How important is low light performance really? [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

WhoDo

23-09-2012, 10:16am

As an avid reader of all things photography related, I've noticed the industry seems to move in different directions according to phases the buying public are experiencing. In the digital era things like sensor size, megapixels, and image quality (IQ) have all received plenty of attention. Lately the buzz seems to revolve around low light performance, with ridiculously high ISO figures being touted for different brands.

With the recent release of the Nikon D600 and and Canon 6D bringing full frame sensors within the reach of the masses (well most of them anyway), aficionado's of each brand have been keen to identify points of difference between these new monsters of the enthusiast and consumer markets. The most commonly cited difference is the stark variance in ISO range for each camera - the Nikon maxes out at 6400 while the Canon offers 25,600 (I think?).

With that background information, I've been reading reports from Photokina (http://www.dpreview.com) (you haven't been living under a rock somewhere, have you?). The one covering Leica I found particularly enthralling, but it left me with a question. Here is one of the most respected brands in the photographic world, able to boast devotees among the world's most respected professional photographers, and their top of the line offering (the medium format S series @ $26k+) has a maximum ISO of 1600! Yep, only 2 zeros! Why? Some will say, "It's a studio camera". Sure, but think hard - how often do any of us really venture too far beyond ISO 800 anyway?

I know there are some applications that require higher ISO, low light, low noise performance - event photography, indoor sports, bird photography where ISO is used to boost shutter speed, etc. Generally, though, who really needs more than about ISO 6400 in ANY application? And wouldn't ISO 1600 be perfectly usable for 99.99% of photographers anyway?

Before the Canon crowd notice my sig line and suggest I'm making excuses for Nikon, let me state this is NOT about Nikon vs. Canon, even if the original impetus for the discussion came from that debate. I'm really interested to hear why we need the ever-escalating emphasis on ISO's in the 10's of thousands? Let the opinion's flow, but if you make any assertions I would really appreciate supporting citations if you have them. Game on!

Ms Monny

23-09-2012, 10:25am

Interesting point. I know I hate venturing past 800 and find that I probably wouldn't use anything more than 1600. I mean, 25,600 is just :eek:!!!! I would love to see an actual image taken with that ISO! :rolleyes:

norwest

23-09-2012, 10:56am

If a body has excellent performance at ISO 1600, for example, it's obviously going to have very acceptable performance at higher ISO. In my opinion the manufacturers are continually looking to improve ISO performance at average levels and with the improvement having come so far at lower to medium ISO levels the higher ISO level performance and the resulting ability to apply this to a body is part and parcel of the overall increased standard.

I can't do night events in country level lighting because shutter speed is limited in my 1.6 body by poor high ISO performance. The high ISO ability of the newer full frame bodies is a game changer for many.

In regards to the original question, to me, low light performance is very important.

Xenedis

23-09-2012, 11:51am

I've been shooting with Canon's EOS 5D-series cameras since 2006 -- a line of cameras known for low noise -- but ironically, with the kind of photography in which I engage, I don't really need higher ISO settings.

Most of my photography is based around subjects where freezing movement in low light isn't necessary. I shoot in low light quite frequently (I'm a landscape photographer, predominantly), so I'm shooting longer exposures, but at ISO 100, or 200 if I get desperate.

The only time I've used an ISO setting above 400 in recent memory is for this starfield image (http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=7270456878).

For people who shoot parties, concerts, theatrical performances, news, sports, weddings and other events (and perhaps even wildlife) I'd expect low-light performance at higher ISOs to be a very desirable and even necessary attribute in a camera.

For people who shoot the sorts of subjects I shoot, which don't have issues of timing and motion freeze in low light, performance at higher ISO settings is nice to have, but not critical.

fess67

23-09-2012, 12:21pm

My take on it is that perhaps 'enthusiasts' like those of us in here may try to keep our ISO settings on the low side and to do that we might employ techniques such as supplement the light with off camera flash, slower shutterspeeds, tripods, etc. However, for many who like to take photos of the kids or pets in an everyday house having higher ISO performance will help them to get the shots they want more consistently. They are not too worried about going to the expense of flashes or tripods or getting the kids to pose etc, they just want a memory to post up on Facebook and having a camera that can take the shot in lower light but give an acceptable image is going to be of great interest to them.

Professional wedding photographer David Ziser writes in his book 'Captured by the light' that he regularly uses ISO 1600 or 3200 because it allows him to use his preferred aperture of f5.6, get him shots that he would not otherwise get and also saves his flash battery power. Obviously weddings tend to be events where lighting may be more subdued but Mum and Dad might choose a camera that works well at 6400 without too much fuss and get the shots they could not 5 years ago. Of course this is fine until they want to blow it up onto a massive canvas but that is another topic.

As far as high ISO images being usable - I posted a thread recently with images at 25600 and 51200. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?110427-first-play-at-high-ISO-with-1DX Also, over a friends house the other night he was messing with some shots of the dogs and the ISO was at between 10,000 and 16,000 with the images perfectly usable for facebook etc.

Wayne

23-09-2012, 12:33pm

As others have said, it greatly depends upon your subjects.

I have shot quite alot of country sports, often in late afternoon, some even fully at night and they simply don't have the big budget lighting that some city fields have as Norwest mentioned. Basketball played indoors is the same, their lighting leaves alot to be desired. I have shot some of these games for the media and even with the Nikon 400/2.8VR or for indoors 200/2VR wide open at base ISO (200 for Nikon D3/3s/700) I would struggle to get a shutter speed > 1/15, so shooting ISO3200-6400 is very common even with the fastest of glass.
The same applies for many indoor events, weddings etc that take place in dimly lit churches and reception venues.

Wildlife such as birds that need fast shutter speeds to freeze their action are another area as you already noted.

Without these high ISO capable bodies, I simply couldn't do much of what I do and again as Norwest said, having the capability is a game changer for me too. Having the new D800 and all it's monster of pixels requires even more discipline and steady hands when using slower shutter speeds, so being able to crank that ISO a couple of stops is the difference between sharp and a little fuzzy.

William

23-09-2012, 12:50pm

I have to agree with John on this subject, Mostly I shoot at 100, Lately I have experimented using 400 to get the water movement I wanted in the early dawn light (1/2hr before Sunrise) And I ventured to 400 to get Surfing shots just after Sunrise to stop the action , And even at f7.1 ISO400 I can get from 1/800th up to 1/1250th sec , Thats all I need , So to need ISO25,600 must be very dark and really fast action :confused013This is all on a 7yr old 8.2mp cam :)

Steve Axford

23-09-2012, 7:54pm

For still photos I rarely use above iso1600 on the 5d 3. But for video I often use 25600. I would love it if I could get good images at 1,000,000iso. Just consider with video you use manual focus, so high fstops are needed or you risk shooting everything oof. Also, with wildlife, light is often very dim and the minimum shutter speed for video is 1/30s. This is starting to teach me the value of high ISO for wildlife and maybe I will start using it more.

Cage

23-09-2012, 8:13pm

@ Waz.................
And wouldn't ISO 1600 be perfectly usable for 99.99% of photographers anyway

I pretty much used the same words recently in a post on the Pentax forum.

Kym

23-09-2012, 8:19pm

Example: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?71375-Kevin-Burra-ISO-12-800 (12,800)

The better ISO performance is only needed sometimes.
But being able to shoot wildlife at 1,600 or better and do little NR is a big plus.
It gives us more options!

gbamber

23-09-2012, 8:25pm

Also, over a friends house the other night he was messing with some shots of the dogs and the ISO was at between 10,000 and 16,000 with the images perfectly usable for facebook etc.

I won't use an ISO over 100 - 200 for any photo I want to keep, if i can't get it at that, I don't really want it, maybe that's my fault for not being able to use it properly. Because I want to display "keepers" on a big screen, or to be able to print in a large format. If all we wanted was to put a few pics up on Facebook, we would only need PnS's.

I like this discussion, thanks OP.

I @ M

23-09-2012, 8:33pm

I have no doubts whatsoever that clean high iso performance is a godsend to sport and event photographers when wide apertures and lack of light can't give the shutter speeds that are needed.
How far they actually have to go with the amplification is another matter to me. 1600 to 3200 seems to do the trick in most applications.

- - - Updated - - -

I won't use an ISO over 100 - 200 for any photo I want to keep, if i can't get it at that, I don't really want it, maybe that's my fault for not being able to use it properly. Because I want to display "keepers" on a big screen, or to be able to print in a large format. If all we wanted was to put a few pics up on Facebook, we would only need PnS's.

I like this discussion, thanks OP.

Failbook photos and high resolution monitors are the worst at showing noise degradation. Prints from small to large show a helluva lot less "noise" and at the same time retain the detail.

Do the experiment for yourself, print a photo that shows excessive noise on your pc and see how it looks the way they are intended to be seen. :)

WhoDo

23-09-2012, 9:00pm

1600 to 3200 seems to do the trick in most applications.
Yep. I'd even be prepared to concede 6400, having seen some of Lance's results in low light with birds, etc. But 25,600? Maybe it is a video thing after all? :confused013 I mean, even sports photographers and event photographers wouldn't push it to 25,600 would they? If it's required for low light video then all I can say is in the 2 years since I bought my first video-capable DSLR I have never had cause to use the "Record" button ... never! I even hate it when I accidentally record video instead of shooting a still with my iPhone. :Doh:

Once upon a time we were clamouring for more and more megapixels ... probably still are in some senses, although we're getting more discerning about the size of the sensor they're jammed upon. When the ISO pressure subsides, maybe the next big thing will be software ... Android power, pixel peaking, whatever. Maybe I'm getting too old but this is a merry-go-round pushing people to update from perfectly serviceable equipment to the latest and greatest, and I for one have had enough of travelling in ever diminishing circles. :p

ricktas

23-09-2012, 9:26pm

The three basics of photography. Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO.

We can already fairly much go to any shutter speed we want from an hour or more, to 1/8000th of a second. Aperture is a lens based setting and really reliant on the quality and build of the lens. ISO is the only one left that manufacturers can 'play' with..so play with it, they do!

swifty

24-09-2012, 3:12pm

ameerat42

24-09-2012, 3:15pm

Rattus79

24-09-2012, 3:52pm

As a predominate landscape/candid style photographer, far more important to me then ISO is dynamic range.

This was the single most deciding matter for me to upgrade my Pentax k10 to the k5. Only the d800 still bosts a better dynamic range (not including the new offerings from canikon)

with that upgrade came better ISO performance, and I've got to tell you it's franky amazing! Where on the k10 I would shudder to go to ISO 400, on the k5, I have no problem going to 3200 or 6400, especially at night, in a street style when you're trying to emulate Ilford Delta 3200.

Has anyone else notice a spate of astro photography with perfect replications of the milky way recently? I tried this once on my k10 at ISO 1600 .... well, that was a noisy affair.

Todays high ISO capabilities make this entirely possible now without super expensive equitratorial tracking equipment.

Eberbachl

24-09-2012, 4:26pm

To me, absolute ISO numbers are largely irrelevant. The number that means something to me is the ISO number to which I can push my camera without an appreciable decrease in image quality. Thankfully I'm spoiled (in APS-C terms) with my K-5 but that doesn't mean I don't want for more.

If someone can produce a camera with acceptable image quality at ISO 64,000+ I'd use it for sure. I love being able to shoot without limitations. At the moment I'm comfortable pushing to about +/-1600 with my K-5. I could certainly push it further, and might in certain circumstances but 1600 is pretty darn fine image quality.

:D

JM Tran

24-09-2012, 5:02pm

Weddings - 4000 ISO max

Travel/Photojournalism work - 6400 ISO max

commercial/editorial - 100-200 ISO max

yeah I need the high ISO performance of modern cameras in order to get shots for work which would be otherwise impossible, or much harder to achieve.

MissionMan

24-09-2012, 5:13pm

Yep. I'd even be prepared to concede 6400, having seen some of Lance's results in low light with birds, etc. But 25,600? Maybe it is a video thing after all? :confused013 I mean, even sports photographers and event photographers wouldn't push it to 25,600 would they? If it's required for low light video then all I can say is in the 2 years since I bought my first video-capable DSLR I have never had cause to use the "Record" button ... never! I even hate it when I accidentally record video instead of shooting a still with my iPhone. :Doh:

Once upon a time we were clamouring for more and more megapixels ... probably still are in some senses, although we're getting more discerning about the size of the sensor they're jammed upon. When the ISO pressure subsides, maybe the next big thing will be software ... Android power, pixel peaking, whatever. Maybe I'm getting too old but this is a merry-go-round pushing people to update from perfectly serviceable equipment to the latest and greatest, and I for one have had enough of travelling in ever diminishing circles. :p

I've shot at ISO6400 and wished for higher on many occasions although most of it is sports related. I'd also recommend you try shooting indoors with a toddler. They move faster than most professional sportsmen. :D I prefer not to use flash where possible and having the ability to shoot at 1/200 in conditions that I couldn't before is a major benefit. The way toddlers move, I'd shoot at 1/1000 if it was an option in low light. :D

Sure 25,600 still has heaps of noise with most of the current cameras, but as technology gets passed down to the smaller cheaper models, everyone benefits. How much of the technology we currently see was developed in F1 racing or in Fighter jets? Plenty. There were very specialised applications for them but now a lot of it is technology we take for granted.

WhoDo

24-09-2012, 6:25pm

Although I don't venture past ISO1600 usually, improvements in the very high ISO ranges usually helps lower down too.
Afterall we're talking amplification in digital so if u can get cleaner 12800, u can usually also get cleaner 1600. Not always the case of course since it depends how the high ISO results are achieved.

Ok, swifty, I get that may well be the case but my point is IF you're getting perfect or near perfect results @ 1600 on a DSLR capable of ISO 6400, why would you want to upgrade to one that was capable of 25,600? After all, at ISO 1600 (max) the difference in noise control between the two sensors is unlikely to be "vast", or is it?

It seems that Leica may have decided that ISO 1600 is plenty for the results achieved. I can accept ISO 6400 (Nikon D7000 et al) or even ISO 12800 (Pentax K5 et al) on more commercial equipment (read built to a lower price) but beyond that, unless you are shooting sports indoors or outdoors in poor light, or you're shooting events in near darkness, what's the point? IOW, how many photographers actually USE the extra ISO range of which the camera's of today are capable?

fess67

24-09-2012, 7:21pm

IOW, how many photographers actually USE the extra ISO range of which the camera's of today are capable?

Dunno - Off to Africa in 3 weeks, will let you know when I get back if I get any useful images at the higher ISOs.

pixy

24-09-2012, 7:51pm

I don`t like shooting at high ISO,if needed it is there, but AFAIK the increased ISO reduces dynamic range.

ps the Pentax k5 has ISO 6400.

Jack

Film Street

24-09-2012, 8:24pm

I've been using a film camera more often than a digital camera over the past year with a film speed of ISO 400, one 40mm f2 lens and a maximum shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second. It is simple way to photograph in that I have less to deal with, but more limiting in how I set the camera. This setup is almost always limited in aperture and shutter speed at one end or the other in any given lighting.

So when I see what comes out of new digital camera at 6400 ISO I am always amazed. I see no reason why they should stop there though. The main benefit I can see of higher ISO's is the users ability to set aperture and shutter speed while the camera meters correctly with auto ISO. I wouldn't be suprised to see one million ISO soon.

I think they should also put effort into making lower ISO speeds as well, all the way down to 6.

swifty

24-09-2012, 8:53pm

Well u wouldn't. Certainly I wouldn't if my shooting needs were already met.
My comments were fairly general about successive improvements to high ISO performance that may translate to other gains not limited to just high ISO. I think in digital a lot of issues are interrelated eg. Improvements in read noise from the recent Sony's have a massive impact on DR in the shadows.
And remember not everyone upgrade every generation so the gains may be much more substantial even if the original camera may be serving the photographer's needs perfectly fine.

But I did say I think the issue of noise will become increasingly irrelevant. The gains are plateauing so successive generation of cameras won't see the x stops jump that most ppl hope for. There really hasn't been that much gains since the D3s.

As for Leica, I have no idea what their attitude is towards noise or whether 1600 is enough for them. Maybe it's a throw-back to film era where ISO 3200 film was probably as high as it got so they don't feel the need to throw bigger numbers into the mix.
But I suspect if Leica did get an exclusive Sony sensor made only for an M, with fantastic low light performance, their marketing message may include loads of examples shot with their 50mm 0.95, touting its shoot in the dark abilities.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll also add that all bets are off moving away from Bayer sensors. There may be significant gains still to be made with disruptive technology. Black silicon perhaps.
And software will also become increasingly important.

WhoDo

24-09-2012, 9:18pm

ps the Pentax k5 has ISO 6400.

That's only native, Jack. It can be extended to 12,800 by selecting the option from the menu's.

I @ M

25-09-2012, 8:11am

The three basics of photography. Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO.

It isn't in the "basics" of photography but one item I feel is relevant to mention in conjunction with high iso discussion is VR, IS, OS, VC or whatever term applies to image stabilisation in whatever brand of camera / lens that is being used.
Image stabilisation in conjunction with good high iso performance is another part of the technological arsenal available that allows images to be produced that were basically unheard of 15 years ago.

In the following pictures having a higher shutter speed would have been great because the 50+ year old lady was so violent in her dance routine that she would have put many 20 year olds to shame and required ( I estimate ) around 1/250 to freeze the motion.

A fast aperture lens with VR + high iso levels ( relevant to the age of the camera ) when hand held as in these shots is about the only way they would have been taken.

Exif details are the same for both images.

Nikon D3, Nikkor 70-200 VR1 @ 120mm, 1/60 and F/2.8 iso 3200 and -1 EV
Photographed under UV lights, auto white balance, batch processed through Nikon Capture NX2 with D2X mode 1 picture control @ level 4 sharpening and NO noise reduction.

The first image is a fairly static capture, the second is a screen sized crop of #1 and the 3rd image shows the rapid movement of the dancer.

A helluva lot of iso would be needed to get the shutter speed up to freeze that one. :D

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/ABAA_2012_04_21%20215806.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/ABAA_2012_04_21%20215806crop.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/ABAA_2012_04_21%20215909.JPG

arthurking83

25-09-2012, 8:20am

.......

Has anyone else notice a spate of astro photography with perfect replications of the milky way recently? I tried this once on my k10 at ISO 1600 .... well, that was a noisy affair.

Todays high ISO capabilities make this entirely possible now without super expensive equitratorial tracking equipment.

I don`t like shooting at high ISO,if needed it is there, but AFAIK the increased ISO reduces dynamic range.

......

Even us landscapers may occasionally use super high ISO settings(I know I would if I could, for a given situation of course!)

The use of a super expensive EQ mount is all well and good, but only if your scene involves only the sky in the frame.
An Eq mount is useless if you are capturing any terrestrial based subject matter in the frame as well.

So the reasoning behind better high ISO performance comes down to better dynamic range and colour reproduction.

As high ISO performance in camera increases, so do the possibilities .. simple as that.

For me(at the moment) I've found that I want super clean ISO6400 images that don't require noise reduction software intervention.
There appear to be a few cameras that can do that quite easily now in Nikon circles.

Ideally tho, I want the same image quality level at ISO204K too .. ie. night time sky photography at fast shutter speeds(1/500s) with fast moving ancillary objects captured clearly within the frame too!

Why limit your imagination?

High ISO is definitely a good thing .. more pixels I'm not convinced about(yet).

As for the issue of medium format and the low max ISO thresholds .. I'm sure it's a development vs return on investment issue.

There simply isn't the demand in that sector to warrant the associated high level of costs in pushing the (ISO)envelope.
I guess that MF operators don't really care for high ISO performance due to their workflow style.