[mee]

For equivalent AOV, DOF and exposure, the focal length and f/stop scale with the crop factor and the ISO with the crop factor squared (since the total light is the same, but the sensor area is 1.5^2 larger for FF, so the light intensity drops by the same amount). So yes, ISO scales up for FF, not down, so if you move to FF, you better get used to using higher ISO settings. Mind you, higher ISO does not imply more noise when changing the format. See for instance here for more details.

Yes. Thank you. You caught me in a rather senile moment.. I originally was thinking 3000 on crop would behave like 12000 on FF. But somehow I turned myself around to thinking and articulating something completely beyond that.

It does suffer for sure, but what are the options with the given parameters? You can't open the aperture any wider than 2.8 with this lens, and you can't possibly drop the shutter speed without making things worse. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the shot were better with double the ISO for the sake of a faster shutter speed.

In this case? You just grin and bear it by taking the shot.

But the other options are either using a flash, using 1-2 stop smaller ISO and hoping you can pull up from shadows later, or not bothering to take the photo at all (which is a realistic option). But I take a more strict approach that if the outcome is garbage, it generally needs not be photographed. I'm looking for a relatively narrow range of IQ quality and if I'm not getting that, then the shots are at best snapshots to document the event occurred or at worst test shots to show why not to use high ISO. Unless, of course you have some sentimental need for it... but as already mentioned, that is different.

That's not snobbish either because, even as a hobbyist, my name is going on my output. And I'm not putting my name on shots I'm very dissatisfied with, even if the photographic 'world' considers those shots meager for other reasons (like my poor photographic skill). On those high ISO shots, I would be very dissatisfied with them due to the performance of the camera alone. Add me to the equation and it's probably even worse.

On crop ISO 80-100 are my ideal, 200 is fine, 400 is OK, 800 is bad, 1600 is upper limit. Anything over that falls off the ISO cliff and is unusable for anything beyond the above mentioned uses. Printing seems to mask some of the noise to a given point but it doesn't the loss of detail. I don't find film grain attractive. Some do and that's ok. Yet, so far, every single shot I've seen on these forums trying to prove the noise is fine has further proven (to me) my thoughts on this. It's an impasse. A difference of opinion.

FF is better but not by much. I've see that 81275 D5 image (actually he offers the RAW for download) and it is horribly noisey. Even looking at 1:4. Still, it is the best >64k ISO shot I've seen and a feat for digital cameras for sure. But not practical for daily use either imo. The noise is somewhat fine but is peppered throughout and there is an obvious loss of detail on the facial features. That type of noise might actually print better than the blotchiness we have.. but on screen its atrocious. Gradients in the bg aren't close to smooth either and actually do blotch quite visibly. If anything, that example more likely means a couple of stops down are within the realm of usable (for me) and that is pretty big for digital cameradom. But that camera is also 6k alone.

Again, if you don't see a problem with higher ISO values, then use them. This is a personal matter. But I'm not convinced at all.. and that is fine.. It is OK to have my PoV just as it is OK for you to have yours.

[Ikarus]

Again, if you don't see a problem with higher ISO values, then use them. This is a personal matter. But I'm not convinced at all.. and that is fine.. It is OK to have my PoV just as it is OK for you to have yours.

I understand where you're coming from and I agree that if you have the option to fully control your environment, there is little excuse for not shooting at base ISO, but to me, this is not all there is to photography. Many scenarios do not allow for optimally controlling the parameters, for instance by flash not being permitted. There is a whole slew of iconic photos that aren't technically perfect, and which make me thankful that the photographer didn't give a hoot about technicalities. To quote one of the proponents of unshackling the photographer from being a slave to perfection...

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept -- Henri Cartier Bresson

As a case in point, just one of many masterpieces ("Rue Mouffetard") by the man himself.

[mee]

I understand where you're coming from and I agree that if you have the option to fully control your environment, there is little excuse for not shooting at base ISO, but to me, this is not all there is to photography. Many scenarios do not allow for optimally controlling the parameters, for instance by flash not being permitted. There is a whole slew of iconic photos that aren't technically perfect, and which make me thankful that the photographer didn't give a hoot about technicalities. To quote one of the proponents of unshackling the photographer from being a slave to perfection...



As a case in point, just one of many masterpieces ("Rue Mouffetard") by the man himself.

If you enjoy that, then enjoy it.

[reh321]

I understand where you're coming from and I agree that if you have the option to fully control your environment, there is little excuse for not shooting at base ISO, but to me, this is not all there is to photography. Many scenarios do not allow for optimally controlling the parameters, for instance by flash not being permitted. There is a whole slew of iconic photos that aren't technically perfect, and which make me thankful that the photographer didn't give a hoot about technicalities. To quote one of the proponents of unshackling the photographer from being a slave to perfection.

If you enjoy that, then enjoy it.

I guess it depends on your definition of "enjoy". Recently I modified an old bird feeder to serve as a squirrel feeder {I removed the squirrel defense features and relocated it close to a tree}. Corn has been disappearing from it, but I never see the squirrel there ... until this morning. It turns out that he goes there only early in the day, when the feeder is shaded by the trees Even a compromise shutter speed of 1/400 {I had the lens zoomed out to 300mm} was possible only if I also accepted a compromise ISO of 800. This picture was not "necessary", but I wanted it. The pictures I took did not make me "happy", but they were satisfying.

[Rupert]

Corn has been disappearing from it, but I never see the squirrel there ...

Look closer...he may not be "at" the feeder, he may be in it!


I have galleries full of squirrels, but I don't think any of them are at ISO 100...most are at or well above 800.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129469263@N03/albums/72157651153186152/page2

If it takes ISO 2000 to get the shot, then I am happy to have it!


While I would prefer the lower ISO it is usually not possible in the heavy shade of the woods here and so I take what I can get. There is a difference between compromise of technical quality and compromise of aesthetic quality. I find many fantastic photos that are technically inferior but aesthetically excellent.
Obviously, there are different trains of thought, with many believing that technical perfection rules......but in fact, it seldom does.

Thanks for feeding the squirrels, no matter your motive, they appreciate it!

Regards!

[carolina_sky]

Look closer...he may not be "at" the feeder, he may be in it!


I have galleries full of squirrels, but I don't think any of them are at ISO 100...most are at or well above 800.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129469263@N03/albums/72157651153186152/page2

If it takes ISO 2000 to get the shot, then I am happy to have it!


While I would prefer the lower ISO it is usually not possible in the heavy shade of the woods here and so I take what I can get. There is a difference between compromise of technical quality and compromise of aesthetic quality. I find many fantastic photos that are technically inferior but aesthetically excellent.
Obviously, there are different trains of thought, with many believing that technical perfection rules......but in fact, it seldom does.

Thanks for feeding the squirrels, no matter your motive, they appreciate it!

Regards!

Nobody but us photo-dorks cares about how technically perfect an image is. A good image tells a story first and foremost. The underlying fundamentals only really need to be "good enough" not to interfere with the storytelling. This particular image tells a wonderful and humorous story, highly enjoyable (and it looks pretty good to me - at least on a web page). Of course if you are printing 40" glossy acrylics to mount in a gallery, it better be pretty damn good technically.

[Rupert]

A good image tells a story first and foremost. The underlying fundamentals only really need to be "good enough" not to interfere with the storytelling.

Exactly! I have lots of bird shots that don't tell a story...blooms and such too.....but my favorites are always the shots that tell a story or stimulate your curiosity or imagination. Squirrels are good at it...some other creatures too...

Technically poor, but still has value as a curiosity...Raccoons are very curious animals!




I understand other viewpoints, and the perfectionists do have my admiration with their skills, but for me I intend to have fun and that does not always allow for much perfection.

Best Regards!

[Pål Jensen]

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.?

Surely you are joking. 800ISO on the K-3 is better than Velvia 50 in an LX. it is good enough to make posters from.
Actually, when using the FA* 600/4 I set the camera at 800ISO even in sunshine. The minimized risk of image degradation due to vibration and/or the ability to use a smaller aperture to reduce the effect of potential focusing errors more than offset the degradation in image quality due to noise.

[jatrax]

Not joking. Some of the agencies i send images to are very picky. Send them stuff they do not like and it gets rejected. Over 400iso on k-3 is questionable.

[reh321]

Surely you are joking. 800ISO on the K-3 is better than Velvia 50 in an LX. it is good enough to make posters from.

I was going to say that standards have been raised since the days of film; actually, that would be a severe understatement, and these days people are so addicted to sharpness, that I routinely use the phrase "needle sharp" instead of the more regular "razor sharp".

[GeneV]

It really does depend upon the subject, just like it did in the film days. A great journalistic catch with pushed Tri-X would sell to papers all over the world. To National Geographic, not so much.

I frequently use ISO 6400 and above because I take a lot of shots of dancing indoors. The K5II and the Sony A7R do very well with some cleanup (which is part of the process these days). The K3 is not too far behind. For a landscape or even most wildlife, it would not be acceptable.

[BigDave]

I agree that there is a lot of hype about high ISO. How about going below 100? As far as I know (open to correction) only Leica offers DSLR with something less than 100 ISO.

The Canon 5D Mk III has ISO 50 as an option. Truthfully, I am with you all, 250,000,000 ISO does not thrill me. However 12 ISO would!

BD

---------- Post added 04-22-16 at 03:44 PM ----------

Exactly! I have lots of bird shots that don't tell a story...blooms and such too.....but my favorites are always the shots that tell a story or stimulate your curiosity or imagination. Squirrels are good at it...some other creatures too...

Technically poor, but still has value as a curiosity...Raccoons are very curious animals!




I understand other viewpoints, and the perfectionists do have my admiration with their skills, but for me I intend to have fun and that does not always allow for much perfection.

Best Regards!

Actually, this looks like you shot the image with ISO 800 film! Maybe 400 pushed a stop or two Not too bad at all!

[Ikarus]

I frequently use ISO 6400 and above because I take a lot of shots of dancing indoors. The K5II and the Sony A7R do very well with some cleanup (which is part of the process these days). The K3 is not too far behind. For a landscape or even most wildlife, it would not be acceptable.

It could be for wildlife, if it is the only way to get the shot. If you don't believe me, then maybe you'll believe Jim Richardson (here for a published ISO 6400 shot and here for some general commentary on the subject.

[traderdrew]

It could be for wildlife, if it is the only way to get the shot. If you don't believe me, then maybe you'll believe Jim Richardson (here for a published ISO 6400 shot and here for some general commentary on the subject.

I'm using my smart phone to view the turtle. Zooming into the turtle with my phone, I get the impression that it is cleaned up and not quite sharp. It looks fine for a brief look. Over time I've learned a couple of techniques on dealing with higher ISO images in post processing. It's not that I want to take them.

I photograph wildlife and there were two Canon people in the field that bragged about their 6400 or 12800 ISO clean photos. They talked a talk but when I looked at their photo streams, I was much less than impressed.

[Rondec]

I'm using my smart phone to view the turtle. Zooming into the turtle with my phone, I get the impression that it is cleaned up and not quite sharp. It looks fine for a brief look. Over time I've learned a couple of techniques on dealing with higher ISO images in post processing. It's not that I want to take them.

I photograph wildlife and there were two Canon people in the field that bragged about their 6400 or 12800 ISO clean photos. They talked a talk but when I looked at their photo streams, I was much less than impressed.

I agree. Even at web sizes, these aren't what I would call "great" photos. Definite softening from noise reduction and lack of dynamic range visible.