Is high ISO really that important

[Danntbt]

TS never said he needed a D3s. All he said was going to buy one. I buy a lot of things I don't need too.

...well you need to want to buy.......

 

[noinimod]

IMO amateur photography involves more want than real need. It's the same
old skills vs gear argument

 

[Lionheart86]

If going by the fact that most photographers will go thru the 'factory' called Post Processing to beautify a pic and what nots, then nop...:think:

Hi all, just like to ask around before i commit on the D3s. Is high ISO really that useful? Or it is just a gimmick?

 

[Red Dawn]

TS never said he needed a D3s. All he said was going to buy one. I buy a lot of things I don't need too.

True, but realizing the fact he would never need the high iso capability of the D3S might steer him into a number of more interesting possibilities like

- an almost-as-good-iso D700 with a fast 1.4 prime to differentiate his pics from the standard f2.8 zooms most people are fixated on

- a Leica M9 with lenses that would produce even higher quality lower ISO pics than the D3S

- or a D3X that doesnt do super high ISO...

Well, you get the idea!

Ps: I hope it's obvious I m not implying one needs a D3X or Leica M9 to shoot a high quality low ISO shot

 

[daredevil123]

Another angle to look at this...

The 2 most important exposure controls are aperture and shutter speed, tranditionally i.e.
However, these 2 parameters are not independent, when you change one, you need to alter the other to maintain the same EV. And when one or both is changed, there is implications to the resulting effect, and then it is about which best compromised combination to use... e.g. slower shutter speed risking blurry photo, or larger aperture giving shallower DoF, etc.

With a good high ISO body, another dimension in terms of exposure control is now in the equation. E.g. one is very confident that D3s yields very usable images up to iso 6400. Just set auto ISO mode and limit the upper iso range to 6400. There you have it, shoot in Manual exposure control now, select your preferred speed and f-stop and let the body vary ISO to get the right exposure. It's more automation offered by the camera, and in this case not causing the user to be more lazy, but instead leaving more control latitude for the photographer.

The wide and usable ISO range IMO is the single most important offering of the D3s, all the other features already existed in D3 or other semi-pro bodies.

But ISO has always been in the equation since the beginning of the digital photography age.

You mean only now with good ISO performing cameras are you able to throw ISO into the exposure mix? :think::dunno:

 

[Luv4nature]

Actually refering to wide + clean usable ISO range, not just adjustable ISO range. If a body has just good usable iso range of 200 to 400, better just fix the ISO setting and not consider it as a parameter you want the camera to vary.

 

[useruseruser2010]

With D3S and high ISO shooting at 6400 and 12800 with acceptable images has spoilt me. Will never look back. But as others mentioned, it is a huge commitment. But then again money is relative.

 

[jeff7id]

Hi all, just like to ask around before i commit on the D3s. Is high ISO really that useful? Or it is just a gimmick?

Other than in studio shoot environment where you could control your own light...
YES, high ISO performance of D3s is really useful.

If the camera has poor ISO performance, you won't be able to revive the details that get lost in the noise. Of course you could make smooth the pixels that have noise (noise reduction) but you would loose the details.

If you plan to take a lot of sports/actions photography in low light, you should give more attention to High ISO performance .

:thumbsup: for D3S

 

[AbangR]

All these talks about ISO remind me about older days when using an el cheapo camera, you can just buy ISO 6400 film and get pictures with the same ISO performance as expensive cameras.

I do think it is a gimmick for manufacturers to keep selling camera body. I hope they would come up with a body with replaceable sensors, so we don't have to keep buying expensive bodies everytime they have a major upgrade.

 

[jeff7id]

All these talks about ISO remind me about older days when using an el cheapo camera, you can just buy ISO 6400 film and get pictures with the same ISO performance as expensive cameras.

I do think it is a gimmick for manufacturers to keep selling camera body. I hope they would come up with a body with replaceable sensors, so we don't have to keep buying expensive bodies everytime they have a major upgrade.

I don't think the manufacture will do that.
The manufacture just want to earn more and more money, by purposely upgrading the bodies every 2 years period.

 

[coolthought]

if you purely shoot in the studio and landscape images, high ISO is useless to you.
if you shoot alot in low light situation where you can't use a flash, high ISO is very important to you.

like what the others had mentioned, it depends on what you shoot, and your needs.

this pretty much sum it up when high iso is important or not important.

There are events which I attended, I have to bump up the iso till I can get decent sharpness. Down side is I have lots of noise.

 

[daredevil123]

All these talks about ISO remind me about older days when using an el cheapo camera, you can just buy ISO 6400 film and get pictures with the same ISO performance as expensive cameras.

I do think it is a gimmick for manufacturers to keep selling camera body. I hope they would come up with a body with replaceable sensors, so we don't have to keep buying expensive bodies everytime they have a major upgrade.

I don't think the manufacture will do that.
The manufacture just want to earn more and more money, by purposely upgrading the bodies every 2 years period.

You never know... it just might happen

Read this

 

[rijac]

Hi all, just like to ask around before i commit on the D3s. Is high ISO really that useful? Or it is just a gimmick?

i really think if you have to ask this question, then probably a d3s is not necessary. not to be rude, but you are talking about a pro-body and you are asking a very basic question about photography. just my two cents. i think you should put your money into more lenses and a good flash.

 

[Ouverture]

You never know... it just might happen

Read this

Yup, Ricoh is already doing that with their GXR system, though not hugely successful, but at least it's a start.

 

[daredevil123]

Yup, Ricoh is already doing that with their GXR system, though not hugely successful, but at least it's a start.

I think GXR is not that successful due to the fact they made the module too big... sensor and lens is a fixed combo.

 

[niceboyatsg]

I try using 5D2 with ISO 6400 and camera set to noise reduction.
so far, the outcome is better than using 550d body.
The photos very sharp and colors too.

 

[photogenicly]

Depends on what you shoot , So far i have never exceeded the 1600 mark on the D3 but thats just me . And Clean high-Iso is what really matters , its no use taking photos at 6400 iso when the grains are of the size of rice grains.

 

[Jeremy1]

Set auto ISO to 6400 max & camera mode to S under low light condition really work wonderfully without the worry of blurry image & insufficient exposure.

:thumbsup:

 

[theRBK]

let's put things in perspective... let's not talk about absolutes... how big do you guys finally output your images and in what format?...

if one shows images on the web, then one would only need to output say at most a 2-3 Mpixel image at the current extreme... by downsizing from say 12Mpixel to 3Mpixel, you're gonna see very little noise anyway even with a camera from a couple of years ago and at say ISO 3200...

like wise, printing to ~4R would only require 2-3Mpixel... at ~8R, at the most you need ~7Mpixel... downsizing again would really reduce noise quite abit...

if one regularly prints greatly beyond that size, then maybe, depending on one's common shooting themes, one might look at cleaner images at the high sensitivity end... in any case, note that, especially in print, abit of grain makes images look more natural

 

[edutilos-]

Hi all, just like to ask around before i commit on the D3s. Is high ISO really that useful? Or it is just a gimmick?

It depends on your uses, right?

If you shoot nothing but landscapes at ISO100, then yes, it is not useful for you.

If you need to earn your bread and butter from low-light shots where flash is not allowed (e.g. wedding in churches where flashing is prohibited), this will come in useful.

The D3s has other features besides clean high ISO, fyi. My suggestion is you review your needs and demands on your camera, and then your tolerance to spend, and then make the decision yourself. Seeking out 80,000 people's opinion on the internet counts for nothing eventaully, if you think about it, because Ah Mao, Ah Kow, Ah Beng and Ah Seng are going to use their cameras (or are using their cameras) differently from you.

Of course, there is also this crowd called Ah Sia that will spend on high-end cameras that they don't really need, and then go around flashing it and proclaiming how pro they are, without actually producing any noteworthy shots. It's their money, but I can't say that it is well spent. On the other hand, if you are a hobbyist with money to spend, and you produce great shots that actually use the high ISO capability, then it will be money well spent to me, but that's just me. Cheers.