I have another question concerning digital. I haven't gone digital yet, but I've noticed that a lot of photos with digital are taken at high ISO. So my question is...unlike film where the lower the ISO there is less grain in the photo...does high ISO with digital give you more detail and do photographers tend to use high ISO with digital because of this or is it just because they can use a high ISO to get a faster shutter speed? Hope that makes sense.
Posted by Doug Andrews on February 6, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Can't speak for anyone else, but I use the lowest ISO I can with my D200 (which is ISO 100) unless I'm shooting wildlife and then I try not to go higher than ISO 400. My camera being mounted to a tripod 99% of the time, fast shutter speeds are not usually a concern with me. Also some DSLR's have a base ISO that starts at 200.
Posted by Scott Bacon on February 6, 2008 at 3:19 PM
No, higher ISO will not give you better detail. In general with digital sensors, higher ISO produces more noise.
But the technology has improved a lot since the early DSLR days, so higher and higher ISO settings are producing images with acceptable levels of noise. Noise reduction software has also improved and become more ubiquitous. So I think you are seeing more and more photographers taking advantage of higher ISOs because they can do so and still produce good quality images.
Posted by Les Barstow on February 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Digital cameras all have a "base" ISO which is their optimal setting; on most cameras, that's either ISO 100 or ISO 200. Going either up OR DOWN from that base reduces quality - using a lower ISO usually reduces contrast and color definition, using a higher ISO introduces signal noise (the digital equivalent to grain).
I am not terribly afraid of ISO 400 on my D2X but I don't venture higher than that unless I have a great need for it, and always with Noise Ninja in mind. ISO 400 is a pretty high ISO for film, but not nearly so bad on modern DSLRs.
The new Nikon D3 is stunning at ISO 1600, and good at ISO 3200 (!!!!!) - it's almost purpose-designed for action and low-light photography (Nikon considers its acceptable ISO range to be 200-6400, with "unrated" settings for ISO 100, 12800, and 25600!).
Posted by Dave Gill on February 6, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I agree with Les, I've been shooting a D3 in low light situations for a couple of weeks and initially am VERY impressed with its high ISO performance, but still prefer to shoot with as low an ISO as is practical and will allow me to get the photo. 40 years of habit is hard to break.
Posted by Timothy Tonge on February 6, 2008 at 7:55 PM
With my D2x, excellent results at the lower iso's (below 400) and then increasing noise above. Both new Nikon camera's (beleive you have Nikon glass) the D300 and D3 offer much improved higher iso performance.
When using higher iso, I tend to use Noiseware to reduce noise, which can help but at the expense of fine detail... though with portraits this actually can be a plus.
For the ultimate in low noise performance with Nikon, the D3 certainly wins hands down.
Canon's higher end camera's also perform quite well, and probably Canon's slightly older camera's of 1-2 years ago are better than Nikon's of the same vintage (D200/D2x) at HIGHER iso's, Im not convinced of any difference at the lower iso's.
Of course other question's really come into play, in particular, full size sensor (only the D3 with Nikon) versus smaller sensor, if extreme wide angle important or you like the extra reach of telephoto's with the smaller sensor.
As for me, will keep the D2x when I ultimately upgrade to the D3, both for the extra telephoto reach and the fact that for 90+% of my photography, the resolution/quality of the images from the D2x is excellent.
If the slightly older Nikon's are of interest, excellent prices can be found for the D2x, and its built great and would be my recomendation for a used Nikon camera. If money not an issue, then get the D3 or Canon's equivilant!
Feel free to email me with further questions though I think all the replies here are similar!
Posted by Cynthia Spence on February 7, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Thanks everyone for your answers, which helped me understand. Sounds like digital definitely gives you more options in specific situations.
Posted by Don George on February 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM
ONe of the greatest features on a digital camera is the ability to change the ISO at will. This was one of the factors that convinced me to buy a digital. However you have to experment to get the optimum setting. Noise filters as mentioned also help considerably.
The attached image was THE turning point for me in '05, when I was still shooting mostly film. The day was dreary, misty, flat, low light with no chance of shooting film - even Provia 400. I had to get a long-eared owl image while the young were still on the nest. The image was made at 800 ISO with a Nikon D70/600mm F4 and there is little or no noise. Newer camera releases continue to improve results at high ISO's. For 35mm shooters, digital is highly advanced and offers way more options/opportunities than film ever did.
Discussion
8 repliesBut the technology has improved a lot since the early DSLR days, so higher and higher ISO settings are producing images with acceptable levels of noise. Noise reduction software has also improved and become more ubiquitous. So I think you are seeing more and more photographers taking advantage of higher ISOs because they can do so and still produce good quality images.
I am not terribly afraid of ISO 400 on my D2X but I don't venture higher than that unless I have a great need for it, and always with Noise Ninja in mind. ISO 400 is a pretty high ISO for film, but not nearly so bad on modern DSLRs.
The new Nikon D3 is stunning at ISO 1600, and good at ISO 3200 (!!!!!) - it's almost purpose-designed for action and low-light photography (Nikon considers its acceptable ISO range to be 200-6400, with "unrated" settings for ISO 100, 12800, and 25600!).
When using higher iso, I tend to use Noiseware to reduce noise, which can help but at the expense of fine detail... though with portraits this actually can be a plus.
For the ultimate in low noise performance with Nikon, the D3 certainly wins hands down.
Canon's higher end camera's also perform quite well, and probably Canon's slightly older camera's of 1-2 years ago are better than Nikon's of the same vintage (D200/D2x) at HIGHER iso's, Im not convinced of any difference at the lower iso's.
Of course other question's really come into play, in particular, full size sensor (only the D3 with Nikon) versus smaller sensor, if extreme wide angle important or you like the extra reach of telephoto's with the smaller sensor.
As for me, will keep the D2x when I ultimately upgrade to the D3, both for the extra telephoto reach and the fact that for 90+% of my photography, the resolution/quality of the images from the D2x is excellent.
If the slightly older Nikon's are of interest, excellent prices can be found for the D2x, and its built great and would be my recomendation for a used Nikon camera. If money not an issue, then get the D3 or Canon's equivilant!
Feel free to email me with further questions though I think all the replies here are similar!
The attached image was THE turning point for me in '05, when I was still shooting mostly film. The day was dreary, misty, flat, low light with no chance of shooting film - even Provia 400. I had to get a long-eared owl image while the young were still on the nest. The image was made at 800 ISO with a Nikon D70/600mm F4 and there is little or no noise. Newer camera releases continue to improve results at high ISO's. For 35mm shooters, digital is highly advanced and offers way more options/opportunities than film ever did.