Why do camera manufactures make a big deal out of massive iso ratings?

euser1984

Is it not a case that you are looking at a big decrease in quality going from 400 to 800?

Yet, some are going up to 12500 etc. Is that not going to be pure noise?

Thanks.

flyingsnail

It really depends on the camera. On my 20D I didn’t really like to go above 400 ISO due to the noise levels but on my 7D I can happily shoot up to 3200 for colour and 6400 for Black and white.

It seems to go hand in hand that as the cameras get higher ISO speeds the noise performance at the lowers speeds improves. While 12800 on mine would not be usable there would be full frame cameras out there that could shoot 12800 and have useable pictures.

beauf

On a simplistic pov is it not all down to the sensor some do high iso better than others?

Splinters

It massively depends on what you're shooting, where its going to be used/displayed and how you're going to process it.

Ultimately if your camera can shoot at 400,000 ISO it probably means its going to be a lot cleaner image at 1600 ISO then a camera that can only shoot up to 1600 ISO.

Also some styles are a lot more forgiving for noise. Especially if you intend on processing in black and white. It gives a much more film like quality.

I shoot digital because its a much more practical workflow, also I rarely up my ISO beyond 200. However in nearly every case I add noise back into the shot to give it less of a digital feel. Thats just personal preference though.

By the way 12500 is very usable on a lot of modern cameras. In some situations (wedding ceremony, concerts etc) where flash isnt an option, the ability to shoot at that kind of ISO and produce a usable image can be the different between getting the shot (potentially getting paid) or not.

pete4130

Because the pixel count wars are over. ISO is a new battle ground for camera makers.


I'd go for a 16MP camera with super high ISO capabilities (102,400 max) over a 36MP camera with mediocre ISO capabilities (25,600 max).

Chances are you'll almost never need to use all 36MP for a print. Chances are you'll need high ISO/low light capabilities at 12,800 or 25,600 more in low light situations for a very useable image and 16MP is more than adequate for.

jonneymendoza

euser1984 wrote: »

Is it not a case that you are looking at a big decrease in quality going from 400 to 800?

Yet, some are going up to 12500 etc. Is that not going to be pure noise?

Thanks.

no icrease. please read a bit on ISO as i do not think you understand fully the benefits of ISO and the fact that many modern cameras can produce clean shots at ISO 6400+

amdgilmore

I don't know about clean shots at 6400, but they're definitely getting better at handling noise. Besides, there are plenty of situations in which you'd be willing to live with noise in order to get the shot.

On the iso subject, check out this video of the Sony A7 turning night into day (400,000 iso!)

Sony A7s: Low Light Demonstration (ISO 1600 to 40…: http://youtu.be/XgbUgNiHfXM

5uspect

I've found that with higher resolution sensors and better noise performance (better electronics, microlens arrays etc) that high ISO noise looks less ugly than it used to.

The pattern and chroma noise on my old 350D was fugly as hell over 800, but the noise around 3200 to 6400 on my 7D looks more like grain and appears to be mostly luminance noise. I would even go so far and say it has an aesthetic.

Also noise reduction tools seem to have improved, probably also down to increased pixel count.

So its a little but of everything. Enough pixels to resolve the detail of a shot balanced with adequate pixel size to maintain noise levels. Pixel count has be pushed pretty high already so noise performance and dynamic range are the new battlegrounds.

twowheelsonly

Improvements in ISO have come on in leaps and bounds over the last few years making low-light shots that you couldn't get a few short years ago almost commonplace now.
I have a couple of boxing photos printed in the local evening newspaper every Thursday and nearly all of them are between 5 and 10,000 ISO, mostly closer to the top end!! (Using Nikon D3s BTW). With older cameras these would most likely have been converted to B&W to retain some sort of quality - if they were even usable!! Nowadays it's colour all the way.
As 5uspect said, the high ISO noise that is present is usually even less ugly than it used to be..

Logie-1

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Improvements in ISO have come on in leaps and bounds over the last few years making low-light shots that you couldn't get a few short years ago almost commonplace now.
I have a couple of boxing photos printed in the local evening newspaper every Thursday and nearly all of them are between 5 and 10,000 ISO, mostly closer to the top end!! (Using Nikon D3s BTW). With older cameras these would most likely have been converted to B&W to retain some sort of quality - if they were even usable!! Nowadays it's colour all the way.
As 5uspect said, the high ISO noise that is present is usually even less ugly than it used to be..

Can you share a few with us?:)

Also, not trying to hijack the thread, but what lens do you use?

twowheelsonly

This is a couple of examples of 10,000 ISO shots, plenty more on the attached link. No noise reduction done and only minimal editing (most are just cropped)

[IMG][/img]Olympic Fight Night - Katie Taylor 051 by Doug Minihane, on Flickr

[IMG][/img]Olympic Fight Night - Katie Taylor 208 by Doug Minihane, on Flickr

That was using a 24-70 f2.8 but I'd occasionally use a 'nifty 50' (50mm f1.8) or an 80-200 f2.8
Amateur boxing is tricky enough due to Headguards and Gloves but the light is often shocking as well so the advancement in the ISO quality has been a godsend.