# Why such High ISO?



## Patriot (Jan 8, 2013)

Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers? At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600? It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it. Is it just bragging rights at who can produce the better sensor? It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th. If you taking pictures at night why not just use a tripod and slow the shutter to let in more light? Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right? 

In my opinion they should focus that R&D funds to developing better optics(which can always get better) or focusing better in low light. How about making a hybrid split screen for better manual focusing and fast auto focusing. Those things are really good at manual focusing. I'm sure it could be done if they stop worrying about such ISO numbers and focus that energy else where.


I'm not saying that it's useless because I'm sure some people use it. Can someone explain this to me because I can't think of a good reason so far? Or could some show me a picture at which they had to push the ISO that high? 

-Hunt


----------



## Judobreaker (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm guessing that with higher ISO capabilities the lower ISO numbers also improve, so the number might actually tell you something about general ISO performance.
I'm not sure, but it's what I'd guess.


----------



## bratkinson (Jan 8, 2013)

Why such high ISO? Low light, plain and simple.

This past Sunday evening at an event at church, I wanted to keep my aperture in the 5.6-8 range for depth of field considerations, and shutter speeds faster than 125 due to shooting people with my 24-105 f4L and 16-35 f2.8L lenses, no flash. To get proper exposure out of that, it was ISO 5000 on my 5D3. But, when shooting wide open with the 135 f2L (for razor thin DOF), I simply lowered the ISO to 1600 and kept the shutter speed the same.

Bottom line, without the higher ISO, I would have been forced to shoot at shutter speeds 1/30-1/60 range, maybe lower, and 80-90% of the shots would be blurred due to subject and my movement.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 8, 2013)

Patriot said:


> ... Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right?


Yes, but noise would increase.  Longer exposures mean electrical current flowing through the sensor for a longer period of time which means more heat is generated within the sensor, and that is one source of noise.  Additionally, if you use High ISO Noise Reduction that amount of time is doubled since the camera records an image at the same exposure time but with the shutter closed as a noise reference image.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 8, 2013)

I, for one, would love to see single-digit ISOs in a DSLR.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 8, 2013)

480sparky said:


> I, for one, would love to see single-digit ISOs in a DSLR.



Could that even be possible? You could point that at the Sun and still be exposed right(probably). Sensor tech would have to come a long for that to happen right? I don't even know the lowest ISO right now. Is it 25 right?


----------



## snowbear (Jan 8, 2013)

Marketing - ISO is the new megapixel!


----------



## Garbz (Jan 8, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Yes, but noise would increase.  Longer exposures mean ...



The trade off in sensitivity vs shutter speed ALWAYS favours shutterspeed. If you CAN shoot 10 seconds at ISO100 then do. You're taking a worse picture for 5seconds at ISO200, or 2.5 at ISO400 etc. 



Patriot said:


> Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers?


Quality. Quantum efficiency is absolute key. It is the secret to high bit depth and great signal to noise ratio at any ISO. The better the numbers the better the image quality. The SIDE-EFFECT of my camera being able to pull incredible detail out of the shadows at ISO100 is that I get a usable picture at ISO25600. The better the efficiency and SNR of the sensor, the better the quality, and ultimately the higher the ISO will go before the picture becomes unacceptably poor. 



Patriot said:


> At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600?



All the time for some people. I take it you don't shoot much indoors, or don't try and take photos of people in dim light without the flexibility to use a flash or the ability to use a tripod? This is something wedding photographers in churches have for a long time found really limiting. 



Patriot said:


> It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it.



The image quality at ISO25600 is no worse on todays cameras than the image quality of ISO1600 of cameras 5 years ago. This also brings up the question of would you rather have a noisy picture or no picture at all?



Patriot said:


> It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th.



There is a whole field where 1/8000th of a second isn't fast enough. High speed photography. Actually this is a field where people find the minimum flash duration of 1/100000th second limiting too. And while we're talking about this to keep flash duration really short you need to shoot only small amounts of light which becomes much more useful if you have a camera capable of a high ISO 



Patriot said:


> If you taking pictures at night why not just use a tripod and slow the shutter to let in more light? Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right?



If you have the ability you'd be mad not to. However the world won't stand still for 10 seconds. Sometimes it's appropriate to go for quality and motionblur can be damned, sometimes you're trying to catch some action and a long shutter speed / tripod isn't an option. 



Patriot said:


> In my opinion they should focus that R&D funds to developing better optics(which can always get better) or focusing better in low light. How about making a hybrid split screen for better manual focusing and fast auto focusing. Those things are really good at manual focusing. I'm sure it could be done if they stop worrying about such ISO numbers and focus that energy else where.


Optics are very limited by the laws of physics. There's very little in the way of better optics these days. The only R&D that could be spent is making quality optics cheaper or making cheaper VR units. Nothing has changed in optics since the invention of aspherical elements some 40 years ago. As for better focusing, focusing is achieved through better sensitivity of the sensor at the bottom of the camera that does phase detection. This is directly linked to the research in higher ISOs for cameras. Autofocus already works better than human eyesight and split prisms so this is a dead end, actually using liveview with higher sensitivity to manually focus in really dark environments would be an idea in my opinion. Actually the only thing I really think has been a waste of time so far is the research in video on DSLRs.



Patriot said:


> I'm not saying that it's useless because I'm sure some people use it. Can someone explain this to me because I can't think of a good reason so far? Or could some show me a picture at which they had to push the ISO that high?



The following was taken on a D800 for 20seconds at ISO Hi+0.7 (Effectively ISO10000). 20 seconds was the maximum shutterspeed that didn't introduce startrails. ISO10000 was the lowest ISO that gave the required brightness. I have heaps of wedding photos from inside churches shot handheld at some stupid ISOs because there was no other option, but none online. I can post some if you want some example shots.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 8, 2013)

Garbz said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but noise would increase.  Longer exposures mean ...
> ...



You just destroyed me.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 8, 2013)

Garbz said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but noise would increase.  Longer exposures mean ...
> ...


Even with very long exposures?   If there is a choice between, say, 30 minutes at ISO 6400 and 28 seconds at ISO 100 (radical example, I know) is the difference worth the extra exposure time?  I would think that there would be a point at which ISO begins to take preference over shutter speed, but I don't really know where that point would be.


----------



## MK3Brent (Jan 8, 2013)

Sometimes I shoot at 50,000 ISO. 
Low light and action.


----------



## KmH (Jan 8, 2013)

The numbers get bigger rather quickly. 

Full stop steps of ISO:
ISO 100
ISO 200
ISO 400
ISO 800
ISO 1600
ISO 3200
ISO 6400
ISO 12,800
ISO 25,600
ISO 51,200
ISO 102,400
ISO 204,800

Recent advances in ISO are more about software than hardware.
DxOMark - ISO sensitivity
DxOMark - Pushed ISO: Let's make it clear


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 8, 2013)

Patriot said:


> ......... I don't even know the lowest ISO right now. Is it 25 right?



0.8, AFAIK.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 9, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > ... Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right?
> ...



That's understandable, but doesn't the sensor stay exposed for long periods while using the video feature? Does it matter if the ISO of LOW during the same period of time. I ask because I see a lot of star trail pictures that were taken over a matter of hours.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 9, 2013)

Easy to answer the "why" of high-ISO. You need it to shoot in low-light with reasonable shutter-speed. No one asks why you need night-vision goggles.

As to the "how" the sensors do it, how ISO is measured, etc, Truesense Imaging is the old Kodak Sensor Division.

Downloads | Reference Documents | Support

Products

They have always provided good technical references on digital imaging. They cater to the Scientific/Technical market and provide enough information for their detectors to be used in instrumentation.

ISO 2500, 50/1.4 Canon FL mount lens wide-open, 1/25th second shutter-speed. With one of the newer Truesense CCD's.






Dimly lit diarama at the Marine Museum at Quantico depicting a night-time battle in Korea. Lightroom 3 export to Jpeg.


----------



## xposurepro (Jan 9, 2013)

Nothing to do with quality .. Everything to do with selling cameras


----------



## Dikkie (Jan 9, 2013)

xposurepro said:


> Nothing to do with quality .. Everything to do with selling cameras



² spot on !

I wait until they have ISO 3.276.800 and up to. And hopefully they upgrade the shutterspeeds aswel, so I can shoot sooo fast that I can capture images of history into my camera.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 9, 2013)

The Nikon F Photomic of the 1960s meters went up to ASA 6400. Push-processing, push developing, grain big enough to count. One company went as far as installing lamps to pre-illuminate film to get it past threshold. Picked up two stops of sensitivity. "Need for Speed" is nothing new. Much of the gains of late are improvements in software and on-chip firmware. Improvements in base-ISO come mostly from reducing "dark-Current" on the chips, the amount of current the sensor generates without light hitting it. Basically, the noise floor.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 9, 2013)

Faster shutter speeds, smaller apertures, better handheld in low light, and basically because they can.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> I, for one, would love to see single-digit ISOs in a DSLR.



Kodak's 14-megapixel 14n or Pro 14n (one of those two) d-slr had user-selectable in-camera ISO values down to ISO 6. (Yes, ISO six). It also offered multi-format capture sizes. It was one of the early 24x36mm AKA "full-frame" d-slr cameras, back in the early 2000's. It was geared toward commercial photographers, and others for whom LOW ISO settings would prove useful.
I suspect that those ultra-low ISO values were "extended", and would be what Nikon would call "Lo-", as opposed to actual, calibrated, 100% genuine "ISO" values. But still...it would dial the sensitivity wayyyyyyyy down!!! Imagine--no need for ND filtration!!!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I, for one, would love to see single-digit ISOs in a DSLR.
> ...



Hey Nikon!  Canon!  Sony!  Pentax!   

You listening to this?


----------



## Animonster (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't mind it so much, as was previously mentioned the quality of the low end keeps going up so my urge to go out and blow a grand on an L-series is sort of subdued by the fact that I don't need a f/1.4 to take decent shots in the dark, you know? 

Though I would like to see more innovative technology or big changes I'm happy that at the very least they're improving something.


----------



## spd (Jan 9, 2013)

I would have to say high ISO is useless for me, i do a few 1 minute or more long exposures at 100 with no problems, but anything even as fast as 1/125th at an ISO over 800 looks like crap...(that's on a 7D), the 40 was rubbish over 400...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2013)

When I was a sophomore in high school the world's FIRST ASA 400 color print film hit the market!!! Woo-hoo!!! Within about five years, Fuji had introduced an ASA 1600 color print film, whioch had very big grain, but still, a nice "look". With digital sensors of the more-recent generation, digital noise levels have gone wayyyyyyyyy, wayyyyyyy down from where they were with the d-slr cameras of a decade ago. The overall performane of the better, newer sensors allow f/4 zoom lenses to function VERY well, even in marginal lighting conditions.

Pairing the newer, best-in-class sensors with the high-speed prime lenses of f/1.2 and f/1.4 and even f/1.8 aperture values, the boundaries of the really low, low-light photography have been expanded to a positively HUGE degree. These new, expanded ISO values of the last few years have brought us a simply *HUGE advancement* in what has become "*usable light*" in which to make pictures without bringing in artificial illumination.


----------



## MK3Brent (Jan 9, 2013)

spd said:


> I would have to say high ISO is useless for me, i do a few 1 minute or more long exposures at 100 with no problems, but anything even as fast as 1/125th at an ISO over 800 looks like crap...(that's on a 7D), the 40 was rubbish over 400...


When you get nicer, better performing cameras.. You'll really appreciate the high ISO range.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jan 9, 2013)

Why not?  One day we will have ISO 25600 that looks as good as ISO 800 today.


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers? At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600? It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it. Is it just bragging rights at who can produce the better sensor? It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th.
> -Hunt



1/8000th of a second will give you a very sharp photo of bird taken handheld with a large telephoto lens.  

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Well, Kodak's patents are all up for grabs now, so who knows...?


----------



## JeremyDueckPhoto (Jan 9, 2013)

xposurepro said:


> Nothing to do with quality .. Everything to do with selling cameras




I mostly disagree

With the D4 I have more detail at higher ISOs than with the D700 or 300. With the D4 I can photograph a night sports game at a high school with dim crappy lights and sell 3x the number of photos. Its mostly because I can keep twice as many shots due to, better exposure, less blur, and more detail. I routinely shoot manual at f2.8 or f4 and 1/500 or 1/750 at ISO 10,000. 

Some camera manufacturers say they can go up to say... 25,000 ISO and it doesn't matter its still a crappy photo. Thats a sales ploy. Having a camera like the D4 or 1Dx that can shoot all day at 6400+ ISO is nice.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 9, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Why not? One day we will have ISO 25600 that looks as good as ISO 800 today.



If that happens then you wouldn't need ISO 25600 because ISO 800 would also look that much better. If it that dark out that you need that high of a ISO then focusing with todays focus screens wouldn't be easy right. 
Well at least with my camera focusing is very hard in low light. 



O|||||||O said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



From what I read about this case is that Apple, Google, and that Chinese company Huewei are the top three companies trying to buy them up. I don't remember seeing any camera  companies in the mix. They would be smart to take notice if they aren't. I'm happy if Huawei walks away with nothing to be honest. Also what would Apple and Google do with camera and other photography tech? They don't make cameras(yet?).


RIP Kodak! I hope they can save themselves.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Well, Kodak's patents are all up for grabs now, so who knows...?



What does that have to do with low ISOs?  Is Kodak the only one capable of creating a digital sensor with a native ISO of 6?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

Patriot said:


> ......
> 
> If that happens then you wouldn't need ISO 25600 because ISO 800 would also look that much better. If it that dark out that you need that high of a ISO then focusing with todays focus screens wouldn't be easy right.
> Well at least with my camera focusing is very hard in low light. .........



Focus systems and screens will most likely be better by then as well.

I'm looking forward to the 5-1000mm f/1.4 pancake.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 9, 2013)

Patriot said:
			
		

> If that happens then you wouldn't need ISO 25600 because ISO 800 would also look that much better. If it that dark out that you need that high of a ISO then focusing with todays focus screens wouldn't be easy right.
> Well at least with my camera focusing is very hard in low light.
> 
> From what I read about this case is that Apple, Google, and that Chinese company Huewei are the top three companies trying to buy them up. I don't remember seeing any camera  companies in the mix. They would be smart to take notice if they aren't. I'm happy if Huawei walks away with nothing to be honest. Also what would Apple and Google do with camera and other photography tech? They don't make cameras(yet?).
> ...



I've...used ISO 12,500 when shooting sports. And that's on a less-than-competent APS-C camera. Sometimes the high shutter speed is worth it. 

It's also pretty easy to get up to that high ISO in situations that are much within the focusing latitude of the camera.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jan 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



For the price of a Maserati I'm sure.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

TonysTouch said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking forward to the 5-1000mm f/1.4 pancake.
> ...




Yes, but that will be in 2025 dollars, not 2013.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Kodak's patents are all up for grabs now, so who knows...?
> ...



I'm sure that Kodak didn't forget to file patents on whatever technology the cameras Derrel mentioned used.

Kodak really was an innovator in the early days of digital technology - at least some of those patents have got to still be protected.


If there really is nothing stopping everyone else from doing it, why haven't they?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I'm sure that Kodak didn't forget to file patents on whatever technology the cameras Derrel mentioned used.
> 
> Kodak really was an innovator in the early days of digital technology - at least some of those patents have got to still be protected.



Yet everyone can makes sensors with HIGH ISOs.... more than one way to skin a cat, I'm sure.




O|||||||O said:


> If there really is nothing stopping everyone else from doing it, why haven't they?



Marketing just keeps hearing, "We want higher ISO!", "We want higher ISO!".  Those of use who want lower ISOs get drowned out.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't know if I would agree with that.  Clearly, the people in charge of marketing are out of touch with the target audience.  (Look at Kodak, lol.)  How long have people been screaming for more dynamic range?  You're still waiting for that, aren't you?

If they just delivered what the market wanted, we would have had low ISO and high DR years ago.  Instead they just do the same thing over and over and convince you that you need it.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jan 9, 2013)

Patriot said:


> If that happens then you wouldn't need ISO 25600 because ISO 800 would also look that much better. If it that dark out that you need that high of a ISO then focusing with todays focus screens wouldn't be easy right.
> Well at least with my camera focusing is very hard in low light.



You are not making any sense.  If ISO gets better, then you can shoot high ISO with a macro lens, set the aperture to f/11 for good depth of field, high shutter speed to minimize hand shake.  

You can also shoot with a long ass lens with super fast shutter.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't know if I would agree with that.  Clearly, the people in charge of marketing are out of touch with the target audience.  (Look at Kodak, lol.)  How long have people been screaming for more dynamic range?  You're still waiting for that, aren't you?
> 
> If they just delivered what the market wanted, we would have had low ISO and high DR years ago.  Instead they just do the same thing over and over and convince you that you need it.




It's not a matter of just 'deliver what the market wanted'.  It's a matter of MORE people screaming for higher ISO.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I would agree with that.  Clearly, the people in charge of marketing are out of touch with the target audience.  (Look at Kodak, lol.)  How long have people been screaming for more dynamic range?  You're still waiting for that, aren't you?
> ...


Well, sooner or later, maybe they'll learn that the squeaky wheel doesn't pay the bills, lol.

Or do they?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Well, sooner or later, maybe they'll learn that the squeaky wheel doesn't pay the bills, lol.
> 
> Or do they?



So, maybe the lesson is... Don't cater to the minority..... you'll be belly-up like Kodak.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 9, 2013)

480sparky said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Well, sooner or later, maybe they'll learn that the squeaky wheel doesn't pay the bills, lol.
> ...


At the very least, the lesson is 'don't abandon your core business and become a printer company'.


I know somebody (Derrel, maybe) is going to see a Canon joke in that, but Canon didn't 'abandon' their market quite the way Kodak did...


----------



## spd (Jan 10, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> spd said:
> 
> 
> > I would have to say high ISO is useless for me, i do a few 1 minute or more long exposures at 100 with no problems, but anything even as fast as 1/125th at an ISO over 800 looks like crap...(that's on a 7D), the 40 was rubbish over 400...
> ...



Yeah, cause a brand new 7D is a lump of crap...:er:


----------



## BrianV (Jan 10, 2013)

Kodak's sensor Division is now "Truesense". They just came out with a new u43 CMOS sensor that is available in color and in monochrome. I've dealt with that Division for a long time, over 25 years.

The CMOS sensor used in the DCS14 was not made by Kodak, it was made by "Fillfactor" (?), which was bought by Cypruss Semiconductor. I think it changed names again.

I am sure Truesense holds the Kodak developed sensor patents.


----------



## Dikkie (Jan 10, 2013)

spd said:


> I would have to say high ISO is useless for me, i do a few 1 minute or more long exposures at 100 with no problems, but anything even as fast as 1/125th at an ISO over 800 looks like crap...(that's on a 7D), the 40 was rubbish over 400...



Same here, I have the Nikon D50, quite old right now... but over iso 400, it's so much noise.
I always use it's lowest 200 iso at long shttrtimes.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 11, 2013)

Well I'm back so forgive me for answering really early posts. 



SCraig said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > The trade off in sensitivity vs shutter speed ALWAYS favours shutterspeed. If you CAN shoot 10 seconds at ISO100 then do. You're taking a worse picture for 5seconds at ISO200, or 2.5 at ISO400 etc.
> ...



ALWAYS favours shutterspeed. In terms of average noise distribution in the frame anyway. The problem is noise is multiplicative. It's not a case of adding the high ISO noise with the thermal noise from the sensor, it's a case of the jump from 30seconds to 2min being far worse at ISO800 than the same jump at ISO100. 

Now the caveat here is the weird thermal induced bleeding at the sensor edges of cameras from yesteryear. These were mostly thermal induced on the sensor and didn't have anything to do with noise in the normal sense (hence it was always pink and always in the same spots on the sensor). If you're suffering from problems with pink frames over long periods then upping the ISO will eliminate the pink at the cost of much worse overall noise. That end result may actually be aesthetically more pleasing but rank worse when statistical analysis is done on the frame. 

The way around that is to reset the frame mid exposure. Take 2 or 3 or many more exposures and stack them together into a 32bit file. Then stretch the shadows. Statistically you're wasting your time going with more than 150 frames but that is exactly how we take long exposures of deep sky objects at night. Even my D200 which would produce a pink bleeding after only 10minute exposures still managed to crank out 2+ hour long exposures using this technique. My longest exposure is just under 6 hours of this faint bastard here: NGC 7293 - Helix Nebula | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



Patriot said:


> That's understandable, but doesn't the sensor stay exposed for long periods while using the video feature?



Nope you can't keep the sensor on for longer than your framerate. Yes your sensor gets warm, but the sensor is read out and reset ever 1/30th or so of a second. 



Patriot said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Why not? One day we will have ISO 25600 that looks as good as ISO 800 today.
> ...



Remember how I said the trade off in sensitivity vs shutter speed ALWAYS favours shutterspeed? Similar principles apply to recording something and pushing it in post. Except in this case quality always favours correctly recording something to begin with. I.e. Shooting at ISO25600 would produce a far better result than shooting at ISO 800 and pushing the image 5 stops.


----------



## weepete (Jan 11, 2013)

At the top end of the market guys a lot more knowledgeable than me have answered more than adequately.

Personally I think it has another side, primarily cost. How many posts are seen on here after someone has just bought a new dslr (quite often their first) and asks "I want to shoot xxx" to which most of the replies are "buy fast glass",  and then the recommendations come to buy a 1.5k lens thats way above their budget and just after them spending what they thought was a lot of money on a great camera. If we could buy a dslr body that cold handle shooting at small apertures with little or no drop in image quality, that body will have more mass market appeal. 

Of course it could just be a simple case of costing less to produce better images at high ISO's than it does to produce better optics


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 11, 2013)

You folks are forgetting the mantra of the corporate world, "_Constant Improvement!_".

It is simply not in them to stand their ground because good enough isn't any more.


----------



## tyranniux42 (Jan 21, 2013)

Garbz said:
			
		

> My longest exposure is just under 6 hours of this faint bastard here: NGC 7293 - Helix Nebula | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



Wow, 180 exposures stacked from a d800, were you shooting raw?... 18 gig of hdd just for 1 image ( well for the build up at least and that's only counting light frames! 

Would love to know how many lights, darks and bias frames you used for this...

Fantastic image by the way!


----------



## tyranniux42 (Jan 21, 2013)

Garbz your flikr gallery is utterly jaw dropping


----------



## skieur (Jan 21, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers? At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600? It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it. Is it just bragging rights at who can produce the better sensor? It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th. If you taking pictures at night why not just use a tripod and slow the shutter to let in more light? Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right?
> 
> In my opinion they should focus that R&D funds to developing better optics(which can always get better) or focusing better in low light. How about making a hybrid split screen for better manual focusing and fast auto focusing. Those things are really good at manual focusing. I'm sure it could be done if they stop worrying about such ISO numbers and focus that energy else where.
> 
> ...




The answer is simple.  What they are working toward is the premise that if you can see it, no matter how poor the lighting, then you can take a photo or video of it and without noise or blurring and without the need for flash, strobes or auxiliary lighting.

I see nothing wrong with that objective.

skieur


----------



## Patriot (Jan 22, 2013)

Tommy561 said:


> Sometimes I shoot at 50,000 ISO.
> Low light and action.



OMG how is the quality of your pictures? Can you post a example? I don't believe the d7000 will do so well so high.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 22, 2013)

ISO and mega pixel numbers were the thing that you paid for back in the day.  My 1st digital (sony) was 64K pixel and recorded on floppy disks.  My 1st descent digital (Sony 828 (8 mega pixel)) was descent at ISO 100-200 but that was about it.  So, it has been a upward push for ISO and pixel numbers ever since digital photography was born. How high will these numbers go?  Who knows?  I can say that ISO was a real issue with me with my 828.  Not so much now with my D7000.  I think the push now will be for full frame sensors in dSLRs.


----------



## MK3Brent (Jan 22, 2013)

greybeard said:


> I think the push now will be for full frame sensors in dSLRs.



Clarify? 
There are full frame sensors, and even medium format sensors in DSLR's.

You mean as standard?


----------



## thunderkyss (Jan 22, 2013)

skieur said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers? At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600? It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it. Is it just bragging rights at who can produce the better sensor? It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th. If you taking pictures at night why not just use a tripod and slow the shutter to let in more light? Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right?
> ...



I agree with this. I'm just learning but so far I'm pretty happy with my camera's ability to take low light pictures without a flash. However, I'm also happy they are still pushing the envelope.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 22, 2013)

Plus high ISO is way better than what it used to be. My OM-D is close to being on par with my 5D MKII. That's a sensor that's half the size still performing well at 3200 ISO.

It makes live concert photography that much more easier when you can shoot with narrower aptures while still maintaning a good enough shutter speed so that your subjects aren't completely blurry from movement and only mostly in focus from the wider DOF. My Canon 30D was perfectly capable of shooting concert photography, but I was always shooting wide open; my 5D MKII let me get better quality images because of the higher usable ISOs.

High ISO also lets your flashes do less work. I'll shooting at 400-800 ISO at events where I need flash so that I'm not draining the batteries as quick as I normally would. Also, flashes that are shooting at lower power generally have a shorter flash duration and recycle faster.

Here's a great example of something that wasn't possible during the ealier days of digital photography. I don't know if it's hand held or not, but it's a shot at night and looks like it was dawn or dusk. Read the comments for full details.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/millios/3980904144/in/photostream


----------



## chuckdee (Jan 22, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers? At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600? It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it. Is it just bragging rights at who can produce the better sensor? It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th. If you taking pictures at night why not just use a tripod and slow the shutter to let in more light? Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right?
> 
> In my opinion they should focus that R&D funds to developing better optics(which can always get better) or focusing better in low light. How about making a hybrid split screen for better manual focusing and fast auto focusing. Those things are really good at manual focusing. I'm sure it could be done if they stop worrying about such ISO numbers and focus that energy else where.
> 
> ...





Ever shoot a wedding in a dark church with no flash allowed?  I hope they (Canon/Nikon) keep pushing the technology so that 25000 is crystal clear.


____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"My job as a portrait photographer is to seduce, amuse and entertain." - Helmut Newton
dallas wedding photographer
Real Estate Lawyer


----------



## Joves (Jan 22, 2013)

greybeard said:


> ISO and mega pixel numbers were the thing that you paid for back in the day.  My 1st digital (sony) was 64K pixel and recorded on floppy disks.  My 1st descent digital (Sony 828 (8 mega pixel)) was descent at ISO 100-200 but that was about it.  So, it has been a upward push for ISO and pixel numbers ever since digital photography was born. How high will these numbers go?  Who knows?  I can say that ISO was a real issue with me with my 828.  Not so much now with my D7000.  I think the push now will be for full frame sensors in dSLRs.



My first foray into digital cameras was the mavica as well though they were not a true digital, and were nothing more than a toy. But the very first CCD camera was one for astronomy that I went in on with a friend to build a Cookbook Camera. That chip was a whole 40K if I remember right, and it cost us a lot of money which is why we partnered in it. He did all the work on it though, I have zero patience for electronic work. By the time we were done with it I think it cost a grand, this included the nitrogen cooling system that you had to use to shoot with it. My how times have changed.



chuckdee said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers? At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600? It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it. Is it just bragging rights at who can produce the better sensor? It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th. If you taking pictures at night why not just use a tripod and slow the shutter to let in more light? Heck you could use ISO 100  if you leave the shutter open long enough right?
> ...


Exactly! 
Even though I do not shoot weddings or indoors a whole lot, I  like the idea it will be there if I need it. When they are improving the  High speed end of the sensors they are improving the technology which  is always a good thing. And as far as dynamic range, that is also  improving, one improvement leads to another which is never a bad thing.  Some of the responses about this bad amaze the hell out of me, because  here is what will eventually happen. We will eventually have chips in  the camera that will have such a wide ISO range from low to high, that  you will not be hampered by it any longer due to poor lighting  conditions. So the low end might not go as far down as you want, but it  may very well become that the native ISO of chips will start at ISO 50,  or 25, and go up to the 100K range, then there would be the push/pull  ISO. While yes that is not yet reality it will be. Embrace the future.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 23, 2013)

tyranniux42 said:


> Wow, 180 exposures stacked from a d800, were you shooting raw?... 18 gig of hdd just for 1 image ( well for the build up at least and that's only counting light frames!
> 
> Would love to know how many lights, darks and bias frames you used for this...
> 
> Fantastic image by the way!





tyranniux42 said:


> Garbz your flikr gallery is utterly jaw dropping



I should post more often. Thanks for the kind words. I'm disappointed with the Helix nebula. The D800 has very aggressive IR blocking and Ha emissions don't come through very well. Then there's light pollution too and all in all I need to get out of town more. 

I always shoot 10 bias and 10 dark frames. Usually one or two flat frames is all that is needed. DSLRs with RAW actually don't benefit much from bias frames as despite the name RAW suggests there's still active pre-processing performed on RAW images. Dark frames are about only good for hot pixel removal, and even then it doesn't work well. 178 light frames in total (good estimation with the 180  ).

Actually the file size is closer to 6GB. A combination of using an f/6.3 reducer to fit the helix in and computer issues means I always shoot with DX crop enabled on the D800. I get horrendous vignetting on my scope with a full frame camera when using the focal reducer. Also Deep Sky Stacker is only a 32bit program and hits the 3.2GB RAM limit when trying to process the ludicrously large D800 pictures.


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 23, 2013)

Hu !

Funny, a thread over 5 pages about the trivial question why people need higher ISOs in their cameras.

Because they had always needed it, but only recently it finally actually got available ?

I have no issue to hit HI.2 on my camera in reallife situations. Just try to shoot sports with a 55mm f/4 lens and you're there very quickly.

Or not even that. For example, try to shoot indoors with anything. Very quickly light can get really low and you will want to get a f/0.7 lens.

Thats one of the main reasons why I am thinking of getting the D600 or D800E, after all. Much better High ISO performance, and availability of lots of bright prime lenses.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 30, 2013)

They keep pushing for higher numbers for the same reason computer equipment keeps getting better.  Because they can and because people will buy it.

Technology wont stop advancing just because something doesn't seem to be needed.  Like computers, hardware is so far more advanced then software that a computer that was top of the line 3 years ago can still play the newest games at acceptable frame rates.  I remember 20 years ago talking with friends in school about what it would be like to have a 1gb hard drive and not being able to fathom what could be done with all that space.  Now I am sitting on over 15TB of hard drive space and there are 3TB hard drives on the market.

And fifty years from now the cameras that are around will make today's cameras look like the cameras from fifty years ago.  Probably in less time given how fast technology is advancing at an ever increasing pace.
Eventually we will leave Megapixels and get into Gigapixels.
How about a camera that takes 3d holographic photos?  (without the need for multiple lenses or cameras)


----------



## Garbz (Jan 31, 2013)

zaroba said:


> Like computers, hardware is so far more advanced then software that a computer that was top of the line 3 years ago can still play the newest games at acceptable frame rates.



False example. Games development stagnated as creators started targeting consoles. Now several years later the console hardware is still old and crap so any game that won't run on a console will ultimately cause a loss in sales. Hence the difference between the quality of console games and computer games is limited to software tweaks which can be turned on and off like hardware tessellation, post effects, shadow details, FSAA and screen resolution. Actual developments which would make computer games look better like a dramatic increase polycount, improved reflection rendering etc don't happen for all except a few key games. 

And good luck playing a game like Farcry 3 (which intentionally butchers graphics on consoles to look good on PCs) on 3 year old hardware.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 31, 2013)

Garbz said:


> False example. Games development stagnated as creators started targeting consoles. Now several years later the console hardware is still old and crap so any game that won't run on a console will ultimately cause a loss in sales.


Makes sense.
And a much better explanation then my assumption was.



Garbz said:


> And good luck playing a game like Farcry 3 (which intentionally butchers graphics on consoles to look good on PCs) on 3 year old hardware.



Sorry, I would have to disagree with this, I mean, look at the requirements for the game.
Minimum requirements for FarCry 3 is a core2duo with 2gb of ram and a 512mb 8800gtx - all of which were available 5 years ago.
A system containing a core i3 with 8gb of ram and a 1280mb gtx 470 could be made 3 years ago and actually just about meets the recommended system requirements for the game.

It all depends on how well and clean you run your pc.
If I still had my old 640mb 8800gts, I could test farcry 3 on a core2duo system, but it finally died last summer after running great for 6 years.


----------



## raaskohx10 (Jan 31, 2013)

High ISO and no noise (just like human eye). That's what we want but ofcourse that is a big challenge for all camera and lens manufacturers. May be they achieve that in the year 3013.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 2, 2013)

zaroba said:


> Sorry, I would have to disagree with this, I mean, look at the requirements for the game.
> Minimum requirements for FarCry 3 is a core2duo with 2gb of ram and a 512mb 8800gtx - all of which were available 5 years ago.
> A system containing a core i3 with 8gb of ram and a 1280mb gtx 470 could be made 3 years ago and actually just about meets the recommended system requirements for the game.
> 
> ...



This ties into the "intentionally butchers" comment I made before. The Crytec engine scales REALLY far between old hardware and new hardware. Hell there's is a massive difference simply running Farcry 2 in Windows 7 and Windows XP due to DirectX 11 support.  You CAN run FarCry on the minimum system but I think you'd be mad. I have a pretty good computer, all components less than 2 years old and it's definitely not the cheapest available at the time. They are better than the "recommended" components (quad core, 1GB vid ram, 4gb RAM) except for my RAM but have 16GB vs 4GB won't make a difference. Anyway on my better than recommended setup I run it with half the settings on high, and half the settings on medium to get acceptable frame rates and I'm not running at the correct native resolution of my screen either. MSAA is turned off too. 

Putting everything on low and you won't even get basic reflections or refractions on water, something the Source engine introduced to great fanfare in 2004. It's playable but it looks bad. Back in 2004 games relied on carefully placed textures to create the illusion of shadows and tone. These days if you turn off dynamic lighting and shadows you're in for one visually dull gaming experience. 

Sidenote:
Kind of reminds me back when we had competitions to see who could get the highest frame rate in Quake 3. Turning off ALL light sources and removing ALL textures made for a very weird looking game.


----------



## CCericola (Feb 2, 2013)

Because high ISO is cool. You want to be cool don't you?


----------



## chuckdee (Feb 4, 2013)

raaskohx10 said:


> High ISO and no noise (just like human eye). That's what we want but ofcourse that is a big challenge for all camera and lens manufacturers. May be they achieve that in the year 3013.




Naw....it will come sooner than that.....I hope.  



____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"My job as a portrait photographer is to seduce, amuse and entertain." - Helmut Newton


----------

