Is high ISO really that important

[henry soh]

High ISO is great if I don't have to buy an ext. flash or carry a tripod to capture an image in low light without visible grain.

 

[edutilos-]

High ISO is great if I don't have to buy an ext. flash or carry a tripod to capture an image without visible grain.

Tripod usage is about more than just "not having visible grain" in your photographs.

There's a reason why people carry around tripods and heavy ND filters in broad daylight.

 

[theRenaissance]

Fundamentally it boils down to your style and aspect of photography, if your doing landscapes, day shooting then why bother with high ISO performance? If you like to shoot sports, action, events, photojournalism and documentary work then ISO performance is definitely a big consideration.

Personally to me its is perhaps the single most important consideration when purchasing a body, oh god the D3S...

 

[burboy]

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

in the near future, we will be upgrading camera sensor like upgrade computer GPU.

 

[bruggink]

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?

Have you encountered situations when you have to use a high ISO value to take the picture, you open up the picture and it's so noisy, and you end up cursing and swearing? Likely you haven't faced it before and if you do, you will be able to answer your own question.

As far as D3s is concerned, I dun think there is any gimmick. You really get what you pay for.

 

[lloh108]

If TS can afford, go for D3s or D3x. You won't regret!

 

[Omega23]

If TS can afford, go for D3s or D3x. You won't regret!

D3X ISO performance is not as good as D3 and D700.. Dun even think is on par with D7000..

 

[Ansel]

If TS can afford, go for D3s or D3x. You won't regret!

I agree!

 

[lloh108]

D3X ISO performance is not as good as D3 and D700.. Dun even think is on par with D7000..

a 13K body not even on par with a 2K camera? :think:

 

[niccon2]

D3X ISO performance is not as good as D3 and D700.. Dun even think is on par with D7000..

Indeed, d3x high iso has higher noise than D3 & D700 after certain iso level (cant remember the exact level)

 

[daredevil123]

a 13K body not even on par with a 2K camera? :think:

hmmm... D3s is king of ISO performance now.

Guess the price of D3s? around half of D3x

 

[sf_kang]

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?

Aside from the creative/composition element, to get a good picture, the photog has to ensure that sufficient light reaches the sensor so that 'information' (such as colour, light intensity, contrast, image, etc, etc.) can be captured by the sensor with reasonable quality, sharpness, etc.

Normally, you can use two common parameters to get more light onto the sensor;

1) opening the lens aperture (just like opening the window bigger will let more light in and make a room brighter). However, wider apertures also mean shallower depth of field. What is you want certain depth of field?

2) Alternative, you can set for longer shutter time, i.e. the camera shutter remains open longer to let more light in; just like leaving a tap running longer, and more water gets into the pail. But using a long shutter opening may cause camera shake, and hence blur the picture. Using a tripod may help. But what when you are unable to use a tripod, or if the subject is moving? Long shutter times usually cause the image to be 'noisy' or 'graining' just like in the old days, the high ISO films are also more grainy than the low ISO films.

3) This is when the HIGH ISO comes in; it basically means the sensor is MORE SENSITIVE to light; it can still record an acceptable image with smaller aperture, shorter shutter time. BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU HAVE BETTER CHANCES OF GETTING AWAY WITH A GOOD SHOT WHEN YOU ARE FACED WITH CONSTRAINTS like you cannot open aperture wide or you have a lens with a small max aperture, or when you cannot use a tripod, or when simply shooting in very low light conditions.

Finally, whether it's worthwhile for you to get a D3s depends on how often you encounters these shooting conditions, and how badly you want to get THAT SHOT!

Hope this helps.
Fred

 

[Ansel]

a 13K body not even on par with a 2K camera? :think:

"The $250k Porsche is not on par with my $80k Toyota because I can't load all the groceries I bought from NTUC supermarket into it's boot."

Case of missing the point. I think those who paid $13k for the D3x knew what they were paying for, and it was not for the low-noise performance. Just like those who bought the Porsche didn't buy it to go shopping at NTUC or Giant.

 

[UncleFai]

"The $250k Porsche is not on par with my $80k Toyota because I can't load all the groceries I bought from NTUC supermarket into it's boot."

The $250k Porsche is for transporting chicks, not groceries. Different workload.

 

[kriegsketten]

They have room in the boot?? I thought they have a spare engine there? :what:

But I digressed. Yes, I too think 3DX is a different breed from 3Ds...

 

[daredevil123]

The $250k Porsche is for transporting chicks, not groceries. Different workload.

Also depends on the definition of "chicks". They usually use lorry or pickup to transfer new born chicks to the farms. Some places they use tractors

 

[SnagIt]

"The $250k Porsche is not on par with my $80k Toyota because I can't load all the groceries I bought from NTUC supermarket into it's boot."

Case of missing the point. I think those who paid $13k for the D3x knew what they were paying for, and it was not for the low-noise performance. Just like those who bought the Porsche didn't buy it to go shopping at NTUC or Giant.

It's for the 24 megapixels. This cam is for fashion photographer to get magazine/poster kind of print. Or landscape photographers when they need a lot of details or do a lot of cropping.

 

[Ansel]

It's for the 24 megapixels. This cam is for fashion photographer to get magazine/poster kind of print. Or landscape photographers when they need a lot of details or do a lot of cropping.

Bingo!

Apologies to TS for the above OT.:embrass:

Back to the original question, "Is high ISO really that important?":think:

Put it this way, the High ISO/low noise capability of the D3 when it first came up and then subsequently inherited by the D700, this capability, was the "game changer", the "deal clincher" for the many photogs who needed it. It's like for some photographers, the flash has been made obsolete and for other photographers, they could shoot in situations where hitherto was impossible. It was revolutionary, not merely evolutionary, when viewed as a big picture of overall photographic technology.:heart:

Is it really that important? Well, just go and buy an old D70 or D200, they are cheap now, and then shoot with it for a few months. If you don't sense the need for better high ISO performance, then stick with these cameras and invest your money in good lenses instead.

 

[Pacificslite]

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?

Yes. It's useful.
No. It's not gimmick.

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[OoStarDustoO]

High ISO with good noise performance is a need.

Meaning ur cam will works well under low light even shot handheld and the picture quality is reasonably good.

High ISO with awful noise performance is gimmick.

No matter how high ur ISO is, ur shot will all be crappy shot with lots of noise in it - For example a typical point & shoot camera.