Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2017, 11:04 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,472
ISO - what do you REALLY use?

As I've been fumbling along with a small fit of GAS, one of the driving forces for a search for an upgrade to my K-30 has been "better high ISO performance". I find that on the K-30 ISO100 to 800 to be great, 1600 to be perfectly usable for smaller prints, and 3200 acceptable (color) to pretty good (black and white).

I've contemplated such far reaching options as a 645D and a Leica M9 that top out at 1600 and 2500 respectively. So I finally decided to search my Lightroom catalog and see what I've actually been shooting to see if those systems would even be viable for me as I shoot now, ignoring a desire for higher ISO pereformance for a moment.

I have approximately 10,000 shots in my Lightroom catalog currently. Approximately 86% are from 100-800, 10% are 800-1600, and the remainder are 3200+. Going off my starred shots, the ratios remain the same but the overall shot total drops to about 1100. My fastest lenses have only been f/2.8, so there's room in my life for a couple fast primes maybe... most of the ISO1600+ shots were with my DA*50-135 so how useful a fast 50 or 30-ish would be is up for debate.

Now, I freely admit to using auto ISO and capping it at 1600 for most work, so the data isn't perfect. But it does raise a little bit of doubt in my mind: do I really need more?

My challenge to you: go through your catalog. What ISO's are you using the most on photos you actually want to keep? Knowing that, what would a better high-ISO camera realistically gain you over what you have now?

06-09-2017, 11:43 PM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,981
I do a lot of indoor available light and and low-light photography, so my usage may be different than yours. Looking at my K-1 photos, and which ones I marked as "good", I get:

0-800 892 26%
801-1600 272 8%
1601-3200 585 17%
3201-6400 1608 48%
6401-12800 5 ~0%

However, I have a ton of K-1 photos that I haven't gone through yet to mark, and also when I am photographing in very low light, I take multiple photos, several of which might be marked as "good", but which ultimately contain duplicates.

Looking at all my marked photos since getting a K-5 (Nov. 2010), my statistics were a little different. However, those included a lot more performance photos, in which I would typically shoot only at 3200 or 6400 to get higher shutter speeds. (The K-1 numbers are also affected by the few performance shots I did, and that would bring the 6400 numbers up a good amount.) The stats for those were:

0-800 10638 25%
801-1600 5011 12%
1601-3200 14645 34%
3201-6400 12798 30%

Clearly that doesn't really say how many of my high-ISO shots are *actually* good, but I'm pretty sure that I am more likely to find a high-ISO shot completely acceptable than you are. (Just a hunch based on your relative lack of high-ISO shooting.)

Last edited by leekil; 06-10-2017 at 12:18 AM.
06-10-2017, 12:30 AM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 793
After having bought the K-1 I have now developed the balls guts to use ISO6400 as often as needed.

Last edited by shardulm; 06-10-2017 at 12:33 AM. Reason: typo
06-10-2017, 02:07 AM - 1 Like   #4
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,504
Generally, I use whatever sensitivity is necessary to get the shot, given the shutter speed and aperture I want. At times, I'll shoot at a lower-than-ideal shutter speed or with a wider aperture than I'd like, just to keep the ISO down, but otherwise I accept the ISO I'm given. In post-processing I use quite gentle luminance noise reduction, then I depend on size of reproduction and distance of viewing to counter the noise. Occasionally, I end up with a photo that really is just too noisy; sometimes, it can be saved with stronger noise reduction which means giving up some detail - but that can be an acceptable compromise, depending on the shot.

With the K-3 and K-3II, I'm usually very happy with results up to ISO 6400. But, I have plenty of shots taken above ISO 6400 and all the way up to around ISO 20,000, that I'm quite happy with - so long as they don't have too much fine detail and/or dark, shadowy areas (which show up the noise a lot more).


Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-10-2017 at 04:54 AM.
06-10-2017, 02:13 AM   #5
Veteran Member
IgorZ's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,735
I rarely shoot above 100. When shooting indoors during the winter I have gone as high as 800 and even 1600 once, but just to see how it works.
06-10-2017, 03:10 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 158
Skierd,

This is a really tough question to answer. If you are happy with your results of your shots, then who cares which iso it was shot in. Now, if you are realizing that you are missing some shots because of low light performance then you should either consider an upgrade in lenses or equipment.

Now all our cameras are native 100 iso. This means that anthing else is computer wizardry. So the best quality is always the lowest iso. So an upgrade to a k3 or kp woukd give you better results because they have better tech.

Next point, going full frame adds one stop to your shot because it's a larger sensor. This helps tremendously in low light. If you go to a 645 you increase your iso by two stops because of this larger sensor. So a medium format camera at f5.6 is equivalent to a full frame at f4 and a cropped sensor at f2.8. All of this gives you options of lowering your iso in low light situations or increasing f stops and shutter speeds.

Again it really comes to what you are shooting. I love to shoot the performing arts and dance in particular so my K3 is just able to keep up to give me shutter speeds over 320 or 400 with iso in the 1600-6400 range. Now i would consider getting a full frame because it would allow me to take the same shots at a lower iso and get less noisy results.

So it brings me back to the point if you are happy with your results, who cares? If your setup is limiting your ability to get the shot then consider upgrades. If you want to upgrade just because you can, knock yourself out. To get the best advice you really need to tell us what you are shooting or what type of shooting you paln to do and then you can get better advice.

Last edited by Angel Perez; 06-10-2017 at 03:22 AM.
06-10-2017, 03:25 AM - 3 Likes   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by Angel Perez Quote
Next point, going full frame adds one stop to your shot because it's a larger sensor. This helps tremendously in low light. If you go to a 645 you increase your iso by two stops because of this larger sensor. So a medium format camera at f4 is equivalent to a full frame at 2.8
Codswallop.

This equivalence thing is a load of horse you-know-what - the reason there is a difference is because with a different sized sensor behind the same focal length lens, the field of view changes, the distance changes, and the depth of field changes with it IF YOU MAINTAIN THE SAME COMPOSITION. But the light at f/4 on one sensor is the same as the light at f/4 on any other sensor; the difference is in the nature of the pixels and the signal processing gear behind the sensor.

06-10-2017, 04:43 AM   #8
f22
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 117
QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
As I've been fumbling along with a small fit of GAS, one of the driving forces for a search for an upgrade to my K-30 has been "better high ISO performance". I find that on the K-30 ISO100 to 800 to be great, 1600 to be perfectly usable for smaller prints, and 3200 acceptable (color) to pretty good (black and white).

Now, I freely admit to using auto ISO and capping it at 1600 for most work, so the data isn't perfect. But it does raise a little bit of doubt in my mind: do I really need more?

My challenge to you: go through your catalog. What ISO's are you using the most on photos you actually want to keep? Knowing that, what would a better high-ISO camera realistically gain you over what you have now?
I use Auto ISO on my K-50 and I had the same opinion as you of the usability of certain ISO limits on that camera (capping at 1600...). However, since acquiring the new KP, I still use Auto ISO but now operate with 100-12800 for the same results that I used to use 100-1600 on my K-50. At 25,600 to 51,200, I get acceptable results, and above that the shots are pretty noisy. Still - that is a tremendous improvement. But that's not all, the KP renders color and detail with my same lens much better than the K-50 could. I did not want to abandon the investment I had in APS-C lens, so the KP has given me all the tool I need to get high quality results in APS-C format. I took many shots with ISO 6400 and 12,800 in Rome and Venice in ambient lit churches, and except for maybe 3 shots out of over 1200, there was some noise in them. So yeah, I am happy and satisfied with the KP.
06-10-2017, 05:29 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,684
QuoteOriginally posted by Angel Perez Quote
Next point, going full frame adds one stop to your shot because it's a larger sensor. This helps tremendously in low light. If you go to a 645 you increase your iso by two stops because of this larger sensor. So a medium format camera at f5.6 is equivalent to a full frame at f4 and a cropped sensor at f2.8.


QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Codswallop.

This equivalence thing is a load of horse you-know-what - the reason there is a difference is because with a different sized sensor behind the same focal length lens, the field of view changes, the distance changes, and the depth of field changes with it IF YOU MAINTAIN THE SAME COMPOSITION.
Pathdoc, it seems like you are unnecessarily bringing focal length equivalence and depth of field equivalence into a discussion about how larger sensors provide cleaner pictures at given ISO levels.

QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
But the light at f/4 on one sensor is the same as the light at f/4 on any other sensor; the difference is in the nature of the pixels and the signal processing gear behind the sensor.
It's pretty clear that if all else is held equal, including the generation of sensor tech and the megapixels, then a larger sensor will produce a cleaner picture at any given ISO level. This is simply due to larger sensors having more surface area exposed to light, and they therefore have more information from which to build the image. Are you really arguing otherwise?

***

I see you mention "nature of the pixels". Is that a reference to pixel density? If your argument requires that pixel-density be held the same, then you could be right. But in the real world, that is kind of a meaningless point.

So a FF sensor has approximately 30x the surface area of the common 1/2.3" compact camera sensor. So if you wanted to say that a 1/2.3" sensor at 1MP produces an image just as clean as a FF sensor at 30MP since the pixels will be equal sized, and each pixel will be exposed to the same amount of light, then you may be right.

But in the real world, sensor resolution (pixel density) does not scale up at a constant rate with sensor size. If we did that, then small sensors would be limited to ridiculously low resolutions with almost no detail, or large sensors would output large resolutions that would be nearly unworkable on most computers.

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 06-10-2017 at 05:48 AM.
06-10-2017, 05:37 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Otago, New Zealand
Posts: 422
I also have the KP - I let it go to 4000 for auto ISO, but then I often work in black painted rooms (terrible for ISO noise) - in the right conditions it's usable to extremely high ISO's.

If someone had asked me what levels I actually use I'd have estimated lots of high ISO and lots of wide aperture, but looking at several hundred files on my desktop tells a different story (I do weekly backups/purges and I do daily edits - hence my only having a few hundred shots from the KP on my desktop).

Looking at it I see that I used the 35mm 2.4 for about 90% of last week, I had it at 5.6 for 90% of the time, and about %75 of the shots are ISO 400 or less.
I'm a bit surprised by that - especially as I still took quite a few low light shots with the KP.

My olympus EM5 (1000 odd frames on that one last week - it lives in my jacket pocket). was 75% over 400 ISO, and 90% wider than F2.0.
06-10-2017, 06:26 AM   #11
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
With my K-1 I rarely even think about ISO. 3200 ISO images can be quite noisy pixel peeping, by the time you've reduced them to 2650x1600, the largest size I typically use, the noise is gone. IN fact since my K-5 noise is only ever an issue on heavily cropped images with very little reduction in resolution. But my rule of thumb for ISO is always, use the lowest ISO you can. That is true in every image. Should you put a cap on that? DO you want the image or don't you? You do what you have to do to get the image, and then deal with the limitations of higher ISO later. If I'm ever in a situation that requires 128,000 ISO, I'll certainly use it. It will be better than nothing....

As I said, do you want the image or don't you?

I once shot a picture of a bear trying to break into my steel, bear proof garbage container with just a dim yard light on. The ISO was ridiculous, the IQ is terrible, The only thing sharp in the image is his redeye, but, I love the picture. If the choice is that or nothing, what have you got to lose?

Last edited by normhead; 06-13-2017 at 07:46 AM.
06-10-2017, 06:33 AM   #12
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
For me, it's nearly impossible to do a simple iso check in a meaniful range, especially of keepers..... mostly because I am more accepting of higer iso's with the K-1 as a trade off for a faster shutter speed or a bit more depth of field.... these trade offs would probally give me more keepers, rather then more hi iso images based on a noise tolerance.
06-10-2017, 06:33 AM - 2 Likes   #13
Veteran Member
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,684
QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
As I've been fumbling along with a small fit of GAS, one of the driving forces for a search for an upgrade to my K-30 has been "better high ISO performance". I find that on the K-30 ISO100 to 800 to be great, 1600 to be perfectly usable for smaller prints, and 3200 acceptable (color) to pretty good (black and white).
Not to ever get in the way of another person's GAS, but I feel like you are selling the K-30 a little short. I think it is a high ISO champ, and only recently have any APS-C cameras been released that had any significant improvement. The K-70 and K-P come to mind.

I try to keep my ISO as low as possible, but when I'm shooting dance performances it is necessary to keep shutter speeds up, so my only option is to go high on ISO. On my K-30, I've found that ISO 3200 is still capable of producing large, detailed images when I shoot in RAW and process them carefully.

I've shared these pictures before, but I think they are great examples of what the K-30 can do at high ISO levels. These were all shot at ISO 3200 with my K-30 at a local dance studio's performance of "The Nutcracker" a couple years ago. I shot in RAW, applied a little noise reduction, and then down-sized them to a vertical resolution of 2160 pixels (the native resolution for 4K displays), so they're still fairly large image files. To me, they look very good when viewed at 100%. Lots of detail and not too much noise evident.

Click on each picture for the full-size version:







06-10-2017, 07:21 AM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 768
My Present Shooting is all related to my being raised by Wolves in the 70's & 80's and taught Photography by the Alpha Leader. Each shot then had to be thought through all of the basics and physically set by the shooter then you spent hours in the dark adjusting the basic elements of the Photo to what your Eye thought it saw. Auto ISO (ASA) was 5 X K1000's in the back seat. If Mankind had the option of DSLR auto ISO or the Wheel For the Centuries Premiere Invention then Auto ISO is the clear winner.
Today I shoot TAv 95% of the time with ISO set 100 - 3200 max. I manipulate the Shutter & Aperture for the scene I am shooting and let the magic happen with the auto ISO but I constantly monitor the ISO and try to limit it to 100-200 ISO for Lighted stationary scenes and 200- 3200 ISO for movement and Low light. I'm afraid of the Dark now so my Post Processing is very limited to Picasa contrast, cropping & a bit of High /Low Life adjustments except when I'm self medicating and then their is a lot of Colour Super Saturation / Posterization Abstract Junk comes out the Pipe. As a matter of fact I am a bit of a camera snob and feel that if your camera exposure is unsatisfactory then maybe you should think about giving your camera to charity.
P.S. I am a child & female flesh tone admirer and like the results of my shots at 3200 ISO with a splash of flash; the only other time I like that result is with black & white photos

Last edited by honey bo bo; 12-20-2017 at 04:24 PM.
06-10-2017, 07:22 AM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
Ultimately equivalence is codswallop unless everything behind the sensor is exactly the same - pixel size and pitch, pixel design, presence and exact nature of AA or IR filters, digital signal processing hardware and especially firmware - everything.

Back in the film days, when the same basic recording medium (down to the same chemical batch of the same emulsion) could be put behind anything from 110 to 8" by 10" in any camera you cared to name, perhaps broader comparisons could be drawn. Now they cannot. I'm not sure you can do an apples to apples comparison between what happens when the light hits the sensor of a 645D vs. a K-1 or Nikon D810, for example. This is why I get wary when I see people arguing that such and such a format is "worth an extra stop". It's not automatically so - there are too many other variables coming into play, and most of them relate to what happens between when the shutter finally closes and the customer gets the print they paid for.
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!
300mm, 50-150mm, 70-200mm, aps-c, camera, catalog, dof, dslr, exposure, f/2.8, f8, image, images, iso, k-1, k-30, lens, level, light, lightroom, noise, photography, print, saturation, search, sensor, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your vehicle: what do you have, why do you like it, and what do you not like? Auzzie-Phoenix General Talk 2951 1 Day Ago 03:47 AM
Newbie - What ISO setting do you K-1 shooters use? lazarustx Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 29 02-01-2017 10:53 PM
Do you use only manual focus lenses?Do a lot of folks use only manual lenses? heralu Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 01-05-2011 04:06 PM
How many tripods do you own and what lenses/purpose do you use them for? gofour3 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 17 04-09-2010 03:08 AM
What do the different functions do? When do you use them? bluebronco Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 07-11-2008 04:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 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