What ISO do you 'usually' use?

Prophet

Prophet

Prophet

Soldato
Joined
5 Oct 2004
Posts
7,395
Location
Notts
I've always tried to use ISO100 whenever possible but have seen excellent resutls when higher ISO's has been used.

Recently I've noticed that my shots arnt as sharp as they should be so I'm wondering if I need to rethink my settings.

Also, on the 350D the parameter table has everything set to the mid point. Is that normal or should I tewak those settings?
 
Either 1600 or 200 usually (according to Lightroom I've taken the most at 1600). I rarely shoot at ISO100 because the quality difference vs ISO200 is absolutely impossible to detect but you lose a stop of shutter speed, and I'm at 1600 pretty often because I'm pretty often shooting in horrible light (i.e. 1/30s @ f/1.4 ISO1600).
 
It all depends on the type of shot you want, the equipment you have and the shooting conditions you are in.

If you are in good light then the lower the ISO the better - less noise.

If you are in poor light but you are shooting stationery subjects with a tripod then the lower the ISO the better for less noise but you will have to lower the shutter speed so a tripod is needed to keep the shot from blurring.

If you are in poor light shooting stationery subjects with no tripod then you will need either a lens with Image Stabilisation (for canon VR for Nikon) or a high ISO to increase light sensitivity on the sensor and thus removing camera shake. However the image will be noisy.

If you are shooting moving subjects in low light then you will have to use a high ISO because you will need a fast shutter speed to 'freeze' the action.

Of course all of the above also depends on the aperture setting you're using and the DOF that you want to achieve in the shot.

It's quite possible that if you are getting soft images you are either using the wrong f/ number or your lens isn't up to scratch.

I have no idea what the parameter table is as I use Nikon but I hope the above is some help.

*edit for Rob* On a side note my D50 starts at ISO 200 so there's no choice for me.

Panzer
 
I'll start taking shots at ISO200 and see how that turns out. I've got a wedding on the 14th of June that I'll be attending as the 'friend with something better than a point and click' basically to take candid shots throughout the day/night.

I've got an EX430 which I've still yet to have a real go with and I'm looking into a diffuser.

I've not photographed people before as I'm a motorsport shooter 99% of the time. Just want to make sure I give the best results possible.

I'm using a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, 'Nifty 50' and Canon 70-200 L F/4.
 
I always use the lowest I can get away with. ISO100 when I can, going up to ISO400, at around ISO400 i'll start to not want to go any higher so might compromise my other settings (aperture and shutter speed) to keep it around ISO400 if possible but I'll go up to 3200 if I really have too. Basically the noise issue starts to become mre noticable around 400+ and I'm not a fan of any noise.
 
Gigs/theatre/though light 800.
Anything else 200.

My lowest is 200, and as the noise is awful at 1600 on the D50 I usually underexpose an 800 and push it back in LR.
 
robmiller said:
Either 1600 or 200 usually (according to Lightroom I've taken the most at 1600). I rarely shoot at ISO100 because the quality difference vs ISO200 is absolutely impossible to detect but you lose a stop of shutter speed, and I'm at 1600 pretty often because I'm pretty often shooting in horrible light (i.e. 1/30s @ f/1.4 ISO1600).
Click to expand...

On Some Nikons the ISO 100 is fake, it basically reduces exposure in way to allow longer exposure shots. The noise rpofle should be absolutely identical. On My D70 they don't even bother putting in a ISO 100 mode.

With all cameras with newer sensors (e.g., D300), even ISO 400 is basically noise free. So The difference between ISO 100 and 400 is much the same as throwing on an ND filter, or changing the aperture 2 stops.



Fo me , I tend to use 200 or 800 in low light. 1600 is just a little too noisy on my D70. However, I happily regularly shoot ISO 400 since the noise profile is very nice and natural grainy noise in the luminance not chromacity. I really like Nikon noise, so much show that on certain shots I will purposely increase the ISO to 400 to get ncie film grain.
 
When I had my D2x, never over 400. Now I have a D3...up to 2000 I'm fine with although even 3200 will print with pretty much noise free results (you would not believe how clean it is if the exposure is right!) so I go up to that if I the situation calls.
 
Last edited:
I use 50 and 100 wherever possible on my camera, I don't like going over 800 but I will go to 1600 if I have to, a noisy image is obviously better than a blurry one.
I do however use highlight tone priority on my camera most of the time, which limits the lowest ISO to 200, but makes a huge difference to preserving the highlight detail in very harsh light.
 
Usually stick to 250 or 320, I find it the common middle ground for image noise in low light and shutter speed, not too slow and not too grainy either in shadows!
 
Underexposing an 800 then boosting it later;

robmiller said:
This is a silly thing to do, given that there's less detail in the shadows (and thus more noise when you bring them up in post) than there would be if you exposed correctly at ISO1600.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Click to expand...

True, but for gigs and theatre you normally don't want the detail in the shadows, unlike say, a landscape. In my processing I normally boost blacks to kill off any distracting background shadows/texture. Also with the conditions above, highlights can be easily blown out, and therefore that's why I do as I say and that's based on experience.

Not sure if you've used a D50 much at 1600 but I really don't like the general texture and washed out colours it produces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom