1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Real world-FF vs Crop ISO

Discussion in 'Help Team' started by CanonGary, Mar 29, 2017.

  1. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    To get things back to simple terms, as has already mentioned, today's high ISOs are far cleaner than yesterday's.

    I had a Nikon D700 - arguably the first (along with it's big brother, the D3) camera to really grab low light levels and render them cleanly.
    I have now got a D5300, a cropped sensor camera who's low light capabilities and high ISO cleanness are far superior to the D700.

    Everything moves on. Whether it is back-illumination or the latest materials, micro lenses or anything else, things will only get better.
    You will not be disappointed if you purchase an up-to-date crop-sensor camera.
     
  2. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andy,

    Well, yes, quite. Then again, I am increasingly puzzled by the meaning of the words "real world" in this thread, especially as applied to noise you can't see.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    PhotoEcosse likes this.
  3. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    I was also puzzled by references to "camera keeps pushing up ISO". In my entire digital phase, I have never had my camera set on auto-ISO. I am all in favour of using appropriate auto settings and am certainly not a "manual-everything freak", but the very last setting I would switch to auto is ISO. When it first came out, I bought a Nikon 3Ds lured by the prospect of ISO capability of 102,400. By the time that I swapped it for a D800, I had never used any ISO over 6,400. I still haven't - either on that D800 or my current D810.

    What has been said by several contributors about successive generations of Nikons having increasingly cleaner results at higher ISO settings is certainly true. Subjectively, I reckon that my A3 prints from the D810 at ISO 3200 show as little visible noise as those from my old D300 did at ISO 400. One stop of that might be due to the theoretical difference between FX and DX, but the rest is simply technological advance.
     
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I have to say I DO use auto-ISO for some of my pro stuff - shooting conferences and the like. The light changes according to what's on screen - you would likely be amazed at how much illumination it gives to speakers, and how much it can vary (and boy, can it mess up white balance too!). I want to keep shutter speed up generally to freeze movement (mostly hands), and choose an aperture for DOF control (throwing background out or keeping sponsor's names sharp), so that only really leaves ISO to play with. I can use manual for my shutter speed and aperture, and then let auto ISO take care of the rest, within an upper limit I can choose. I use it for sport for the same reasons. Never for landscapes, though!
     
    Craig20264 and Gezza like this.
  5. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Another vote for auto ISO. When using a long lens I'd rather suffer a bit of noise than too long a shutter speed.
     
    Gezza and RogerMac like this.
  6. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I use auto-ISO nearly all the time, on the 7Dii you can tell the camera what maximum ISO you're prepared to accept, but also, what minimum shutter speed to maintain based on focal length when you're shooting in Av. Those two settings in combination mean that I can choose the aperture I care about for artistic reasons, and the camera will choose the slowest shutter speed it thinks it can get away with and the lowest ISO it thinks it can get away with to expose the image, and if I don't like it, I use exposure compensation to correct.

    I tend not to shoot in Tv, if I'm shooting with intentionally long or short shutter durations, I tend to stick to manual and choose the aperture as well - I still leave the camera to pick the ISO though, because that's the setting I care about least given I've already told it the maximum I'm prepared to accept. I'd just be doing that bit in my head manually every time, where-as the camera doesn't get it wrong or forget.

    (The 7Dii has the concept of Manual with Auto-ISO).
     
  7. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I am with Tony on this one. Last Saturday I was at a wedding (just as a guest) and was moving from daylight to a disco without much chance to re-adjust and the auto-ISO seamlessly took the strain moving from ISO 100 to 25,600 as I moved. I tried to keep an eye on what it was doing and I would not have made any changes.
     
  8. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    The beauty of the 7Dii as well, is that you can customise the shutter speed vs focal length modifier under Av, and as my hands are quite shaky, I tell it to a stop faster than it might otherwise. So it's not like I'm just choosing defaults, I've customised the shutter speed management and ISO management to suit me and my shooting conditions. The camera is in support of my actions, rather than dictating them.
     
  9. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    Having an ISO capability of 100k or whatever, and not using above 6k shouldn't be seen as a waste. It is no different to having a performance car that can do 200mph and sticking to the speed limit. The fact is that by creating that car that will do 200mph, the 0 to 60 or whatever will be quick, and more importantly, effortless.

    The lack of noise in today's sensors at 6k is only really possible by pushing the boundaries. No one will decided to tinker with the mid band if the overall engine is complete pants.
    I rarely use auto ISO, but it certainly has its uses.

    Whilst I was having my knee operated on, Nikon announced the 7500, a beautiful bit of kit with good lowlight capability as well as a more sensible sensor. It looks like 20MP is the sweet spot, so I expect even better DR and clean ISOs at this level in the future.
     

Share This Page