Which ISO setting would you use more often: low or high?

[ray*j*gun]

If I need high ISO I shoot my D610.... pretty much sees in the dark! My M8u is superb for what I like to shoot at, which is 160 up to 320. With film I use 200 to 400 rarely above 400.

 

[noimmunity]

Some illuminating (pun intended) information shared here.

To answer the question from a non-technical user perspective, I want both for different things. And generally this means two different cameras. It really also means different mechanisms of viewing and focusing, as well.

 

[Godfrey]

A quick look at the data from 60,000+ exposures in my Lightroom catalog made with the cameras capable of up to ISO 25600 exposure setting shows that ~96% of my exposures have been made with ISO 1600 or less.

But ... Which digital camera would I pick, one fixed at ISO 200 or one fixed at ISO 2000? Neither. Because neither has the flexibility I expect of a digital camera, both at high AND low sensitivity settings.

Yes, dynamic range changes with sensitivity settings in digital cameras. It does with film media too. As also does acutance and latitude. I use these characteristics of the recording medium, film AND digital, to make decisions about exposure to suit a subject's dynamics to the photo I see in my mind.

A film camera for which you only buy ISO 200 film is not limited to ISO 200, that's just a choice you make which you can change at any time. A digital camera limited to ISO 200 or ISO 2000 can only be used at that setting, period, it's no longer a choice. That makes such a camera undesirable to me.

G

 

[Bob Michaels]

Easy:

If you could only shoot at 1/2000th all year long, then select iso 200 to use all year.

If you could only shoot at 1/200th all year long, then choose iso 2000 to use all year.

The real question is if you could only use one aperture, one shutter speed, and one iso for a year, which would they be?

 

[raid]

Take things with a grain of salt. It is very important to have the flexibility to choose different apertures and shutter speeds, depending on the settings. For landscapes, I often use F 8-11. Roland refers to such settings in his remark above.

 

[fireblade]

IS0-200....and if the shutter speed is too slow, we have flash and tripods...two items forgotten in todays photography.

 

[Paolo Bonello]

I'd go for high ISO both digital and film.
I'm developing 800 - 1600 B+W mostly so given the constraints of this poll I'd say 2000 even though 1600 would be a lot more ideal.
Digital, well it's similar to film for me in that it's mostly available light and even more indoor photography bias. Even if I use a bounce flash for parties at night I'll often shoot higher ISO to liven up background where flash does not penetrate to give it more of that party atmosphere. Again 2000 iso is not ideal as I'd rather 1600 but it's not too far out of the ballpark.
I also click that shutter button exponentially more when it's the 'golden hour' late in the afternoon or in the morning when the sunlight is not so strong so higher ISO is not so limiting.
I'm often using coloured filters for b+w film, well there's at least 1 stop or more so it's not hard to accommodate for 1600 in full daylight with filters and then just take them off as you run into the evening.
Unfortunately even though I do love slide film I rarely use it so I have not factored much weight into using slide or even colour negative film in this poll.

Fortunately it's just a poll.

 

[Cyriljay]

A quick look at the data from 60,000+ exposures in my Lightroom catalog made with the cameras capable of up to ISO 25600 exposure setting shows that ~96% of my exposures have been made with ISO 1600 or less.

But ... Which digital camera would I pick, one fixed at ISO 200 or one fixed at ISO 2000? Neither. Because neither has the flexibility I expect of a digital camera, both at high AND low sensitivity settings.

Yes, dynamic range changes with sensitivity settings in digital cameras. It does with film media too. As also does acutance and latitude. I use these characteristics of the recording medium, film AND digital, to make decisions about exposure to suit a subject's dynamics to the photo I see in my mind.

A film camera for which you only buy ISO 200 film is not limited to ISO 200, that's just a choice you make which you can change at any time. A digital camera limited to ISO 200 or ISO 2000 can only be used at that setting, period, it's no longer a choice. That makes such a camera undesirable to me.

G

I agree totally with Godfrey and there's big sense of saying we must be able to shoot at any sensitivity in between 200- 2000. and where as it applied to a negative camera or a digital.

 

[Prest_400]

I voted for ISO2000.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased towards low light as nowadays I'm finding myself indoors throughout the day plus I've never had the "luxury" of stopping down a lot in these conditions and been tripodless.

It's a bit wild because I'm from the sunny mediterranean and there is lots of light outdoors.
I'm going for a few months to Scandinavia, this autumn/fall, a high ISO camera would be quite useful there.

And if cheating is allowed by using another camera; all are decent with enough light; in tougher conditions many fall.
FWIW, I'm currently using 400 film in my 35mm and will in my MF once I finish a roll of provia I got.

 

[NeeZee]

Easy:

If you could only shoot at 1/2000th all year long, then select iso 200 to use all year.

If you could only shoot at 1/200th all year long, then choose iso 2000 to use all year.

The real question is if you could only use one aperture, one shutter speed, and one iso for a year, which would they be?

Now that's interesting! Would probably be 1/250th, f5.6, ISO400 for me. Preferably on Tri-X.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

I do lots of low light and no tripod. Got to go with high ISO. It wont work for me all the time, but will for more times than not. Plus I can slap on a ND if I need it.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

I wonder quite often why so many posted comments at RFF mention that they needed high ISO. This is seen when the M9 is criticized as not doing well at high ISO settings.
I got this idea: if you were given a camera that was set for one year to ISO 200 versus a camera that was set for one year to ISO 2000, which camera would you be using in 2015, and why.

I use mainly high ISO. Street work may vary, but come dusk or overcast and dreary day and 200 wont do at all unless you can take your time and have a steady rest.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

My wish is for a full frame camera that can give me 3200 ISO that looks no worse than today's 400.
That would allow me to work indoors at around 125th of a second with decent depth of field. My job often has me shooting aquarium and museum interiors during visiting hours so no flash or extra lighting.

Yes, too bad Leica does not have such a sensor in theM240. My Leica's are poor at high ISO's.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Thank you very much, Willie, for you very detailed feedback to my simple question. I worry most about somehow degrading the overall qualities of an image when choosing higher ISO settings on a digital camera. With film, we chose the ISO when we chose the film. MF cameras with inter-changeable backs were praised for providing the flexibility to switch between color and B&W film of different ISO. With the modern digital cameras, we don't need such camera backs anymore.

The gen rule is you shoot the lowest ISO that gives you a chance of doing the most good. Sometimes it is 800 for me other times it is 4000. Only time I shoot low ISO is when I go for wide open 1.4 to 2.8 shots.

 

[RichC]

ISO 200. I usually use ISO 100 and never shoot above ISO 400 because image quality suffers - though cameras are getting better all the time. I don't photograph people or movement, so I don't need a fast shutter speed, and I always have my tripod with me when I go out to photograph. To maximise image quality, I prefer not to hand hold cameras.

 

[Monochrom]

200 or 2000??? what a question...

I use always high Iso since i use slow, small, sharp lenses...each time i´m indoors the thing jumps to 1250, 2500 easily.

But outdoors i also use hi iso, like 640...at least 400...never do 160.

 

[noisycheese]

If you choose ISO 200, don't forget your tripod and flash. 😛

 

[uhoh7]

Great post willie, TY

I shoot at base ISO whenever possible. The Sony A7 looses alot by 800, not to mention the M9. Obviously if you have to have DOF in low light you don't have much choice.

But even the famous Sony A7s does not thrill me at high ISO.

 

[Addy101]

If you choose ISO 200, don't forget your tripod and flash. 😛

If you choose ISO 2000, don't forget to bring you Big Stopper 😀

 

[jsrockit]

Why is high ISO important? Because I can choose the best aperture / shutter speed combination in all types of light (instead of letting my ISO decide the only combination for me to use). I routinely photograph handheld at night in NYC. I'm not sure why people are so offended by people using high ISO... to me it is a wonderful thing that allows me to photograph at all hours without the albatross that is a tripod.