Digital ISO - spoiled for choice ?

[dee]

Back in the day ,I recall slide films of 25 and 50 ASA .
OK , it was helped with a fine f1.7 / f 1.8 prime lens .

In the late 90s , ASA 200 reversal seemed perfectly adequate, even with the slower f3.5/f5.6 typical , in my case Minolta , zoom .

I have digital DSLRs and an M8 , capable at ISO 200 equivalent , but 400 is pushing it .
Most of the time this is little difference from the 1990s with the different colours of a CCD.

I also three later cameras of varying types , SLT / Mirrorless / DSLR which push comfortably to the equivalent of 800 , 1600 a possibility and the promise of more .

Useful at times , but not essential to me .

I know that the evolving sensors open up new opportunities , but I wonder if the restrictions of older sensors are less of a 'problem' as many have us believe ?

dee

 

[willie_901]

The primary difference between older and current digital sensors is their effective signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). ISO really is not relevant. ISO equally increases both the signal and noise levels after the shutter closes.

The light is the signal. Whenever there is ample light (signal) SNR differences are usually unimportant. This is essentially what you have experienced.

As the available light decreases, differences in SNR are most obvious in shadow regions. At high ISOs (say 1600) the differences start to become important in highlight regions.

Increased sensor SNR has anther advantage. The maximum dynamic range is determined by the SNR. So even in bright light newer sensor technologies become useful whenever the dynamic range of the scene approaches or exceeds a camera's maximum dynamic range

Newer digital cameras and modern film have similar effective dynamic ranges. If ISO 200 film met your needs, then the maximum dynamic range of your older digital cameras will meet your needs too.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I was just going through it in my head yesterday after reading another post how important it is to have clean ISO 6400. I asked my self how did all of my relatives managed to take nice indoor photos with low ISO film and how my wife was able to take nice portraits with slow zoom lens and ISO400 film indoors?...
Now it is all about ISO 6400 and f1.4 lens for modern digital crowd. Or old school crowd which can't use digital cameras properly or can't accept the fact what M9 ISO2500 is giving same grain as ISO 400 film is giving 🙂
Few days ago I printed M-E ISO2500 indoor color file at 5x7 paper. It was absolutely nothing wrong with it. And if I can't use flash I'm finding it no problem to use ISO 6400 on my Canon 500D.
But more and more I'm finding what I'm using flash. Some systems are more capable of flash support some less. Leica M is not good with flash, but still possible and I'm using TTL Leica flash and ISO400-640. On Canon DSLR I'm using build-in flash to fill-in at ISO800-3200. It requires some test pre-shots.
Some smart manufacturers are realizing what it is not just high ISO. For example, latest Fuji cameras have very effective fill-in built-in flash which is easy to use in auto modes.

 

[jsrockit]

Handheld night photography is fun. With these newer cameras having AF that focuses down to -3 & -4 EV and acceptable ISO 6400, I can keep my shutter speed relatively high and get usable street photos in a quick manner.

Not everyone photographs the same way or expects the same results. Things change. Just because someone did something in the past with less doesn't mean that you should not use advances. It's a personal choice for some and a necessity for others. The history of photography is filled with advances and changes. People choose to use them or choose not to. What it boils down to is still framing and content. Enjoy the diversity of a medium which continues to have people supporting the oldest of processes and the latest of advances.

 

[mlu19]

I love capturing my kids indoor/night time photos without the use of flash, and high digital ISO helps tremendously with that. Sure, B&W film pushed to 1600 can do it too but my wife would like the photos to be in color.

I don't think this option spoils me as I still need to hunt for semi-good indoor lighting with high ISO.

 

[Prest_400]

I was just going through it in my head yesterday after reading another post how important it is to have clean ISO 6400. I asked my self how did all of my relatives managed to take nice indoor photos with low ISO film and how my wife was able to take nice portraits with slow zoom lens and ISO400 film indoors?...
Now it is all about ISO 6400 and f1.4 lens for modern digital crowd. Or old school crowd which can't use digital cameras properly or can't accept the fact what M9 ISO2500 is giving same grain as ISO 400 film is giving 🙂

Despite being young, learnt on film and now I somehow around a couple of newbie acquitances and mentor of a willing friend.
Good thing is that I get into gear thought excercises. Why need a DSLR when a Mirrorless is perfectly fine for such amateur use.

One of those acquitances is simply hilarious, begininng with too much gear and just not knowing how to exploit it. 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 and he plunged 300 for a 50mm 1.4... "For what?" I told him, "Bokeh".

I do think that learning with gear limitations does help tying the basics down.

Handheld night photography is fun. With these newer cameras having AF that focuses down to -3 & -4 EV and acceptable ISO 6400, I can keep my shutter speed relatively high and get usable street photos in a quick manner.

Not everyone photographs the same way or expects the same results. Things change. Just because someone did something in the past with less doesn't mean that you should not use advances. It's a personal choice for some and a necessity for others. The history of photography is filled with advances and changes. People choose to use them or choose not to. What it boils down to is still framing and content. Enjoy the diversity of a medium which continues to have people supporting the oldest of processes and the latest of advances.

+1 +1 John. Though it is fun to poke fun.
I still have a now old amateur Oly m43 which at ISO 1600 shows its limits (but 8x10s are perfectly fine) and agree that handheld night photography is very fun... In NYC I had fun at evening in the streets.

Continuing about limitations, me thinks that beginners with too much gear (eg. couple zooms) vs a couple of primes take more time to train framing; That's what I see with these kids I know... Specially the one with two lenses too many.

But advancements are so fantastic, not only in photography. The other day I ran into a British family friend spontaneously and we could do a skype call to Asia, in some random street. So is that the same phone does a better role as a snapshooting machine than past "toy" cameras.

 

[nobbylon]

I only use digital now and limit myself to either 200 or 800 iso. It makes things more consistant and on the M9 I have 4 presets. 35 lens and 200, 35 and 800, 50 lens and 200 and 50 and 800. It makes life much simpler.
My D700 can be cranked up another stop but I haven't used it in over a year. I've been playing with both today but I really can't get the accurate colour from the D700 that I get out of the M9 but that's a different topic.
Are we spoilt for choice? yes definately but with that choice things can get busy and complicated. I prefer simple shooting and even simpler post processing.

 

[jamin-b]

I fully get that having limitations leads to creativity - just look what poets did with the constraints of the sonnet form for example. However being frustrated by all the low lights shots I didn't quite get (for instance with an otherwise cherished M8) I purchased a Nikon Df. Suddenly IS0 setting is no longer a factor, and I can get the shot and have depth of field. Another important factor for me is that having a lens with a super wide aperture is no longer of particular importance in many situations when you can dial up the ISO without hurting image quality, which means smaller and cheaper "modest" lenses produce great results.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

 

[dee]

Thanks everyone . Of course , I am strictly an amateur snap shooter - high ISO must be a boon for professionals .

I concur with the ability to take indoor and night shots with the high ISO of modern cameras . It can be great . Quite useful for high shutter speeds for kiddie chasing too !

I guess that it the new possibilities are still a bit mind blowing to me as my M8/J3 and my much loved 4/3rds Leica Digilux 3 are becoming more of a vintage classic LOL .
I sure as heck will be still shooting with them until they die on me .

I tend to stick with ISO 200 on all cameras , simply because I can more easily ascertain exposure .

I was used to a 50mm lens back in the day , and it was a case of working within the limitations - moving as required and accepting that some photos were not possible .

dee

 

[jnclde]

I only use digital now and limit myself to either 200 or 800 iso. It makes things more consistant and on the M9 I have 4 presets. 35 lens and 200, 35 and 800, 50 lens and 200 and 50 and 800. It makes life much simpler.
My D700 can be cranked up another stop but I haven't used it in over a year. I've been playing with both today but I really can't get the accurate colour from the D700 that I get out of the M9 but that's a different topic.
Are we spoilt for choice? yes definately but with that choice things can get busy and complicated. I prefer simple shooting and even simpler post processing.

I just bought a M9 a couple of weeks ago, and had the M8 a couple of years ago. This seems like a great idea. Back when I was shooting with the M8, during night scenes I would almost always shoot at base ISO and expose for the highlights and push the shadows by 4 stops. It worked but it was a slower process then.

 

[TXForester]

High ISO is great, but I would like a digital camera with low (not boosted) ISO. I don't want to put on a ND filter to get down to 50 ISO or thereabouts. It is more equipment to carry around and keep clean. Sure I'll want a 2 or 3 stop ND filter and graduated ND filter some photos. But my latest camera starts at 200 ISO. I need a one stop filter just to get where old digital cameras start (100).

 

[uhoh7]

I'd love to have a camera which could shoot clean at a very high ISO. That would get some DOF into less bright situations when i'd like it.

The M10 can't go that high, but it does go decently to 6000. My M9 is getting ragged at 800. So would I take a M10. Sure. Send two 😉

 

[willie_901]

I just bought a M9 a couple of weeks ago, and had the M8 a couple of years ago. This seems like a great idea. Back when I was shooting with the M8, during night scenes I would almost always shoot at base ISO and expose for the highlights and push the shadows by 4 stops. It worked but it was a slower process then.

I do this most of the time with my Fujifilms. Technically it's very similar to using an auto-ISO mode. The only difference is the photographer increases brightness for each image using digital multiplication during post production instead of the camera deciding the level of in-camera electronic multiplication to make the light meter's guess look 'good' (appropriate brightness). All you have to worry about is not over exposing important highlights. With an OVF it is feels natural.

This only works works raw files. In low light image review is not practical (which is resembles a film camera.

 

[Archlich]

Imagine what photography was like back in the 1950's when ultra wide lenses were few and far between. Imagine what photography was like when cameras were so bulky that they had to be transported by caravans. Imagine the time when there wasn't photography at all...

That's how technology changes our perceptions. We naturally make do with what we have, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[robert blu]

Many interesting considerations, as oft on RFF, I' so old that in my "brain" high iso is still 400 ! And 1.600 is ....🙂
robert

 

[Spanik]

Well if you like slides like I do then 400 iso was the highest you could get. Now I'm limited to 100. Otoh the DP1m or ZD are about unusable higher than 200 iso so nothing much changed 😀

 

[Ronald M]

I was a Kodachrome 25 fan, still am. Ektar 25 color neg was the cats meow.

Problem being pros are expected to to produce in various places and energy saving lighting keeps getting lower. They require higher ISO.

I remember decades back pros would mount strobes up in the rafters of basketball games. That is how the pics were made.

Back in the day flash bulbs were used and they could be ganged up. Even a decent single bulb I could get at the drug store was extremely powerful.

I can still get pics of the kids on the couch at ISO 25, but there be other uses for photography now.

 

[shawn]

Well if you like slides like I do then 400 iso was the highest you could get. Now I'm limited to 100. Otoh the DP1m or ZD are about unusable higher than 200 iso so nothing much changed 😀

You can use the Sigma much higher.... if you shoot it as a B&W camera and just use the top layer for conversions.

https://fotogenerellinternational.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/foveon-workflow-how-to-improve-high-iso-usability/

Shawn

 

[Spanik]

You can use the Sigma much higher.... if you shoot it as a B&W camera and just use the top layer for conversions.

https://fotogenerellinternational.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/foveon-workflow-how-to-improve-high-iso-usability/

Shawn

Sorry, b&w hold no attraction to me. If I can't have it in colour I don't need a photo of it.

 

[Bill Clark]

Some one can correct me if this is wrong.

The way I look at digital ISO:

It's not like film where film emulsion determines ISO.

The digital sensor isn't changed when the ISO is changed.

Rather, ISO is kind of like the volume control on your electronic device. You can turn the volume up or down. It doesn't change the source, like music played from a CD, iTunes, whatever.

Improvements are made with hardware, like sensor and software, the volume control to drive the hardware.

ISO is the volume control for digital photography. Instead of changing volume it's changing ISO. The higher the ISO the more the gain is cranked up. As you crank up, things like digital noise start rearing its head. Sometimes more noise is good, sometimes it's yuck.