Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-21-2007, 07:39 PM   #1
racinsince55
Guest




The Need for ISO1600 and ISO3200

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?

03-21-2007, 07:55 PM   #2
Veteran Member
-=JoN=-'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,000
you know i've been asking myself that same question.

it's good in SOME applications .....I guess......

BUT is it worth to shoot at the higher ISO range with all that noise?

I personally hardly ever go above 800, (cant even remember the last time i seriously shot w/1600) and rarely use 800 on film and on digital. I wonder if the pushers will chime in too..

some do tho...(and then complain about noise.... )
03-21-2007, 08:07 PM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
I have mentioned this same thing before. I never used anything above 400 ISO film for pro work. I was even known to use 50 ISO (Velvia and Ilford PanF) for some of my fine art stuff. Fuji had a good 800 ISO color film but I never used it for serious stuff. I shot 1600 and 3200 B&W occasionally but not that often.

The noise I see in high ISO digital reminds me of the grain I saw in fast films, which I never prefered except for artistic effect. If I want that grainy effect now I will do it in Photoshop.
03-21-2007, 08:25 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Finn's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Phoenix
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,056
Being cooped up inside with a newborn this winter (i.e. not getting a chance to shoot much outside) it was awfully nice to have a high ISO for indoor shots, especially because the flash on the K100D is so abyssmal. When all I had was a cheap zoom, I had no choice but to use 1600 or 3200. Now I primarily use a Super Takumar 50/1.4 for indoor shots, which gives me great results at ISO 800. Without that speed, there is no way to get naturally lit indoor shots.

BTW, I just picked up a roll of Tmax 3200 today -- not at all sure how I'll use it, but after I do I'll post some pics comparing it with the ISO 3200 on the K100D...

03-21-2007, 08:32 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Mallee Boy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hindmarsh Isl. Sth Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,488
....But isn't this like so much of this type of stuff..."some one, somewhere, said that you need this or that" so "it" (in this case iso speed performance) , becomes absolutely, unequivocally necessary that we must have it.

The reality is more like some people, a minority, have a genuine need for this type of performance/capability from their camera whereas most will never use more than 800. Perhaps one day manufacturers will start producing cameras/sensors that will have a specific use eg) high iso noiseless performance....at a price. There may already be such products out there.

Unfortuneatley (or fortuneatley for some) the debate around these issues takes up a lot of energy and takes the focus away from what the mainstream performance capability is. Sells lots of magazines etc.

As always I think you just have to adhere to the age old principal of "buyer beware" and do your homework!
Cheers
Grant
03-21-2007, 09:17 PM   #6
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
Need? of course not...

QuoteOriginally posted by racinsince55 Quote
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?
Any more than I need a car that does 130MPH, a girlfriend thats gorgeous, or an apartment with views of canal boats...but LIKE, sure I like all of these things very much
03-21-2007, 10:30 PM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 230
Back in the day I wouldn't dream of using 1600 because of the grain, not because I couldn't find a need/use for the sensitivity back then. I still don't really use it much for the same reason, or atleast the digital version of the same reason. If 1600 could produce an image no noisier than 400 would not a lot of us who rarely or don't at all use it now start using 1600? Is this not the same sort of reason some one will occasionally be asking for 50? Or is this noise thing not the reason we tend to dial in the lowest number we can for the environment we shoot in? Wouldn't it be nice to have a relatively noise free image produced at 1600 for those times when we can't dial in an acceptable exposure for what we are shooting. To me it ain't much different than some of the other features on our cameras today. I mean who really thinks that the onboard flash is the end all be all, and that it truly does justice to that stunning portrait we are trying to create with our $1000 (Canadian $'s anyway) camera? Sure it serves a purpose but is it really a must have? I guess with it now able to do wireless it is a bit different but still in place of good lighting, really?? Why can't we just accept the fact that it is there as an 'in case' and in the mean time keep begging for a firmware that makes it useable as an 'in case'. If that can't be done I am just as happy to have it at the bottom of some menu on my camera that never gets checked. It certainly does not add any weight or bulk to my gear being there.
03-22-2007, 02:12 AM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 64
I shot lots of high speed film, mostly black and white. I rather enjoyed the look I got out of it and was perfectly fine with it being as grainy as it was. Loved shooting Tmax at 3200. Fuji Press 800 was my color film of choice back then, as well. Ah, good old film days...

My general photography tends to revolve around larger shapes and forms rather than detail, so I've never really found myself wanting for resolution.

Also, so far I'm finding Pentax K10D 1600 decent enough for what I want. I tend to crush my blacks my anyways so I don't tend to deal with the infamous virtual private network...

03-22-2007, 02:21 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach VA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,364
Well, in my case, with the DS, 1600 is very usable. 3200, only in an emergency, but I found myself using 1600 often, with out any problem. It is just something I've just gotten used to.
03-22-2007, 05:54 AM   #10
Ed in GA
Guest




I haven't found a need for anything above 400 at this point.

In fact, my k100D is set to 200 most of the time. It would be set to 100 if it were available.
03-22-2007, 06:46 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Matjazz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EU/Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 774
Do I need 1600-3200 iso?
Since I got my DS mainly for cave photography with flashes or just available light the answer is obvious. I'd say a clean enogh 12800 would allow apropriate aperture (DOF) and time with available light in cave.
03-22-2007, 08:19 AM   #12
Senior Member
Dana G's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Masachusetts
Posts: 245
Most people seem to be fine with ISO's in the 100-400 range. Years ago, for serious night shooting and that "gritty" look, we'd push film to 1600 or 3200. The grain was like bowling balls!

So for a few specialized uses, it's nice that they included it, I'd avoid anything over 800. In fact, I try to keep the ISO as low as possible.

Haven't you people ever heard of the tripod? A very useful invention!!
03-22-2007, 09:04 AM   #13
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orland Park, IL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
If you load a roll of fast film you're kind of stuck with it until the roll is used up. With digital you can use high ISO for as few shots as you want. It's nice to have the option.
03-22-2007, 09:17 AM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 217
I have heard of a tripod. Its good for stationary subjects

Havent you guys heard of poorly lit gymnasiums?

ISO3200 f/2 1/180sec kids sports

Do the math on that shutter speed at ISO800 (or 400 cuz thats the only thing I put in my film camera ...)

Oh, and go count the number of brnad new pentax lenses you can buy that are faster than f/2.8 ... you will notice that none of them start with DA ... so tell me whats the future hold for low light photography ...

Last edited by kmccanta; 03-22-2007 at 09:19 AM. Reason: added comment about lens at bottom
03-22-2007, 10:19 AM   #15
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,294
QuoteOriginally posted by kmccanta Quote
I have heard of a tripod. Its good for stationary subjects

Havent you guys heard of poorly lit gymnasiums?



Oh, and go count the number of brnad new pentax lenses you can buy that are faster than f/2.8 ... you will notice that none of them start with DA ... so tell me whats the future hold for low light photography ...
As I am so fond of saying: "You hit the nail on the head!"

Optical math shows that light (relating to lens weight) don't make bright.

Stephen
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!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5, ISO200 vs ISO3200, Sampled from RAW PP/NR: OFF JohnBee Pentax K-5 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 AM. | 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