presspass
filmshooter
Maybe not for good light, but I shoot high school basketball for our weekly newspaper. 6400 certainly makes that job easier, even with a 1.4 lens. Do we need it - no. Is it wonderful for these subjects - yes.
Do we really need ISO 6400?
- Thread starter BobYIL
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 5K
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I don't. But some do. What I want is ISO 25 on my M9.
mfudge
Newbie
I rarely shoot with high ISO's.
My brother, however, needs high ISO's. His option in many cases is either bulky Night Vision or no picture. Each model of digital camera has reduced the number of cases where he has to make that decision. He is currently testing the 1Dx and at 50,000 its shadow noise was less than the 5d Mk2 at 6400. He was showing me the side by side photos and the difference was amazing.
For people who need these high ISO sensors, these advances are changing the way they work. And for them its a huge step forward. For those who do not, they are benefiting from improved sensors and image processors. I think it is a win for everyone.
My brother, however, needs high ISO's. His option in many cases is either bulky Night Vision or no picture. Each model of digital camera has reduced the number of cases where he has to make that decision. He is currently testing the 1Dx and at 50,000 its shadow noise was less than the 5d Mk2 at 6400. He was showing me the side by side photos and the difference was amazing.
For people who need these high ISO sensors, these advances are changing the way they work. And for them its a huge step forward. For those who do not, they are benefiting from improved sensors and image processors. I think it is a win for everyone.
bigeye
Well-known
It's the single biggest improvement in photography, if you think about it from the image standpoint.
All other digital advances are processing/Tx/display related; image quality has struggled to prove itself a match of film, but low-light is turning out to be an advantage to digital and it should only get better.
Now, if only a manufacturer would add a dedicated ISO dial to go with dedicated speed and aperture dials, so that you can check at a glance the setting.
(Not keen on tiny plastic whiz wheels or buried menus with flower, underwater and cat icons.)
All other digital advances are processing/Tx/display related; image quality has struggled to prove itself a match of film, but low-light is turning out to be an advantage to digital and it should only get better.
Now, if only a manufacturer would add a dedicated ISO dial to go with dedicated speed and aperture dials, so that you can check at a glance the setting.
(Not keen on tiny plastic whiz wheels or buried menus with flower, underwater and cat icons.)
sepiareverb
genius and moron
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Some of us actually like a bit of shadow detail. Indoor basketball at f/2.8 and 1/500 often forces me to use ISO 6400. No, a tripod won't do because I need to freeze motion.
Shade
Well-known
I agree on the ISO Dial. Someone should do it.
Thardy
Veteran
Those two street scenes at ISO 6400 on DP Review look good, but the shots with people look a little strange to me.
willie_901
Veteran
High Signal To Noise = High Dynamic Range
High Signal To Noise = High Dynamic Range
The reason everyone needs ISO 6400 is: if the IQ does not come mostly from in-camera noise filtering, then the camera has a high signal-to-noise ratio. This means the dynamic range is high. Less bits are digitized as noise and more bits are digitized as signal. The increase in signal bits means the dynamic range is improved.
In data measurements (which is all digital imaging amounts to) nothing beats signal-to-noise ratio when it comes to data quality. Of course if there is an abundance of signal (say EV 12-16), then the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range is high even for cameras like the D200 I used where I avoided color above ISO 400. Otherwise, the dynamic range will be better when the signal-to-noise ratio is higher. You don't have to be down at EV 4-6 to realize the advantages of increased dynamic range.
This is quite different than film. With film the SNR really does not apply. Film dye granules just get larger in order to interact with more photons when the shutter is open. Of course some film dye molecules are more sensitive than others, but The uncertainty does not come from low amounts of signal. The uncertainty comes from a lack of spatial resolution due to the large granual size and the image becomes grainy. If you scan the negative, then the SNR and dynamic range of the scanner become the limiting factors. You are using a digital camera in the end. Shadow areas in the film have a low SNR and the errors can appear as blocked up regions or they may exhibit a high level of color noise which is just uncertainty in the scanner sensor-site photon counts.
High Signal To Noise = High Dynamic Range
The reason everyone needs ISO 6400 is: if the IQ does not come mostly from in-camera noise filtering, then the camera has a high signal-to-noise ratio. This means the dynamic range is high. Less bits are digitized as noise and more bits are digitized as signal. The increase in signal bits means the dynamic range is improved.
In data measurements (which is all digital imaging amounts to) nothing beats signal-to-noise ratio when it comes to data quality. Of course if there is an abundance of signal (say EV 12-16), then the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range is high even for cameras like the D200 I used where I avoided color above ISO 400. Otherwise, the dynamic range will be better when the signal-to-noise ratio is higher. You don't have to be down at EV 4-6 to realize the advantages of increased dynamic range.
This is quite different than film. With film the SNR really does not apply. Film dye granules just get larger in order to interact with more photons when the shutter is open. Of course some film dye molecules are more sensitive than others, but The uncertainty does not come from low amounts of signal. The uncertainty comes from a lack of spatial resolution due to the large granual size and the image becomes grainy. If you scan the negative, then the SNR and dynamic range of the scanner become the limiting factors. You are using a digital camera in the end. Shadow areas in the film have a low SNR and the errors can appear as blocked up regions or they may exhibit a high level of color noise which is just uncertainty in the scanner sensor-site photon counts.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I walk around Philly at night and shoot at either f/2.8 or f/2, 1/30 sec, ISO800. I rarely go above 800 just because I don't like the post processing. Yes I can definitely use 1600 on the M9 but I don't need to.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Similar threads
