We always talk f-stop and shutter speed. But, what ISO do you typically use. Some of you seem to shoot great shots consistently at ISO 500. I'm thinking of Howard Cheek's fabulous birds and insects..........Is that a better overall speed in daylight than, say, 200?
Lucy, I always try to use the lowest ISO I can get by with. I aim for ISO 100 but depending on lighting conditions and movement of subject, I will increase the ISO to get the shutter speed and/or aperture I need for the photo. Higher ISO numbers usually mean more noise so I would say always go for the lowest you can! That said, some cameras can handle higher ISO numbers better than others.
Posted by Keith Bauer on February 19, 2013 at 1:25 PM
Lucy: I don't think there is a "better overall" speed for daylight. There are many factors that need to be considered. What Camera system (and camera)?, What is the subject (static or moving)? Artistic intent? Movement and/or blur?, etc.
My personal thoughts are that I like the use the lowest possible ISO for a given situation to achieve the shooting parameters to make the shot a success. If it is birds in flight that require 1/1000 shutter speed, then I have the option of shooting wide open or stopping down, then dealing with ISO to achieve the results. If I need to stop down, and still achieve 1/1000, then ISO is the only other adjustment.
If it is a landscape, then lower ISO's are generally more achievable, but not always. Tripods allow slower shutter speeds, but if you still need to stop any motion sometimes a higher ISO might be required.
Bottom line, is there is not a recipe or rule that dictates "better". I'd rather have a noisy sharp image than a blurry, clean image. That is a sacrifice to overall image quality that I'm willing to accept.
My primary camera is a Canon 5D Mark III. I can push the ISO a long way and still get excellent image quality. When I use my crop sensor body, I can't push the same shot as far.
ISO simply refers to the light sensitivity of the sensor (or film). Lower ISO's tend to produce images with less noise (or have less grain) than higher ISO media. If your proposed shot has small deep shadows, where noise would be most evident, then you may be able to get away with higher ISO values. On the other hand, if the image has significant dark values where detail must be retained (and noise kept to a minmum), a lower ISO will generally give better results. Note that I am talking about capture where no noise reduction is applied.
You could run a test using the same subject in unchanging light and shoot a series of images, increasing the ISO for each one. After importing them, compare the shots to see which ISO gives the best results. It's best do your comparison on unaltered images because you don't want to add any variables to the mix.
--P
Posted by Jim DeWitt on February 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Lucy -
ISO is a vastly complicated topic in the DSLR world. The concept was ported over to digital sensors from the film world, but except in the sense that it measures light sensitivity, it's a very different thing in DSLRs. Among other things, the current ISO standard (ISO12232:2006) define digital camera ISO in five different ways. Camera manufacturers get to choose.
But for the purposes of your question, ISO more or less stands for how much noise you are willing to accept, as opposed to risk of blur (shutter speed) or shallow depth of field (f-stop). In bright light, it is less likely to matter, but in low light you may have to choose. In darker conditions, you may have to put up with, say, noise (high ISO) and blur (slow shutter speed) to get adequate depth of field to get the photo.
So your question really depends on the situation. My simplistic rule (and there are always exceptions) is to use the lowest ISO I can get away with. Sometimes, that's not very low. Most DSLRs allow you to set a default minimum ISO, so that you have to make a conscious choice to go below it. That is, the camera will automatically select the ISO, but not go beyond the limit you have set. Shooting in Aperture priority, I have found that works best.
Hope this helps.
Jim
Posted by Richard Ditch on February 20, 2013 at 11:43 AM
It is all about tradeoffs of light, exposure, subject motion, and camera motion.
Every digital camera has a "native" sensitivity to light typically expressed as the lowest ISO setting (100 or 200 with most DSLRs). You can pretend the camera is more sensitive to the light by amplifying the light recorded by the sensor by increasing the ISO setting, but this also amplifies the noise in the darker parts of the image. The more you crank up the ISO setting the more prominent the nose becomes in the image.
Some cameras have built-in noise reduction (NR) that tries to smooth out the noise, but it also robs the image of fine detail (telling the difference between detail and noise is easy for people but essentially impossible for cameras and post processing software).
Most serious photographers prefer to deal with noise in raw conversion and/or post processing where they have more control over how much NR is applied and can select which parts of the image to receive NR.
For a given amount of light the photographer can trade off ISO, aperture, and shutter speed to achieve proper exposure. The brighter the light the more flexibility you have and most of us select a low IDSO value to minimize noise.
When there's less light, or when the subject is moving, or when there's a light breeze, or when the focal length is long and magnifies every movement of subject or camera, then increasing the ISO may be the only way to still get a sharp image. As Keith says: "I'd rather have a noisy sharp image than a blurry, clean image. That is a sacrifice to overall image quality that I'm willing to accept." I make the same choice as Keith whenever I need to.
My Nikon D300 bodies have a native ISO of 200, but I rarely use that since I shoot birds almost all the time with 600mm. I start early in the morning and set my ISO to 800, and even then I pass up lots of shots because I can't get a high enough shutter speed. If I really want to take a shot I'll go as high as ISO 1600. But as soon as the light is brighter I drop the ISO to 400 and keep it there for the rest of the morning. If I find a stationary egret or heron roosting in a well lit spot I will drop down to ISO 200 and lock down the movements on my tripod head.
I've always come at it kinda "backwards." I size up the situation, both subject movement and camera movement and find the best shutter speed for that. Then I'm looking at aperture for the DOF. While I'm sawing and cranking on those adjustments, I might well have to saw and crank up the ISO setting to achieve my goals. BUT! I only increase the ISO settings from minimum as I have to, in order to achieve my goals for the photo.
Posted by Greg Lessard on February 20, 2013 at 6:02 PM
Great input everyone! Its always interesting to read everyone's thought process. Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. I have nothing to add, I just enjoyed the conversation!!
I agree with Greg. I have really appreciated the time everyone has taken to explain this to me. You have all been so very helpful. I have learned so much here and have so far to go.........so, I'm just awfully happy to be a member of this group!
Discussion
8 repliesMy personal thoughts are that I like the use the lowest possible ISO for a given situation to achieve the shooting parameters to make the shot a success. If it is birds in flight that require 1/1000 shutter speed, then I have the option of shooting wide open or stopping down, then dealing with ISO to achieve the results. If I need to stop down, and still achieve 1/1000, then ISO is the only other adjustment.
If it is a landscape, then lower ISO's are generally more achievable, but not always. Tripods allow slower shutter speeds, but if you still need to stop any motion sometimes a higher ISO might be required.
Bottom line, is there is not a recipe or rule that dictates "better". I'd rather have a noisy sharp image than a blurry, clean image. That is a sacrifice to overall image quality that I'm willing to accept.
My primary camera is a Canon 5D Mark III. I can push the ISO a long way and still get excellent image quality. When I use my crop sensor body, I can't push the same shot as far.
It all depends
ISO simply refers to the light sensitivity of the sensor (or film). Lower ISO's tend to produce images with less noise (or have less grain) than higher ISO media. If your proposed shot has small deep shadows, where noise would be most evident, then you may be able to get away with higher ISO values. On the other hand, if the image has significant dark values where detail must be retained (and noise kept to a minmum), a lower ISO will generally give better results. Note that I am talking about capture where no noise reduction is applied.
You could run a test using the same subject in unchanging light and shoot a series of images, increasing the ISO for each one. After importing them, compare the shots to see which ISO gives the best results. It's best do your comparison on unaltered images because you don't want to add any variables to the mix.
--P
ISO is a vastly complicated topic in the DSLR world. The concept was ported over to digital sensors from the film world, but except in the sense that it measures light sensitivity, it's a very different thing in DSLRs. Among other things, the current ISO standard (ISO12232:2006) define digital camera ISO in five different ways. Camera manufacturers get to choose.
But for the purposes of your question, ISO more or less stands for how much noise you are willing to accept, as opposed to risk of blur (shutter speed) or shallow depth of field (f-stop). In bright light, it is less likely to matter, but in low light you may have to choose. In darker conditions, you may have to put up with, say, noise (high ISO) and blur (slow shutter speed) to get adequate depth of field to get the photo.
So your question really depends on the situation. My simplistic rule (and there are always exceptions) is to use the lowest ISO I can get away with. Sometimes, that's not very low.
Hope this helps.
Jim
Every digital camera has a "native" sensitivity to light typically expressed as the lowest ISO setting (100 or 200 with most DSLRs). You can pretend the camera is more sensitive to the light by amplifying the light recorded by the sensor by increasing the ISO setting, but this also amplifies the noise in the darker parts of the image. The more you crank up the ISO setting the more prominent the nose becomes in the image.
Some cameras have built-in noise reduction (NR) that tries to smooth out the noise, but it also robs the image of fine detail (telling the difference between detail and noise is easy for people but essentially impossible for cameras and post processing software).
Most serious photographers prefer to deal with noise in raw conversion and/or post processing where they have more control over how much NR is applied and can select which parts of the image to receive NR.
For a given amount of light the photographer can trade off ISO, aperture, and shutter speed to achieve proper exposure. The brighter the light the more flexibility you have and most of us select a low IDSO value to minimize noise.
When there's less light, or when the subject is moving, or when there's a light breeze, or when the focal length is long and magnifies every movement of subject or camera, then increasing the ISO may be the only way to still get a sharp image. As Keith says: "I'd rather have a noisy sharp image than a blurry, clean image. That is a sacrifice to overall image quality that I'm willing to accept." I make the same choice as Keith whenever I need to.
My Nikon D300 bodies have a native ISO of 200, but I rarely use that since I shoot birds almost all the time with 600mm. I start early in the morning and set my ISO to 800, and even then I pass up lots of shots because I can't get a high enough shutter speed. If I really want to take a shot I'll go as high as ISO 1600. But as soon as the light is brighter I drop the ISO to 400 and keep it there for the rest of the morning. If I find a stationary egret or heron roosting in a well lit spot I will drop down to ISO 200 and lock down the movements on my tripod head.