High ISO's.. for what?

[Fran]

Hello! Well, i was thinking about this.

By my experiencie when i have a bad light (when i need more than 400-800 ISO) in my sony A72 i have a bad colors too..well , i need to be simple because my english is not very good.. what is the reason that you have to choose a CMOS with a million thousan ISO if the quality of the color of this images will be poor? I can understand it in the 35mm format, but, in MF i can't found a reason. can you help me?

PD: I know that CMOS is better for long exposures..avoid this reason please.


kind regards!

Fran.

 

[Don Libby]

The main reason for me (upgrading from an IQ180 to the IQ1-100) is I'm shooting more nightscape images where I need higher ISO and longer shutter speeds. Then again this should also aid in wildlife images when I have the 240 with the 2x. I can think of a few more...

 

[Paul2660]

For me, in a medium format back, high ISO is helpful for movement issues (i.e. faster shutter speed). The ability to shoot a clear clean ISO 400 in MF that has shadow push or anything period in the shadows is an important aspect of CMOS. In the past with CCD backs, the limit was base ISO and maybe one stop, but 400 easily showed some color saturation loss along with finer details. Add to this a tech camera with a copal shutter will only full shutter stops and things can and will get pretty limited.


Can't see why the A7II at the shutter speeds you mention would have color loss as you really are not pushing it that much with those speeds.

I have no issues with CMOS and color retention well past those ISO's, (D810, K1, X-T2). Where I start to see some color sat loss will be in past 3200.

I have not used ISO ranges much higher than 800 on the IQ100, and for Astro work I still prefer the 35mm Format as the cameras just make it easier, at least for me. The K1 pretty much revolutionized night astro work for me.

Paul C

 

[Leigh]

Hi Fran,

Color errors can usually be corrected in the computer after you take the shot.

But if you need to stop action in poor light, as when shooting sports, high ISO is the only option.

- Leigh

 

[Fran]

Hi Fran,

Color errors can usually be corrected in the computer after you take the shot.

But if you need to stop action in poor light, as when shooting sports, high ISO is the only option.

- Leigh

For me is difficult to edit when i have poor light/indoors light.

This is one of the reasons that i move to analog photography.. its boring, very boring to edit photos and compare the color of the skins with the reality..

Thanks for the replies, i understand you perfectly.

Regards!

 

[docmoore]

For me is difficult to edit when i have poor light/indoors light.

This is one of the reasons that i move to analog photography.. its boring, very boring to edit photos and compare the color of the skins with the reality..

Thanks for the replies, i understand you perfectly.

Regards!

Fran,

Bad light is bad light and ... poor color .... Broncolor and Profoto exist to correct this ....

Look into a two or perhaps three light kit ...

Nothing compares to the color and subtle variations of tone with them.

Bob

 

[tcdeveau]

Color and dynamic range does fall off with higher ISO use I've found an any one of the systems I've used (Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Hasselblad), but for a variety of reasons, it's not always practical to shoot at base ISO...especially handheld. I'm not always in control of the lighting and can't always use a tripod or flash, so high-ISO performance means I can at least get shots that aren't blurry without a tripod or flash. For me, good high ISO performance doesn't mean I can comfortably shoot at iso 12,800, but it does mean I can get shots at ISO 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400 that can be useable depending on the lighting when I otherwise wouldn't be able to shoot at base ISO. I've shot plenty handheld at up to ISO 1600 on my A7R, 6400 on D800/D800E, and 6400 on D810 that may not be ideal, but they still capture the moment and are better than a blurry less noisy pic at lower ISO. It adds a lot of versatility compared to the CCD MF I had that was pretty much confined to a tripod and at base ISO. Sometimes natural light images that aren't noise free work better than noise free images with flash too, and loss of color can also be hidden with conversion to black and white...photography isn't always about technical perfection

 

[Ed Hurst]

Another voice in favour of high ISO for astro. Milky Way shots require it so that you can achieve short enough exposures to avoid star trailing.

To avoid re-posting images, I will pass you onto this thread here:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-.../59479-milky-way-night-sky-medium-format.html

Example images included that would not be possible without pretty clean ISO6400.

 

[bab]

Another voice in favour of high ISO for astro. Milky Way shots require it so that you can achieve short enough exposures to avoid star trailing.

To avoid re-posting images, I will pass you onto this thread here:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-.../59479-milky-way-night-sky-medium-format.html

Example images included that would not be possible without pretty clean ISO6400.

Also shooting indoors without a strobe wide open is a challenge even at ISO 2000 to restrict the movement of people. A strobe would fix it but then you have all the issues balancing the light and the look of the image is different. CLEAN ISO at 3200 better yet at 6400 would solve many issues. As stated previously CCD at 800 is not clean in fact 400 is not clean and long exposures at 400 sucks.

 

[tcdeveau]

Also shooting indoors without a strobe wide open is a challenge even at ISO 2000 to restrict the movement of people. A strobe would fix it but then you have all the issues balancing the light and the look of the image is different. CLEAN ISO at 3200 better yet at 6400 would solve many issues. As stated previously CCD at 800 is not clean in fact 400 is not clean and long exposures at 400 sucks.

I found in some of the wedding work I did increasing the ISO allowed for less power with strobes and reduced recycling time, which was important when bouncing flash off of high ceilings.

Good point Ed on the Milky Way. Cleaner high-ISOs have basically made milky way photography without a star tracker possible IMHO.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Paul,

I am essentially a base ISO, but I would not say that colour degrades at moderately high ISOs. I certainly feel excellent colour is possible at higher ISOs. Shot noise is going up, of course.

I would agree that going up a bit with ISO is beneficial in windy conditions. Modern sensors may have aces in their shirtsleeves, like Sony A7rII disabling a capacitor at 640 ISO and achieving better DR (lower readout noice).

What I would say is that there has been a significant improvement in intermediate ISO performance over the Sony's I owned. With the P45+ I cannot say, I just don't have a lot of high ISO shots.

Best regards
Erik

For me, in a medium format back, high ISO is helpful for movement issues (i.e. faster shutter speed). The ability to shoot a clear clean ISO 400 in MF that has shadow push or anything period in the shadows is an important aspect of CMOS. In the past with CCD backs, the limit was base ISO and maybe one stop, but 400 easily showed some color saturation loss along with finer details. Add to this a tech camera with a copal shutter will only full shutter stops and things can and will get pretty limited.


Can't see why the A7II at the shutter speeds you mention would have color loss as you really are not pushing it that much with those speeds.

I have no issues with CMOS and color retention well past those ISO's, (D810, K1, X-T2). Where I start to see some color sat loss will be in past 3200.

I have not used ISO ranges much higher than 800 on the IQ100, and for Astro work I still prefer the 35mm Format as the cameras just make it easier, at least for me. The K1 pretty much revolutionized night astro work for me.

Paul C