Do you need a really high ISO?

[Khalai]

Of course I need high ISO.

I need to take photos of black cats in mines chasing mice and to stop that action.

Black mice nontheless. And shooting with lens cap is a given too

 

[lo lite]

That would be really great! Thanks a lot, so I can finally get an idea what 1D X high ISO raws are like!

Here is a link from last week-end fights. It took place at "Ali Nestor Academy" in Montreal - Canada. Lighting at the academy was good, I cannot complain.
Please do not use outside of CR, these are customer files.
They are at ISO 3200, 6400 and 12800; 1/800s, resp f2, 2.8 and 4, shot with 85mm 1.2.
Let me know if that is what you are looking for.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9-bWPVk3E7OZUNjRWd2cWZETzA/edit?usp=sharing_eil

Thanks for those!

I'll just have a look at them in DxO for evaluating the noise and will never put them anywhere else of course, that means I'll delete them after I looked at them. From a first look I can't spot a huge difference in the amount of noise compared to some ISO 12800 5D3 shots of mine but the noise looks different, more fine grained or even where as the 5D3 noise also seems to have lower frequencies, e.g. larger spots. You know what I mean? But it's a bit hard to tell because the shots are different and I can only use my eyes (I have no software for metering noise). I guess at some point I'll have to rent a 1D X and try for myself …

 

[Besisika]

I guess at some point I'll have to rent a 1D X and try for myself …

+1
Besides, low light body is not the only one solution. Whenever you can use flash, that I found always the best one.
If flash is not allowed, then yes. You can go the path of a better lens as well. So, rent ones before buying. It is hard to buy in order to own them all. I very often rent lenses for special need.

 

[9VIII]

One thing that hasn't changed is that size matters. The low-light CMOS sensor you linked is FF...the 7DII/X won't be.

The affordable body for low-light shooting is called the 6D – you can buy one today at retailers everywhere!

Quite a good point:
Canon 6D vs Canon 70D: Noise Comparison (Low Light, High ISO) Video

The quite new 70D is an enormous step for CANON... is not that much for me.

Neuro, your comment is a strong point. We all know the well size DOES matter. However I started this topic with another intention. As I see my start wasn't that clear.

Need for ISO not as a general. Of course FF is better - MF the best. What I mean as next iteration of a model.
Let me rephrase: Will 7Dm2 finally jump over current CANON CMOS performance?

So far what we see recently is everything else but a good update over the under 50% QE. So far the statistics show that QE of about 55% a steady increase to be expected. Meanwhile some rivalry cameras can show off with QE of 67%.

I at least hope that the there will be some improvement over the older 7D as there is between the 6D and 7S.

I know there are from different vendors, but I hope you get my point. ;-)

Neuro is dead on here...bigger sensors really trump for low light performance.

I also just had an interesting thought, watching that video. There is kind of a double negative for cropped sensors when it comes to gathering light. They have a smaller sensor...but to get the same framing as a larger sensor, you also have to be farther from your subject.

Light falloff is inverse squared distance. When you move back to frame a subject the same with an APS-C...your increasing the distance from sensor to subject. Not only is the sensor gathering less light in total than the FF...it's gathering even less light than that as light is falling off continuously over the greater distance to subject.

I'd never actually thought about this before...but it might be something to think about. If the things your interested in can be photographed close...then getting a FF camera like the 6D is going to be that much better.

As soon as you swap lenses to achieve the same framing it's not an issue. That only becomes a problem when you start to hit wide angles (the crop sensor's achilles' heel).

 

[Don Haines]

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....

 

[jrista]

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....

+1!

 

[EdB]

I didn't read through this whole thread but there is no way I'd capture images like this back in the film days. They don't mean anything to anyone but me and my friends but without high ISO they aren't happening when lit by firelight.

 

[Richard8971]

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....

+1!

+1 again.

This is very true. Good cameras have always been expensive and out of the hands of most people. Now however, we in the digital age have gotten spoiled some with the advances in technology and I think the "noise" comparisons between film and digital are largely being forgotten.

I don't really stop and think about what ISO I need my 7D to be at to get the shot. I use whatever ISO I need to get the shot I want. I have said this in the past that I have shot as high as ISO 3200 with hummingbirds in flight and after processing the images look fantastic, both on screen and in print.

Guys are doing today with digital that could never have been accomplished with film back in the day. I think noise levels today are very acceptable even with crop sensors and you should buy the camera body that you need at the price you can afford and then use the heck out of it.

I also think because of computers too many people have become "pixel peepers" and look way too closely at the images they take. I usually print my photos at 11 x 14 and even at higher ISO's with my 7D they look great. Looking at an image zoomed in at 100% will destroy just about any image and I think any camera would have a hard time holding up to someone who is convinced that viewing them at that large of size is the only way to judge a camera's worth.

The way I look at it is, once I have processed my RAW image (regardless of what ISO I used on my 7D) and converted it to Jpeg and if the image looks good on screen, then make a print to be sure... good to go!

My 2 cents.

D

 

[jrista]

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....

+1!

+1 again.

This is very true. Good cameras have always been expensive and out of the hands of most people. Now however, we in the digital age have gotten spoiled some with the advances in technology and I think the "noise" comparisons between film and digital are largely being forgotten.

I don't really stop and think about what ISO I need my 7D to be at to get the shot. I use whatever ISO I need to get the shot I want. I have said this in the past that I have shot as high as ISO 3200 with hummingbirds in flight and after processing the images look fantastic, both on screen and in print.

Guys are doing today with digital that could never have been accomplished with film back in the day. I think noise levels today are very acceptable even with crop sensors and you should buy the camera body that you need at the price you can afford and then use the heck out of it.

I also think because of computers too many people have become "pixel peepers" and look way too closely at the images they take. I usually print my photos at 11 x 14 and even at higher ISO's with my 7D they look great. Looking at an image zoomed in at 100% will destroy just about any image and I think any camera would have a hard time holding up to someone who is convinced that viewing them at that large of size is the only way to judge a camera's worth.

The way I look at it is, once I have processed my RAW image (regardless of what ISO I used on my 7D) and converted it to Jpeg and if the image looks good on screen, then make a print to be sure... good to go!

My 2 cents.

D

Maybe we are spoiled...however, maybe we are on the cusp of another revolutionary leap forward in IQ again. Ten years from now, we could be looking back at today, and saying the very same thing about noise levels today as we are about noise levels with film.

Yes, we have amazing technology today, and it's allowed for wonderful things. However, counter to "We have it great" is, we could have it better. And, we likely WILL have it better. Most companies are rocketing forward at lightning speed on all camera capability fronts. I know that Samsung doesn't have a great lens selection yet...but, YET. They have a 7D II killer on their hands (well, with the exception that the high speed 15fps rate is 12-bit RAW, which is kind of a Samsung killer ). All they really need is a great lens selection and a reliable support department. Those things simply need time to accumulate and build up.

Same goes for Sony...they are redefining a lot of the market today, and like Nikon, throwing out a lot of products to see what sticks (although I actually think Sony is doing a better job with product naming and whatnot than Nikon has ever done). It is, again, only a matter of time before Sony's lens lineup bulks up, and they have the benefit of Zeiss behind their glass.

Ten years from now, 14-16 stops of DR (maybe even as much as 20...there are already video sensors that do that with multi-bucket exposures) and ultra, ultra low noise, even at ultra high ISO settings, will be so common that we'll be looking at todays cameras like we look at film. For me, I honestly wonder if Canon will be a big player in that future. They may have lenses and support, but their products, technologically, are being matched or surpassed by even the likes of Samsung.... ???

 

[Richard8971]

Maybe we are spoiled...however, maybe we are on the cusp of another revolutionary leap forward in IQ again. Ten years from now, we could be looking back at today, and saying the very same thing about noise levels today as we are about noise levels with film.

Yes, we have amazing technology today, and it's allowed for wonderful things. However, counter to "We have it great" is, we could have it better. And, we likely WILL have it better. Most companies are rocketing forward at lightning speed on all camera capability fronts. I know that Samsung doesn't have a great lens selection yet...but, YET. They have a 7D II killer on their hands (well, with the exception that the high speed 15fps rate is 12-bit RAW, which is kind of a Samsung killer ). All they really need is a great lens selection and a reliable support department. Those things simply need time to accumulate and build up.

Same goes for Sony...they are redefining a lot of the market today, and like Nikon, throwing out a lot of products to see what sticks (although I actually think Sony is doing a better job with product naming and whatnot than Nikon has ever done). It is, again, only a matter of time before Sony's lens lineup bulks up, and they have the benefit of Zeiss behind their glass.

Ten years from now, 14-16 stops of DR (maybe even as much as 20...there are already video sensors that do that with multi-bucket exposures) and ultra, ultra low noise, even at ultra high ISO settings, will be so common that we'll be looking at todays cameras like we look at film. For me, I honestly wonder if Canon will be a big player in that future. They may have lenses and support, but their products, technologically, are being matched or surpassed by even the likes of Samsung.... ???

Good point.

D

 

[tat3406]

Higher ISO will more convenient in photography, I had imagine the day will come that I no need tripod for shooting:
1)milky way
2)macro without flash

 

[Efka76]

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....

+1!

+1 again.

This is very true. Good cameras have always been expensive and out of the hands of most people. Now however, we in the digital age have gotten spoiled some with the advances in technology and I think the "noise" comparisons between film and digital are largely being forgotten.

I don't really stop and think about what ISO I need my 7D to be at to get the shot. I use whatever ISO I need to get the shot I want. I have said this in the past that I have shot as high as ISO 3200 with hummingbirds in flight and after processing the images look fantastic, both on screen and in print.

Guys are doing today with digital that could never have been accomplished with film back in the day. I think noise levels today are very acceptable even with crop sensors and you should buy the camera body that you need at the price you can afford and then use the heck out of it.

I also think because of computers too many people have become "pixel peepers" and look way too closely at the images they take. I usually print my photos at 11 x 14 and even at higher ISO's with my 7D they look great. Looking at an image zoomed in at 100% will destroy just about any image and I think any camera would have a hard time holding up to someone who is convinced that viewing them at that large of size is the only way to judge a camera's worth.

The way I look at it is, once I have processed my RAW image (regardless of what ISO I used on my 7D) and converted it to Jpeg and if the image looks good on screen, then make a print to be sure... good to go!

My 2 cents.

D

Maybe we are spoiled...however, maybe we are on the cusp of another revolutionary leap forward in IQ again. Ten years from now, we could be looking back at today, and saying the very same thing about noise levels today as we are about noise levels with film.

Yes, we have amazing technology today, and it's allowed for wonderful things. However, counter to "We have it great" is, we could have it better. And, we likely WILL have it better. Most companies are rocketing forward at lightning speed on all camera capability fronts. I know that Samsung doesn't have a great lens selection yet...but, YET. They have a 7D II killer on their hands (well, with the exception that the high speed 15fps rate is 12-bit RAW, which is kind of a Samsung killer ). All they really need is a great lens selection and a reliable support department. Those things simply need time to accumulate and build up.

Same goes for Sony...they are redefining a lot of the market today, and like Nikon, throwing out a lot of products to see what sticks (although I actually think Sony is doing a better job with product naming and whatnot than Nikon has ever done). It is, again, only a matter of time before Sony's lens lineup bulks up, and they have the benefit of Zeiss behind their glass.

Ten years from now, 14-16 stops of DR (maybe even as much as 20...there are already video sensors that do that with multi-bucket exposures) and ultra, ultra low noise, even at ultra high ISO settings, will be so common that we'll be looking at todays cameras like we look at film. For me, I honestly wonder if Canon will be a big player in that future. They may have lenses and support, but their products, technologically, are being matched or surpassed by even the likes of Samsung.... ???

jrista, I 100% agree with you. Currently I see the following trends:

1) Sony - its superb sensor is used in many cameras, 35 mm and MF. Recently they introduced super autofocus http://petapixel.com/2014/09/16/heres-glimpse-sonys-new-4d-autofocus-technology-looks-feels/. Combine Sony's sensor with such autofocus and Zeiss lenses and you will get product that puts Canon products at least few generations behind. Of course, Neuro will say his famous words "but Canon's financial situation is better than Sony and Canon sells more cameras", however, he should try not to behave like Canon fanboy but start looking and other companies' innovations more seroulsly.
2) Samsung - look at Samsung NX camera and you will see significant improvements compared with 7D Mk II. Taking a look at Samsung and their innovations pace I would bet on Samsung rather on Canon which became very stagnant company. It is pathetic that after 5 years Canon released 7DMkII, without any innovations (it included current autofocus technology from 1Dx which already paid-off few years ago).
3) Tamron and Sigma - looking at their lenses quality, e.g. Sigma 35 mm Art. Sigma 50 mm art, Sigma 150-600 mm, Tamron 24-70, Tamron 150-600, I see that significant lens market share will be overtaken bu these 2 companies in the future. Canon will be relleasing 7.000-10.000 USD lenses, which will be interesting to some millionaires or lucky sports journalists.

 

[sgs8r]

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....

Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is? In other words, how much higher does the "usable" (admittedly not well defined) ISO need to get for the camera to perform as well as the human eye, with comparable detail, noise, etc.?

In the early days of digital, there was constant discussion about how many MP were needed for digital to be comparable to film, even though the image characteristics are somewhat different (14 MP was the generally agreed upon answer, as I recall). My question is sort of in the same spirit.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is?

Not an easy question to answer as the human eye really does not have much in common with a camera.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
http://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-sensitivity-and-iso-of-the-human-eye/ This site says that the ISO of the human eye is 1-800. Is this right? Dunno

If you really want to find out how tough this is to answer, access Scholar.google.com and search for Sensitivity of Human Eye. But beware, Google Scholar gives very technical responses.

 

[Actionpix]

I am one of those dinosaurs who still is used to ISO-100 or lower. Setting higher than 100 ISO to me just feels unnatural. I understand there are people who want to make images I do not think of now. But really. I am still so used to film I just don't realise the possibilities and still manage well with ISO 100, sometimes even combined with an ND filter as I often even have to much light to make the shot I want. Some times I could use more ISO but as said, I just don't consider that at first.

 

[Don Haines]

Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is? In other words, how much higher does the "usable" (admittedly not well defined) ISO need to get for the camera to perform as well as the human eye, with comparable detail, noise, etc.?

In the early days of digital, there was constant discussion about how many MP were needed for digital to be comparable to film, even though the image characteristics are somewhat different (14 MP was the generally agreed upon answer, as I recall). My question is sort of in the same spirit.

One of the problems with that is that in the daylight we have high res colour vision and at night we have low res b/w vision.... Also, note how long it takes for the eye to adjust to darkness..... about 5 minutes for full sensitivity... we can't just rotate a knob like on a camera

 

[lo lite]

I guess at some point I'll have to rent a 1D X and try for myself …

+1
Besides, low light body is not the only one solution. Whenever you can use flash, that I found always the best one.
If flash is not allowed, then yes. You can go the path of a better lens as well. So, rent ones before buying. It is hard to buy in order to own them all. I very often rent lenses for special need.

I am not such a friend of using a flash as it in most cases destroys the atmosphere. Besides using it for artistic purposes like here of course: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lo_lite/sets/72157645482355359/

 

[lo lite]

In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

In the film days I was a big fan of the Kodak TMZ P3200, later, after having no longer a private lab available and switching to color I used the Fujicolor Superia 1600 a lot. Which reminds me that I finally have to scan all those negatives.

 

[sgs8r]

Would it make sense to ask what the approximate ISO of the human eye is?

Not an easy question to answer as the human eye really does not have much in common with a camera.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
http://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-sensitivity-and-iso-of-the-human-eye/ This site says that the ISO of the human eye is 1-800. Is this right? Dunno

If you really want to find out how tough this is to answer, access Scholar.google.com and search for Sensitivity of Human Eye. But beware, Google Scholar gives very technical responses.

Interesting reading, though somehow the estimated ISO of 500-1000 for the eye seems low. Informally, I imagine sitting out on a patio on a summer night (or in a dimly lit restaurant or bar) and trying to capture what I see with a camera. I don't think ISO 800 will get the job done. Maybe ISO 6400 on a newer camera.

Here's a possible experiment: In a low-light situation, set up an optometrist's eye chart and determine the smallest line you can read. Then take a camera with a 50mm (or equivalent) lens at f/1.4 (not really sure what makes sense here) and 1/60 and shoot the chart at various ISOs. Make prints with minimal postprocessing and view them in good light at a distance where chart image subtends the same angle as the original chart. And determine the smallest line you can read on each one. Then the ISO of the chart where the smallest readable line matches your performance in the original test would be one measure of the eye's ISO.

 

[JMZawodny]

Interesting reading, though somehow the estimated ISO of 500-1000 for the eye seems low. Informally, I imagine sitting out on a patio on a summer night (or in a dimly lit restaurant or bar) and trying to capture what I see with a camera. I don't think ISO 800 will get the job done. Maybe ISO 6400 on a newer camera.

Here's a possible experiment: In a low-light situation, set up an optometrist's eye chart and determine the smallest line you can read. Then take a camera with a 50mm (or equivalent) lens at f/1.4 (not really sure what makes sense here) and 1/60 and shoot the chart at various ISOs. Make prints with minimal postprocessing and view them in good light at a distance where chart image subtends the same angle as the original chart. And determine the smallest line you can read on each one. Then the ISO of the chart where the smallest readable line matches your performance in the original test would be one measure of the eye's ISO.

Why limit it to 1/60th of a second? The brain has a profound ability to filter noise and integrate signals. I'm not sure what the appropriate exposure should be for such a comparison. Perhaps we would need the observer to have their exposure limited with a shutter as well in order to make this a fair comparison.