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

[Mcary]

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.

As someone who has found little use for hi-ISO I'm not offended in the least that other people find it useful and beneficial. Just like I'm not offend by people that shoot with 600mm lens even though I have little use for them 🙂

I've often wished someone would offer a digital camera with true not pulled low ISO options say something with an ISO range of 25-1600/3200.

 

[Mcary]

Being as I generally shoot at ISO 160 or 320 with digital and ISO 125 or 400 with film I guess my answer to the original question would be ISO 200.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Some of us can remember when ASA 200 was a fast film. And some of us set our digital cameras like that or even 100 ASA/ISO because we like it. Or are we restricted to f/8 lenses as well?

Regards, David

PS One exception, the Olympus XA1, for obvious reasons like contre jour.

 

[Mcary]

Hi,

Some of us can remember when ASA 200 was a fast film. And some of us set our digital cameras like that or even 100 ASA/ISO because we like it. Or are we restricted to f/8 lenses as well?

Regards, David

PS One exception, the Olympus XA1, for obvious reasons like contre jour.

When I was station in Germany in the early 80s use to carry one Pentax MX loaded with HP5 and another loaded in Kodachrome 25 or 64 when I went out shooting on Sat and Sun. Then Monday morning I'd drop the Kodachrome off at the PX to sent out for processing and then my evening would be spent in Darkroom of the Arts/Craft center processing the HP5 and making prints.

 

[Spanik]

Hi,

Some of us can remember when ASA 200 was a fast film. And some of us set our digital cameras like that or even 100 ASA/ISO because we like it. Or are we restricted to f/8 lenses as well?

I remember Kodachrome 200 very well (I think I still have some). It was a real relief after years of 64 iso. I'm not restricted to f/8 lenses because of the lens but because I want more than just a tiny slice of the photo sharp or have to use handheld in low light. So yes, I'm more or less restricted to f/8 even with f/2.8 lenses. And even f/32 and f/45 with the Fuji 6x17.

 

[jloden]

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've seen this as a recurring theme for a lot of forum threads over the past few years ('I need better high ISO performance!' ... ' Why would need ISO ____ ? I've never used anything over ISO ____ !' ). In my opinion it's pretty obviously strongly dependent on what and how you shoot, simple as that. Just like the pre-digital days where some people shot ASA 64 color slide film and other people lived on ASA 1600 or 3200 black and white film.

If I'm in the studio or a controlled lighting setting, or bright sunlight, ISO 100 is fine and I'll use it all day long.

If I'm working events or documentary style shooting, then I've made perfectly reasonable use of ISO 3200-12,800 when the situation calls for it. As far as I'm concerned when it comes to clean high ISO, the more the merrier. I'd be more than happy to be able to shoot f/8 indoors at a reasonable shutter speed for moving subjects. One more tool in the toolbox that's all.

To answer the original question I'd probably pick ISO 200 because I can use artificial light to supplement in many conditions. If I were limited to ambient light only, I'd go with ISO 2000. 😎

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

It worries me that many newcomers will go away from threads like these convinced that a f/1 Noctilux, M6, M7 or M9 and film rated at 3200 ISO/ASA etc are needed to take photographs. And, of course, they'll print everything at 4 ft by 6 ft at least...

I'm happy to think that 9 out of 10 could cope happily with a 30's specification camera, with a flash socket, flash and film from 100 to 200 speed. There's a lot of P&S's that meet that spec'n; it's a pity they don't have the prestige they deserve based on reality.

Regards, David

 

[seakayaker1]

I choose the ISO 200.

One of my favorite films to use is the Ilford PANF plus 50.

 

[Rob-F]

I think that younger people shoot at night a lot, given the high numbers of such pics I see on flickr. The older I got the less I enjoyed the "nightlife." Now, at 70...

+1. I'm starting to question why I even need my f/1.4 lenses.

My main reason for bumping up the ISO is so I can use a higher shutter speed to reduce camera shake. I might use 320 on my M8.2, or even 640 in clear daylight, if I need a small aperture and high shutter speed.

When I go higher than 640, it will be because I am indoors, such as in a museum or presidential library. 1250 gives me acceptable IQ with the M8.2.

 

[raid]

I have started to consider using ISO 500 in sunshine lit scenes to get faster shutter speeds and also to beable to use smaller apertures.