# Highest iso to use with D90?



## Tbini87 (Jan 5, 2011)

Hey guys,
   I have recently done a few shoots in really poor shooting conditions (low light, cloudy/rainy). We use a reflector whenever possible, but it wasn't helping much in these situations. We didn't want to pull out lighting gear in fear of it getting rained on. So we tried to do the best we could with shooting wide open and bumping the iso on our D90s. I seem to hear about how well the D90 does at higher isos, but it starts to look grainy at iso 800 and gets really noticeable to me at 1600. So my question is how high of iso do you guys think the D90 can handle before becoming too grainy. I would say I am mostly wondering about portrait, engagement, or wedding photography. We use LR3 which has some noise reduction capabilities but haven't been using it much yet. Is shooting at iso 1600 still usable on a D90? How much higher would you consider still being usable? Any comments, examples, or input is welcome.


----------



## Misfitlimp (Jan 5, 2011)

Don't know to much about nikon seeing as how I shoot all canon stuff but it seems to me you've already answered your own question. If it's a little grainy at iso 800 then drop to 400 and you should be fine.  For me iso is the last thing I mess with when trying to get my shots. I leave it in 100 until it's impossible to do so and get proper exposure.  I also almost always take my laptop with me and shoot some images tethered so I can blow up some test shots in PS and see what my noise looks like.  It's kind of just a processs you kind of figure out on your own in a trial and error kind of way so have at it and good luck


----------



## Garbz (Jan 5, 2011)

How high an ISO can the shot take? How blurry would you accept the image otherwise? Do you have any other way to get the shot or do you say if you can't shoot below a certain ISO you'll pack up and go home? When comparing ISOs what average exposure in the picture are we comparing since a well exposed ISO1600 photo should look less noisy than an underexposed ISO800 photo?

Use the lowest ISO you need to get the shot. There is no "high an ISO it can handle" the highest is the highest number below the physical "HI+0.3" 

Sure a low noise free perfect image would be great, but I still prefer a grainy picture to crying myself to bed because I didn't get a shot.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 5, 2011)

I have shot a lot of sports at ISO 3200 on a D90 before, and with the right exposure and the right noise reduction software it is quite acceptable in my opinion. The problem here is that what is acceptable in a sports shot, may be a little much in a wedding shot, so I would probably back down to 1600 max.

Allan


----------



## gsgary (Jan 5, 2011)

If there is poor light don't shoot, portraits need good light or you have to make good light a reflector is no good if there is no sun unless you are bouncing flash off it


----------



## Tbini87 (Jan 5, 2011)

Misfitlimp said:


> Don't know to much about nikon seeing as how I shoot all canon stuff but it seems to me you've already answered your own question. If it's a little grainy at iso 800 then drop to 400 and you should be fine.  For me iso is the last thing I mess with when trying to get my shots. I leave it in 100 until it's impossible to do so and get proper exposure.  I also almost always take my laptop with me and shoot some images tethered so I can blow up some test shots in PS and see what my noise looks like.  It's kind of just a processs you kind of figure out on your own in a trial and error kind of way so have at it and good luck



We use the lowest iso possible in general, but I am talking about a specific instance when there is low light, we have already opened the lens up, and we are flirting with low shutter speeds. The only real choice left besides flash is to bump the iso.


----------



## Tbini87 (Jan 5, 2011)

flea77 said:


> I have shot a lot of sports at ISO 3200 on a D90 before, and with the right exposure and the right noise reduction software it is quite acceptable in my opinion. The problem here is that what is acceptable in a sports shot, may be a little much in a wedding shot, so I would probably back down to 1600 max.
> 
> Allan



Yeah, I guess that is my main question for wedding or portrait photogs... what is the highest iso you would use on a D90? I mean we would bump the iso as high as needed to get the shot of course... but I want to know where we should draw the line before calling it a day in low light situations. If we are shooting at 1600 and now have to go to 3200, should we keep shooting or will the images be so noisy that we are wasting our time? 

What noise reduction are you using? Have you had any experience with LR3 NR?


----------



## Tbini87 (Jan 5, 2011)

gsgary said:


> If there is poor light don't shoot, portraits need good light or you have to make good light a reflector is no good if there is no sun unless you are bouncing flash off it



We had a very limited amount of time to do a shoot with a couple with full schedules. We were only in town for a short time and couldn't reschedule, and we felt that we had to get the shots now or never. They also delayed the shoot then showed up late, leaving us with a lot less light than we originally planned for, and the clouds rolled it and started drizzling towards the end of the shoot. Not very good conditions, but we tried to do the best we could. I personally think the iso 800 and 1600 shots look fairly grainy, but maybe an average joe would never even notice the grain. That is what I am not sure about, and wanted to hear other opinions about the D90 and what iso we can shoot at and still get a usable image.


----------



## KmH (Jan 5, 2011)

The D90 is an entry-level camera and lacks the low light capabilities (and other features) needed to do quality low light photography for paying customers.

Using supplimental (strobed) light is your _only viable_ low light option for customer work if you're using a D90.

As it is, the vast majority of professional quality photography done for retail customers, in all lighting conditions, is done using off camera stobed lighting, and reflectors for fill.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 5, 2011)

Tbini87 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > If there is poor light don't shoot, portraits need good light or you have to make good light a reflector is no good if there is no sun unless you are bouncing flash off it
> ...



This is where experience and flash comes in, find a location where you can use flash undercover, i shoot lots of sport and you have to use what is there with no flash, even if it is sunny  i will get the flash out


----------



## orb9220 (Jan 5, 2011)

Any complaints of noisy at 800 or 1600 can usually be attributed to underexposure. 
I was very surprised at my first 3200 shot with the tamron 17-50 in an underground tunnel. 

Picture is SOCC and no post NR. Tho Lightroom 3 does a good job at NR when needed.
And always use it on D90 images even if only a tad bit. As always shooting right at the limit of lower light handheld realm.




Heading Home by orb9220, on Flickr

But nailing exposure is critical. And even this shot I think I was a tad under.
And yep agree for paying customers have the right to have a well lit scene using lights & flash if necessary. And they have a right to demand that pro have the best equipment for the job. The D90 is a great camera but wouldn't want to use it for weddings. As that is what the D700 or even now the D7000? can achieve. And of course that primo glass to capture the scene.
.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 5, 2011)

KmH said:


> The D90 is an entry-level camera and lacks the low light capabilities (and other features) needed to do quality low light photography for paying customers.
> 
> Using supplimental (strobed) light is your _only viable_ low light option for customer work if you're using a D90.
> 
> As it is, the vast majority of professional quality photography done for retail customers, in all lighting conditions, is done using off camera stobed lighting, and reflectors for fill.



Really?  Until a couple months ago the d90 was as good or better in low light as any other dx sensor camera available. The d300, which the d90 is derived from was acclaimed for it's low light performance.

The d90 is only about 1.5 stops behind the absolute best available, hardly enough to make quality low light work impossible.


----------



## KmH (Jan 5, 2011)

Yes, really.


----------



## Jcampbelll (Jan 5, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The D90 is an entry-level camera and lacks the low light capabilities (and other features) needed to do quality low light photography for paying customers.
> ...



I agree djacobox372. The D90 is great in low light. It might not compare to any FX bodies but it is still great at what it does!!

I usually shoot around 1600 max. It is more important that you get the exposure right first off.


----------



## Tbini87 (Jan 6, 2011)

Thanks for all the input guys. I am constantly confused on these forums by some people claiming that the D90 is incredible in low light and comparable to a D300 or other DX cameras... and then others claiming that the D90 isn't good enough in low light for paid shoots. We don't have an extra $4k sitting around and have other gear needs anyways (flashes and glass) so I think we are stuck with our D90s for the time being. It sounds like people are having no real problems at iso 1600 if the shot is properly exposed which is great because that is the max we have been shooting it. 

We have some decent glass, and are working on our flash skills. I happen to know quite a few pros in my area that aren't using flash much and are using nothing more than reflectors... so I don't think OCF is a necessity for a portrait or engagement session. We have been working on our flash skills though and are making some progress which has been great. Thanks again for all the input.


----------



## Tbini87 (Jan 6, 2011)

orb9220 said:


> Any complaints of noisy at 800 or 1600 can usually be attributed to underexposure.
> I was very surprised at my first 3200 shot with the tamron 17-50 in an underground tunnel.
> 
> Picture is SOCC and no post NR. Tho Lightroom 3 does a good job at NR when needed.
> ...



This shot looks great given the conditions! You recommend always using LR3s noise reduction with D90 images? Even if you shoot at iso 200 or 400? I thought that using NR generally makes the image softer. And why D90 images, or did you mean all images in general? Thanks for the input and help.


----------



## MrLogic (Jan 6, 2011)

*If* fine detail is important ISO 640 is already pushing things, IMO. Yes, I'm talking about perfectly exposed shots.


----------



## orb9220 (Jan 6, 2011)

As MrLogic points out about details I seem to see a tad bit of noise beginning  at 800 and higher. As you can see on the example I posted at 3200. Some would accept it at that level. Others would want it cleaner.

So yep many of my images get NR in lightroom. As when using slower variable kit type lenses in optimal light then I am usually pushing the lens and camera in lower light situations.

Yes many at 200 are just fine with out it. But I don't always nail the exposure 100% of the time. And as iso climbs so does the degree of NR. I don't consider myself a pro and am still learning. So sometimes my noise in an image has nothing to do with the camera and more with the fault of the shooter Me!
.


----------



## RichinTX (Jan 6, 2011)

Like others I've found that for shots where I know I'll want to apply some sharpening (disclosure: I shoot NEF and use CaptureNX2 rather than let the camera make a permanent record on the jpg) I don't go above 400 as I've found that the grain/noise becomes objectionable to me; however, as has been noted, when it comes to cases 'film is cheap' and getting the shot vs not getting the shot means I'll crank it up if I must.

I'm also the freak on the trails in RMNP with a full back pack and a heavy tripod.  <g>


----------



## flea77 (Jan 6, 2011)

Tbini87 said:


> Yeah, I guess that is my main question for wedding or portrait photogs... what is the highest iso you would use on a D90? I mean we would bump the iso as high as needed to get the shot of course... but I want to know where we should draw the line before calling it a day in low light situations. If we are shooting at 1600 and now have to go to 3200, should we keep shooting or will the images be so noisy that we are wasting our time?
> 
> What noise reduction are you using? Have you had any experience with LR3 NR?


 
ISO 3200 on the D90 is perfectly acceptable in situations where you either shoot or go home without the shot. If the exposure is nailed and you get really lucky with the noise reduction software (I use Topaz Denoise 5), you can pull out a pretty good one. I would never shoot at ISO 3200 on the D90 (except sports where most of the time it is much less critical) doing portraits or weddings if I had any choice at all.

Now the D7000, that is a whole different ball game, 3200 is not a problem.

Allan


----------



## Tbini87 (Jan 6, 2011)

flea77 said:


> Tbini87 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I guess that is my main question for wedding or portrait photogs... what is the highest iso you would use on a D90? I mean we would bump the iso as high as needed to get the shot of course... but I want to know where we should draw the line before calling it a day in low light situations. If we are shooting at 1600 and now have to go to 3200, should we keep shooting or will the images be so noisy that we are wasting our time?
> ...



Hearing that the D7000 can handle 3200 with no problem, and that it has better AF system and body build makes me really want to get my hands on one. We have been shooting a ton indoors the last few days (visiting our 2 week old niece) and have been shooting at 1600 with decent results. I think 3200 is probably a little too high with the D90 for portraits. We have also been getting lots of practice with flash!


----------



## Shiva_42 (Jan 7, 2011)

How about posting an example of the pics you refer to?


----------



## de_tec_tive (Jan 9, 2011)

i had a D80 and i found that with ISO 1600 and a prime lens it would be mostly fine, but with a kit lens it was (obviously) terrible.


----------

