Whirlpool

As per the title "whats wrong with using high ISO", I'm a bit confused as to why most photographers like to give a wide berth from using anything higher than 800 (or even 200!).

I get the whole noise issue but ... if I don't have adequate lighting, what else can I do? Sometimes, noise gives the end result character. Plus, there are some awesome noise reduction plugins available these days.

I don't shoot with a tripod (don't have one). Most of my shots are done with minimal natural light (after work, its dark, bloody winter). I still haven't bothered to juice up my speedlight, and with a wide aperture lens, I get usable results.

So what are your thoughts on cranking up the ISO? Do you do it? Or are you an ISO nazi? Perhaps as a comment, provide what situations you use what ISO (so that I may learn!).

FYI, I have a D90 and from my understanding, it handles high ISO (ie, 3200) rather well. In fact, I have it on auto up to a maximum of 3200.

I really need to get off my arse and read "Understanding Exposure". Obviously from this post, I have absolutely no understanding of the basic concepts.

I would surmise that it depends on the photography that you do, personally I don't do much by way of low-light photography, and I have an external speedlite to use if the light is questionable.

From my knowledge, faster glass is what helps dramatically with low light (f/2.8 primarily), then there isn't always the need to crank up the ISO as high.

Higher iso = lower image quality, loss of detail, something most people strive to avoid.

Of course, getting the shot in high iso beats a blurry shot in lower, but I try to shoot in the lowest iso I can for the situation.

I generally only use high iso for social events where I don't want to draw attention with flash.

Xanthivar writes...

From my knowledge, faster glass is what helps dramatically with low light (f/2.8 primarily), then there isn't always the need to crank up the ISO as high.

Once again my understanding of basic concepts is demonstrated by my following comment in response.

With my 35/50 f/1.8s, I open them wide like a gaping <insert body part>, from my understanding, in order to get the appropriate exposure, the shutter speed needs to be fast? However this provides me with a very narrow DoP and for some shots, I need to stop down to f/8 to get things into focus. The problem is, without a flash, I'll need to increase the shutter lag to allow more time for exposure to hit the sensor? Hence, I crank up the ISO to compensate.

Thats it, I'm buying that bloody book on my break. I tried experiementing in manual mode to get an appreciation of exposure but its when the shutter speed is set at a "slow" rate I get into trouble with blurring. I must have serious resting tremor...

Rynn writes...

Higher iso = lower image quality, loss of detail, something most people strive to avoid.

Excellent response. My question is now answered. Now..for comments.

There are times that you need to go high iso to get the shot. Sure the colours will not be as vibrent, you will not have the dynamic range and the image will have more noise, but at least you get the shot.

I try to shoot in the lowest possible iso but sometimes the light is that low you have no choice. Here are some iso 1600 and iso 3200 shots I have taken.

Xanthivar writes...

faster glass is what helps dramatically with low light (f/2.8 primarily), then there isn't always the need to crank up the ISO as high.

Faster glass really helps in low light. Some of the shots in the above links were shot wide open at f/1.4, no flash and hand held.

You do what you need to do to get the shot you want – subject to tolerance of course. Tolerance to noise, tolerance to blur, tolerance to too much DOF, or too little...

I prefer to stay as low as possible ISO-wise whenever possible, but that's not always possible.

Shoot the lowest iso possible to get the shot.
Noise can be cleaned up somewhat in Post processing. Noiseware is pretty mad.
In camera noise reduction works pretty well on the Canon as well.
I would never deliberately shoot high iso unless absolutely necessary though as image quality will suffer.

I shoot the lowest I can use.. Usually 100-200.. I don't go higher than 400 on my Canon 20D. I'd rather an image be clear than grainy.

What do you shoot?

It depends what you shoot, and where your shots are going to be displayed.
A lot of my work is only ever seen on the internet at 700px. Shooting ISO 1600 on my 20D, or 3200 on my 5d Mk II is fine.
If I do need to print the shots, I tend to shoot lower, but I'd much rather get a shot with a bit more noise, then miss a shot.

aNttNa writes...

It depends what you shoot, and where your shots are going to be displayed.

Hardly any of my shots will be ever printed. They're for my own keepsake than publishing. Most is that they'll make it onto my FB/Flickr account.

Gangrene writes...

What do you shoot?

Those that require higher ISO include food, candid portraits of my partner (get your head out of the gutter), portraits or group shots at company events – that sort of stuff. Basically all indoor stuff with no natural light whatsoever.

Then there are the ebay product shots ... most of which are taken indoors when I'm back from work and lighting really sucks.

.dan!el writes...

"whats wrong with using high ISO"

There are certain situations where High ISO is suitable for the desired result.

I use high ISO when im shooting LIVE bands for results that are grainy. You just cant reproduce the same result post edit. I use large glass 2.8/1.4 for most of those sessions for standard everyday colour n BnW crisp fast shots then open ISO wind to f5.6+ for grain. I have also used this for some intersting late night model shots.

I do use studio flash for the crisp shots and have a light tent for products n food as nothing gives you the same consistent deep results.

I try and avoid high ISO in digital photography because the grain/noise produced by a sensor never looks as good as that produced on film.

Film grain can add character to the right shot. Digital noise generally just looks naff.

my camera handles high noise fairly well even up at 3200 or 6400 but I'll give you all one tip....

if you are going to shoot at the higher ISO's then always try and expose at least a half stop to the right (ie overexpose).

underexposing at high ISO is what causes all the noise.

frame the shot to avoid any highlights that may blow when you increase the exposure and you should be fine.

also... shoot in RAW and use a noise reduction filter in your RAW software (I use Noise Ninja)

Having said that... i'll generally shoot as low an ISO as I possibly can and if I use a tripod I keep my ISO down on 100.

-troy- writes...

if you are going to shoot at the higher ISO's then always try and expose at least a half stop to the right (ie overexpose).

Yeah I'm with you.

I tend to dial in +2/3 stop EV if shooting above ISO1600

bazz.

I don't mind shooting at high ISO at all. The grain can compliment certain scenes/subjects (as has been said) and I find it especially nice in some B&W shots.

I prefer my beloved D80, though, over my current D90 when it comes to high ISO B&W shots. The D80 seemed to give me film-like images IMO.

I use high ISO when I have to, but I don't really worry about it too much.

Open the lens up as wide as you reasonably can, set a reasonably minimum shutter speed, then set the ISO as required to get the shot.

That said shooting ISO800 with 1/4000 shutter is just silly.

TSPhoenix writes...

That said shooting ISO800 with 1/4000 shutter is just silly.

I'm not sure why you say that – mightn't that be exactly what somebody shooting motorsport (for example) might need?

-troy- writes...

I'll give you all one tip....

if you are going to shoot at the higher ISO's then always try and expose at least a half stop to the right (ie overexpose).

underexposing at high ISO is what causes all the noise.

Great tip to pass on.

f4ier writes...

I find it especially nice in some B&W shots.

Some shots just wouldn't be right without a bit of noise.

how much noise there is will depend on the sensor. my 400D would not produce an image i was happy with at ISO1600 but ISO800 was ok.

since moving up to a 500D i've found that ISO1600 is quite usable and even ISO3200 is ok in certain circumstances.

that said i leave my camera at ISO400 by default, as i've found it a good halfway between speed and image quality.

at the other end of the spectrum, i sometimes wish my camera shot slower, like ISO 50 or even ISO25. i shoot mainly with wide open apertures for shallow DOF effects and in broad daylight my shutter maxes out at 1/4000 and that's not always fast enough. to overcome this i've started experimenting with ND filters.

coopers red writes...

I'm not sure why you say that – mightn't that be exactly what somebody shooting motorsport (for example) might need?

Well if you need the 1/4000 then yeah. But doing it when 1/200 would freeze all motion doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

That said I did once leave my camera on Av with ISO1600 (oops) and took some shots at 1/4000 and tiny apertures and the diffraction resulted in an interesting result.

If the subject is static, you can use multiple high-ISO shots and stack them in PS for noise reduction.

If I have to I will use high-ISO, but only if I really must. All my lenses are f/2.8 so that helps a lot. I use a D300 and for feature shoots etc. I have no worries shooting ISO-400, ISO-800 I will use at a pinch. For the drag racing events I cover I will use up to 1600, maybe up to 3200 if I really don't want to use flash.

For personal snapshot stuff I will use up to 3200 without too much of a worry, but will always shoot RAW just to make sure I have the best options in PP.

I have far more confidence in high-ISO now I'm shooting with the D300 over the Pentax K10D I used to have. ISO-1600 in the Pentax is worse than 6400 in the D300.

As for NR I don't go much on the loss of detail. I would rather grain/noise TBH.

.dan!el writes...

I'm a bit confused as to why most photographers like to give a wide berth from using anything higher than 800 (or even 200!).

My general rule is to keep the ISO as low as possible.

I shoot seascapes (mostly in dark or low-light conditions) and models (light isn't a problem).

With the former, I tend to use ISO 100 or ISO 200 at the most. When you're exposing for five minutes, pushing to ISO 200 means you halve that exposure, and in rapidly changing light, sometimes that's necessary.

Other types of shooting I've done (ie, performing bands) have been done with fast glass (ie, f/1.2) in very low light, and I've still needed to push the ISO to 800 or beyond.

I generally don't like using higher ISOs even though I have a camera known for its low noise. I prefer a cleaner image.

Of course, when pushing the ISO means you'll get the shot, push the ISO.

J.

sometimes you just need to get up there with the ISO, I then shoot RAW and do postprocessing

ISO, in the digital word is just another thing to adjust, with trade offs.

high iso – more noise
larger aperture – smaller dof
slower shutter – blur

balance the 3 to get the shot you need. if that means using a higher iso, then do it

At weddings we use up to 3200 (1Ds + 5Dmk2) which are pretty clean. Might even push 6400 on the 5dmk2 if required.

Extremely useful in low light without flashes if we can help it, especially indoor in reception halls.

At 22mpx, noise isn't really noticable on prints and if it is noise reduction software can usually fix that.

I shoot a lot of sports in poorly lit stadiums so high ISO is a must. It's the main reason I went for a D700.

I have never shot above ISO 200. If the lighting isnt there, i wont shoot and i'll come back to it at a better time when the light is available (if i have to). I guess it's part of a habit i have developed, i can't stand any noise in my captures.

† Corpsegrinder † writes...

I have never shot above ISO 200. If the lighting isnt there, i wont shoot and i'll come back to it at a better time when the light is available (if i have to). I guess it's part of a habit i have developed, i can't stand any noise in my captures.

What do you shoot?

J.

I have just started processing my holidays pics from SE Asia- there's over 1000 pics, so I'm picking my way through. It was my first trip with my 450D, which is my first DSLR, and I am a bit shocked by how much noise there is in some shots. I don't have an external flash, so low light shots required higher iso (I generally used 400 & 800 as needed).

As someone mentioned, you're better off getting a shot with noise than a blurry shot, but I'd be interested in any easy processing tips to help reduce the noise.

I learned 3 things;

a) I will upgrade the 450D at some point
b) I should buy an external flash
c) I want faster glass

Des writes...

You do what you need to do to get the shot you want
Thats my phillosophy.

I shoot a lot of different things.
Landscapes, sunrise, sunsets etc. Ill use ISO100, because shutter speed isnt an issue when on a tripod. (i have been experimenting with 200, just to see if there is more range with the colours)

Sports shots, v8 supercars, footy etc. ill generally pick a shutter speed, and just acept that my iso will need to go up. In that case, ill try to stick to a max of 1600 (which is pretty noisy on my D60 and standard lenses) Im just waiting for some sunny days to photograph the local footy.

when it comes down to it, I'll rather have noise which I can post process out, then motion blur, for some situations.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/engyeap/500413135/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/engyeap/474228464/sizes/l/

Johnno writes...

What do you shoot?

I shoot mostly macro and portraits, although i do not shoot sea/land scapes (i lack a wide enough lens) or live action scenarios like sports/bands, but im guessing if the time ever came to venture into these fields i probably will be playing with my ISO.

Muzza81 writes...

Landscapes, sunrise, sunsets etc. Ill use ISO100, because shutter speed isnt an issue when on a tripod.

It's not, no, but if you're shooting at first light (as I tend to do with frightening regularity), stepping up to ISO 200 means your exposure is halved.

The sky gets lighter a lot more quickly than people imagine. And later, if you've ever watched the sun rise over the ocean, it moves quite quickly — you can even see its movement.

If you can shorten your exposures in the dawn light by increasing your ISO rating marginally, you'll have more time.

I did use ISO 200 for some images on Sunday, but then moved back to ISO 100.

The difference between these two ratings would likely be imperceptible.

J.

Johnno writes...

What do you shoot?

he doesn't shoot anything!!

he is obviously to concerned with pixel peeping and worrying about getting perfect images that he doesn't take any photos.

kinda defeats the purpose of photography when you don't take any photos

† Corpsegrinder † writes...

I shoot mostly macro and portraits, although i do not shoot sea/land scapes (i lack a wide enough lens) or live action scenarios like sports/bands, but im guessing if the time ever came to venture into these fields i probably will be playing with my ISO.

For bands in dim conditions, you'll definitely need higher ISO ratings even with fast glass.

Example:

http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=2617721547
(85mm, f/1.2, 1/125th, ISO 800.)

If I'd shot at ISO 400, I'd have needed 1/60th, which is slower than the reciprocal focal rule (not necessarily a problem in and of itself), and would likely have resulted in motion blur.

Another couple of examples:

http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=2096316981
(110mm, f/2.8 (too slow), 1/80th, ISO 800.)

http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=2094882637
(35mm, f/2.8, 1/320th, ISO 1,600.)

I may have got away with ISO 800 for that last shot, but the light levels were varying, and that was a very physical band.

J.

† Corpsegrinder † writes...

I have never shot above ISO 200.

i have never shot outside of f/5.6 to 11 (not sharp enough) and slower then 1/1000 (motion blur)

Johnno writes...

stepping up to ISO 200 means your exposure is halved.

The sky gets lighter a lot more quickly than people imagine.

Good point.
I guess for most of my landscapes, movement is not an issue (no water etc), so a shorter exposure would be just as good, and probably allow more flexibility, and a quicker next shot when i realise the sky is blown out...
I have noticed sometimes, that i can shoot at 200 and see a bit of noise (D60 is somewhat behind the 5Dmk2 in handling high iso :))

brtnboy writes...

he doesn't shoot anything!!

when you don't take any photos

I actually shoot quite a lot, and it's been picking up quite recently. My reduction in visible noise just means it is one less thing to worry about when it comes to post processing, as i personally like my photos to be nice and clear, big deal. I enjoy my photography just as much as the next person, and i have never felt that i've missed out on anything important because i didn't jack my ISO up.

And saying that i "don't shoot anything" is just as childish as me saying that your nads haven't touched your undies yet.

I had to use ISO 3200 shooting my daughter's dance concert. Stage, spot lights. 300mm lens with max f4.0. Had to use shutter 1/300 and above even with monopod.

However, the D700's FF sensor has made the noise so low that I was unable to pick up any artifacts on close inspection.

I think that is one advantage that FF has: low noise on high ISO. It really made a big difference.

On the old D70s anything above ISO 800 is obviously noisy.

2126 Dr Who writes...

I think that is one advantage that FF has: low noise on high ISO. It really made a big difference.

Yep, it sure can.

Theoretically the 5D (original) is less noisy than the 5D Mark II, as the latter has nearly twice as many photosites in the same area, meaning higher pixel density, and thus more noise as a result of heat dissipation.

I suspect it's not quite that simple in practice, though.

Edit: The 5D Mark II is almost sterile as far as noise at high ISO ratings.

J.

Johnno writes...

Edit: The 5D Mark II is almost sterile as far as noise at high ISO ratings.

and we get ISO26500 :D

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3471/3378301943_fde71152ab_b.jpg

Nick writes...

and we get ISO26500 :D

Aye, but it's pretty noisy.

ISO 3,200 was impressive, from what I saw.

J.

I use the lowest ISO setting that will give me the shutter speed and aperture I want to use. I have no problem using ISO1600, but wouldn't use it when I could shoot the scene comfortably with ISO100.

Like all the camera settings, it is something about which you learn its merits and downside and make a decision on what is most approprite for your shooting conditions.

One thing I don't normally do is shoot on auto ISO. I select the ISO setting I want because I prefer to take control of the camera.

PeterB666 writes...

One thing I don't normally do is shoot on auto ISO

+1 to that.
I generally only shoot auto iso when for sports. i choose the highest iso i want to shoot with, lock in the shutter speed, and usually shoot wide open. So if it goes from overcast to sunny, the iso will drop to compensate, rather than just blowing out.

I use up to 6400 ISO on my D700. If you're not pixel peeping and printing 6x4's and 8x10's, it's rarely noticeable. The one big downside to using higher ISO's IMO is the loss of dynamic range, not so much the noise.

Rynn writes...

Higher iso = lower image quality, loss of detail, something most people strive to avoid.

Of course, getting the shot in high iso beats a blurry shot in lower, but I try to shoot in the lowest iso I can for the situation.

+1

I have a D70s and had the pleasure of using a friends D90 under the same conditions during a recent trip to Vietnam. I have noticed noise at higher ISO and as such try and use ISO 200. In my trials the D90 had much better performance at high ISO. However, a point not being addressed is the aperture at which the particular lens performs best. Typically it's about 5.6 to 8 on the kit lenses with these cameras. So I tend to use aperture priority shooting and select 5.6 to 8. BUT, having said that I don't like blur due to shake. So, I am aware of the shutter selected by the camera and if need be adjust. The glass is the key. Since I mainly take photos to remember my travels or to promote my winery I am normally not being rushed. I was looking to upgrade my camera and the D90 gains a solid tick after my week long trial with the added bonus that since it uses SD memory cards, they plug straight into my lightweight netbook for easy editing during travels ie one less attachment to lug around (card reader).

I'm of the opinion that a good exposure / capture outweighs the ISO setting.

For example. When shooting sports indoors. You want a shutter speed of at least 1/500th (to stop the action with very little motion blur). Generally you do this by using the fastest aperture and the mentioned shutter speed and then get the ISO sorted to make sure it's exposing correctly. Unfortunately most stadiums in this country aren't lit particularly well. So 1600-3200 is fairly normal.

Exposure is quite simple if you think of it like this:

Aperture + Shutter + ISO are the 3 forces that determine exposure.

Think of it as a triangle. If you change one of the three, you can change one of the others by the same amount (in the opposite direction) and have the same exposure.

Effectively you're allowing the sensor to be exposed to the same amount of light... The confusing thing with "digital film" is that sensitivity can be changed on the fly rather than having to finish off a roll before changing sensitivity of the film :)

I try to think of it in more traditional terms... When ISO really is setting the sensitivity of the film to light and the other two (shutter/aperture) are settings dealing with the amount of light making it's way through the lens and onto the mirror to the "film".

For me I think a lot of it is history and habits – I don't recall ever having used more than 800 on digital, and do most shooting on base ISO. It's probably the influence of 30+years of shooting film, where 400 was considered fast and you learned to work within the limits of equipment and medium. You didn't have the flexibility of setting colour temperature either, so available light wasn't always the prospect it is now, and I am comfortable lighting a scene using flash.

It's one of those things that can go either way – there's creative uses for high ISO, but it can be readily overused – dynamic range and colour accuracy falls off as you increase ISO as well as noise increasing, so it's best to limit it as much as you can.

.dan!el writes...

Perhaps as a comment, provide what situations you use what ISO (so that I may learn!

I used to get a lot of dropped jaws for my motorsport pics, when you'd tell them it was shot with fuji 100 slide film, handholding a 400mm prime on a motor driven OM-2n and with a shutter of 1/125. When you want fairly shallow DOF and need a slower shutter because you are panning the shot for background blur, the lower ISO worked well. It's easier to work that way on digital with IS set to horizontal pan only than I had with film, so I still use the same basic technique with my E-520 and 70-300.

philh writes...

For me I think a lot of it is history and habits

Mmmmm, memories, Velvia Phil? I had two pathways to choose from re lighting at indoor venues in the old days, the first was a 1a filter as I recall and the second was to colour correct in the darkroom. I preferred the second because the 1a added at least a stop as I recall. Now, with RAW etc its MAGIC. Trouble with hand held panning is you can lose your balance. I nearly fell off a cliff tracking a male frigate bird on one of the Galapagos Islands but was pulled back my watchful wife. But I still worry that little mention is being made of the narrow aperture zone that most zooms operate their best in, or for that matter how much better a fixed focal length lens is. So yes, I agree with the triangle principle of iso, speed and aperture but the quality of the image is affected by noise etc so depending on what camera/sensor being used ISO becomes important. I have also used a stabilized Lumix compact with 10X zoom at night alongside my D70s and the noise on the lumix was much greater even at the same iso, I suspect because its sensor is so much smaller. In the old days the lens reviews would show blow ups taken in identical places or of targets to illustrate lens performance.

.dan!el writes...

I get the whole noise issue but

That's pretty much it

if I don't have adequate lighting, what else can I do?

That's also the other point ;-)

What's worse, to have the shot in poor quality or to not have it at all? Some people who demand a lot from their own performance would say that both are just as bad.

I often take photos of soccer, and at local night games, even 1600ISO @ f/2.8 struggles to give me a fast enough shutter speed. So yeah, the images will look far from professional quality, but at least I can look at it and know I got everything else right in a shot. Practice if nothing else.

Besides, if I put it online it will often look ok.

Sometimes, noise gives the end result character.

Yeah, but I find that usually PS actions to represent film grain often look better, but you are right.

Plus, there are some awesome noise reduction plugins available these days.

True, but that tends to soften the image. If you know what you're doing this will be minimal, but it's still a destructive process

So what are your thoughts on cranking up the ISO? Do you do it?

Most people will advise to shoot at the lowest ISO you can possibly manage for the shutter speed/aperture combination you want. It's easier to add noise than remove it.

I don't shoot with a tripod (don't have one). Most of my shots are done with minimal natural light (after work, its dark, bloody winter)

If you do low light work, get a tripod. a 100 ISO image is clearer than a 400 ISO image – and 1600 images start to suck no matter what camera you use.

Also, a tripod opens up slow shutter speed possibilities. Even just a cheap $50 one will do the job.

FYI, I have a D90 and from my understanding, it handles high ISO (ie, 3200) rather well

My old Canon EOS 300D had less noise at 3200ISO than 3200 ISO film did in grain, so that was considered to be quite good. Compared to today, it's high ISO performance is pathetic.

There's absolutely no reason to use ISO 3200 unless you absolutely have to. Use the lowest ISO you can (unless you're going for a specific effect with the noise, though like I said – adding it in post-processing is better IMO).

CapnGusBloodbeard writes...

There's absolutely no reason to use ISO 3200 unless you absolutely have to. Use the lowest ISO you can

Thats about the height of it.

CapnGusBloodbeard writes...

If you do low light work, get a tripod. a 100 ISO image is clearer than a 400 ISO image – and 1600 images start to suck no matter what camera you use.

I use my dslr as a P&S – its for truely candid shots of friends and family. Most of these take place in dimly lit restaurants where its just not logical to set up a tripod. Having a tripod is just not applicable to my situation.

Besides, if I put it online it will often look ok.

Same here. I don't print. Its just a hobby. I do however want to get the best result possible, and I'm clearly not there yet.

What's worse, to have the shot in poor quality or to not have it at all? Some people who demand a lot from their own performance would say that both are just as bad.

Yup. Might as well have nothing. But that is what the delete button is for.

There's absolutely no reason to use ISO 3200 unless you absolutely have to.

I'm not at a level to gauge what ISO to use. Haven't had much practice and I'm still very much still crawling.

How about on the flip side, what are the downsides/advantages using iso50 on a 5D via iso expansion. I used to think if the situation permits using 50 was better than 100 because of lower noise but does it lower my dynamic range?

Like on sunny days when there's plenty of light and I can afford to go to 50 am I losing out on colour too?

Low ISO is best when you want the absolute best image with no noise/grain and perfect detail but the trade off is you have to use slower shutter speeds or very wide apertures. So depending on the subject it may not actually be feasible to use a low ISO.

If your doing fine art photography or landscapes then typically you want to use the lowest ISO available. Typically you have the greatest dynamic range at low ISO settings.

Edit: This link shows a graph of various Nikon cameras and their respective dynamic range at particular ISO settings as an example.

Baby Milo writes...

I used to think if the situation permits using 50 was better than 100 because of lower noise but does it lower my dynamic range?

yes, it lowers it – you lose about half a stop or so of highlight range. Better to use 100, there's no real difference in noise levels.

CapnGusBloodbeard writes...

If you do low light work, get a tripod.

Tripods only help if your subject isn't moving – much like IS in that regard.

If you find yourself doing lots of photography in dimly lit venues – you're either going to have to get faster lenses, use strobes or bump the ISO. I personally think ISO 1600 is usable on my 50D, but it's not really clean by any means.

I'm not obsessed about noiseless photos – noise can and does add character to a shot depending on circumstances.

.dan!el writes...

I'm not at a level to gauge what ISO to use

Pick the aperture and shutter speed you need (probably the widest aperture, and 1/shutter speed for that side of it), and the lowest ISO that allows you to do that (easy to tell if it's underexposing)

Apart from DoF issues, there is another reason to close the aperture and crank up the ISO.

Some long lenses, my Tamron 200-500 is an example, are quite soft when opened right up at the long end. So f/6.3 at 500mm produces some soft results. At f/8 the lens becomes much better. Now, unless you have the lens molded in concrete there is going to be shake at 500mm, even if you are tripod mounted and using the timer (haven't tried mirror lock up yet), so the only choice is to up the ISO to get a fast shutter speed to counter the shake. My 40D handles ISO800 pretty well and that usually gives a pretty fast shutter speed (1/1000 or quicker) in good light.

Fast lens, slight over-exposing, and NoiseNinja. Problem solved.

The severity of the noise depends on the camera you're using. I've been using Canon 1D Mark II's and Mark III's and the noise isn't crippling even at ISO 1600.

cmontany writes...

Fast lens, slight over-exposing, and NoiseNinja. Problem solved.

With the reduced dynamic range at higher ISO, I would have thought that you generally would sacrifice a little of the highlights to get more shadow detail and go for a slight under-exposure.

Ultimately, I guess it comes down to the subject, but I would rarely try over-exposing a digital camera in low light. Negtive film yes, but digital no.

I stay at ISO 100 as much as possible on my D80.

If I'm handholding in a low-light environment then I will bump it up to maintain at least 1/60s – I can handhold less but people don't often stay still in candid environments.

Forgetting just noise though (which can add to some shots; think live bands), I think dynamic range is the big loser when you push ISO. Losing that range and your highlight detail gives you less to play with in post.