ISO advice

[Joe Galkowski]

Hi,

Although I am an experienced photographer, I have been away from the field for many years, unless of course you count my kids' soccer tournaments and track meets.

I just joined here and I am struck by how most members seem to push shutter speeds very high. Remember that I came from using 50 speed film and very picky magazine editors. It just stuns me to see 1/2000s at ISO 1000. I have been shooting digital since it was viable and I have watched the progress made in terms of noise, but I always kept my ISO setting at 100 - 400, or lower, for optimal quality. Even in the sport of soccer you can freeze most subject motion at 1/500 s. Even most larger bird flight shots will be sharp at that speed too.

So, what am I missing? Is it the desire to handhold, no one prints large, editors don't mind the noise, the desire to get a higher percentage of keepers, or people just shoot for internet sharing. Is there no market anymore that folks sell their work to that insists on super high IQ with no noise or loss of detail from noise reduction?

Please let me know what I am missing. This is a real question as I am now questioning all my old habits. Thanks.

[DickLudwig]

Joe, what camera(s) are you using?
All cameras are not created equal when it comes to pushing ISO.

[arash_hazeghi]

Most folks value IQ highly here. I think you are out of touch with the latest digital cameras. ISO 1000 is not really high these days.

Years of evolution has enabled pro bodies with large sensors such as the 1DX coupled with superior optics to produce fine art quality results at ISOs higher than 3200, even when printed large. These results were not even imaginable 10 years ago. The low end camera models with small low cost sensors do struggle when it comes to low light and high ISO, but they all can handle up to ISO 800 at least.

[Joe Galkowski]

Perhaps I am a little out of touch. I shoot with decent glass but just a D7100 body. It is not bad, but it is not a high-end pro body.

I understand the advancement in sensors, in theory. Just not in practice. I have looked at outputs from the best cameras and they seem very good to me up to about 800 (400 for my camera) but, at the pixel level, they start to show some noise above that. I guess what you are telling me is that for large prints, things still hold together well over 800? Large being defined as 16x20" size. Could one tell the difference between two prints at this size, one shot at 100 ISO and the other shot at 800 or 1000? Or is the whole question of prints and shooting for publications no longer part of the equation?

Is there less likelihood to market/sell an image (assuming all else is equal) at this high ISO? The other question is why shoot at 1/2000 sec when you can drop the ISO down to 400 and shoot at 1/1000? Wouldn't the IQ be even better? Or, perhaps what you are telling me is the difference is just not noticeable? I am just trying to figure out if I should change my style and/or get a new body. Unfortunately, the images shared here, although truly excellent, are simply too small for me to really judge if the higher ISO values cause any degradation at all in IQ. Thank you again for working with my awkward attempt to try to figure some things out.

[arash_hazeghi]

I think you are asking several different questions:

1) I don't shoot with Nikon but from what I know D7100 is near the bottom of the Nikon lineup, somewhat like the Canon Digital Rebel or 60D. It is not really capable of quality output at high ISO, and at this price nobody excepts it to come close to D4 or a D800. The samples I have seen from this camera are quite poor, I wouldn't use it above ISO 800 for avian subject, but Nikon users should chime in here.

2) The quality of output also depends on your post processing skills, without proper post processing the output can be poor, even from a pro body. This is more challenging and important for cameras with small sensors and high pixel count. RAW conversion software plays a very important role here.

3) A 20" print is not really a large print, it isn't that challenging. A large print to me is 40" or larger. A skilled photographer who is also competent in post processing can definitely produce 40" prints at ISO 1600 or 3200 that has little difference to one taken at ISO 100. Not with a D7100, but with a 1DX or a D4 it is possible. If you do a blind test, I don't think anyone would be able to tell the ISO. To deliver this output RAW file needs to be tack sharp and expsoure needs be spot on and advanced processing steps are required.

4) There is no less likelihood to sell a print or an image because of its ISO, for most prints that are sold shooting information is often not disclosed at all.

5) Shooting at low ISO is a very common error for avian subject and one of the primary reasons for poor output quality. You don't gain much in terms of IQ by going to ISO 400 unless your camera really struggles, but your files will come out soft/blurry. Attempting to sharpen a soft file is what brings out the grain and leads to poor IQ.

6) It is true that the images posted here are small, but producing even a small high quality file from a poor quality RAW is often not possible. Feather details are very delicate and sensitive, loss of quality is often very evident to the trained eye.

7) In order to use high ISO you need both a capable camera body, a sharp lens and also great post processing skills, from RAW conversion, to noise reduction, to output sharpening. all are important.


Good luck

[Joe Galkowski]

Thanks Arash I appreciate your time and comments. I know I am on a steep learning curve here. It's funny because as a well published semi-pro, I used to teach wildlife photography, but step away from this field for over a decade and one loses touch.

But, in the end, this learning is what makes it fun. I am pleased I stumbled into this resource.

[Jerry van Dijk]

Hi Joe, I'm chiming in as a Nikon user at the ' low end'. I have used the D7000 for a few years now. At its introduction, this camera was hailed by the press as a camera with very good control of noise at higher ISO.
But my experience with this camera (which probably also applies to its successor) is that it is not the noise that is causing problems for the IQ at higher ISO levels, but the considerable amount of detail loss. I've pushed the ISO limits quite a few times with this camera for handheld macro images with the 200mm Micro at poor light conditions. Shooting RAW, exposing correctly and using a good post processing routine, it is very well possible to produce rather noiseless images up to about ISO 2000, but from around ISO 800, a lot of resolution is lost from the image (even in RAW without NR), resulting in images that lack detail and look soft, up to the level where it is impossible to 'rescue' them with digital post processing. In practice, I try to stay below ISO 400 with this camera to keep IQ up to my standards and generally use ISO 100 whenever I can (I've got some steady hands now!).
I think this IQ loss at high ISO is more of a problem for most current lower end cameras than controlling noise levels.
Most camera tests (at least the ones I read in photography magazines) will not only give you information on noise levels at high ISO, but also on resolution loss.
The digital photography forum here has a lot of discussions about IQ, noise control, etc., which are sometimes accompanied by 100% crops of images from a range of different cameras, which can help you to get a better idea what is currently possible.

[David Kenny]

I consider myself an amateur in photography and I don't sell any of my images. I use the canon 7D which seems to get noisy above iso 400. Occasionally I print my photos through Costco (I make sure that no adjustments are made by them). The biggest I go is 12x18 which is really not considered large. I have found that at 12x18 I do not see the noise that I see on the computer monitor when they are printed. I have printed a few at ISO 800 that appear noisy on the computer but when I compare the printed shot to another printed image shot at a lower iso you cant tell. I think "noise" is something that photographers can get hung up on sometimes(me included).

[Joe Galkowski]

Thank you David and Jerry. I have always tried to keep below ISO 400. The 7100 is probably not too different than the 7000 or the canon equivalent. It is a newer sensor but I seem to have the same level of tolerance as you do. If I look at my images, I see most are shot at 200 and I cannot see a meaningful difference between that and the 100 setting. I do see some noise coming in at 400 but it is acceptable. At 800, it really bothers me. I am stuck in the Nikon world and I just don't see a good option for how I shoot (for under $5000 that is). I moved from a D300 which I liked to the 7100 and it is far superior for IQ and the AF is great too but the mid-ISO noise is not great.

[William Dickson]

Hi Joe,

I don't know if you have seen this thread I posted regarding noise. It may help you in some ways.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/120394-Denoise

I don't know too much about cameras and what causes noise. But, I did discover that using a full frame sensor definately helped

Cheers

William

[Joe Galkowski]

Thank you William, I think I am convinced. Of course the harder part will be to convince my wife that I need yet another camera. I wish that in the Nikon world there was a midrange full frame option with the same AF system of my 7100.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thank you William, I think I am convinced. Of course the harder part will be to convince my wife that I need yet another camera. I wish that in the Nikon world there was a midrange full frame option with the same AF system of my 7100.

If you want IQ you should look at the D800 it is within your budget and as I understand AF is similar to D4 which is significantly better than the low end models... It is a slow camera but I believe its buffer memory is not as crippled as the low end models.

[Joe Galkowski]

Thanks. I started to look at the D800 (and the D610) but actually my D7100 has a better AF engine than both the D800 and the D610. This worries me. I don't want to get frustrated with a new body as soon as I buy it. The D7100 is Nikon's "Flagship" cropped sensor camera. It has the same AF as the D4 and significantly better IQ at low ISO compared to other cropped sensor models. It too is crippled with a small buffer size, but the AF is not bad. It handled the stilts quite well.

The smaller 24M pixel sensor of the 7100 will never compete with a full frame sensor for low noise at higher ISO. I would love 24Mpixel FF with the same AF spec's as my D7100. For me, IQ has always trumped AF speed but now I am not sure.

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n299/JJohn_photos/StiltFly1S_zpsd738a663.jpg (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/JJohn_photos/media/StiltFly1S_zpsd738a663.jpg.html)

[Joe Galkowski]

Thanks again, Arash. I was wrong about the D800. It does have the same AF engine as my camera. Now I'm very interested!

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks. I started to look at the D800 (and the D610) but actually my D7100 has a better AF engine than both the D800 and the D610. This worries me. I don't want to get frustrated with a new body as soon as I buy it. The D7100 is Nikon's "Flagship" cropped sensor camera. It has the same AF as the D4 and significantly better IQ at low ISO compared to other cropped sensor models. It too is crippled with a small buffer size, but the AF is not bad. It handled the stilts quite well.

The smaller 24M pixel sensor of the 7100 will never compete with a full frame sensor for low noise at higher ISO. I would love 24Mpixel FF with the same AF spec's as my D7100. For me, IQ has always trumped AF speed but now I am not sure.




I don't think so. The D7100 certainly does not have the same AF module in the D4 / D800, the part number for the AF module and the number of AF points are different D800/D4 both use MUTLICAM 3500 FX http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4/features02.htm the AF module alone in those cameras probably costs more than the D7100 body itself.

From what I hear from experienced Nikon shooters D800 AF is close to D4 and significantly better than low end bodies,

As for the silts shot, it is not that sharp and has already passed you, not sure maybe the AF was soft here, you should get much better results with a D800.

[Joe Galkowski]

I stand corrected again. Thank you. There may be a big difference between the Multicam 3500FX and the 3500DX. Below is the somewhat misleading Nikon D7100 spec sheets. One can see how it could be misunderstood:



AF capability comparable to the D4 professional model – high-density 51-point AF system that includes compatibility up to f/8

With the newly developed Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus sensor module, the densely located 51 focus points, supported by an algorithm equivalent to that of the D4, deliver amazing capturing power. AF detection is available down to an impressive -2 EV (ISO 100, 20°C/68°F), which is the brightness equivalent to a subject illuminated by moonlight.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Joe,

I don't shoot with Nikon so I don't know how much difference it makes in practice but because the image coverage on FX is much larger than DX the AF module has to be larger too, they can't use the same module. As I understand MULTICAM3500DX was the same AF system that came out with D300 6-7 years ago, so it's a bit obsolete now. We have many experienced Nikon shooters here who can add more, Randy shoots with Nikon.

But from the spec alone, if not gaining, you shouldn't lose anything going to D800 in terms of AF.

best luck