How high an ISO is too high (for you)?

Ed Sutton

Ed Sutton

Messages
8,224
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
I know this depends on camera, subject, photo use/display, personal pickiness and more, but I'm curious as I often see people moaning about having to use ISOs far higher than I think of as within my normal range! Also the high ISO tests I see are carried out in what I'd class as 'good light', which doesn't give a reflection of how high ISOs behave when it's almost dark

I used to set my upper limit to 10,000, but have stopped worrying about it and turned the limit off. I prefer lower than that but I take what I can get The other day I was up to 51,200 and am happy with the results. After all, I got shots that would have been impossible with film.
 
Depends on what the shot is for. When we were in Costa Rica in 2020, we were often in rain/cloud forest or elsewhere at dawn/dusk, so light was nearly always a challenge. Pushing the ISO was the only way to get a shot of a bird or mammal and the image noise pretty much unavoidable. So for record shots, I try not to worry about ISO and just let the camera do its thing. I took some pictures yesterday at Chester Zoo in low light and ISO ended up at 16000 for some shots. With AI noise reduction in Lightroom, they've actually not come out too bad.

When I have more time and better light and/or support, I try to keep ISO below 1000. Even then it's sometimes not doable.
 
I've think I've quite a low tolerance for noise

Fuji 1600
Canon full frame 3200
Sony full frame 6400
(Only systems I use)
 
12800 on my Nikon Zf. Getting the shot is more important than noise, and I won't use flash or any such artificial aids. Expose correctly and noise isn't too much of an issue.
 
As Glen said above, it depends on end use. For pure record/ID shots, whatever it takes, as long as the subject is identifiable, so I have been known to max ISO out on occasion. For an A3+ print, 3,200 tend to be an absolute limit and even that would need to be a pretty awesome shot!
 
Whatever it takes to record the image I want.

An article in a 1960s photography magazine was titled, "Grain Is Your Friend" - and so is digital noise, if that's what it takes.
 
Depends on how bad I want the image; and what they will be used for. For critical use, when I want/need maximum resolution, it is quite low... exactly what "low" means depends on the camera; but no more than 1600 with the best of them.
 
On my 77D in good light ISO 6400 mainly for faster shutter speeds. On my 6D about 12,800. I think DXO NR has made it easier to be more accepting of higher ISOs than before I started using it. I would say that I am quite happy to use mid range ISOs more now whereas before I would always consciously try and use the lowest possible ISO.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
I know this depends on camera, subject, photo use/display, personal pickiness and more, but I'm curious as I often see people moaning about having to use ISOs far higher than I think of as within my normal range! Also the high ISO tests I see are carried out in what I'd class as 'good light', which doesn't give a reflection of how high ISOs behave when it's almost dark

I used to set my upper limit to 10,000, but have stopped worrying about it and turned the limit off. I prefer lower than that but I take what I can get The other day I was up to 51,200 and am happy with the results. After all, I got shots that would have been impossible with film.
Click to expand...

To some extend it would depend on the camera, but in general for me there is no ISO that is too high, purely because I would rather risk this over an OOF photo due to the shutter speed being too slow. In most cases noise reduction or going down a creative and artistic look can save a noisy image, but far more difficult to recover OOF - although software is getting better.
 
I used to love and at times emulate atmospheric grainy B&W photographs of industrial subjects and steam trains pushing the ASA rating of films to induce even more 'effect'. Now I seem to spend (slightly less) time on minimizing the very thing that for years I spent hours in the darkroom attempting to accentuate. Sign of the times possibly and because with modern technology I can.
 
This is a subjective question and from my perspective where I try to avoid flash as much as possible, I'll shoot the odd one at F1.2 and 12800, but prefer to keep below 6400.

I've found the AI Denoise in Lightroom handy, it does a better job than I can do!
 
MarkWalker said:
This is a subjective question and from my perspective where I try to avoid flash as much as possible, I'll shoot the odd one at F1.2 and 12800, but prefer to keep below 6400.
Click to expand...
In the days before digital, the only practical approach to "available darkness" was to open the aperture wide and use stand development to get every last crystal to turn black.

Sometimes, it worked...

London Pub Pentax Spotmatic Rikenon f1.2 1996-20_05.jpg
 
If I'm on a tripod for landscapes then I try to stick to ISO 100 or maybe 640 depending on movement. If it isn't a dedicated tripod shot and I'm hand held the cameras are always in Auto ISO and I don't worry about noise too much anymore.
 
I have 1,600 set as the maximum with auto ISO, but will manually select up to 6,400 if needed, depending on the shot.
 
The only systems I use auto ISO on are my Fuji X-T2s and X100T they are set at no more than 3200 as I am usually using them hand held. For my GFX it is always 100 because it is on a tripod 99% of the time. For my Leica M9s base ISO (160) almost always but if I need to I will go as far as 640 for colour & 1600 for B&W. My film stocks peak out at 400.
 
I’ve used my R5 on maximum ISO for band photography when the light was poor and needed a bit of shutter speed to capture movement results were decent when I run the images through DXO
mostly for zoo pictures I’m on 1600 routinely and sometimes have to go to 3200 and quality is excellent
for Canon crop the maximum was 1600
 
12800 for me. I mostly photograph dogs racing, and unless you manage to fill the frame with a shot then even denoise programs struggle to clean up fur adequately.
 
Why set an arbitrary limit on something I have no control over?

That’s like saying I’d not pay more than a fiver for a pint or drive more than 50 miles for a day out.

I’ve no idea what the light levels will be when I need a photo, how much a trendy bar is gonna demand for an interesting beer or where my Mrs has decided we’ll go for a day out.

I’m lucky I shoot with a fairly low res full frame newish camera. But I’ve also been known to push some real noisy cameras well beyond where most would.
 
Too many years ago to remember I took some shots of a rock band..I used flash and was really pleased with them... But was told they where too good. too bright and clean.. So next time no flash.. really dark and horrible and very noisy... they loved them .. said was more rock and roll.. more real life... dark and gritty over bright and clean won the day :)
 
It very much depends on sensor size, on my old Olympus em1, 3200 was/is probably my limit. On the Mk 2 I would use 6400 in a pinch as Denoise AI works ok. 6400 is probably more acceptable on my Fuji X-E1 (aps-c) and although I've not had the Sony A9 FF for long but, if it's similar to the old A7S FF in terms of ISO performance, I think I'll be ok with ISO upto about 12,800 and probably a little more.
 
Last edited:
I tend not to go over 6400 iso on a crop body, and 12.800 iso full frame. But if push comes to shove I'll crank it as far as I need.
 
I go to the max my theory being that any picture is better than no picture at all and only if the end result is really too bad for even small whole picture viewing will I then even begin to think about very reluctantly deleting it. Usually I don't delete them though. The highest my newer MFT and Sony A7 cameras go to is 25,600 but my Panasonic TZ100 only goes to 12,800.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top