# ISO vs "Takes great low light photos"



## greenx (Jan 5, 2013)

I am under the presumption that ISO was always a camer's sensitivity to light in its contribution to exposure but does that necessarily always correlate with taking great night time photos? Reason why I bring this up is that I always tend to hear that the Sony a77 is great in low light conditions but noisy at higher ISO levels....

Thanks!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 5, 2013)

greenx said:
			
		

> I am under the presumption that ISO was always a camer's sensitivity to light in its contribution to exposure but does that necessarily always correlate with taking great night time photos? Reason why I bring this up is that I always tend to hear that the Sony a77 is great in low light conditions but noisy at higher ISO levels....
> 
> Thanks!



Are you asking if a camera with a larger ISO range will take better photos? Well, I've heard that the A77 gets pretty noisy at ~ISO1600. 

I think the A77 is bad in low light due to the refresh rate of the electronic viewfinder. Go into a camera shop and use an A77. Pan the camera left to right and back again at a moderate pace. You'll see the viewfinder drag and be sluggish. Not a characteristic I'd want to deal with when there's less than favorable light.


----------



## KmH (Jan 5, 2013)

The ISO range specification for a particular camera does not always mean the the entire range produces acceptable amounts of noise.

Note the image sensor ISO performance values from this independent testing lab that uses industry standard testing protocols:
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

You can also check independent camera reviews



> Sony SLT-A77 In-depth Review: Digital Photography Review
> *Conclusion - Pros*
> 
> Excellent 2.4 million-dot OLED EVF
> ...


----------



## greenx (Jan 5, 2013)

So is it fair to generalize poor high ISO settings equates to poor low light exposures/not the best camera for low light photography?


----------



## unpopular (Jan 5, 2013)

aside from perhaps the a99, Sony has always struggled with low light/high ISO. There's some neat things about the SLT, especially for video and maybe high burst/action photography, provided that the newest batch of cameras have fixed the lag issue - but high ISO has never been Sony's strong point.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 5, 2013)

greenx said:


> So is it fair to generalize poor high ISO settings equates to poor low light exposures/not the best camera for low light photography?



No.  The ISO rating refers to the old film sensitivity and is basically used in digital photography to signify how much signal amplification is being applied.  Not all cameras will perform the same when shooting at a given ISO number.  A camera labeled "better in low light" will have a better picture than an other one "less good" when using the same exposure settings.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 5, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I think the A77 is bad in low light due to the refresh rate of the electronic viewfinder. Go into a camera shop and use an A77. Pan the camera left to right and back again at a moderate pace. You'll see the viewfinder drag and be sluggish. Not a characteristic I'd want to deal with when there's less than favorable light.



Total BS.

There is NO lag at all on the a65 and above (Using OLED EVF).  You have either played with a defective camera or have not used one at all.  Using both eyes, one looking through the EVF and the other unaided and there is no lag at all, regardless of light.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 5, 2013)

So much for pushing my Tri-X...


----------



## 2fastlx (Jan 5, 2013)

Kolia said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I think the A77 is bad in low light due to the refresh rate of the electronic viewfinder. Go into a camera shop and use an A77. Pan the camera left to right and back again at a moderate pace. You'll see the viewfinder drag and be sluggish. Not a characteristic I'd want to deal with when there's less than favorable light.
> ...




I agree.  I have both the a65 and a77 and there is practically no lag in the viewfinder.  High iso performance is a different story though.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 5, 2013)

Kolia said:


> greenx said:
> 
> 
> > So is it fair to generalize poor high ISO settings equates to poor low light exposures/not the best camera for low light photography?
> ...



This is not true. As of 2006 the ISO has established standardization for digital cameras. The argument that it's "only roughly equivalent to film" is no longer accurate.


----------



## KmH (Jan 5, 2013)

According to this, since 1998:



> Film speed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> *The ISO 12232:2006 standard*
> The ISO standard ISO 12232:2006[SUP][55][/SUP] gives digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different techniques for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model. *Three of the techniques in ISO 12232:2006 are carried over from the 1998 version of the standard,* while two new techniques allowing for measurement of JPEG output files are introduced from CIPA DC-004.[SUP][56][/SUP] Depending on the technique selected, the exposure index rating can depend on the sensor sensitivity, the sensor noise, and the appearance of the resulting image. The standard specifies the measurement of light sensitivity of the entire digital camera system and not of individual components such as digital sensors, although Kodak has reported[SUP][57][/SUP] using a variation to characterize the sensitivity of two of their sensors in 2001.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 5, 2013)

^^ in other words, for all intensive purposes it's always been a myth that camera ISO was based around rough equivalencies to film.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 6, 2013)

2fastlx said:
			
		

> I agree.  I have both the a65 and a77 and there is practically no lag in the viewfinder.  High iso performance is a different story though.



"Practically no lag" doesn't sounds like "no lag at all and is as clear as an optical viewfinder." 

I rest my case. 

And yes I've used one, thank you very much.


----------



## thetrue (Jan 6, 2013)

So for Sonys, the viewfinder is electronic? How the hell do you focus in low light????


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> 2fastlx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No lag at all


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

thetrue said:


> So for Sonys, the viewfinder is electronic? How the hell do you focus in low light????



Signal is boosted so the EVF is actually brighter in low light than OVF. In manual mode the camera will highlight sharp contrast over the whole field of view, confirming focus. You can also zoom in to any part of the image to further refine your focus.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2013)

thetrue said:


> So for Sonys, the viewfinder is electronic? How the hell do you focus in low light????



If the EVF were perfect, I'd think it'd be easier, actually. You could use electronic gain to see more. If peaking works well in low light, even better, since the peaking indicator would illuminate.

I get the advantages of EVF, I just can't believe that there are no disadvantages in the way that Koila and Skiuer go on about. I used an SLT in Bestbuy for a few minutes, it was better than I expected. But a hybrid, something like a OVF with an HUD-like interface for stuff like peaking, clipping, histogram, artificial horizon, etc, would have been better.


----------



## argieramos (Jan 6, 2013)

unpopular said:
			
		

> If the EVF were perfect, I'd think it'd be easier, actually. You could use electronic gain to see more. If peaking works well in low light, even better, since the peaking indicator would illuminate.
> 
> I get the advantages of EVF, I just can't believe that there are no disadvantages in the way that Koila and Skiuer go on about. I used an SLT in Bestbuy for a few minutes, it was better than I expected. But a hybrid, something like a OVF with an HUD-like interface for stuff like peaking, clipping, histogram, artificial horizon, etc, would have been better.



You can not judge a camera that you only tried for a few minutes in the store. To be fair, EVF is wierd and feels awkward to use at first. But once you get used to it, it makes your photography easier. The advantage you gain with the EVF outweights the disadvantage against the OVF.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

unpopular said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> > So for Sonys, the viewfinder is electronic? How the hell do you focus in low light????
> ...



What disadvantage are you thinking about ?

Other than not being able to see thru the camera when it is off ?

Everybody who tried my camera and didn't know about the EVF had no idea they where looking at a tv screen if I removed all the extra information it can display. 

What advantages does an OVF have ?  It has less information, minimal manual focus assist, it can leak light if using live view with no cover and on entry to mid level camera it doesn't provide 100% coverage. 

Seriously, quoting Sony's EVF as a drawback is a mistake. Blame the high ISO noise and the light weight feel of the body if you want, there is no denying those. But the EVF is a nice addition.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2013)

As I said, I just can't believe there are no disadvantages. I can't believe in low light that there is still no lag. Maybe, IDK. I just have my doubts.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

The only time you would see some lag is when shooting in near darkness. A shoot taken at 1/10 sec f2.8 and 12,000 ISO for example. Comparing with friends camera (Nikon and Canon), the alternative to some lag is almost no visibility at all...  In real life, you wouldn't complain. 

Any other situation, setting my lens to 50mm and looking with both eyes, the images overlap and there is no difference. 

The colors aren't perfect either. But on the other hand, even the RAW file won't capture all of the details anyway. 

It's a different feel to the camera and everybody is entitled to their preferences.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 6, 2013)

Kolia said:
			
		

> The only time you would see some lag is when shooting in near darkness. A shoot taken at 1/10 sec f2.8 and 12,000 ISO for example. Comparing with friends camera (Nikon and Canon), the alternative to some lag is almost no visibility at all...  In real life, you wouldn't complain.
> 
> Any other situation, setting my lens to 50mm and looking with both eyes, the images overlap and there is no difference.
> 
> ...



Your friends must have aps-c pentamirror viewfinders, because a pentaprism full frame viewfinder is big and bright.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

There, comparing the EVF to full frame pentamirror costing 2-3 times more again.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 6, 2013)

Kolia said:
			
		

> There, comparing the EVF to full frame pentamirror costing 2-3 times more again.



One of mine is going for $800. Not exactly 2-3x more. Or even close.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

Used vs new prices now ?

These are strange metrics to compare cameras.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2013)

fanboys. no matter what they're a fan of, they suck.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

And haters will hate...


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2013)

argieramos said:


> You can not judge a camera that you only tried for a few minutes in the store. To be fair, EVF is wierd and feels awkward to use at first. But once you get used to it, it makes your photography easier. The advantage you gain with the EVF outweights the disadvantage against the OVF.



No, I said "*IF* the EVF was perfect". I don't know if the low light problem has been addressed. If the EVF really does measure up, I can certainly see the advantages.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 6, 2013)

Nothing is perfect. Not in most people's price range anyways.

What specific situation do you have in mind when thinking low light lag ? It's an honest question I'm not looking for a fight. I'm trying to see it your way.


----------



## JodieM (Jan 6, 2013)

greenx said:


> I am under the presumption that ISO was always a camer's sensitivity to light in its contribution to exposure but does that necessarily always correlate with taking great night time photos? Reason why I bring this up is that I always tend to hear that the Sony a77 is great in low light conditions but noisy at higher ISO levels....
> 
> Thanks!



To get the best night photos, use a LOW ISO.  Yep, you heard me.  ISO creates grain/noise in the dark areas.  If you are shooting a night scene and there is a lot of dark areas you will have noise.  Turn the ISO down to 100 or 200, use a tri-pod and set a correct exposure.  Who cares if it is a 1 second exposure or 10 second exposure.  For a clean night shot, use the shutter speed to adjust exposures not ISO. (mind you this is for non moving subjects such as sky lines, buildings lit with spot lights, etc.)


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Nothing is perfect. Not in most people's price range anyways.
> 
> What specific situation do you have in mind when thinking low light lag ? It's an honest question I'm not looking for a fight. I'm trying to see it your way.



It's not a matter of specifics. The way I see it is that if you say that there is no noticeable lag at night under partial artificial lighting (a dark street) then without first hand experience the only two things I can conclude is that 1) there is no lag or, 2) your tolerance for lag is less than what I would expect.

Technologically, I know that there must either be significant lag, significant noise or both in order to charge the EVF's sensor sufficiently to produce a picture inside the EVF. This has nothing to do with an OVF. But technologically speaking, because the sensor has a specific sensitivity either gain or exposure must be increased in order to compensate for low light. Unless Sony has created a tremendously sensitive sensor (i.e. avalanche diodes), then noise and/or lag will result to some degree.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 6, 2013)

Not to mention, that in a low light situation - any EVF is going to absolutely kill you night vision...


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Not to mention, that in a low light situation - any EVF is going to absolutely kill you night vision...



That's an interesting point - I wonder if you can tint the display yellow or reddish to address this?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 6, 2013)

Now that would be a nice feature.  I'm not sure if that is a currently offered feature at the moment though...  (But I can't see it really being that hard to implement.)


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2013)

I'm thinking if it doesn't exist, it might as a kledge - certainly you can adjust the color quality of the EVF?


----------



## argieramos (Jan 7, 2013)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> One of mine is going for $800. Not exactly 2-3x more. Or even close.



Are you talking about "used" 5D? There is no $800 Full frame not "used" camera


----------



## argieramos (Jan 7, 2013)

unpopular said:
			
		

> No, I said "IF the EVF was perfect". I don't know if the low light problem has been addressed. If the EVF really does measure up, I can certainly see the advantages.



To be fair, the darker the scene, the more noise you will see in the EVF. But in OVF, the darker the scene, the more unusable it becomes.
Like I said, EVF has disadvantage. Nothing beats the prism OVF, if you only looking at things through it. Everything just look better. But EVF beats OVF in functionality and benefits it gives to the photographer.


----------



## Kolia (Jan 7, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing is perfect. Not in most people's price range anyways.
> ...



Yes some lag and noise in very low light is present. Quite a bit of noise actually. 

In your opinion, how detrimental are those to you in the type of photography you would do at night ?

In my opinion the lag is a non issue to the extend that I don't really react to what I see when timing a shoot. Given the speed of a nerve impulse going to my trigger finger I must anticipate the moment regardless. So even with an OVF being inherently lag less, I wouldn't gain all that much.

It is more important to me to be able to see my subject in order to frame it. The EVF always works for that. 

Honestly, if low light performance were so important to me, I would have gone with a Nikon camera. Not because of the view finder tho. Then again, I would really the ability to have access to all the camera settings in the view finder. How often do you take yours eyes off the action to make an adjustment on your camera ? How many shots missed that way ? How many wrong white balance from a previous setting ? What if you could confirm your settings before taking the shot ?

Long post...  Cheers !


----------



## BuS_RiDeR (Jan 7, 2013)

greenx said:


> I am under the presumption that ISO was always a camer's sensitivity to light in its contribution to exposure but does that necessarily always correlate with taking great night time photos? Reason why I bring this up is that I always tend to hear that the Sony a77 is great in low light conditions but noisy at higher ISO levels....
> 
> Thanks!



Depending on your subject matter of course; a combination of a longer/slower shutter speed, a tripod and a wider aperture will allow you to maintain the lower ISO that you are looking for...


----------



## unpopular (Jan 7, 2013)

^^^^ AND POTATO SOUP!


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 7, 2013)

unpopular said:
			
		

> ^^^^ AND POTATO SOUP!



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmdF1r8rjJ0&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]


----------

