The Need for ISO1600 and ISO3200

bdavis · 03-22-2007, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by kmccanta

Havent you guys heard of poorly lit gymnasiums?

Or reception halls, playing fields under flood-lights, auditoriums, churches, rainy/grey days, etc?

I might find the practice of limiting ISO to 400 or less more admirable if I didn't find it so stifling. I've found high ISO, and high ASA film to be useful, simply because they allow the photographer more latitude in making correct, creative exposures. 800/1600/heck, even 3200 in a pinch, aren't 'specialist' applications. They are "realist" options for everyone who wants to shoot anything other than flowers and seashells on a sunny day, or studio shots.

As for the subject of noise, in the vast majority of relatively mundane instances, any image is better than no image. Frankly, Joe Ordinary with his compact, auto-everything, fixed-lens, p&s isn't going to be able to capture the shot of Grandma Davis sacking the snot out of the UNM Lobos quarterback. Ordinary is so used to blurry, "digitally"-zoomed, crappy images--and he treasures them!--that the noise of the aforementioned shot at...1600(!) ISO isn't going to mean anything.

Dana G · 03-22-2007, 05:48 PM

For poorly lit gymnasiums, there are such things as monopods. They don't give you the advantages of a tripod, but you can buy an extra stop with them.

Arpe · 03-22-2007, 06:24 PM

Absolutely necessary, use it often in poorly lit situations, it's either use it or no picture. I would prefer not to have to, but would really annoyed if it was dropped. Mono/Tripods are all very well, but don't make the subjects move any slower so they are still blurry.

WMBP · 03-22-2007, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Dana G

For poorly lit gymnasiums, there are such things as monopods. They don't give you the advantages of a tripod, but you can buy an extra stop with them.

I've tried the monopod while photographing my daughter's basketball and volleyball games. Fine if I position myself somewhere out of the way, some distance from the action. But that isn't usually possible. Typically I'm right on the sidelines, close to the action. I found the monopod to be an incredible hassle. The monopod is okay for panning horizontally - but changing the camera's altitude or its vertical orientation while it's attached to a monopod, well, forget about it. Without the monopod, on the other hand, I can kneel down, or squat, or stand up or even hold the camera over my head. I can point the camera down when the players scramble for a ball at my feet, and point the camera up to catch a basket or players jumping up for a rebound. I might add that a long pointed metal stick looks a bit dangerous when used in proximity to young athletes. My presence courtside has only once been objected to by a representative of the school; but I think more people would complain if I were standing there with a monopod.

The key to something resembling success for me has been (1) a lens with a fixed f/2.8 aperture; and (2) higher ISO setting than I would otherwise like. I try not to shoot over 800 ISO - but I also try to keep my shutter over 1/300s. As noise is less of a problem than bad focus, when I have to compromise, I go to 1600 ISO.

One of the reasons I switched from my otherwise rather nice Canon PowerShot S3 IS to a digital SLR was that the S3 IS at ISO 800 was wretchedly noisy. Photos taken at ISO 800 with the K10D are noisy, too, but less so - definitely more usable.

Will

Last edited by WMBP; 03-23-2007 at 07:51 AM. Reason: fixed spelling error

bdavis · 03-23-2007, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Dana G

For poorly lit gymnasiums, there are such things as monopods. They don't give you the advantages of a tripod, but you can buy an extra stop with them.

There is also something called motion blur. You can't get a fast enough shutter speed to stop action in a poorly lit gym at 400 ISO, even on a monopod.

That aside, I'll lend you a monopod. You go shoot some basketball from under the basket, and tally up the number of times you have a close call because you couldn't get out of the way with that big stick in your hand and get hit by a player, ball, ref, coach, etc. How many shots do you miss when the play transitions from the 3-pt line to the basket?

Go shoot some volleyball. Tally up the number of shots you miss because you were focused on the net action, and there was an excellent play behind the 10 foot line. There is a major difference in altitude between 6ft players at the net, jumping, and 5ft-something shorties digging a ball inches away from the floor.

Now, monopods are useful for outdoor soccer and (US) football because you'll be away from the action by many yards in most instances, and have a monster lens, and there isn't much vertical change in framing. I still wouldn't shoot a night game at 400 ISO. Get real, Dana.

shadowrulz3164 · 03-23-2007, 08:00 AM

i think a higher iso is necessary. makes a camera very versitile in just about any situation. But i do however use up to 1600 if im really in a pinch. but ilike to stay at 800 and below.

davek · 03-23-2007, 11:15 AM

Personally, I use the ISO I need for the shot. The vast majority of the time, it's at 200 on my DS, but if I'm shooting a concert or sports, the ISO goes up.

Incredibly useful feature, that is....

kafreddy · 03-23-2007, 11:48 AM

all agreed we have gone to a new level as far as thing we can cature now. its now possible to go into dark room crank up the iso and turn on the shake reduction and get sharp images where film would flounder around like pudding. But, how often are we really doing that? I am chalenged by exposure, color and composition as much now as I ever was. If I want to see in the dark I can by a nigh vision camera.

benjikan · 03-23-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by racinsince55

Is there really a need?

Back in the day, the fastest film commonly in use was ASA400 and on rare occassions ASA800.

I don't think I ever remember that there was much you couldn't do with ASA400 and below.

Now, in the digital age, why has the need for 1600/3200 become so important?

I have never really needed 1600 or 3200 iso, as I generally have the light I require for a shoot. But what if that is what I want. What if the digital grain produced is the effect I want? I would love to have the latitude of 25-6400 iso. I am not kidding. Having this kind of flexibility could open up a panoply of creative possibilities. Let's say you want to do a composite image where one is done in 100 and the other is done at 3200. You can comp the two together and choose in the layer what part of the image is foreground or background. Yes, I would like 3200. Do I "Need" it...No.

Panache · 03-23-2007, 04:48 PM

I am thankful my K100D had ISO 3200 when I took dress rehearsal shots at my daughter's show yesterday. Stage lighting, kit lens and settings all over the place!
This particular one [one of the better ones] ISO 3200, ss 1/45, SR, f 4.0. This one is SOOC except for crop. IT looks really nice run through noiseware.
For a beginner dSLR user, I really like the options of having higher ISOs. At least until I can afford a faster lens or until I learn how to use this one more optimally.

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-23-2007, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by racinsince55

Is there really a need?

Back in the day, the fastest film commonly in use was ASA400 and on rare occassions ASA800.

I don't think I ever remember that there was much you couldn't do with ASA400 and below.

Now, in the digital age, why has the need for 1600/3200 become so important?

The need for ISO 1600/3200 exists for a couple of reasons. First of all, back in the days if film, the poloroid instamatic B&W Film was ISO3000 .

Also, it was not uncomon in the 1980's for me to load my Pentax KX with ISO400 Tri X, with the exposure dial set to 3200, and my F1.4 50 mm and take candid night time vacation shots, without flash. I would push process these 3 stops (development time about 30 minutes as opposed to 6) and then print them up to 8 x 10.

The only thing that has changed with digital is the removal of the 30 minutes with smelly chemicals!

I have shot over 1000 frames on my *istD at 3200.

Who needs ISO3200, I do for one!

Fnarf · 03-27-2007, 03:56 PM

Personally, I am eagerly awaiting low-noise 6400 and 12800 ISO. At screen resolution, which is what I do most, even the current 3200 looks very good! Imagine Panache's shot above at ISO 400.

Even with all the advances photography is still only a small portion of light and vision. You might as well ask "why does anyone need a 200mm (or 20mm) lens?" or even "why does anyone need adjustable aperture and shutter speed?" The answer: to see more and capture more.

Now, where's my 24mm f/0.95 lens, darn it?

SuperJared · 03-27-2007, 04:32 PM

I couldn't have made this piece without ISO 1600!

Photo Tramp · 03-27-2007, 04:45 PM

I find the use of 1600 ISO a must to some degree. I don't like using a flash even in low light and there are many time that using 1600 ISO is a crap shoot for noise. this past weekend I was having trouble getting a fast enough shutter speed even in the low cloudy day light. Many of my shots were at 1600 ISO, and I noticed some noise in some of the closeups. It doesn't have to be used but if needed it's there.

xfloggingkylex · 03-29-2007, 10:43 AM

ISO 3200 is the only thing I miss from the *ist DL now taht I have a K10D. Not that I used it often, in fact hardly ever, but it was nice to know if I got into a low light situation and needed the speed but couldnt use a flash (couldnt reach, build/area wouldn't permit such as some animals in zoos and aquariums) I was still covered.

Meh, not a huge loss.

03-23-2007, 07:04 AM	#20
bdavis Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 'Burque, NM Posts: 309	Originally posted by Dana G For poorly lit gymnasiums, there are such things as monopods. They don't give you the advantages of a tripod, but you can buy an extra stop with them. There is also something called motion blur. You can't get a fast enough shutter speed to stop action in a poorly lit gym at 400 ISO, even on a monopod. That aside, I'll lend you a monopod. You go shoot some basketball from under the basket, and tally up the number of times you have a close call because you couldn't get out of the way with that big stick in your hand and get hit by a player, ball, ref, coach, etc. How many shots do you miss when the play transitions from the 3-pt line to the basket? Go shoot some volleyball. Tally up the number of shots you miss because you were focused on the net action, and there was an excellent play behind the 10 foot line. There is a major difference in altitude between 6ft players at the net, jumping, and 5ft-something shorties digging a ball inches away from the floor. Now, monopods are useful for outdoor soccer and (US) football because you'll be away from the action by many yards in most instances, and have a monster lens, and there isn't much vertical change in framing. I still wouldn't shoot a night game at 400 ISO. Get real, Dana. Last edited by bdavis; 03-23-2007 at 07:30 AM.

03-23-2007, 12:00 PM	#24
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Need or Want? Originally posted by racinsince55 Is there really a need? Back in the day, the fastest film commonly in use was ASA400 and on rare occassions ASA800. I don't think I ever remember that there was much you couldn't do with ASA400 and below. Now, in the digital age, why has the need for 1600/3200 become so important? I have never really needed 1600 or 3200 iso, as I generally have the light I require for a shoot. But what if that is what I want. What if the digital grain produced is the effect I want? I would love to have the latitude of 25-6400 iso. I am not kidding. Having this kind of flexibility could open up a panoply of creative possibilities. Let's say you want to do a composite image where one is done in 100 and the other is done at 3200. You can comp the two together and choose in the layer what part of the image is foreground or background. Yes, I would like 3200. Do I "Need" it...No.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5, ISO200 vs ISO3200, Sampled from RAW PP/NR: OFF	JohnBee	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	30	10-29-2010 04:38 AM
first k-x ISO3200 photo	devorama	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	10-01-2009 02:01 PM
GX10 Lower iso1600 noise	jamesm007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	12-27-2008 12:26 PM
ISO3200...It's Actually Not Bad...	PentaxFan	Post Your Photos!	2	12-17-2007 08:50 PM
Squirrel at ISO1600	Duh_Vinci	Post Your Photos!	20	01-14-2007 09:37 AM

03-22-2007, 05:42 PM	#16
bdavis Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 'Burque, NM Posts: 309	Originally posted by kmccanta Havent you guys heard of poorly lit gymnasiums? Or reception halls, playing fields under flood-lights, auditoriums, churches, rainy/grey days, etc? I might find the practice of limiting ISO to 400 or less more admirable if I didn't find it so stifling. I've found high ISO, and high ASA film to be useful, simply because they allow the photographer more latitude in making correct, creative exposures. 800/1600/heck, even 3200 in a pinch, aren't 'specialist' applications. They are "realist" options for everyone who wants to shoot anything other than flowers and seashells on a sunny day, or studio shots. As for the subject of noise, in the vast majority of relatively mundane instances, any image is better than no image. Frankly, Joe Ordinary with his compact, auto-everything, fixed-lens, p&s isn't going to be able to capture the shot of Grandma Davis sacking the snot out of the UNM Lobos quarterback. Ordinary is so used to blurry, "digitally"-zoomed, crappy images--and he treasures them!--that the noise of the aforementioned shot at...1600(!) ISO isn't going to mean anything.

03-22-2007, 05:48 PM	#17
Dana G Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Masachusetts Posts: 243	For poorly lit gymnasiums, there are such things as monopods. They don't give you the advantages of a tripod, but you can buy an extra stop with them.

03-22-2007, 06:24 PM	#18
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Absolutely necessary, use it often in poorly lit situations, it's either use it or no picture. I would prefer not to have to, but would really annoyed if it was dropped. Mono/Tripods are all very well, but don't make the subjects move any slower so they are still blurry.

03-22-2007, 08:02 PM	#19
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by Dana G For poorly lit gymnasiums, there are such things as monopods. They don't give you the advantages of a tripod, but you can buy an extra stop with them. I've tried the monopod while photographing my daughter's basketball and volleyball games. Fine if I position myself somewhere out of the way, some distance from the action. But that isn't usually possible. Typically I'm right on the sidelines, close to the action. I found the monopod to be an incredible hassle. The monopod is okay for panning horizontally - but changing the camera's altitude or its vertical orientation while it's attached to a monopod, well, forget about it. Without the monopod, on the other hand, I can kneel down, or squat, or stand up or even hold the camera over my head. I can point the camera down when the players scramble for a ball at my feet, and point the camera up to catch a basket or players jumping up for a rebound. I might add that a long pointed metal stick looks a bit dangerous when used in proximity to young athletes. My presence courtside has only once been objected to by a representative of the school; but I think more people would complain if I were standing there with a monopod. The key to something resembling success for me has been (1) a lens with a fixed f/2.8 aperture; and (2) higher ISO setting than I would otherwise like. I try not to shoot over 800 ISO - but I also try to keep my shutter over 1/300s. As noise is less of a problem than bad focus, when I have to compromise, I go to 1600 ISO. One of the reasons I switched from my otherwise rather nice Canon PowerShot S3 IS to a digital SLR was that the S3 IS at ISO 800 was wretchedly noisy. Photos taken at ISO 800 with the K10D are noisy, too, but less so - definitely more usable. Will Last edited by WMBP; 03-23-2007 at 07:51 AM. Reason: fixed spelling error

03-23-2007, 08:00 AM	#21
shadowrulz3164 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 157	i think a higher iso is necessary. makes a camera very versitile in just about any situation. But i do however use up to 1600 if im really in a pinch. but ilike to stay at 800 and below.

03-23-2007, 11:15 AM	#22
davek Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Elmira, On, Canada Posts: 461	Personally, I use the ISO I need for the shot. The vast majority of the time, it's at 200 on my DS, but if I'm shooting a concert or sports, the ISO goes up. Incredibly useful feature, that is....

03-23-2007, 11:48 AM	#23
kafreddy New Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: West Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 16	all agreed we have gone to a new level as far as thing we can cature now. its now possible to go into dark room crank up the iso and turn on the shake reduction and get sharp images where film would flounder around like pudding. But, how often are we really doing that? I am chalenged by exposure, color and composition as much now as I ever was. If I want to see in the dark I can by a nigh vision camera.

03-23-2007, 04:48 PM	#25
Panache Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 142	I am thankful my K100D had ISO 3200 when I took dress rehearsal shots at my daughter's show yesterday. Stage lighting, kit lens and settings all over the place! This particular one [one of the better ones] ISO 3200, ss 1/45, SR, f 4.0. This one is SOOC except for crop. IT looks really nice run through noiseware. For a beginner dSLR user, I really like the options of having higher ISOs. At least until I can afford a faster lens or until I learn how to use this one more optimally.

03-23-2007, 05:51 PM	#26
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by racinsince55 Is there really a need? Back in the day, the fastest film commonly in use was ASA400 and on rare occassions ASA800. I don't think I ever remember that there was much you couldn't do with ASA400 and below. Now, in the digital age, why has the need for 1600/3200 become so important? The need for ISO 1600/3200 exists for a couple of reasons. First of all, back in the days if film, the poloroid instamatic B&W Film was ISO3000 . Also, it was not uncomon in the 1980's for me to load my Pentax KX with ISO400 Tri X, with the exposure dial set to 3200, and my F1.4 50 mm and take candid night time vacation shots, without flash. I would push process these 3 stops (development time about 30 minutes as opposed to 6) and then print them up to 8 x 10. The only thing that has changed with digital is the removal of the 30 minutes with smelly chemicals! I have shot over 1000 frames on my *istD at 3200. Who needs ISO3200, I do for one!

03-27-2007, 03:56 PM	#27
Fnarf New Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Seattle, USA Posts: 18	Personally, I am eagerly awaiting low-noise 6400 and 12800 ISO. At screen resolution, which is what I do most, even the current 3200 looks very good! Imagine Panache's shot above at ISO 400. Even with all the advances photography is still only a small portion of light and vision. You might as well ask "why does anyone need a 200mm (or 20mm) lens?" or even "why does anyone need adjustable aperture and shutter speed?" The answer: to see more and capture more. Now, where's my 24mm f/0.95 lens, darn it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2007, 04:32 PM	#28
SuperJared Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 167	I couldn't have made this piece without ISO 1600!

03-27-2007, 04:45 PM	#29
Photo Tramp Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lancaster, PA. Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,041	I find the use of 1600 ISO a must to some degree. I don't like using a flash even in low light and there are many time that using 1600 ISO is a crap shoot for noise. this past weekend I was having trouble getting a fast enough shutter speed even in the low cloudy day light. Many of my shots were at 1600 ISO, and I noticed some noise in some of the closeups. It doesn't have to be used but if needed it's there.

03-29-2007, 10:43 AM	#30
xfloggingkylex Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Frederick, MD USA Posts: 111	ISO 3200 is the only thing I miss from the *ist DL now taht I have a K10D. Not that I used it often, in fact hardly ever, but it was nice to know if I got into a low light situation and needed the speed but couldnt use a flash (couldnt reach, build/area wouldn't permit such as some animals in zoos and aquariums) I was still covered. Meh, not a huge loss.