When Does ISO become to High?

russellsnr

russellsnr

Messages
2,722
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, With all the technology around these days when do you consider ISO to become high?
Cameras in todays market can handle high ISO's and software can help to reduce in post but there must still be a point when it is just to high to manage even in post.
Yes I no getting the image is at the top of most peoples list especially in wildlife photography as you often only get the one chance to push the shutter but you must at some point say it will not come out right!!
Russ.
 
For me around ISO6400 is the limit on a FF camera.
I don't really bother above that.
I have like 10-20 shots may be in the last year going higher than that but nothing I'd consider a work of art ;)
 
It all depends, as a general rule 6400 is as high as I like to go with my kit for wildlife. 12800 is often ok. higher than that I rarely use.
 
It depend on both how you want to use the image, and the importance of the subject matter.
It is safe to say it is always better to use as low an ISO as the situation will allow.
On my canon 40D anything over ISO 400 was pretty rubbish on my Fuji X. T30 ISO6400 is perfectly usable in low light situations. And with out any special treatment. But the affects of noise are visible, but not annoyingly so.

The more challenging the light situation the lower I set my expectations.
 
I'm just a happy amateur and not bothered what people on forums think and will not stop taking pictures if the ISO rises above any particular value. I'll use any and every ISO up to and including the max the camera will go to. Pictures can always be deleted later if they are too bad but a picture not taken is just missed forever.

More of a problem than the ISO rising to me is some artificial lighting which can make even relatively low by todays standards ISO look poor.
 
Depends on the sensor but also as importantly, correct exposure. Getting the histogram over to the right, without blowing the whites will get the most out of any given sensor. I've taken underexposed images at ISO 100 on my 5Div and they've been far noisier than correctly exposed images at ISO 6400 on the same camera.
 
I have no hesitation in using ISO 3200, even on a crop frame, and I'll readily go to 6400 if needed.
For me, that's the start of "high" ISO.
 
It depends very much on the camera & to a less extent on the subject.
I think my first digital camera was limited to ISO200
I still use a few old DSLRs that get really noisy above ISO800
On my A7ii ISO6400 is generally fine with no visible noise & no special measures needed, despite the noise ISO 128000 is still useful sometimes it's actually less noisy than the DSLR at iso 6400.
 
russellsnr said:
Hi, With all the technology around these days when do you consider ISO to become high?
Click to expand...

I think this depends on your personal tolerance of noise, how the image is viewed (the size of a print and the paper surface affects how noise is perceived, if seen at all), and the subject matter. It also depends on the camera and how good you are at dealing with noise during processing, and the type of noise vs detail compromise you are willing to live with.

For me, some pictures are ruined by too much noise, some benefit from a bit of noise, and for some, the subject is important enough for the noise not to matter.

As a generalisation, I'm not sure I pay too much attention to ISO, and just end up with the ISO that allows me the aperture and shutter speed I feel I need.

I would rather just get the picture, using an ISO that avoids underexposure, and sort out the noise issues afterwards.
 
Depends on the image more than any other factor IMO. Better gear just makes life easier, you can always add light, or wait for better weather to keep your ISO down on smaller formats.

If you're shooting a gritty B&W street scene or shooting a rock gig, then the noise caused by higher ISO may well enhance the image. Wheras if you're wanting clean, finer detail in the feathers of a colourful bird or a portrait where sharp eyes and clean skin tones are important, you're going to want the ISO as low as you can get away with.

Shooting that rock gig, viewers are looking at the end image as a whole rather than pixel peeping for detail
 
When it's higher than it needs to be, I suppose. Nobody is going to care if a newsworthy picture is noisy. They are if portraits of their new baby looks like they were printed on sand. How long is a peice of string?
 
Mike_9000 said:
When it's higher than it needs to be, I suppose. Nobody is going to care if a newsworthy picture is noisy. They are if portraits of their new baby looks like they were printed on sand. How long is a peice of string?
Click to expand...

For a plumb bob I would use about eight feet of string, to to do a level line for my paving I used about ten feet of string, and when playing with our Cat, he loves about ten inches of string. Could not resist, I have always wanted to say that. ;)
 
It depends on the subject.
Sometimes you need to bump it right up to even get an image.
For fire spinning photography anything over 200 is unusable.
 
kendo1 said:
It depends on the subject.
Sometimes you need to bump it right up to even get an image.
For fire spinning photography anything over 200 is unusable.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree. I rather like this one of fire spinning at ISO3200
Fire-dancing by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
ISO 200 would have been totally useless.
 
kendo1 said:
It depends on the subject.
Sometimes you need to bump it right up to even get an image.
For fire spinning photography anything over 200 is unusable.
Click to expand...

I've just recently taken up photograpy up again with digital cameras after a long break. Before that break, they all took film. Once you chose your film your ISO was fixed, and you had to to set shutter speed an aperature around that. With digital, you have three proper variables for every exposure and I really have to remember that :)
 
Mike_9000 said:
I've just recently taken up photograpy up again with digital cameras after a long break. Before that break, they all took film. Once you chose your film your ISO was fixed, and you had to to set shutter speed an aperature around that. With digital, you have three proper variables for every exposure and I really have to remember that :)
Click to expand...
I started in the late 70's
 
haha as someone who regularly shoots at ISO 25600 (and above) I am finding this thread quite odd.... The only de noise I use is "dust scratches" is PS.. Get your exposure nailed and noise shouldnt be a massive problem

Maxing out at f2.8 640ss and ISO 51200 - JPG - Canon 1dxmkII - 24-70 2.8
Dust scratches and resize an PS this prints out nice to A4
bout_02_034.JPG

This is a 100% crop of the above.. straight out the box shot in JPG ISO 51200
box_crop.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am happy to take my cameras up to ISO 3200 and a bit higher, if I really would like to capture an image, for making a note of something.
 
It surely depends on the Camera as well as the intended output. I print up to A3 for competitions so do not want visible noise generally. For my FF Canon 5D4 I can certainly use up to ISO 3200 without concern. However for my half frame Sony A6600, I find anything about 800 ISO, noise is visible. However, I have been recently having to set a fast shutter speeds (birds, insects, motor Bikes) so have use Auto ISO; this is something I never did until recently. Using Topaz Denoise AI, I can cope with noisy images now anyway.

Dave
 
IMO you have to keep in mind the use you're going to put the picture to. If "all" you want is a whole picture to fill a screen on a phone, tablet or a 17" laptop or computer then very high ISO's may be ok. If you want a print, how big and how close will you look at it?

If you want something that'll be cooed over by critics and get a lot of "likes" or printed BIG and hung on a wall to be viewed by critical people that's one (or two) things but for whole pictures viewed anything like normally the max the kit can do might just be ok for me :D Unless you cock the exposure up and boost it a lot post capture or there's horrible artificial lighting.
 
KIPAX said:
haha as someone who regularly shoots at ISO 25600 (and above) I am finding this thread quite odd.... The only de noise I use is "dust scratches" is PS.. Get your exposure nailed and noise shouldnt be a massive problem

Maxing out at f2.8 640ss and ISO 51200 - JPG - Canon 1dxmkII - 24-70 2.8
Dust scratches and resize an PS this prints out nice to A4
View attachment 322075

This is a 100% crop of the above.. straight out the box shot in JPG ISO 51200
View attachment 322076
Click to expand...
Capturing the moment like Kipax has done so well here is for me WAY more important than ISO etc.
 
I shoot mostly Nature and a few portraits

For nature / wildlife max of 6.400 iso

for portraits max of 100 iso

for lanscapes - holidays etc max 400 iso and a tripod

Using a pair of Sony a7RIV's - mirrorless camera's

Les :)

dark day- under trees- along a small overgrown river ISO 5,000- works ok for me

DSC01199 Goosander copy by Les Moxon, on Flickr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like a very smooth "digital" look so don't like pushing too high. I've found with DXO deep prime you can get clean looking at IS800 on the D810 and 645z but prefer to keep everything pretty close to base ISO.
 
Lez325 said:
I shoot mostly Nature and a few portraits

For nature / wildlife max of 6.400 iso

for portraits max of 100 iso

for lanscapes - holidays etc max 400 iso and a tripod

Using a pair of Sony a7RIV's - mirrorless camera's

Les :)

dark day- under trees- along a small overgrown river ISO 5,000- works ok for me

DSC01199 Goosander copy by Les Moxon, on Flickr
Click to expand...
SFTPhotography said:
I like a very smooth "digital" look so don't like pushing too high. I've found with DXO deep prime you can get clean looking at IS800 on the D810 and 645z but prefer to keep everything pretty close to base ISO.
Click to expand...
Doing the same with the A9, 6400 seems to work OK and only shooting birds, tried the DXO prime but found it over cooked images so sticking with Topaz just now but the On1 crowd are doing a lot of shouting about there NoNoise AI due out on the 6th July. Russ
 
Around 2007 I shot a rock band in a local pub at the request of the organisors... My first ever and the feedback was... too perfect.. too clean.. too clinical... A year later I shot one in a dark pub.. I used the nifty fifty and even wide open noise everywhere.. proper head banging rock band (not my cup of tea) and the organisors said perfect... looked realistic....

Sometimes noise is good :)
 
It's all subjective and situational, there isn't one ideal number. Just like there isn't an ideal shutter speed for the perfect shot.
Every sensor is different in terms of how much noise you get at a particular ISO.
So you can't compare what someone using a Sony A7III might be happy with versus someone with a Canon 5D4.
Then you have the artistic side of things.
Does the photographer want a faster shutter speed to freeze the action or are they happy with a little motion blur and therefore can get away with a slower shutter speed and consequently can use a lower ISO.

Personally, the aperture and shutter speed are the things that get me the artistic result I want. ISO is just a means to get there.

I'd rather push up the ISO to get a moment frozen without blur and put up with a little noise. Or push it all the way to 12500 if need be to get the shot.
I have taken some wedding shots well above ISO 6400 and been happy with them.
I was out shooting the countryside earlier today, quite bright but also windy. I pushed up the ISO to 640 so that I could keep the shutter speed high enough to capture the scene without motion blur.
Even when shooting long exposures on a tripod I'll use the ISO to get the shutter speed I want. For example, if I'm photographing the waves on the beach with a 10 stop filter, typically at f8, I'll likely start at ISO 100, but if the shutter speed is too long and I want to get it to about 1 second, then I may well push the ISO up to 320 or higher to do that. I'll do that particularly in poor weather when there isn't time to faff around changing filters.

If the OP is using an A9 to shoot wildlife then that's their particular circumstance and gear and even if you asked another wildlife tog using an A9, they might have a different idea of how much noise they'd be happy with from the A9. It also depends on the scene, is the subject in the shade and therefore your shadows are more likely to get horrible at high ISO? Is the subject moving? If so, how fast?
Too many variables to give a definitive answer.
 
This is kind of like asking what gear in a car is too high. If you want to drive to 60mph, then use 5th of 6th gear. If you don't want to use those gears then you can only drive at 40mph.

I shoot mainly wildlife at the moment, so my ISO is whatever it needs to be to get the photo using the settings that I want. On a bright sunny day then yeah, ISO 200 all the way. Birds in flight on an overcast day shortly before sunset? ISO 12,800 it is. You can change your aperture and SS a little to combat it but at some point, you're at a limit (i.e wide open and at the brink of getting motion blur) and then it's simply a choice between high ISO or no photo.
 
I shoot with a sony a6500 and my "walk around settings" I leave the iso at max 3200.. I tend to find I can get most shots on that.

Anything involving a bit of time and a tripod I aim to get 100 but I've learnt though that it's not the end of the world if I push to 800... The noise is negligible and Manageable.

Anything low light I just embrace the noise as its just the way life is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top