The battle of high ISO

[Fabs Forns]

I think with the newer cameras offering higher and higher ISO, we, bird photogs are the most vulnerable.
This is only based on my observations, so I'd like to hear your opinions.
People have smooth skins, and whatever detail is there, we rather not see it ;).
When I did macro, I pushed the D300 to 3200 ISO because bugs have no feathers! Edges were fine and well defined and totally usable. Now, I know I couldn't have done that with birds.

What a portrait or photojournalist could fine usable, it's of no use to feathers.
Is this all in my mind or does it make sense?

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I think if ISO 1600 and the occasional 3200 were usable without too much loss of details, I would be very happy. To me it seems that the correct exposure becomes really important in these situations. I have to test it more, but so far I'm quite impressed with the 1D Mark IV and what I have seen from the D3S looks very good, too.

[Art Peslak]

Proper exposure for the dark part of the bird is the key to extracting the detail in high ISO shots. That having been said, the D3 was good but the D3s is pretty incredible at 1600 to 3200 ISO when exposed properly.

[john j. henderson]

I just received the D3s because of my desire to do ISO's up to 1600 and maybe 3200. Agree with Fabs, the newer cameras with the higher ISO seems best for wildlife and sports photography, maybe some wedding work (receptions with low light levels).

[Nancy A Elwood]

And just think not too long ago we were working with velvia and Provia at film speeds of 50 or 100. And then got nervous if we pushed them 1 stop:).

[Roger Clark]

As ISO goes up, dynamic range goes down. This wil always be the case, as at higher ISO you are shortening the exposure and collecting less light. Figure 7 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...el.size.matter
shows this.

Roger

[arash_hazeghi]

I did an event for a family member last year with D700, it was inside a very dark temple and flash wasn't allowed, I made many good photos at ISO 6400, I even made 12X8 prints that look very good and no one can tell they were at ISO 6400 so I imagine even higher might be usable if you don't have to crop and sharpen much :)

[arash_hazeghi]

Here is a night shot with 5DMKII at ISO 6400, they will be using this on the official webpage as well as 8X10 for a calendar.




So yes, with modern large-pixel cameras 6400 is not a problem (careful exposure and processing with no heavy crops!).

[Fabs Forns]

as long as they don't have feathers :)

[arash_hazeghi]

as long as they don't have feathers :)

Feathers and moderate to light cropping I would say 3200 with good exposure (no underexpose) but only with large pixel camera




D700 ISO 3200.

[Jim Poor]

I don't buy the no feathers bit. Feathers and fur aren't really all that different in terms of level of detail and I get great files at high ISO all the time.

With the D3 bodies last year, about 90% of my dog sport work was ISO 6400. Now with the D3s, I can get even better files at 6400 and go up to 12800 and STILL get better files than the D3 at 6400. That let me shoot up to f/2.8 at my last event which is a huge difference when compared to having to shoot at f/2 in the same facility last year.

I plan to get back out with the birds this year once a week starting in spring, so I'll put the theory to test then.

[Roger Clark]

Interesting how people tolerate noise at different levels (sound as well as noise in images) ;)

Personally, I don't like the noise in my 5DII images at ISO 200. I thought velvia (iso 50) was too grainy. I will tolerate higher ISOs to get the image. It's all about the image.

Roger