ISO settings

[AlienBrain]

That's a neat indoor flash tip. I have to try that out. Thanks!

 

[MICKEY88]

. If you can't get your shutter speed low enough, don't hesitate to increase your ISO.

.

did you mean to say get your shutter speed high enough..??

 

[AlphaMale]

I like the three legs of the tripod analogy. It gave me a better understanding of ISO.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

did you mean to say get your shutter speed high enough..??

Yes, I got it backwards. It would probably be clearer to say "shutter speed faster" rather than higher or lower. My wife gets confused when I say higher shutter speed which actually means a lower shutter speed number (1/250 compared with 1/60) which shows up as a higher number in the display (250 vs 60).

 

[Master Mason]

Yes, I got it backwards. It would probably be clearer to say "shutter speed faster" rather than higher or lower. My wife gets confused when I say higher shutter speed which actually means a lower shutter speed number (1/250 compared with 1/60) which shows up as a higher number in the display (250 vs 60).

Apeture is another that gets confused a lot as well, because a bigger number actually means a smaller apeture.

 

[seashoreCM]

Composing the picture itself has nothing to do with ISO. It's fast motion and/or low light that should get you thinking about increasing ISO.

The photographer who used ISO 200 for outdoor well lit shots probably got good enough results with his camera so as to use 200 all the time instead of keep changing the ISO down to 100 and back to 200 as needed.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

 

[jann1033]

i was reading an article about fast lenses and i started wondering with the enormously high iso on the new dslrs has the need for a fast lens diminished somewhat? if you can get a good relatively noise free photo at 3200, or even 1600 doesn't that somewhat mean a f4 would have the general capability of an f2.8 at a lower iso ( minus the dof)

 

[GrillMouster]

Low light performance isn't the only reason for buying a fast lens.
* A lot of photographers like extremely shallow depth of field beyond that which an f/4 lens can provide.
* Another benefit of a fast lens can be found in the origin of the term "fast lens". Wider apertures allow the photographer to use a faster shutter speeds.
* Additionally, most lenses are at their maximum sharpness a stop or two down from their widest aperture. So, an f/2.8 lens might be great at f/4 or f/5.6, whereas an f/4 lens is usually at its best at f/8.
* Fast lenses also allow for faster and more accurate focus (both auto and manual) than slower lenses, because they are at their maximum aperture prior to the shutter being released.
* Some fast zoom lenses include Vibraton Reduction (VR) / Image Stabilization (IS), which could allow you to hand-hold at up to 3 stops (some claim 4 stops) slower shutter speed.
* With the exception of some Canon f/4 L lenses, many "pro" lenses just happen to be fast lenses. So, if you want pro glass with superior optics, coatings, weather sealing, durable construction, you'll probably still be buying fast lenses.
* As you increase the ISO, you decrease the dynamic range, so in high-contrast situations it might be preferrable to use a wider aperture rather than a higher ISO.
* Finally, the term "noise free" is relative and misleading. When people say that images at ISO 3200 or 1600 are "noise free", they really mean that the images "useable" for small-to-medium prints and have significantly lower noise than those from other cameras at equivalent ISO settings. However, If you compare an ISO 3200 or 6400 image to an ISO 200 image from the same camera at 1:1, you will most definitely see more noise in the former than in the latter and, without noise reduction in post-processing, that noise will visible in large prints.

Conclusion: High ISO capabilitiy is not a substitute for fast glass, but it certainly provides additional possibilities. A High-ISO DSLR, combined with a fast lens with VR/IS would make it easier for me to take wedding shots in really, really dark churches ("caves"), where they don't allow flash to be used during the ceremony.

 

[frugal_mar]

(I was writing this while GrillMouster was posting - many, many good points GrillMouster - and very well stated)


I would say that depending on what you are shooting, the effects that you desire, and your budget would drive that choice. For many, the slower lens with the higher ISO may work fine, for others, it may not.

For example, I would not trade my 80-200 F2.8 when shooting sports. The picture quality is superior, but it comes at a price, both in dollars and weight. I have a buddy with a D300 and he had the 70-300 VR lens, yet he went out and purchased the 80-200 f2.8 because of the sharpness and speed of that glass.

You also forgot to mention the vibration reduction/image stabilization lenses. These feature too may also somewhat diminish the need of the faster lenses, but again it depends on what you are shooting. For example, will the combination of the slower shutter speeds, the aperature and the higher ISOs allow you to caputer the photograph you desire. Notice how Nikon puts their VR in some of the newer pro-lenses. I believe that this allows the photographer to continue to push the envelop.

 

[GrillMouster]

frugal_mar brings up an interesting point when he mentions the friend with the 70-300 VR lens who traded up to the 80-200 f/2.8. Nikon, and now Canon, have begun incorporating VR/IS into their consumer line of lenses, like the 70-300 VR and the current kit lenses, whereas in the past that feature was only available in some of the higher-end lenses. As frugal_mar's friend discovered, Vibration Reduction/Image Stabilization is only useful for negating the effect of camera motion, not subject motion. If your subject is fast-moving, as is the case in sports photography, you need faster shutter speeds to freeze the action. Sometimes, increasing ISO doesn't allow you to increase the shutter speed enough (or you don't want to increase the noise), so it helps to have a wide-aperture lens.

 

[Master Mason]

At least in the mid to high range canons the camera itself will focus and meter faster with an f/2.8 lens as well, because the wider aperture allows the camera to recieve more information faster.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Low light performance isn't the only reason for buying a fast lens.
* A lot of photographers like extremely shallow depth of field beyond that which an f/4 lens can provide.

On the other hand, I don't always want shallow DOF. There are instances where I want a shot in low light with greater DOF. In those instances, high ISO performance is important and the maximum aperture of my lens is irrelevant.

* Another benefit of a fast lens can be found in the origin of the term "fast lens". Wider apertures allow the photographer to use a faster shutter speeds.

Better high ISO ability also does this. If I am choosing between two camera's, one with an f/5.6 lens and another with an f/2.8 lens but which requires two stops of lower ISO for equivalent image quality, there is not difference in availble shutter speeds. In the first case, I can improve my shutter speed by two stops by increasing my ISO. In the second case, I can improve my shutter speed by two stops by opening my lens wider.

* Additionally, most lenses are at their maximum sharpness a stop or two down from their widest aperture. So, an f/2.8 lens might be great at f/4 or f/5.6, whereas an f/4 lens is usually at its best at f/8.

For shutter speed purposes, this is irrelevant. In both cases I must stop my lens down two stops from it's maximum to achieve maximum sharpness. If my shutter speeds were equivalent between the two cameras (one shooting at higher ISO and the other with a wider aperture), the equivalence continues as I stop them both down.

There is an advantage for the wide aperture lens here. As I stop down my lens, diffraction becomes a bigger issue. How big of a concern depends on my sensor size and print size. The shooter relying on stopping their lens down more and using a high ISO to make up the difference will run into issues with diffraction sooner than the low ISO shooter. Given, however, that few people will see noticeable diffraction problems at f/11 or below, this is more of an academic concern (unless you really like poster sized prints).

* Fast lenses also allow for faster and more accurate focus (both auto and manual) than slower lenses, because they are at their maximum aperture prior to the shutter being released.

That depends somewhat on the camera. The AF points on a camera are optimized to perform their best at certain apertures. For Canon cameras, AF points are optimized for either f/2.8 or f/5.6 lenses. An AF point on a Rebel that is optimized for f/5.6 lenses will not see much gain when used with an f/2.8 lens. There will be some gain, but not as much as you would think given that there is 4 times as much light hitting the AF sensor.

* Some fast zoom lenses include Vibraton Reduction (VR) / Image Stabilization (IS), which could allow you to hand-hold at up to 3 stops (some claim 4 stops) slower shutter speed.

Is this really a difference related to ISO or lens speed? Some fast zooms and primes have IS and some do not. Some slow zooms have IS and some do not. The IS in better lenses is sometimes better, but that's a function of the IS used and not the lens speed.

* With the exception of some Canon f/4 L lenses, many "pro" lenses just happen to be fast lenses. So, if you want pro glass with superior optics, coatings, weather sealing, durable construction, you'll probably still be buying fast lenses.

I definitely agree that better lenses and fast lenses are closely correlated. When you spend a lot of extra money for an f/2.8 zoom, you are getting more than just a wider aperture for your money.

* As you increase the ISO, you decrease the dynamic range, so in high-contrast situations it might be preferrable to use a wider aperture rather than a higher ISO.

On the other hand, it might be preferable to shoot stopped down on a higher senstivity camera than wide open on a lower sensitivity camera. It depends on the situation.

* Finally, the term "noise free" is relative and misleading. When people say that images at ISO 3200 or 1600 are "noise free", they really mean that the images "useable" for small-to-medium prints and have significantly lower noise than those from other cameras at equivalent ISO settings. However, If you compare an ISO 3200 or 6400 image to an ISO 200 image from the same camera at 1:1, you will most definitely see more noise in the former than in the latter and, without noise reduction in post-processing, that noise will visible in large prints.

That's certainly true, but it is also true that ISO 1600 from something like a D700 performs as well or better than ISO 400 from something like a D80. It's not just that the maximum ISO is increasing. The exciting thing is that the usability of higher ISO settings has increased.

Conclusion: High ISO capabilitiy is not a substitute for fast glass, but it certainly provides additional possibilities. A High-ISO DSLR, combined with a fast lens with VR/IS would make it easier for me to take wedding shots in really, really dark churches ("caves"), where they don't allow flash to be used during the ceremony.

Obviously, a camera with good IQ at high ISO AND fast glass is the best option. For people trying to decide which upgrade path to take - improve high ISO or increase maximum aperture, it's not so clear. Both improve your ability to shoot in low light.

Oh, one other benefit of faster glass is that it also makes for a brighter viewfinder image.

There are two other ways to improve low light ability - IS and tripods. Both are useful in the same way; they hold the camera still to allow longer exposures. Both also suffer from the same drawback; they don't hold the subject still and are of no help when your exposure is limited by subject movement. So I think stops gained by faster glass or higher ISO ability are worth more than stops gained by IS or tripods. Still, they all have their uses and are valuable. My preference would be for a camera with really high ISO ability, and extremely wide max aperture, a stabilized lens, a stabilized sensor, and a stabilized tripod.

 

[jann1033]

basically i have been wanting to get a faster lens since i miss a lot of shots i want but also want the 50d...but having read( but not totally clear) on what lenses are being maybe out resolved by that i don't want to buy a low light lens and then find out i should have saved my $$$ once i get the 50d. i am not what i'd call an extreme shooter ( ie no cave shots, don't do weddings etc) but indoors i need more than my f4 and my stinking iso of 400 (800 on my camera is to noisy imo)...having a canon i would need to go 3rd party ( which i am always nervous about anyway since they seem soft to me a lot of times)to afford a lower light and wondering how much i would really need it with the 50d, especially if i would rather have the $$ if any of my present lenses are not good with the 50d( ie my 70-200 f4 might be getting long in the tooth ). i think the 50d focus is for 5.6 and above ( now i need to look that up again cause i might be confusing the xsi and 50) maybe the center for 2.8

 

[boBQuincy]

I would go with the wide aperture if size, weight, and cost were not issues. The size and weight are big issues with me lately so f/4 with high ISO and a monopod is my answer.

One possibility, go with a 200 f/2.8 prime. From most of the Wega charts I see we tend to use our lenses at the extremes anyway and most of us could use a 50 or 85 and a 200 instead of a 70-200.

 

[Groucho]

basically i have been wanting to get a faster lens since i miss a lot of shots i want but also want the 50d...but having read( but not totally clear) on what lenses are being maybe out resolved by that i don't want to buy a low light lens and then find out i should have saved my $$$ once i get the 50d.

Not having seen any proper 50D review yet... I'm going to say that if you're not quite sure if you're happy with your current lenses, you'll almost certainly be disappointed with them on the 50D. I remember that for a while at least, you were using an 18-135mm IS, right? That seemed to be one that got, well, not quite raving reviews (it seemed to be a low-budget IS lens).

I can tell you - once you get up to the megapixel level that the 50D is at, you'd better have some darn fine lenses to put in front of it, as you will see the difference when looking at your photos at 100%. I was actually just going through a serious of photos and I was noticing that I could generally tell the difference without looking at the details if a photo was taken with my Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 or my Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 (the two main lenses used during the photos I'm going through.) The Tamron has always gotten high marks in reviews for sharpness and image quality - but I'm sorry, it just can't hang with the OEM lens at 14.6 mp. It's not bad by any means - but there is a difference. FWIW, I have heard that Canon's 70-200mm F4 which you mention is probably their best zoom lens ever, so it would probably go nicely with the 50D.

And what's all this talk of needing to buy IS in the lens... oh, that's right. I'm sorry guys. (Teasing, I'm teasing!) Although I will say to Mark, last time I checked, no Canon prime lens has IS and Nikon only has IS in their 100mm macro. I'd be happy to be shown that there are others. (You had mentioned some fast zoom and prime lenses having IS.)

Anyway, if you're concerned about low-light, I'd recommend grabbing one or two good prime lenses. You're not going to have the option of a zoom that's faster than F2.8, but you can find a prime without spending too much that'll go down to F1.4, two stops faster - that would allow you to shoot at ISO 1600 while the poor sap with an F2.8 zoom is forced to go to ISO 6400! You'll also probably have nicer bokeh.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Mark, last time I checked, no Canon prime lens has IS and Nikon only has IS in their 100mm macro. I'd be happy to be shown that there are others. (You had mentioned some fast zoom and prime lenses having IS.)

The 8 that I'm aware of are:
Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM

 

[frugal_mar]

I looked on Nikon's Website and saw the following:

AF-S VR Micro- NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED
AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR

 

[Groucho]

Mark and Frugal, I wasn't aware of those other than the Nikon 105mm. Perhaps they weren't carried on the reseller that I had checked at the time.

I will modify my statement to that they don't make any IS primes (other than the Nikon 105mm and perhaps the Canon 300mm F4) that mere mortals can afford!

Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM - $5,300
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM - $4,100
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM - $1,210
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM - $6,800
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM - $5,500
Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM - $5,800
Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM - $7,600
Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM - $12,000
AF-S VR Micro- NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED - $760
AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED - $4,000
AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED - $4,500
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR - $8,500
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR - $7,900
AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR - $9,500

Someone buying these lenses is likely not going to be worried about spending extra on a new body!

Regardless, I think the point is still valid - when we're talking fast primes, we're usually talking about 50mm F1.8/F1.4s, 35mm F2.0s, 30mm F1.4s, 85mm F1.8/F1.4s, etc. Lenses that are faster than you can get in a zoom. Lenses that a reasonably advanced amateur who is considering upgrading their body may have one or more of in their camera. C/N offer nothing in this regard, and I think it's fairly safe to say that they're not particularly interested in selling primes to the average consumer, hence the lack of newer affordable primes with IS.

 

[jann1033]

most of the lenses i actually use i'm happy with, the biggest concern i have is the 28-135 since while mine is a good copy and pretty sharp( not even close to as good as my 70-200 f4 but i can still crop it and not have it blur to bad, at least if i take my glasses off while i view the shot ). even before the 50d, i was considering replacing it not really due to sharpness but due to it being 5-5.6 where i use it and not having anything in that lower range decent for low light..i was most considering the tamron 28-70f2.8( or an older canon L if i could find it used but that is probably out due to the resolution) but then i started wondering how much better usage i would get from the higher iso and 28-135...now to top it off i just read a lens resolution article that mentioned it's kind of a moot point, some don't feel there is really a problem till you get over 20 mp and even then say it maybe isn't the resolution,could be something else showing up, you know, the usual 800+ opinions

 

[frugal_mar]

I will modify my statement to that they don't make any IS primes (other than the Nikon 105mm and perhaps the Canon 300mm F4) that mere mortals can afford!

I almost said the same thing when I posted the list of Nikon lenses. Also, you probably need an assistant to carry them too.

I do have the 80-200 f2.8 and I just am very pleased with that glass. I couldn't justify the additional cost to go to the 70-200 f2.8 with V/R. The 80-200 was expensive enough.

Do Sigma or other manufactures carry these lenses?