How will new ultra high ISO bodies impact f/2.8 telephoto zoom lenses?

[drummstikk]

In my 5DM2, I get a 3800x2500 pixel RAW file, which is just fine for up to 20x30 poster-size prints. How many people need to print larger than that? What I gain is far less noise at 5000 ISO, (plus my CF cards & disk storage go twice as far!

Respectfully disagree on two points:

1) 20x30" print from 3800x2500px image is only about 125 dpi. That's OK for viewing at more than arm's length, but not good enough for close examination, in my opinion. I rethink the size I want to print if dpi dips below about 200. 300dpi is considered ideal for print publishing. A book publisher I worked for a few years back started with 400 dpi with final output downsampled to 300. (I never understood exactly why that was, but the results in cookbooks were undeniably superb.)

2) Especially in demanding light conditions, you want the most information your camera can possibly gather for you. Use the full size Raw capture. Resist cheating the shutter speed upward and give the image all the exposure you possibly can while still adequately overcoming subject action and camera shake. This way, more detail and less noise will be recorded in the shadows. If the light is especially challenging and demands slow shutter speeds, don't be afraid to shoot 30 frames and end up with 25 of them showing motion blur. Most times you only need one image to be sharp, but do what it takes to ensure you get that one. (At a candlelight choral performance I shot last month, I shot over 500 images to have 43 images suitable for delivery to the client.)

The jury is out in my mind whether setting accurate white balance in camera helps with noise levels, but it does speed up post production. And while in post-prodution, use "just enough" sharpening and noise reduction and then output your final image at a lower resolution. For instance, I sometimes output my Canon 7D images at 11.7MP from ACR to reduce apparent noise.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 1D MK IV has a 102400 top ISO, that does not mean its usable. Bumping it by 1 stop isn't going to have a huge effect on lenses. We need to really see what the usable ISO actually is.

When I got my 5D MK II 3+ years ago, using it at ISO 3200 was really pushing it, and I had to use quite a bit of NR. When Lightroom 3 came out, the images looked much better at 3200, and might even be usable at 1/2 stop more. Now with the LR4 beta, ISO 6400 images look remarkably clean even with no NR.

The ever improving software is doing much more for high ISO than the hardware, so I don't expect more than 1/2 to 1 stop better than my 5D MK II. If it actually turns out that the laws of physics have been repealed, and the raw image is 2 stops better, I would be able to use the higher shutter speeds that I want with my primes wide open.

 

[GoldenEagle]

I'm not expecting any f/2.8 shooters to sell lenses and downgrade.

I am expecting that in the next 12-18 months, newer shooters may choose less expensive/less heavy F/4.0L-f/5.6L telephoto lenses to start their entry into sports/outdoor photography. If/when they advance, then they can decide if the marginal cost v marginal benefit of f/2.8 lenses (sharper, better bokeh, focus, etc).

We should also see more people entering sports/outdoor shooting in the future, since the cost of achieving 400mm focal lengths at acceptable shutter speeds will be dropping significantly.

 

[Act444]

Don't forget that on the 7D a f/2.8 lens has DOF f/4.5 effectively, and the 300mm f/4 becomes a 480mm with DOF f/6.4.
This is not necessarily bad, I actually love this feature on 1.6x crop bodies.

Hmm...wouldn't that be offset (at least somewhat), however, by the extra focal length you gain on a crop sensor? Just curious.

 

[Hillsilly]

I'm an avid follower of some of the larger wildlife photo competitions - eg Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year. When I first started paying attention, most people were shooting at very low ISO's such as 100. A lot of winning photos were being shot on Velvia 50. But in the last couple of years, its not uncommon to see ISO's in the 400 to 800 range.

Given that many entrants would have the equipment to shoot great photos at much higher ISOs, this raises two questions.

Firstly, why do people that do well in these competitions choose to shoot at lower ISOs? (Especially when a faster ISO will allow a faster shutter speed)?

Secondly, why do the judges seem to favour photos shot at lower ISOs?

I would suspect that despite improvements in sensors and software, there is still a noticeable quality improvement by using lower ISOs. Lenses with a wide aperture (f/2.8 or faster) which make it easier to use low ISOs will still have a market for some time.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Firstly, why do people that do well in these competitions choose to shoot at lower ISOs? (Especially when a faster ISO will allow a faster shutter speed)?

Secondly, why do the judges seem to favour photos shot at lower ISOs?

I would suspect that despite improvements in sensors and software, there is still a noticeable quality improvement by using lower ISOs. Lenses with a wide aperture (f/2.8 or faster) which make it easier to use low ISOs will still have a market for some time.

I think there are two ways to look at this issue, assuming all photos are taken with DSLRs.

The first is whether today's digital sensors's perform as well at ISO 400 (or 800 or 100) as well as 100 ASA film or Velvia 50. I don't presume to know this one.

The other is whether the judges can tell the difference between a photos taken with today's DSLRs at ISO 400 or 800 and photos taken with today's DSLRs at lower ISO values. I wouldn't be surprised if they can, which would explain their preferences, regardless of the comparison to low ASA films.

 

[briansquibb]

THe goo thing about f 2.8 and better is that it focuses better in low light. A 7D with a 2.8 lens will focus better than a 5D (which has better high ISO value) will with a 5.6 lens.

... but it wont focus better than the new technology ff sensors

 

[NotABunny]

Re: Megapixel count as a factor in high-ISO/useable noise images, I would encourage low-light shooters to try out the sRAW1 setting. In my 5DM2, I get a 3800x2500 pixel RAW file, which is just fine for up to 20x30 poster-size prints. What I gain is far less noise at 5000 ISO, (plus my CF cards & disk storage go twice as far!

So I'm a fan of smaller files and less noise captured to begin with. Then let me use post-processing to reduce even that noise even further.

You aren't capturing less noise. If you capture a full size RAW file, then downsample it to 3861x2574 pixels, you'll achieve the same level of (apparent) noise reduction.

With the added benefit that the RAW converter may be able to deliver a sharper image (due to the extra detail available in RAW).

 

[pharp]

Should think It would have more affect on the need for fast wide angle primes! Really any need for a 24mm 1.4 anymore?

Have you ever used a 24 f1,4 L II on a fullframe body?? The look of the picture you get at that wide angle and that shallow depth can't be done by anything else.

Nope, never have, but I would certainly love to see an example of a real world shot using the 24 1.4 wide open [out of 100 shots - how many @ 1.4?] compared to ones shot at f2 or even 2.8 - real difference? care to share? Anyway, I didn't really mean to suggest that nobody would want the faster wide angle lens, but they are pricey, big and the DOF advantages aren't as obvious [compared to telephotos]. I'm simply surmising that many [most?] folks will find less need for them as high ISO performance improves. If Canon made a nice 24mm f2 L - I'd be all over it!

I'll go out on a limb and predict that across the board - high ISO cameras will increasingly cannabalize [not eliminate] the sales of fast [zoom and prime] lenses for ALOT of shooters - how could it not? Size and price really do matter!

 

[JonJT]

Should think It would have more affect on the need for fast wide angle primes! Really any need for a 24mm 1.4 anymore?

Have you ever used a 24 f1,4 L II on a fullframe body?? The look of the picture you get at that wide angle and that shallow depth can't be done by anything else.

Nope, never have, but I would certainly love to see an example of a real world shot using the 24 1.4 wide open [out of 100 shots - how many @ 1.4?] compared to ones shot at f2 or even 2.8 - real difference? care to share? Anyway, I didn't really mean to suggest that nobody would want the faster wide angle lens, but they are pricey, big and the DOF advantages aren't as obvious [compared to telephotos]. I'm simply surmising that many [most?] folks will find less need for them as high ISO performance improves. If Canon made a nice 24mm f2 L - I'd be all over it!

I'll go out on a limb and predict that across the board - high ISO cameras will increasingly cannabalize [not eliminate] the sales of fast [zoom and prime] lenses for ALOT of shooters - how could it not? Size and price really do matter!

Doubtful. People who would accept high ISO performance as an "alternate" to a fast lens probably were not interested in having a large, fast lens in the first place. They are not really equivalent things because, high ISO has different and distinct effects upon the final image than a wide aperture.

Let me also add that the fastest lenses also tend to offer other features that prosumer and professional shooters care about almost exclusively. Things like weather sealing, build quality, focus speed, etc are things that are important for those who are really serious but, not so important for someone who might just want to take nice pictures.

Finally, the only time when high ISO performance and a wide aperture are interchange is during low light shooting, and only when you can tolerate a deep DOF and slower focusing speeds. That's quite particular and, generally speaking, is only encountered when shooting a static subject. There are plenty of more times with a fast lens cannot be supplanted by high ISO, in terms of composition and in terms of focusing speed and accuracy.


But, you are certainly correct that lens and camera size and weight are important. But, then again, I think the mirrorless interchangeable cameras with M43 and smaller sensors do a far better job of reducing lens size and weight than high ISO performance does. I don't see any serious future changes to sales patterns of fast, heavy lenses just because new sensors are better in lower light.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would certainly love to see an example of a real world shot using the 24 1.4 wide open [out of 100 shots - how many @ 1.4?] compared to ones shot at f2 or even 2.8 - real difference? care to share?

Well, I don't have the 24L, but I do have the 35mm f/1.4L...


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100

 

[pharp]

I would certainly love to see an example of a real world shot using the 24 1.4 wide open [out of 100 shots - how many @ 1.4?] compared to ones shot at f2 or even 2.8 - real difference? care to share?

Well, I don't have the 24L, but I do have the 35mm f/1.4L...


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100

Nice shot; so to my point, two questions for you [very unscientific poll];
1. Do you believe this shot would be any different / better at f/2?
2. Would you have bought a 35mm f/2L instead if available? All else being equal - build quality, etc. Presumably cheaper with smaller filters?
Just curious.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nice shot; so to my point, two questions for you [very unscientific poll];
1. Do you believe this shot be any different/better at f/2?
2. Would you have bought a 35mm f/2L instead if available? All else being equal - build quality, etc. Presumably cheaper with smaller filters?
Just curious.

Thanks!

I'd say worse, because there would be less OOF blur, which is what I was going for. Attached below are a pair of simlar shots, the first at f/1.4, the second at f/3.2 - not a test, just playing around. Both are with the 5DII and 35L. I prefer the wider aperture, personally. Note that you can't make out the face in the background at all with f/1.4, while I find it distracting at f/3.2.

I don't think I'd have bought a 35/2L if available - faster is better, for aperture if not ISO. In the shot above, I was at ISO 100 - clearly, I had a lot of freedom to bump that up (I find ISO 3200 usable on the 5DII, be even conservatively saying ISO 1600, that shot could have been taken at f/5.6 instead of f/1.4 with the same shutter speed. Filter size? I actually prefer the 72mm - it's the same size as the 85/1.2L II and the 135L, meaning the same 3-stop ND filter works on the entire 'holy trinity' and a 3-stop ND is just right for outdoor, wide open portraits and/or overcoming the sun with flash.

 

[pharp]

Nice shot; so to my point, two questions for you [very unscientific poll];
1. Do you believe this shot be any different/better at f/2?
2. Would you have bought a 35mm f/2L instead if available? All else being equal - build quality, etc. Presumably cheaper with smaller filters?
Just curious.

Thanks!

I'd say worse, because there would be less OOF blur, which is what I was going for. Attached below are a pair of simlar shots, the first at f/1.4, the second at f/3.2 - not a test, just playing around. Both are with the 5DII and 35L. I prefer the wider aperture, personally. Note that you can't make out the face in the background at all with f/1.4, while I find it distracting at f/3.2.

I don't think I'd have bought a 35/2L if available - faster is better, for aperture if not ISO. In the shot above, I was at ISO 100 - clearly, I had a lot of freedom to bump that up (I find ISO 3200 usable on the 5DII, be even conservatively saying ISO 1600, that shot could have been taken at f/5.6 instead of f/1.4 with the same shutter speed. Filter size? I actually prefer the 72mm - it's the same size as the 85/1.2L II and the 135L, meaning the same 3-stop ND filter works on the entire 'holy trinity' and a 3-stop ND is just right for outdoor, wide open portraits and/or overcoming the sun with flash.

OK - good points, thanks for sharing. Guess I'll have to rethink my assumptions.

 

[kubelik]

neuro brings up a good point there, it's actually nicer to have a larger filter size if it means it's the standard L-series filter size. having to haul around easily-warped filter step-up rings is a mild pain in the rear.

that being said, I'd still prefer an updated 35mm f/2 over an updated 35mm f/1.4 L ... partly because of cost, largely because of visibility/size. I love the dimensions of the 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 over their L counterparts, because they're great for casual walkaround shooting where you don't want the 5D to draw any more attention than it already does.

 

[GoldenEagle]

Does this apply to wide lenses?

It's my position that ultra-high ISO's will have a much less impact on a buying decision for wide lenses. Why?

1. Fewer available substitutes
2. Cost differentials between substitutes are much narrower
3. Price max on very best f/1.4 L glass doesn't exceed $2K (vs. telephotos at $6K-$12K)
3. No significant weight penalty for faster lenses (i.e. none require monopod) so less benefit by going with slower version at that focal length

That's why I framed the original post as impact on telephoto series....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Higher ISO shutter speeds allow faster shutter speeds in many common situations. We still will need wide aperture lenses.

1. For sports and wildlife where fast movement is involved in dim light, or sometimes even in good light.

2. Wedding, Theatre, and other extreme low light photography where lenses are wide open and ISO is as high as it will go. Even a slight movement at 1/20 or 1/40 second blurs the image.

Here one taken last week with my 5D MK II at ISO 6400, 135mm L @ f/2.0, and 1/125 se

This one was at ISO 3200, f/2, 1/125 sec. I should have set ISO 6400, but did not have time, and I did not know ISO 6400 would come out so well with the LR 4 beta. It ended up being pulled up in processing.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

as neuro and brian pointed out, the purpose of f/2.8 or wider apertures isn't necessarily to help you shoot in lower light

I don't want to get too metaphysical here, but I think this is not a case of "purpose" so much as a case of "camera manufacturers dealing with the realities of camera tech vastly different from film."

If we could get the additional sensitivity of lenses faster than f/2 (or whatever that limit is) back, you'd better bet it'd appear. It's not an intentional limitation of the lenses.

That being said it's still pretty important for people to know about this. Lens manufacturers don't have much incentive to tell people about it, which is regrettable, but apparently it's not caused any lawsuits yet, so...It's interesting that the third party lens manufacturers don't bother with f/1.2 lenses, though, isn't it?

 

[briansquibb]

as neuro and brian pointed out, the purpose of f/2.8 or wider apertures isn't necessarily to help you shoot in lower light

I don't want to get too metaphysical here, but I think this is not a case of "purpose" so much as a case of "camera manufacturers dealing with the realities of camera tech vastly different from film."

If we could get the additional sensitivity of lenses faster than f/2 (or whatever that limit is) back, you'd better bet it'd appear. It's not an intentional limitation of the lenses.

That being said it's still pretty important for people to know about this. Lens manufacturers don't have much incentive to tell people about it, which is regrettable, but apparently it's not caused any lawsuits yet, so...It's interesting that the third party lens manufacturers don't bother with f/1.2 lenses, though, isn't it?

Sorry Edwin - I just dont understand where you are coming from or going to ??? ???

F/2.8 in the current world is an important number in that:

- you get better AF from the current sensors
- you get a decent blurred background from ff
- you get resaonably fine DOF
- you get a decent amount of light for low light shooting whilst keeping the iso up for better IQ

Yes I do undersand that you can move from f/2.8 to f/4 by going, say from iso 12800 to iso25600 however sensors without exception give worse IQ the higher it goes

Hopefully that will clarify my position on this.

 

[zim]

Apologies for being a bit off topic but I’d love to know what you all consider the best luminance and chrominance Noise Reduction options out there to be?
I’d like to assume that Canon know what’s best for their own camera’s therefore DPP should be real good, especially at the price but the comments here about Lightroom make me wonder?