how high is high ISO?

how high is high ISO?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

engrmariano

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2007
3,532
0
0
Rivervale
#1
since newer cams are capable of up to ISO25,600 & the IQ of the photos at high ISOs are now very good.

so how high is high ISO for you?
 

Diavonex

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2008
3,641
0
0
Admiralty
#3
It depends on size of sensor, density of pixels and camera processor.
 

Last edited:

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#4
depends on ambient lighting and whether the pics are useable at ISO 25600.
 

rendition

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2008
1,974
0
36
Singapore
www.VisualVerve.sg
#5
This would be in conjuction with your camera settings and the amount available light. Don't stress up over ISO, grainy pictures etc... it is far more important to get your shot clear with noise than blur and clean. This is another factor where you need to know how big of a print you gonna do. If you're shooting to pixel peep, no point discussing.

It's all about knowing the best compromise for the scenario, so...for me, I don't have a 'limit' for my ISO usage.
 

Last edited:

engrmariano

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2007
3,532
0
0
Rivervale
#6
to answer my own poll, ISO3200 is high enough for me. very seldom i go over it.;)
 

ricleo

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2004
6,570
30
48
Eastern Singapore
#7
on my 5D2, I usually stop at 6,400, so anything above that I consider as "high" iso
 

CS TAN

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2007
3,663
0
0
Hong Kong
#8
to answer my own poll, ISO3200 is high enough for me. very seldom i go over it.;)
on my 5D2, I usually stop at 6,400, so anything above that I consider as "high" iso
Canon sets 5D2's auto ISO between 100 and 3,200 for a reason. You probably can go one notch higher to 6,400 before you really start to see noise that is unacceptable for an A4 print.
 

CS TAN

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2007
3,663
0
0
Hong Kong
#10
That will be a more flexible approach. However, so far, I am fine with the 100-3,200 auto ISO on my 5D MkII.
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#11
Depends on camera...

On my D200, I dun think I'll go above 800 for any shots which I want good details. High would be 1600.

for the newer cameras, I've not tried them yet but judging from the pics and examples, 3200 is not really an issue.
 

phazed1

New Member
Jan 19, 2009
276
0
0
#13
Yea, ISO 800 seems to be the breaking point for common DSLRs, anything beyond that is ... 'uh oh'.
 

CanonSLR

New Member
Sep 29, 2008
15
0
0
#15
It depends on body. Its never too high until you get unacceptable noise. The higher the better, for low light event and not having to use flash.
 

rendition

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2008
1,974
0
36
Singapore
www.VisualVerve.sg
#16
Actually, how apparent noise is in your pictures is also dependent on the exposure taken. Given the same ISO settings, noise is more apparent in an underexposed shot - more shadows, more noise. This is partially the reason am constantly, sub-conciously overexposing my shots by at least +1/3 stop and to me this also gives a nice punch to my pictures, very subjective I know but it's just how I've been doing it. Of course am not referring to PP here, pointless to bring up brightness in PP even when shooting to RAW as the noise is already there.

Then again, sensor size is also another huge factor, where you get at least a stop of advantage over cropped DSLRs.

maddog said:
1600 is high......
It is, but if you expose properly... it should be alright. Here's a sample snapshot taken yest, used 1600 for entire event, no PP whatsoever but shot to RAW and if you find it noisy... might be hard for you to find a DSLR that will satisfy you.

Resized (Click for 100% size)



100% Crop

 

HHenrYY

New Member
Mar 18, 2009
235
0
0
Singapore
#17
Actually, how apparent noise is in your pictures is also dependent on the exposure taken. Given the same ISO settings, noise is more apparent in an underexposed shot - more shadows, more noise. This is partially the reason am constantly, sub-conciously overexposing my shots by at least +1/3 stop and to me this also gives a nice punch to my pictures, very subjective I know but it's just how I've been doing it. Of course am not referring to PP here, pointless to bring up brightness in PP even when shooting to RAW as the noise is already there.

Then again, sensor size is also another huge factor, where you get at least a stop of advantage over cropped DSLRs.


It is, but if you expose properly... it should be alright. Here's a sample snapshot taken yest, used 1600 for entire event, no PP whatsoever but shot to RAW and if you find it noisy... might be hard for you to find a DSLR that will satisfy you.

Resized (Click for 100% size)



100% Crop




yup. this is quite high and noisy for me.

EXCEPT! for the face area.

looking at the arms area will get me CRAZY. too noisy . =/

for me , 1000 and above is high le. :sweat:
 

rendition

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2008
1,974
0
36
Singapore
www.VisualVerve.sg
#18
looking at the arms area will get me CRAZY. too noisy . =/
...don't kua zang la and how big do you usually print or view your pictures at? and if you see my earlier reply, let's take pixel peeping aside, which I think is what this thread is about... for general viewing and not pixel peeing.
 

Last edited:

Canto

New Member
Oct 4, 2007
685
0
0
Born in KK hospital
#19
yup. this is quite high and noisy for me.

EXCEPT! for the face area.

looking at the arms area will get me CRAZY. too noisy . =/

for me , 1000 and above is high le. :sweat:

your standard too high ;)... at the end of the day it really depend on hw big u intend to print out the photo. Honestly how many pple actually print out even a 4R size pic?:think: if u really shrink to a viewing size 750 x 500 pixel on screen, u can't really c much noise even if u hit 1600 and above.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom