the equivalent of 300mm or more, can be carried in the pocket and make up for the slow lenses because unbelievable ISO speeds are available without noise. And the wide angle distortions can be corrected with software later on. And there's IS to give me a faster shutter speed.
I don't know if the things exist that meet that spec and I worry about adding another camera to the collection, but it is tempting and one of the few things I can't duplicate with my film equipment.
The rest of the time I stick to ASA 80 or 100 and sometimes 200 but seldom 400; digital or film.
Regards, David
So I look and wonder at those super-zoom digital cameras. It seems they go from (say) 30mm out to the equivalent of 300mm or more, can be carried in the pocket and make up for the slow lenses because unbelievable ISO speeds are available without noise. And the wide angle distortions can be corrected with software later on. And there's IS to give me a faster shutter speed.
I don't know if the things exist that meet that spec and I worry about adding another camera to the collection, but it is tempting and one of the few things I can't duplicate with my film equipment.
The rest of the time I stick to ASA 80 or 100 and sometimes 200 but seldom 400; digital or film.
Regards, David