Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-12-2016, 08:51 AM - 1 Like   #46
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
It all depends on what kind of shooting you do. If you usually shoot in good light or with flash, it's not a problem. Image stabilization gets you even farther nowadays.

But if you're going to do available light photography in areas where light is not available, high ISO is quite useful. Typically the very highest ISO setting on any given camera is useless for artistic imaging, but it's nice to know it's there. Down one stop is quite noisy and some loss of sharpness, but usable if needed. Two stops down is usually quite good. On my NEX-5N I find that ISO 6,400 to 12,800 and a Samyang 35/1.4 let me shoot in some quite dark areas without a flash, and I find this useful. A stabilized sensor would be even better for many subjects.

Obviously at that point you do get some noise. Typically applying chroma noise reduction will mostly fix the problem - it's still there but much less noticeable. Lumi noise reduction will reduce the leftover grain, but it also hurts sharpness. Typically though some grain doesn't look out-of-place for the shots where you are using those kind of settings though.

At this point it's pretty much a "gimme" in any sensor that's new within the last 5 years. There's nothing wrong with keeping that capability in your back pocket in case you need it.


Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 04-12-2016 at 08:59 AM.
04-12-2016, 09:53 AM - 1 Like   #47
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,345
Taken with DA 35 AL @ ISO 6400 on a K-30 (some noise reduction in Denoise 5)



Taken with a DA L 18-55 kit lens @ ISO 12800 (without any noise reduction)



Now cleaned up in Denoise 6 (I could have used a slower shutter speed, but I had just received the K-30 a week earlier and based on my experience with 35mm film cameras, didn't believe in shake reduction)



When I'm walking around on a sightseeing trip, I don't bring a tripod with me. I can use high ISO or I can put my camera away. It's like photography is a new hobby for me thanks to the high ISO gimmick.
04-12-2016, 10:11 AM - 1 Like   #48
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 253
come on folks, high ISO is a tool like any other. Some need it, some want it and some think it is a scam. Would you rather have the moment, memories, images to share that are less than technically perfect - or just stories to tell with nothing to show? You can self-limit yourself to low ISO, or you can shoot at whatever ISO is necessary to achieve your goal. Would your client rather have a "grainy" photo of them jumping their horse, or nothing?

Look at the history of photography. How many amazing, incredible, historic and significant photographs have been made that are not technically perfect?

I'm old enough to remember when Auto mode was a "scam," as then plastic with Canon's T-90 was a joke and then AF, who the hell would ever use that? ... Not long before I started shooting professionally, 35mm was a joke among serious photographers.

The tools we have today are absolutely amazing. They of course have technical limitations, as all things do, but those limitations are currently beyond anything we could have imagined 20 years ago.
04-12-2016, 03:29 PM   #49
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
How would your approach be any better than what was done: pre-focus on the jump and then shoot when the horse arrives?? That is a slight modification of what we did in MF days - it worked then and this automated version should work even better.
liveview is more accurate because it's not using af to do the initial focusing.

---------- Post added 04-12-16 at 03:35 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Have you ever photographed indoor equestrian events before? you would know using Manual focus with LV handheld is completely impractical.
horses go over the bar at the same place every time, that's why he pre-focused in the first place.

problem is, you should never rely on af in dark conditions like that.

04-12-2016, 03:40 PM   #50
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
liveview is more accurate because it's not using af to do the initial focusing.

problem is, you should never rely on af in dark conditions like that.
You're allowed to believe that if you're determined to.
04-12-2016, 03:55 PM   #51
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
liveview is more accurate because it's not using af to do the initial focusing.[COLOR="Silver"]
Actually it's because live-view is usually contrast-detect. CDAF is actually more accurate than phase-detect autofocus and doesn't suffer from situations where there's not a sensor at the focus point selected - the downside is that it's much slower than PDAF. There are some sensors with special phase-detect pixels that can focus a MILC-type body pretty much as fast as SLRs. In theory you could use PDAF for the course focus and fine-tune it with CDAF, but you'd risk missing focus on a rapidly moving target.

04-12-2016, 04:17 PM   #52
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
You're allowed to believe that if you're determined to.
and you are free to think that af lenses focus just as well in the dark as they do when the light is good

---------- Post added 04-12-16 at 04:20 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
Actually it's because live-view is usually contrast-detect.
i'm referring to manual focusing with liveview, using manification, sorry if that wasn't clear.
04-12-2016, 05:18 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
and you are free to think that af lenses focus just as well in the dark as they do when the light is good
Roughly ten years ago, I took pictures of my daughter's softball team under lighting similar to what carolina_sky had to deal with, and my Canon film camera got the job done. I'll trust my experience over your doubt any day of the week. That is all I have to say.

04-12-2016, 05:28 PM   #54
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,921
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
12,000?? I very rarely shoot above ISO 400. LOL Image quality is very important to me and I find ISO 800 to be unusable on the K-3. I'm hoping to be able to use 800 or even 1600 on the K-1 but we will see. I realize my requirements are different from others and I do see quite nice images taken at higher ISO's, but for my work I stick to 400 and lower at the moment.
I thought I was the only one around here that felt this way. I try to keep it below 400 (really closer to 80) on my K-5II but will go to 800 even very rarely 1600 if its the only way to get the image which is pretty much never.

Topaz Denoise and the other algorithms only strip detail in a semi-'intelligent' smoothing manner. And the example shots have, imo, horrible IQ. They convince me more to use low ISO and longer shutter speeds than rely on ISO 1600 or better..

But I understand other people feel differently and that is fine - they can. We can all still be friends and not have to be jerks towards each other..

Last edited by mee; 04-12-2016 at 05:45 PM.
04-12-2016, 05:48 PM   #55
Pentaxian
bobbotron's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ottawa, ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,901
I bet it's going to be amazing at 100 ISO.
04-12-2016, 06:01 PM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,024
Remember too, that at high ISO, your colours get hammered!


Noise can be wiped out if you're willing to lose details with software noise reduction, but dynamic range I reckon is harder to retrieve.
04-12-2016, 07:14 PM   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 156
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
The AF-C system kept up fine for me here, but it's a fast screwdrive Tamron 70-200, rather than your 60-250's SDM. Your lens (which is a nice sharp one) is unfortunately letting the system down in that situation.
Well, as explained I don't really need the AF-C, it's actually better to pre-focus on where I know the action will be. Can be more precise and less likely to slip up. BUT, I still get the occasional misfire where the camera literally won't take the shot when I click the button. Maybe 1/10 times. This drives me absolutely crazy. I wonder if this is the lens or the camera? Anyone else experience this?
04-12-2016, 07:23 PM   #58
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,797
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
horses go over the bar at the same place every time, that's why he pre-focused in the first place.
But there is the issue of the rider, they shift their center of balance on the horse so they can make the jump - that movement is quite fast, and a photograph isn't going to be successful if the rider is blurred or out of focus.

---------- Post added 2016-04-13 at 12:55 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
There are some sensors with special phase-detect pixels that can focus a MILC-type body pretty much as fast as SLRs
The only problem is that those on sensor PDAF sensors cause artifacts to appear in the image under certain circumstances.
04-12-2016, 07:54 PM   #59
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
But there is the issue of the rider, they shift their center of balance on the horse so they can make the jump - that movement is quite fast, and a photograph isn't going to be successful if the rider is blurred or out of focus.
if anything is blurry the shutter is probably too slow, but he shouldn't have that problem at 1/1600th, which is where i think that he was shooting.

stepping to the right, as i suggested, will counter the forward shift position in the photo, i don't know if he's doing that.
04-12-2016, 08:16 PM   #60
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,736
I have a full collection of photo with my K5 at ISO1600 and they are lovely, . I took some with my Bigma who are some of the best photo I have. I believe , high ISO is a great tool.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, af, aperture, camera, cameras, d810, data, dxo, flickr, focus, full-frame, gain, images, iso, james, k-1, k5, pentax, rider, sensor, sensors, shots, specs, williams
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why was the High ISO NR a problem on the K3? Culture Pentax K-3 15 10-09-2015 08:46 PM
Nature High ISO and high shutter speeds charliezap Post Your Photos! 3 09-15-2015 02:10 PM
What's the deal with K-3 poor high ISO performance Stavri Pentax DSLR Discussion 49 08-21-2014 03:02 PM
People K-5 high ISO... how high can we really go... igor Post Your Photos! 2 03-24-2012 01:10 AM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO supa007 Pentax DSLR Discussion 72 05-10-2010 04:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top