[Paul MaudDib]

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.

[RGlasel]

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.

[jeffryscott]

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.

[osv]

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 ----------

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.

[reh321]

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.

[Paul MaudDib]

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.

You Tube

You Tube

[osv]

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 ----------

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.

[reh321]

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.

[mee]

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..

[bobbotron]

I bet it's going to be amazing at 100 ISO.

[clackers]

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.

[carolina_sky]

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?

[Digitalis]

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 ----------

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.

[osv]

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.

[bobmaxja]

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.