# What the highest iso can you use?



## tecboy (Oct 22, 2013)

I was taught that lowering the iso as much as possible, or increasing the iso as a last resort.  Do you use higher iso most of the times and disregarding the lowest iso?


----------



## bobandcar (Oct 22, 2013)

Use the Iso that makes it possible to get the shot that you want.

Low iso, lower noise
High iso, higher noise


----------



## Dagwood56 (Oct 22, 2013)

I almost always use iso 100 I don't mind going up to 200 if I have to and on rare occasions I have used 400, but I hate the sacrifice in photo quality with the noise factor above that. But that's just me, I'm old school.


----------



## GDHLEWIS (Oct 22, 2013)

I was under the same belief but now I'm not bothered by it if you need to raise the ISO for the shot then so be it. Noise is easily brought down in post if needs be,  plus the newer cameras are more than able to handle high ISO. If it means getting the perfect shot take the ISO to the roof and back I say.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 22, 2013)

It depends on your camera and subject matter.

With my 6D I can shoot up to 6400 with relatively little noise.
However, with my 60D it begins to fall apart around 1600.

Also; the faster the action and the lower the light, the higher the ISO you will need.

For example, you will probably need a higher ISO at a dance recital than at a mid-afternoon baseball game.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 22, 2013)

I have embraced shooting with auto ISO, especially when using my f/5.6 300mm.

I took this at 1800iso:




Deer in Clearing by BraineackPhoto, on Flickr

It was taken at 4:45pm, but the deer was standing in the shade and it required a high iso in order to keep the shutter speed where I needed it at 300mm.  I wouldn't have got the shot if I shot at 100, then 200, then 320, then 400, then 500, then 800, then 1000, then 1200, I think you get the point.

The shot is noisy, but oh well. hell, I even cropped it in a bit.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 22, 2013)

I can use some 1600 shots but I generally don't like to go that high if I can help it. for my T3i, 800 is pushing it most of the time.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2013)

I shoot at the lowest ISO I can to get the result I need.  Sometimes that's 200, sometimes that's 12,500...


----------



## Mach0 (Oct 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I shoot at the lowest ISO I can to get the result I need.  Sometimes that's 200, sometimes that's 12,500...



+1


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 22, 2013)

Saying something like "I use ISO 1600 with no issues" is doing a huge dis-service.  Some cameras are fantastic at ISO 1600, others are garbage.

That said, I like to stay at ISO 400 and lower, but will go as high a necessary to get the shot I'm after.

BTW, the highest ISO_ technically_ goes is 10,000. *The* ISO hasn't adopted any standards higher than than.


----------



## Overread (Oct 22, 2013)

"Always use the lowest ISO possible" is something that shouldn't be taught to beginners. In fact I'd say that that line of advice is very bad advice to give to beginners; especially so in this day and age of photography - at least for digital work (Film is different as the ISO is locked). 


ISO is just another tool in the bag and if your aperture, shutter speed and the light you have at the time require you to set the ISO higher then you have to set it higher. Yes you'll get noise - and yes most of that noise will vanish in web or print displays even before using software to reduce it further. 
It also depends greatly on what kind of photography you're doing - if its portraits chances are that you shouldn't need to take the ISO too high; in fact if you find you have to you'd likely be soon investing in a flash or three. If you're doing sports or wildlife chances are ISO 400 or even 800 might be you base line starting point in anything but the strongest of light so that you've got an action stopping shutter speed.


ISO is a tool just like the aperture and the shutter speed; it takes time to learn the "limits" for what those values within that term mean to your photo and how they'll affect it. Once you know and you know your subject and situation better you'll start to find it a lot easier to make the judgement call on what setting(s) are important for the shot and then also what limits are practical within the given light.

Note that learning to predict and imagine what you want the photo to look like will make this a lot easier - once you've an image in your minds eye you can more quickly know what settings you'll need (or at least a rough ballpark understanding of which are the most important for the scene).


----------



## runnah (Oct 22, 2013)

Agreed. It's not an add noise dial but rather a key factor in the exposure triangle.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 22, 2013)

I use to not understand ISO so anything about 200 I worried about.

But taking pictures of my kids sports in bright sunlight dipping down to cloud cover coming in and out I find myself going from ISO 100 to 400 very quickly just to keep the shutter speed where I want it.  Even 800 and higher isn't out of the question on evening games.

I'm slowly expanding my use of higher ISOs as I get more comfortable with keeping my shutter speed adjusted to where I need it even at f/2.8 on a 80-200 lens.  When I use Aperture Priority and auto ISOs the ISOs are through the roof !!  So I figured, if the camera is saying this is a good ISO, then I should be comfortable with it too, little by little.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2013)

480sparky said:


> ...BTW, the highest ISO_ technically_ goes is 10,000. *The* ISO hasn't adopted any standards higher than than.


Touche!


----------



## kathyt (Oct 22, 2013)

I will go up to 12,800 for dance recitals. I won't go over that though. That is my limit for my camera IMO.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 22, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I will go up to 12,600 for dance recitals. I won't go over that though. That is my limit for my camera IMO.



What Kathy means is ISO 12,800. She likes to make up numbers....  


 

What's next, a 1/34.2232s shutter speed? The humanity....


----------



## kathyt (Oct 22, 2013)

Majeed Badizadegan said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I will go up to 12,600 for dance recitals. I won't go over that though. That is my limit for my camera IMO.
> ...


That is what I meant. Shut it R!


----------



## Bulb (Oct 22, 2013)

I use whatever I need to.

For my camera, 100-800 is ideal, 1600-6400 is usable, and 12800+ is a last resort.


----------



## ToddnTN (Oct 22, 2013)

On my D7100 I don't like to go over 4800, but have gone to 6400 on occasion. Night time football and band pics require high ISO.


----------



## cynicaster (Oct 23, 2013)

Overread said:


> "Always use the lowest ISO possible" is something that shouldn't be taught to beginners. In fact I'd say that that line of advice is very bad advice to give to beginners; especially so in this day and age of photography - at least for digital work (Film is different as the ISO is locked).



I agree with this, because I think the novice is going to be inclined to think any degradation of image quality is unacceptable, which will effectively fix their ISO at 100.  What will follow is piles and piles of fantastic low noise photos marred by camera shake and/or underexposureboth of which are far worse outcomes than a bit of noise at the pixel level.

Another good reason to go above ISO 100 is if youre using AA powered strobes; a simple (and mostly inconsequential) bump from ISO 100 to 200 buys you a whole stop of flash power, which in turn improves recycle times, lengthens battery life, and reduces risk of accidental overheating.


----------



## paigew (Oct 23, 2013)

Well I jack mine up high...I just went to 20000 yesterday. Not the first time.


----------



## paigew (Oct 23, 2013)

examples of high iso


ISO 20000



6W2A0498.jpg by paige_w, on Flickr

iso 20000



6W2A2900.jpg by paige_w, on Flickr

iso 20000



[goodnight drummer boy] 5 | 365 by paige_w, on Flickr

ISO 51200



[late sleeper] 11 | 365 by paige_w, on Flickr


----------



## tecboy (Oct 24, 2013)

I keep hearing the noise reduction in Lightroom is really good.  However, my experience is noise reduction loses details and fine textures.  It makes my photos more like a pastel.


----------



## kathyt (Oct 24, 2013)

paigew said:


> examples of high iso
> 
> 
> ISO 20000
> ...


I think that your use of such high ISO's works really well for your style and subject matter. I enjoy your work.


----------



## paigew (Oct 24, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I think that your use of such high ISO's works really well for your style and subject matter. I enjoy your work.



Thank you Kathy


----------



## MiFleur (Oct 24, 2013)

I always find that I am a little bit shaky at lower speed, so I prefer to up the ISO than to have a blurry image. I have had some satisfactory small prints at ISO 6400 and did not try to print large scale at that ISO. But I find that over 6400 it gets bad.   I also like to use fill flash and sometimes boost the ISO to about 1600 to capture the mood in the room. But Photography with flash is something I still need to learn about.

My camera is the Nikon D600


----------



## DarkShadow (Oct 24, 2013)

I use auto ISO with Noise reduction turned off. Some grain is better then mushy and fuzzy. I keep it at a max of 3200.


----------



## Tailgunner (Oct 24, 2013)

As people pointed out, not ever camera is created equal. People shooting @ ISO 10,000+ are probably sporting Semi Pro or Professional camera bodies. That is just about out of the realm of possibilities for people shooting DX bodies. Anyhow, I try to stay close to ISO 200 but sometimes circumstances requires cranking the ISO up. Now with that said, I don't just max it out. I still try to use as low an ISO as possible generally using ISO 400, ISO 800, or ISO 1,200 and on rare events, ISO 3200.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 24, 2013)

Just fooling around in low light...

this is iso 125 at 0.8":




DSC_1688-5 by BraineackPhoto, on Flickr


this is iso 2000 at 1/20s:




DSC_1683-4 by BraineackPhoto, on Flickr


and 1:1




iso_comparison  by  BraineackPhoto, on  Flickr


still getting decent shots at iso 5600:




DSC_1607-1 by BraineackPhoto, on Flickr



I think iso 6400 was about the furthest I was getting anything that I considered usable:




DSC_1621-3 by BraineackPhoto, on Flickr



this was only iso 560, but Hobbes felt left out:




DSC_1706-6 by BraineackPhoto, on Flickr



Everything I took above that wasn't sharp and very noisy and really  unusable.  This was actually a fun exercise in getting more intimate  with my camera and it's abilities/limitations.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 24, 2013)

Overread said:


> "Always use the lowest ISO possible" is something that shouldn't be taught to beginners. In fact I'd say that that line of advice is very bad advice to give to beginners; especially so in this day and age of photography - at least for digital work (Film is different as the ISO is locked).
> 
> 
> ISO is just another tool in the bag and if your aperture, shutter speed and the light you have at the time require you to set the ISO higher then you have to set it higher. Yes you'll get noise - and yes most of that noise will vanish in web or print displays even before using software to reduce it further.
> ...



I agree with that. When I just started I was losing a lot of good shots because I did not trust my camera at higher ISO, so I kept it at 100 or 200 and tried to squeeze a sharp shot at 1/40 or 1/30. Then I finally realised that raising ISO to 800 or 1600 and even 3200 will result in MUCH better shot. Especially if you use something like Topaz DeNoise, that is just fantastic.


----------



## DarkShadow (Oct 24, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Just fooling around in low light...
> 
> this is iso 125 at 0.8":
> 
> ...



Nice demonstration of ISO and Some beautiful Cat shots.


----------



## griffin86 (Oct 25, 2013)

I'm pretty sure this image is SOOC. 1/1000 f1.4 12,800 ISO


----------



## DorkSterr (Oct 25, 2013)

I typically don't go over 640 but I've shot 25600 and generally don't need to do much noise reduction. When I go above 51200 thats whenTopaz DeNoise comes out.


----------



## deschnell (Oct 25, 2013)

griffin86 said:


> I'm pretty sure this image is SOOC. 1/1000 f1.4 12,800 ISO
> 
> View attachment 58875




This is a great shot... good job capturing the action of barrel racing.
My D3100 doesn't have great high ISO performance - but I need to push it high with NR for astro pics. 
This was at ISO 800 without NR, but due to the lights in the lower frame, I couldn't go higher to capture the Milky Way in a single shot. Would have been cool as a composite... but it was an unplanned photo - so not bad!!

[hijack threat]I'm planning a shoot tonight... Hope to report back with some good images.[/hijack threat]


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 25, 2013)

This was at 12,800. Sure its grainy but it got the job done and provided decent definition for the subjects. 




bright eyed and bushy tailed by DiskoJoe, on Flickr


----------



## grafxman (Oct 26, 2013)

I haven't set any particular ISO level in any of my cameras for years. I shoot manual and allow the camera to select the ISO. The 6D goes up 12,800 inside museums all the time. Canon's DPP software easily removes any noise. Sometimes I just leave the noise in the photo if looks like something printed on sandpaper. I rather like that look.


----------



## reedw (Oct 28, 2013)

Even though my D7000 can use higher ISO. As someone who has shot film for 40 years, my hands start to shake if I dial in much more than 800.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 28, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I was taught that lower iso as much as possible, or increase the iso as a last resort.  Do you use higher iso most of the times and disregard the lowest iso?



Like others have mentioned I use whatever ISO I need to get the shot.  This was taken at ISO 2500 :


----------



## Garbz (Nov 1, 2013)

ISO25600. Camera doesn't go any higher.


----------



## gconnoyer (Nov 1, 2013)

Like stated before, whatever is needed to get the shot.
If I'm shooting wide open, and I'm at the bare minimum of what I need my shutter speed to be, I'll crank my ISO up until I get the right exposure. 

Having some noise in a good image, is better than having a little less noise in an unusable image.
6400 (on my camera) is perfectly acceptable and with the proper exposure and with no cropping, the noise is really nothing that detracts from the image.
Its all dependent on your body really.


----------



## Juga (Nov 7, 2013)

My wife would kill me if she knew I posted this but this was at 12800 with just a little noise reduction.


This was at a birthday party at 20000 again with just a bit of noise reduction.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Nov 7, 2013)

The way i look at it, i would rather a noisy image, i can clean that up to an extent, and if you don't print too big it will not be see, rather than an slow shutter speed and risking motion blur that is virtually unfixable.

John


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 7, 2013)

12800


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Nov 7, 2013)

What shutter speed was that take at MSnowy? 1/500?

John.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 7, 2013)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> What shutter speed was that take at MSnowy? 1/500?
> 
> John.



 John it was taken at 1/1000


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 7, 2013)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> The way i look at it, i would rather a noisy image, i can clean that up to an extent, and if you don't print too big it will not be see, rather than an slow shutter speed and risking motion blur that is virtually unfixable.
> 
> John



Hey now!  Motion blur is not unfixable.   Well, you know, assuming you took another shot at a higher shutter speed of the same thing - lol

I'm with you on this one.  High ISO can and does get noisy, and sometimes if it's shot at really high ISO it's noisy enough that fixing it will cost you some sharpness and color contrast in the final image, etc - but for me that's a much better trade off than getting an image that is basically completely unusable.


----------



## Juga (Nov 7, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Tinderbox (UK) said:
> 
> 
> > The way i look at it, i would rather a noisy image, i can clean that up to an extent, and if you don't print too big it will not be see, rather than an slow shutter speed and risking motion blur that is virtually unfixable.
> ...



I think most would agree with it. I really don't concern myself with ISO as much as I did when I first started shooting manual.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Nov 7, 2013)

I saw this video a year a so ago, it` hard to believe is it real.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 7, 2013)

Juga said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Tinderbox (UK) said:
> ...



I've been pretty impressed at the results the D5100 will deliver even at high ISO.  The little bridge camera I had, pretty much any ISO setting over 800 was unusable.


----------



## peter27 (Nov 7, 2013)

I normally only go up to 400 with film. My Sigma DP1 is pretty decent up to 400 and can still deliver quite nice photos at 800. My wife has a Nikon P100 bridge camera and this is very good up to 1600.


----------



## glun (Nov 9, 2013)

For my Canon MKII, I use ISO 800 max for night shooting. I won't go any further than that because if you zoom in you'll start noticing some noise.


----------



## Juga (Nov 9, 2013)

glun said:


> For my Canon MKII, I use ISO 800 max for night shooting. I won't go any further than that because if you zoom in you'll start noticing some noise.



If you zoom into most any image far enough you will find some. If you are talking about a 5D II then you should definitely be able to push the ISO more than that.


----------

