Why high ISO performance is a must?

[phan_vinh_nguyen]

I have read through several topic about camera purchasing in this forum and other forums. Usually, the requirement of the buyer is "high ISO performance is a must". I wonder is it so important? In which situation we need high ISO performance? In which case the ISO 100 and 200 are enough?

I myself one time have envied with some body can shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200, until one day I asked myself "what kind of lighting I want my picture look like?". Amazingly, I cannot imagine what I really want with very high ISO, a day-like night shot? Since then, when I shoot outdoor, I rarely use ISO higher than 400. When the night fall, I use flash.

With indoor shooting, usually bounce flash is very good, unless you are in the museum.
So, I want to hear from all your guys, in which situation that very high ISO is needed?

[dorts]

High ISO is good when...

Flash cannot be used.
Don't want to use flash.
To get a faster shutter speed.

There is definitely more benefits. But I feel getting a faster shutter speed, especially at night is the reason why people need high ISO performance. Instead of getting faster lenses, you can increase the ISO.

Stock photo sites also might not accept images with bad noise control, if you are talking about how good noise control is...

[spidey89]

i agree with what Dorts said,I think it's more of a want rather than a must or need,some people just want their images to be clean,I don't really give much of a hoot since I look at it generally,even if I look at a picture into detail,I often skip noise,some pics I love noise in it,what I don't like is colour noise,like those without colour that can be added in post processing,that is what i like

other than that,like you,if i shoot in low light,i either use tripod of flash,so I have no need for high iso performance,but everything needs time to grow and improve,we might have nearly noiseless image in the future,no one knows for certain tt's for sure

[dorts]

If you are snapping concerts/performance at night, High ISO will definitely help. Moving things at night = Faster shutter speed. A tripod won't help in this case.

I'm good with ISO800. I don't go any higher except emergency.

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by phan_vinh_nguyen I have read through several topic about camera purchasing in this forum and other forums. Usually, the requirement of the buyer is "high ISO performance is a must". I wonder is it so important? In which situation we need high ISO performance? In which case the ISO 100 and 200 are enough?

there are situations, actually. for example, other than what dorts has kindly mentioned, there is also the situation of night exposures,. the extreme type where if you do iso100 you need to expose for 15 minutes. iso 1600 or iso 3200 being significantly clean can cut down the time, especially since NR can take as long as the exposure timing. there is also a tradeoff, even iso100 can be noisy for long periods of exposure.

it is not a "must-have" per se for most hobbyists, but professionals sometimes can need it, especially for situations where high shutter speed is a must, and you are at the mercy of the elements without the use of flash (as prohibited, depending on organiser). some examples are sports (various) and racing.

that said, i do not need high iso capability, and i personally think that 95% of the people who want it just want it, instead of needing it.

[phan_vinh_nguyen]

I have just done a brainstorm and found several situations:
. Wildlife
. Birding
. Sport/racing
. Performance/fashion shows
Generally, those need long tele, limit lighting and need to freeze the motion. Hope to hear more from your experience. Of course high ISO performance is a good to have, but when we compare it with other factor, such as budget , it is good to know whether we really need it or not, therefore, understanding is important

[pisduck]

for me, it is shooting my baby girl.

Using flash on my baby is a no-no. So high ISO is really a must since she is indoor most of the time.

[OlyFlyer]

Originally Posted by pisduck for me, it is shooting my baby girl. Using flash on my baby is a no-no. So high ISO is really a must since she is indoor most of the time.

How near are you when you take images of your baby girl? This no-no is just a hogwash. It has been invented some times during the last few years, yet babies has been the most photographed subjects for the last 100 years. We should have massive blindness among adults if it would be harmful, especially considering the flashes used before... Also, you don't have to shoot her with direct flash, that's bad anyway, even if you shoot an adult.

Anyway, I agree, in many situations using flash is not so good, available light gives nicer results.

[pisduck]

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer How near are you when you take images of your baby girl? This no-no is just a hogwash. It has been invented some times during the last few years, yet babies has been the most photographed subjects for the last 100 years. We should have massive blindness among adults if it would be harmful, especially considering the flashes used before... Also, you don't have to shoot her with direct flash, that's bad anyway, even if you shoot an adult. Anyway, I agree, in many situations using flash is not so good, available light gives nicer results.

I am usually quite near.... like 1m? babies is a small subject and I usually use my 105mm macro. On babies, usually parents err on the side of caution. We are not talking about blindness lah. slight impairment, etc. Anyway, even if there is 0% damage, the baby may get startled and after that it is a big chore to calm her down.

[mactigasuku]

Originally Posted by pisduck for me, it is shooting my baby girl. Using flash on my baby is a no-no. So high ISO is really a must since she is indoor most of the time.

No-no .... no-la ...... I shoot my babies all the time, with and without flash .... can use bounce etc ... and as OF mentioned, the best is still available light - most times.

High ISO can make the baby skin don't look like baby skin at all .....

[Oly5050]

In low light situation, shooting with natural light will have a different look compared to shooting with flash. I sometimes shoot both so I can decide what I want.

Another situation is when light is less than ideal, overcast or something, and u need to shoot at faster shutter speed, but u din bring flash. In those instances I bump to ISO 800 or more as needed.

[aryanto]

I took a photo of my old dog once with flash and he become very scared of camera. He run and hide under the cupboard whenever he see a camera with in my hand. Sad. Now I take photo of animals without flash at all.

High ISO can help, but so is fast lense.

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by aryanto I took a photo of my old dog once with flash and he become very scared of camera. He run and hide under the cupboard whenever he see a camera with in my hand. Sad. Now I take photo of animals without flash at all. High ISO can help, but so is fast lense.

Bad photog! Bad photog!

You should have let the dog get used to you first... animals are naturally afraid of lighting and thunder and you simply flash banged him without warning... no wonder you got yourself screwed with the dog.

I took time to get my boy used to the camera, then the flash and he became a model... even drakon09's cocker spaniel is now a movie star... you take out a camera in front of him, he starts posing...

[olymac]

Originally Posted by phan_vinh_nguyen I have read through several topic about camera purchasing in this forum and other forums. Usually, the requirement of the buyer is "high ISO performance is a must". I wonder is it so important? In which situation we need high ISO performance? ...... very high ISO is needed?

Not just high ISO.

The better sensor is the one with the highest DR at the widest ISO with the lowest noise.

Numero UNO - High DR.

[ahbian]

Originally Posted by phan_vinh_nguyen I have read through several topic about camera purchasing in this forum and other forums. Usually, the requirement of the buyer is "high ISO performance is a must". I wonder is it so important? In which situation we need high ISO performance? In which case the ISO 100 and 200 are enough? I myself one time have envied with some body can shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200, until one day I asked myself "what kind of lighting I want my picture look like?". Amazingly, I cannot imagine what I really want with very high ISO, a day-like night shot? Since then, when I shoot outdoor, I rarely use ISO higher than 400. When the night fall, I use flash. With indoor shooting, usually bounce flash is very good, unless you are in the museum. So, I want to hear from all your guys, in which situation that very high ISO is needed?

For me, stage performance with low lighting, especially dances.

[Oly5050]

Actually to answer your question, high ISO performance is NOT a must. It really depends on the application of the camera. Certain world class cameras have crap ISO performance. But they are still considered legendary cameras for some reason. So no....high ISO performance is not the defining factor for a good camera. It is considered a feature just like there are a ton of other features which are present in good cameras. Which of these are a must and which are good to have, it really depends on the user, the application, and the camera marketing and design folks.

[srinivasanj]

Most of the time people tend to use 100 or 200. But for certain cases, like has been mentioned, a high ISO is a definite requirement. I was on the SG Flyer just a couple of days ago around 7-8pm. Cant use flash since it was bouncing all over the place. In any case, I had to use the on-camera flash since I was not carrying my FL. I pumped up the ISO to shoot. 800 was good enough.

High ISO is a necessity, you just dont know when it is required. There are cases where flash photography is not permitted. Some architectures, wedding, stage concerts etc. But all this totally depends on the kind of shooting you are involved in. I need it even if I dont regularly pump it up...

[pisduck]

another more common case is taking shots during dusk/dawn when the lighting is dramatic when I am travelling.

I don't carry a tripod so high ISO really helps to keep the shutter speed up and the DOF high.

[Adammax]

High ISO is really good to have. With current trend, having clean ISO at 800 or even 1600 seems to be only natural.

Oly seems to produce such fine lenses. Its just their sensor is not as competitive. Comparing on ISO and DR capabilities. If there is one thing stopping us to join the Oly camp, that will be its sensor technology.

[spidey89]

Originally Posted by Adammax High ISO is really good to have. With current trend, having clean ISO at 800 or even 1600 seems to be only natural. Oly seems to produce such fine lenses. Its just their sensor is not as competitive. Comparing on ISO and DR capabilities. If there is one thing stopping us to join the Oly camp, that will be its sensor technology.

high iso is something just about any camera have,just how good is noise control,tt is the question in this thread,anyway,low noise at high iso is good to have,but for some ppl,it's not a need,for most,it's more of a want despite thinking it's a need

anyway,I always look at it this way,Oly is still pretty new to the digital business,so I think it takes time before they can produce good noise controlled sensor

my 2 cents neways