iseethelightman wrote:
Nothing anyone here has said makes a case for high ISO... I'm a fashion junkie. Has anyone been paying attention to the kind of finished artwork that is getting published?

http://bentrovatoblog.com/photography/b … in-calope/

They take all that IQ goodness from 12+ MP cameras and dumb them down to 60's and 70's high ISO film look-a-likes.

I love the new work, but frankly the same could be done with an old 20D or D80...

you miss the point. just because something is used for x today does not mean it wont be used for y tomorrow. its narrowminded and unrealistic to expect to shoot x forever.  are you so much of a fashion junkie that you will trashcan your camera when the look changes? I think not.  As for saying no one has made a case for high ISO either you have not been reading or you are trolling. Plenty of uses have been demostrated here. you dont have to need something 100% of the time for it to be useful.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

you miss the point. just because something is used for x today does not mean it wont be used for y tomorrow. its narrowminded and unrealistic to expect to shoot x forever.  are you so much of a fashion junkie that you will trashcan your camera when the look changes? I think not.  As for saying no one has made a case for high ISO either you have not been reading or you are trolling. Plenty of uses have been demostrated here. you dont have to need something 100% of the time for it to be useful.

Well I'm still waiting to see those "working" high ISO shots everyone keeps saying they do. Let's see some from these pitch black stadiums, dungeon dark churches where weddings are held etc etc etc.

Pictures of girlfriends, bottles and books don't say sh*t.

Plenty of 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 shots out there. Was doing that with my old 1D MK2n.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Why not!  I shot photos at 3200 ISO recently.

Some old English guy said something once. Something like, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

There were no ulterior motives behind my question. It was merely a question. No need to get defensive about it.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Good. That'll help me stand out.

I absolutely love the low light capability of the Mk III. It even focuses in shockingly low levels of light.

A few examples at ISO 100000 and ISO 25000.
http://stephen-melvin.tumblr.com/tagged/EOS-5D-Mk-III

Thanks. I've been pleased with the camera so far. I feel like I could even sell photos taken at ISO 100K with this camera.

B&W is even better at the high ISOs.

iseethelightman wrote:

Well I'm still waiting to see those "working" high ISO shots everyone keeps saying they do. Let's see some from these pitch black stadiums, dungeon dark churches where weddings are held etc etc etc.

Pictures of girlfriends, bottles and books don't say sh*t.

Plenty of 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 shots out there. Was doing that with my old 1D MK2n.

Old shot, used on camera flash because I had too... Wheels are frozen!



New shot, no flash what-so-ever, relied on the high ISO ability of the camera, much more natural looking and the tires aren't frozen...






/thread

ACPhotography wrote:
Old shot, used on camera flash because I had too... Wheels are frozen!



New shot, no flash what-so-ever, relied on the high ISO ability of the camera, much more natural looking and the tires aren't frozen...






/thread

While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing. So it's kind of strange that people keep trying to overanalyze it's ability (or lack thereof) in that arena. It's a camera aimed at a niche group.

Conversely, the 5DIII seems to have been designed with some high-ISO ability in mind.

iseethelightman wrote:
Well I'm still waiting to see those "working" high ISO shots everyone keeps saying they do. Let's see some from these pitch black stadiums, dungeon dark churches where weddings are held etc etc etc.

Pictures of girlfriends, bottles and books don't say sh*t.

Plenty of 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 shots out there. Was doing that with my old 1D MK2n.

I've done them at those lower ISO's too before.  But now I don't have to shoot wide open to get the shot.  That is where the ISO comes in handy when you need some DOF.

Mike Haftel wrote:

While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing. So it's kind of strange that people keep trying to overanalyze it's ability (or lack thereof) in that arena. It's a camera aimed at a niche group.

Conversely, the 5DIII seems to have been designed with some high-ISO ability in mind.

You are 100% correct, the D800 was not aimed at the PJ's or Sports Photographers, but the Wedding Photographers could very well make use of it as one of the cameras they are carrying. You can also say the same thing about the 5DMk3 also....

The argument has been that people don't need high ISO... Maybe you don't, but some of us do... My personal weapon of choice for Sports and Journalism is the D3s, much faster handling camera...

ACPhotography wrote:

I don't think my has a greenish hue but I do swear my focus point is moving by itself or the selector is more sensitive and I'm inadvertently moving it by accident...

I get that too especially in vertical orientation. I think it's because I am used to shooting with the vertical grip on my D300 but don't yet have the grip for my D800 so I finding it kind of awkward and probably pressing the multi-selector into my face.

ACPhotography wrote:

Old shot, used on camera flash because I had too... Wheels are frozen!



New shot, no flash what-so-ever, relied on the high ISO ability of the camera, much more natural looking and the tires aren't frozen...






/thread

Or maybe you just got better at taking those types of images.

No offense but I personally know many sports/action shooters who take equal or better images with older camera bodies. One of them is still using a 1D MK 2N to shoot hockey games in an arena notorious for antiquated lighting...no flash.

I don't deny that good ISO quality is necessary, I'm just saying the people who seem to talk about it a lot don't show anything that even remotely challenges the camera sensor.

Personally I want camera manufacturers to focus on ISO quality at mainstream levels (100 to 3200). Make those super clean and forget the 12,800 and above crap. My second wish on the list is features..all the new cameras got most of that right:

1) Better AF
2) huge bump in ergonomics
3) Better Video
4) Better metering system
5) Better Durability
6) Dual memory slots

If I were to bitch about anything it would be all the add-on accessories which are still clunky and expensive. For instance, the wireless and GPS modules for the new 5D3 suck...really? these things look like an afterthought and appear ridiculous when attached to the camera. The battery grip still has a wobbly fit from what I can tell.

Just my .02

Mike Haftel wrote:

While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing. So it's kind of strange that people keep trying to overanalyze it's ability (or lack thereof) in that arena. It's a camera aimed at a niche group.

Conversely, the 5DIII seems to have been designed with some high-ISO ability in mind.

Really?

Come out to the country where my cottage is and tell that to all the shooters with rebel bodies attached to 400 - 600mm lenses and Better Beamer setups. They don't seem to have any trouble at all tracking BIF. There is one guy who has his rig with a 40D on a platform in his canoe.

It's just a camera.

ACPhotography wrote:

Mike Haftel wrote:
While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing. So it's kind of strange that people keep trying to overanalyze it's ability (or lack thereof) in that arena. It's a camera aimed at a niche group.

Conversely, the 5DIII seems to have been designed with some high-ISO ability in mind.

You are 100% correct, the D800 was not aimed at the PJ's or Sports Photographers, but the Wedding Photographers could very well make use of it as one of the cameras they are carrying. You can also say the same thing about the 5DMk3 also....

The argument has been that people don't need high ISO... Maybe you don't, but some of us do... My personal weapon of choice for Sports and Journalism is the D3s, much faster handling camera...

Exactly. Your weapon of choice for high ISO is the D3s. Don't buy a D800 and then complain it doesn't do what it was never meant to do in the first place. The right tool for the job in your case is the D3s. There's no "do it all" camera. The D800 is a specialized tool meant for certain applications, of which high-ISO/low-light is not one of them.

iseethelightman wrote:

Really?

Come out to the country where my cottage is and tell that to all the shooters with rebel bodies attached to 400 - 600mm lenses and Better Beamer setups. They don't seem to have any trouble at all tracking BIF. There is one guy who has his rig with a 40D on a platform in his canoe.

It's just a camera.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What does shooting a "rebel body" with 400-600mm lenses in the countryside have to do with anything I said? 40D on a platform in his canoe? So what? Did you respond in the wrong thread or something?

iseethelightman wrote:

Really?

Come out to the country where my cottage is and tell that to all the shooters with rebel bodies attached to 400 - 600mm lenses and Better Beamer setups. They don't seem to have any trouble at all tracking BIF. There is one guy who has his rig with a 40D on a platform in his canoe.

It's just a camera.

Like this???? Except my setup uses a D3s!








The extended ISO ranges have allowed those of us who shoot action and other stuff under crappy lighting to expand our horizons and capture images that we couldn't get before....

This is really a topic all it's own...

Oh and I intend to push my D800 into high iso and wildlife territory so we'll see... For my racing business, I cannot use it unless I lock it into DX mode, it's just too much resolution to have to deal with on my timeline... I don't shoot Jpg, I shoot 12 bit compressed raw and my workflow is not all that much more time consuming then when I shot jpg....

Mike Haftel wrote:
Exactly. Your weapon of choice for high ISO is the D3s. Don't buy a D800 and then complain it doesn't do what it was never meant to do in the first place. The right tool for the job in your case is the D3s. There's no "do it all" camera. The D800 is a specialized tool meant for certain applications, of which high-ISO/low-light is not one of them.

I'm not complaining... I'm actually quite impressed at what my D800 can do at 6400 ISO with the few shots I've taken at that ISO with it... But it's not what I bought the camera for! I bought it for the times when I know I'm going to be printing large or I want/need the extra detail...

Like I said, I do fully intend to take it out on a birding expedition... Not planning to make a habit of it, but it's going to be fun to play with....

Mike Haftel wrote:

ACPhotography wrote:

Mike Haftel wrote:
While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing. So it's kind of strange that people keep trying to overanalyze it's ability (or lack thereof) in that arena. It's a camera aimed at a niche group.

Conversely, the 5DIII seems to have been designed with some high-ISO ability in mind.

You are 100% correct, the D800 was not aimed at the PJ's or Sports Photographers, but the Wedding Photographers could very well make use of it as one of the cameras they are carrying. You can also say the same thing about the 5DMk3 also....

The argument has been that people don't need high ISO... Maybe you don't, but some of us do... My personal weapon of choice for Sports and Journalism is the D3s, much faster handling camera...

Exactly. Your weapon of choice for high ISO is the D3s. Don't buy a D800 and then complain it doesn't do what it was never meant to do in the first place. The right tool for the job in your case is the D3s. There's no "do it all" camera. The D800 is a specialized tool meant for certain applications, of which high-ISO/low-light is not one of them.


I have no idea what you're talking about. What does shooting a "rebel body" with 400-600mm lenses in the countryside have to do with anything I said? 40D on a platform in his canoe? So what? Did you respond in the wrong thread or something?

I don't mind explaining it to ya...though you seem to be the only one not getting the point. (See the post below yours).

Your statement that the D800 wasn't intended for shooting where there might be action or fast movement is nonsense.

"While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing."

Ask any wedding shooter about that. My reference to the "rebel body" was intended to show that most any camera can be used for a variety of shooting conditions in the hands of someone with skill.

Do you understand now, or is more explanation/examples needed?

ACPhotography wrote:
Like this???? Except my setup uses a D3s!








The extended ISO ranges have allowed those of us who shoot action and other stuff under crappy lighting to expand our horizons and capture images that we couldn't get before....

This is really a topic all it's own...

Oh and I intend to push my D800 into high iso and wildlife territory so we'll see... For my racing business, I cannot use it unless I lock it into DX mode, it's just too much resolution to have to deal with on my timeline... I don't shoot Jpg, I shoot 12 bit compressed raw and my workflow is not all that much more time consuming then when I shot jpg....

Right on...never had a problem using the D3s in my wedding work capturing action either.



This shot is at ISO 5600 @ f2 with the old 85mm lens..no flash.

iseethelightman wrote:
Or maybe you just got better at taking those types of images.

No offense but I personally know many sports/action shooters who take equal or better images with older camera bodies. One of them is still using a 1D MK 2N to shoot hockey games in an arena notorious for antiquated lighting...no flash.

I don't deny that good ISO quality is necessary, I'm just saying the people who seem to talk about it a lot don't show anything that even remotely challenges the camera sensor.

Nobody has said you can't take those kind of images with older cameras. The point is that you have more options as to HOW you take those images with cameras capable of better high ISO shots. It would be like shooting in a studio and ONLY having the option of shooting at f8. Perhaps you'd like to take some shots at f4 or f2.8 so as to get some shallow DOF, but because of your specific equipment you aren't able to do so. Wouldn't you be excited about a new piece of equipment that suddenly makes those options available? Now you can make choices based on your stylistic preferences rather than your limitations imposed by the equipment.

That's what shooting with an older camera such as the 1dmk2n is like in lowlight situations. Yes, you can get the shots and you don't really even need to rely that much on superior intellect or skill. You do need to stick to f2.8 or even faster if it's available (like the f2.0 200mm) to shoot action at ISO 3200 or lower. If you want to have more DOF, sorry it ain't going to happen unless you compromise other aspects of the shot such as shutter speed, which then leads to more images with motion blur.

Having the option of quality ISO 12,800 provides the photographer to be MORE of a photographer and put their knowledge and creativity to greater use. It isn't 100% necessary to get the work done, but it is a tool that provides more options, which is what any creative mind would always prefer, right?

Here's an example I shot the other day with my 5dmk1. It was shot at ISO3200, then boosted 1 stop in Lightroom as well as boosted by turning the brightness up to 100 (instead of the standard 50) and it could still use some additional boost in levels. It would be more than fair to call this ISO 6400, it's just that the 5dmk1 doesn't have a setting beyond ISO3200 so you have to push the photo in post instead. This was f4 (I had my 70-200mm f4 with me that day) at 1/320th and in the full res file you can still see some subtle motion blur. This is obviously the most static player on the ice, so there would be no chance of getting clean shots of any of the other players. I find a minimum of 1/500 is necessary for skating players and higher is still preferable. Even if I had brought the f2.8, I would still have been shooting a max of 1/640th at ISO 6400 and would have been stuck at f2.8. The drawbacks being that I'd still be under the shutter speed needed for the faster action, plus I'd be stuck at the shallow DOF that f2.8 provides. Again, another stop of quality ISO would have given me some options either way. I could add some DOF at f4 or freeze motion better at over 1/1000th. I would much rather have those options available that not. This particular day I was just testing my AF after recently getting my camera back from an AF adjustment.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/ … 4v32ld.jpg

curiosa des yeux wrote:

Nobody has said you can't take those kind of images with older cameras. The point is that you have more options as to HOW you take those images with cameras capable of better high ISO shots. It would be like shooting in a studio and ONLY having the option of shooting at f8. Perhaps you'd like to take some shots at f4 or f2.8 so as to get some shallow DOF, but because of your specific equipment you aren't able to do so. Wouldn't you be excited about a new piece of equipment that suddenly makes those options available? Now you can make choices based on your stylistic preferences rather than your limitations imposed by the equipment.

That's what shooting with an older camera such as the 1dmk2n is like in lowlight situations. Yes, you can get the shots and you don't really even need to rely that much on superior intellect or skill. You do need to stick to f2.8 or even faster if it's available (like the f2.0 200mm) to shoot action at ISO 3200 or lower. If you want to have more DOF, sorry it ain't going to happen unless you compromise other aspects of the shot such as shutter speed, which then leads to more images with motion blur.

Having the option of quality ISO 12,800 provides the photographer to be MORE of a photographer and put their knowledge and creativity to greater use. It isn't 100% necessary to get the work done, but it is a tool that provides more options, which is what any creative mind would always prefer, right?

Here's an example I shot the other day with my 5dmk1. It was shot at ISO3200, then boosted 1 stop in Lightroom as well as boosted by turning the brightness up to 100 (instead of the standard 50) and it could still use some additional boost in levels. It would be more than fair to call this ISO 6400, it's just that the 5dmk1 doesn't have a setting beyond ISO3200 so you have to push the photo in post instead. This was f4 (I had my 70-200mm f4 with me that day) at 1/320th and in the full res file you can still see some subtle motion blur. This is obviously the most static player on the ice, so there would be no chance of getting clean shots of any of the other players. I find a minimum of 1/500 is necessary for skating players and higher is still preferable. Even if I had brought the f2.8, I would still have been shooting a max of 1/640th at ISO 6400 and would have been stuck at f2.8. The drawbacks being that I'd still be under the shutter speed needed for the faster action, plus I'd be stuck at the shallow DOF that f2.8 provides. Again, another stop of quality ISO would have given me some options either way. I could add some DOF at f4 or freeze motion better at over 1/1000th. I would much rather have those options available that not. This particular day I was just testing my AF after recently getting my camera back from an AF adjustment.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/ … 4v32ld.jpg

Missed my point again...I have several camera bodies both Nikon and Canon with very good ISO performance. Got nothing against it.

I just don't see the calls for high ISO here from people who largely stick to ISO 800 or lower. Look at any of the portfolio from the people who post here. Guaranteed most of the work is shot way below 3200 but yet they carry on about which camera holds detail at 12,800.

ACPhotography wrote:
I'm not complaining... I'm actually quite impressed at what my D800 can do at 6400 ISO with the few shots I've taken at that ISO with it... But it's not what I bought the camera for! I bought it for the times when I know I'm going to be printing large or I want/need the extra detail...

Like I said, I do fully intend to take it out on a birding expedition... Not planning to make a habit of it, but it's going to be fun to play with....

By "you" I was speaking of the proverbial you. Not you, specifically. I didn't mean you, personally, were complaining. Just that there are many people who are.

iseethelightman wrote:
I don't mind explaining it to ya...though you seem to be the only one not getting the point. (See the post below yours).

Your statement that the D800 wasn't intended for shooting where there might be action or fast movement is nonsense.

"While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing."

Ask any wedding shooter about that. My reference to the "rebel body" was intended to show that most any camera can be used for a variety of shooting conditions in the hands of someone with skill.

Do you understand now, or is more explanation/examples needed?

No, I get what you're saying. And Nikon disagrees.

According to them, the D800 was designed, built, and marketed for something specific—studio and landscape. It is not intended to be a camera for sports, wildlife, and photojournalism. That is 100% accurate. If you want that, get a different camera that excels in those areas. Like the D4.

I can hammer a nail with a rock if I wanted to. But a hammer does the job much better. The D800 can be used for whatever you want. But that doesn't mean there aren't other cameras better suited to the task at hand.

If you disagree, take it up with Nikon, not me.

I just find it humorous that people are complaining about the D800's ISO capability when it's a studio and landscape camera, first and foremost. It's not a jack of all trades, it's a specialized tool.

Mike Haftel wrote:

ACPhotography wrote:
I'm not complaining... I'm actually quite impressed at what my D800 can do at 6400 ISO with the few shots I've taken at that ISO with it... But it's not what I bought the camera for! I bought it for the times when I know I'm going to be printing large or I want/need the extra detail...

Like I said, I do fully intend to take it out on a birding expedition... Not planning to make a habit of it, but it's going to be fun to play with....

By "you" I was speaking of the proverbial you. Not you, specifically. I didn't mean you, personally, were complaining. Just that there are many people who are.



No, I get what you're saying. And Nikon disagrees.

According to them, the D800 was designed, built, and marketed for something specific—studio and landscape. It is not intended to be a camera for sports, wildlife, and photojournalism. That is 100% accurate. If you want that, get a different camera that excels in those areas. Like the D4.

I can hammer a nail with a rock if I wanted to. But a hammer does the job much better. The D800 can be used for whatever you want. But that doesn't mean there aren't other cameras better suited to the task at hand.

If you disagree, take it up with Nikon, not me.

I just find it humorous that people are complaining about the D800's ISO capability when it's a studio and landscape camera, first and foremost. It's not a jack of all trades, it's a specialized tool.

Canon & Nikon say a lot of things...

Call me a radical, but I prefer to think for myself.

iseethelightman wrote:

Missed my point again...I have several camera bodies both Nikon and Canon with very good ISO performance. Got nothing against it.

I just don't see the calls for high ISO here from people who largely stick to ISO 800 or lower. Look at any of the portfolio from the people who post here. Guaranteed most of the work is shot way below 3200 but yet they carry on about which camera holds detail at 12,800.

This is a model site, so of course the portfolios will demonstrate lower ISO shots. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not displaying my corporate event photos in my modelmayhem portfolio and why would I? I don't display my sports photography in my modelmayhem portfolio. I don't display my architectural photography in my modelmayhem portfolio. I don't display my corporate portraits in my modelmayhem portfolio. I don't display my tabletop product photography in my modelmayhem portfolio. I could go on and on, truly. You can't judge what is useful to people by what you see in their portfolios. If you judged what is useful to me by that, you'd assume that all I really need is my film camera since I apparently only shoot black and white.


Many of the photographers here on MM are not working professionals and may only shoot models for the most part. Most of those who are working professionals likely don't make their living shooting models. Judging what is useful to others based on their MM profile is ridiculous.

curiosa des yeux wrote:

This is a model site, so of course the portfolios will demonstrate lower ISO shots. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not displaying my corporate event photos in my modelmayhem portfolio and why would I? I don't display my sports photography in my modelmayhem portfolio. I don't display my architectural photography in my modelmayhem portfolio. I don't display my corporate portraits in my modelmayhem portfolio. I don't display my tabletop product photography in my modelmayhem portfolio. I could go on and on, truly. You can't judge what is useful to people by what you see in their portfolios. If you judged what is useful to me by that, you'd assume that all I really need is my film camera since I apparently only shoot black and white.


Many of the photographers here on MM are not working professionals and may only shoot models for the most part. Most of those who are working professionals likely don't make their living shooting models. Judging what is useful to others based on their MM profile is ridiculous.

umm dude, many people here have links to their personal websites/blogs. You are aware of that right?

iseethelightman wrote:

Or maybe you just got better at taking those types of images.

No offense but I personally know many sports/action shooters who take equal or better images with older camera bodies. One of them is still using a 1D MK 2N to shoot hockey games in an arena notorious for antiquated lighting...no flash.

I don't deny that good ISO quality is necessary, I'm just saying the people who seem to talk about it a lot don't show anything that even remotely challenges the camera sensor.

Personally I want camera manufacturers to focus on ISO quality at mainstream levels (100 to 3200). Make those super clean and forget the 12,800 and above crap. My second wish on the list is features..all the new cameras got most of that right:

1) Better AF
2) huge bump in ergonomics
3) Better Video
4) Better metering system
5) Better Durability
6) Dual memory slots

If I were to bitch about anything it would be all the add-on accessories which are still clunky and expensive. For instance, the wireless and GPS modules for the new 5D3 suck...really? these things look like an afterthought and appear ridiculous when attached to the camera. The battery grip still has a wobbly fit from what I can tell.

Just my .02

I've always felt that the camera manufacturers aren't that interested in making decently-featured add-ons for the cameras.  For instance, there is no reason why Canon couldn't make an app for the iPhone or Android systems to allow them to function as GPS/wireless modules that are easy to set up.  They could create one and sell many more copies of it AND make more profit than they could ever sell of the GPS or the Wireless module.

Jim Lafferty wrote:
This is nice and all, but what I care about is if it's close to or better (accounting for resolution) than the D3s at 6400. I think it is!

Good to know that you care about stuff that really matters when it comes to the bottom line instead of obsessing about trivia that the customer/client (in all but extreme cases) couldn't care less about).

The D4, D3s, D800 and Canon 5d3 are for most *practical* purposes are on par when it comes to high iso performance... you know, the ISOs that people are most likely to actually use in the course of professional photography 

But for those who like combing over files at 100%.... rock on!  ((chuckle))

(friendly poke in ribs to those that like that kind of thing)

iseethelightman wrote:

umm dude, many people here have links to their personal websites/blogs. You are aware of that right?

And from that, apparently, you have determined that no one could possibly use a camera that produces quality high ISO results. There just aren't any photographers on MM that REALLY can use such a camera. Except you of course, because that is the kind of camera you have purchased in the d3s. So, YOU can use high ISOs as you've demonstrated by your wedding example, but no one else in the forums should or has a need to. No one else finds themselves in such situations from time to time, so discussion of high ISO performance of new cameras is clearly a waste of everyone's time. I bow to your high ISO might and will not be discussing it further with you because I clearly have no use for it anyways.

curiosa des yeux wrote:

And from that, apparently, you have determined that no one could possibly use a camera that produces quality high ISO results. There just aren't any photographers on MM that REALLY can use such a camera. Except you of course, because that is the kind of camera you have purchased in the d3s. So, YOU can use high ISOs as you've demonstrated by your wedding example, but no one else in the forums should or has a need to. No one else finds themselves in such situations from time to time, so discussion of high ISO performance of new cameras is clearly a waste of everyone's time. I bow to your high ISO might and will not be discussing it further with you because I clearly have no use for it anyways.

LOL ya...take your ball and run home.

Following your own POV, the people who would use what is considered to be high ISO (3200 and above) wouldn't be posting that work here...i.e. sports, photojournalists, wedding photographers etc.

So then the question becomes (again from your POV) who these people are that are worrying about which camera holds more detail at ISO 12,800?

My guess at that answer: Pixel peepers who care more about gear status and less about capturing a moment/a vibe in time. BTW my 5D3 just got here by way of courier.

iseethelightman wrote:


Missed my point again...I have several camera bodies both Nikon and Canon with very good ISO performance. Got nothing against it.

I just don't see the calls for high ISO here from people who largely stick to ISO 800 or lower. Look at any of the portfolio from the people who post here. Guaranteed most of the work is shot way below 3200 but yet they carry on about which camera holds detail at 12,800.

I think your reasoning is a bit off course.  The profiles on MM won't include many sky high iso shots because such performance isn't usually needed when shooting glamour/fashion/beauty, etc..  however, regardless of what you see in profiles, the fact remains that more people make money shooting portraits, events/weddings than they do shooting glam/fashion, which means it's reasonable for a lot of MMers to care about high iso performance.

It is very common for those shooting a 5d2, D3s, D700, etc.. to use iso 3200.  The reason why a lot of people are interested in how high iso performance is increasing is because *reasonable* photographers are interested in the max *useable* iso that they can use for paid work.  I like sticking mainly to iso 3200 and below, but iso 12,800 is at least a viable option in some (definitely not all) instances, especially when converting to blk and wht.

Just think, back in 2005, generally speaking, 800 iso was about the highest you'd want to go shooting a wedding.  1600 iso was sticking your neck out... and anything above that was suicide.  Cameras have come a long way considering what iso is actually useable on a regular basis today without having to sweat.  That's what it's all about

NC Art Photos wrote:

I've always felt that the camera manufacturers aren't that interested in making decently-featured add-ons for the cameras.  For instance, there is no reason why Canon couldn't make an app for the iPhone or Android systems to allow them to function as GPS/wireless modules that are easy to set up.  They could create one and sell many more copies of it AND make more profit than they could ever sell of the GPS or the Wireless module.

+1

They should introduce a wireless device for under $100. Eye Fi did it and sold lot's to people who like shooting "tethered". No clunky attachment required. My only beef was that it was in SD format..something which isn't as critical now that the 5D3 has dual slots.

Mike Haftel wrote:

ACPhotography wrote:
I'm not complaining... I'm actually quite impressed at what my D800 can do at 6400 ISO with the few shots I've taken at that ISO with it... But it's not what I bought the camera for! I bought it for the times when I know I'm going to be printing large or I want/need the extra detail...

Like I said, I do fully intend to take it out on a birding expedition... Not planning to make a habit of it, but it's going to be fun to play with....

By "you" I was speaking of the proverbial you. Not you, specifically. I didn't mean you, personally, were complaining. Just that there are many people who are.



No, I get what you're saying. And Nikon disagrees.

According to them, the D800 was designed, built, and marketed for something specific—studio and landscape. It is not intended to be a camera for sports, wildlife, and photojournalism. That is 100% accurate. If you want that, get a different camera that excels in those areas. Like the D4.

I can hammer a nail with a rock if I wanted to. But a hammer does the job much better. The D800 can be used for whatever you want. But that doesn't mean there aren't other cameras better suited to the task at hand.

If you disagree, take it up with Nikon, not me.

I just find it humorous that people are complaining about the D800's ISO capability when it's a studio and landscape camera, first and foremost. It's not a jack of all trades, it's a specialized tool.

Mike Haftel wrote:

ACPhotography wrote:
I'm not complaining... I'm actually quite impressed at what my D800 can do at 6400 ISO with the few shots I've taken at that ISO with it... But it's not what I bought the camera for! I bought it for the times when I know I'm going to be printing large or I want/need the extra detail...

Like I said, I do fully intend to take it out on a birding expedition... Not planning to make a habit of it, but it's going to be fun to play with....

By "you" I was speaking of the proverbial you. Not you, specifically. I didn't mean you, personally, were complaining. Just that there are many people who are.



No, I get what you're saying. And Nikon disagrees.

According to them, the D800 was designed, built, and marketed for something specific—studio and landscape. It is not intended to be a camera for sports, wildlife, and photojournalism. That is 100% accurate. If you want that, get a different camera that excels in those areas. Like the D4.

I can hammer a nail with a rock if I wanted to. But a hammer does the job much better. The D800 can be used for whatever you want. But that doesn't mean there aren't other cameras better suited to the task at hand.

If you disagree, take it up with Nikon, not me.

I just find it humorous that people are complaining about the D800's ISO capability when it's a studio and landscape camera, first and foremost. It's not a jack of all trades, it's a specialized tool.

I agree with you.  All the Hooplah over the D800's iso permanence is basically utter nonsense in my mind.  The obvious is simple- the iso performance of the D800 is close enough to any other recent body to not obsess with it.  I think Nikon hit a home run.  I shoot both brands (Nikon/Canon) and think the D800 is a better buy overall compared to the latest Canon offering.  That said, if my work benefitted from a higher frame rate, I'd go with the Canon... which gives a higher fps w/out an angle of view reduction.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
I think your reasoning is a bit off course.  The profiles on MM won't include many sky high iso shots because such performance isn't usually needed when shooting glamour/fashion/beauty, etc..  however, regardless of what you see in profiles, the fact remains that more people make money shooting portraits, events/weddings than they do shooting glam/fashion, which means it's reasonable for a lot of MMers to care about high iso performance.

It is very common for those shooting a 5d2, D3s, D700, etc.. to use iso 3200.  The reason why a lot of people are interested in how high iso performance is increasing is because *reasonable* photographers are interested in the max *useable* iso that they can use for paid work.  I like sticking mainly to iso 3200 and below, but iso 12,800 is at least a viable option in some (definitely not all) instances, especially when converting to blk and wht.

Just think, back in 2005, generally speaking, 800 iso was about the highest you'd want to go shooting a wedding.  1600 iso was sticking your neck out... and anything above that was suicide.  Cameras have come a long way considering what iso is actually useable on a regular basis today without having to sweat.  That's what it's all about

Hmm dunno about all that. As for 2005 weddings, more than 20 photographers in my Rolodex were shooting 5D classics at 1600 and pushing 1 stop. They understood that pixel peeping isn't where the money is at. Capturing a great moment and printing it large and selling it to a client, or even better..their own portfolios to be shown. BTW noise hardly registers in a proper print all the way up to 3200 depending on size.

Fred Greissing wrote:

14 bit or 16 bit ... that is the "container". It does not mean that it is filled using all the 16,384 steps per channel.

From my experience with both 14 bit and 16 bit files the difference is not huge, but it is there. However a very good film scan at 16 bit better than the best 16 bit file from a camera CCD.

It's a straight up scale in information. .jpg= 256 colors. 12 bit= 4096 colors per channel. I haven't done the math for 14 or 16 but it's a huge jump in information.

iseethelightman wrote:
Canon & Nikon say a lot of things...

Call me a radical, but I prefer to think for myself.

Nikon: "We designed the D800 for studio and landscape use."

You: "Screw you! I do what I want!"

Nikon: "The D800 was built with high resolution and high dynamic range at lower ISO settings in mind."

You: "WHY DOESN'T IT PERFORM WELL AT HIGH ISO!"

Nikon: "Well, we have the D4 as well. We designed it for high-ISO performance as well as a faster frame rate for those shooting sports, wildlife, low-light, and photojournalism."

You: "THE D800 SUCKS AT HIGH ISO!"

Nikon: "Right... because it's not meant for high-ISO... oh nevermind..."

Mike Haftel wrote:

While this is a good demonstration as to why someone would need good high-ISO performance, the D800 was not designed, built, and marketed as a tool aimed at those requiring that kind of thing. So it's kind of strange that people keep trying to overanalyze it's ability (or lack thereof) in that arena. It's a camera aimed at a niche group.

Conversely, the 5DIII seems to have been designed with some high-ISO ability in mind.

Where have you seen anything from Nikon saying who the intend the D800 for?

The car shots would look great with ambient light at 36 MP, maybe even in a wall blown up to life sized.


If a camera is infact marketed towards as specific group, it's marketed towards a a thought process, not a genre.

"Wedding photos" has no meaning other than context. Ambient light or flash has a meaning.

iseethelightman wrote:

LOL ya...take your ball and run home.

Following your own POV, the people who would use what is considered to be high ISO (3200 and above) wouldn't be posting that work here...i.e. sports, photojournalists, wedding photographers etc.

So then the question becomes (again from your POV) who these people are that are worrying about which camera holds more detail at ISO 12,800?

My guess at that answer: Pixel peepers who care more about gear status and less about capturing a moment/a vibe in time. BTW my 5D3 just got here by way of courier.

Why don't you just cut to the chase an make the point you want to make. It sounds like you're just spewing the same old cliche thatit's the photographer not the camera that makes the photo - with the subtext being you're one of the photographers who can make better photos than everyone else with any gear. While I haven't looked at your port and therefore have no opinion on whether that's true, congratulations on getting to the point where you believe it is.


As far as what you've actually written, what you've demonstrated is a complete lack of common sense and critical thinking. You're making intentionally antagonistic smart ass comments about people's lack of high ISO photos in their ports. The thing is, everyone is excited about having a tool that now allows them to shoot that way. It's absurd and ignorant of the realities of time to think that people should already have a port full of photos with ISO images prior to have the tools the need to make them. Plus, some of the people here are looming at images prior to buying a camera that will allow them to shoot things they haven't been able to shoot.

One thing pretty much no one talks about is balancing flash and ambient when the flash is far too powerful. We have HSS for when the sun is to powerful, but there's no inverse for handheld when the flash is too powerful.

Flashes are designed for use in the 100-400 range and 1600 for bouncing. It's not easy to use a flash above that unless you stop down so much that you're better off at a low ISO.

Images that work at 1600 with a flash, need more than one stop of ISO to be shot without a flash. Rally it's more like 3 stops, so now that 12,800 is starting to be viable, you've got people talking about the possibilities that it opens for the future, and that is why they don't have ports filled with photos at high ISOs already.

I don't know whether this is all over your head or your grasp it all and are choosing to be insulting, but it seems that you don't have the self-awareness to understand how you're coming across. If you do, then you're trolling. Either way, we'd all be better off if you'd make your point once and be done.

Maybe start a thread called "why do you care about high ISO when you don't use it" and then people who want to debate a moot point can do so on topic.

Mike Haftel wrote:

Nikon: "We designed the D800 for studio and landscape use."

You: "Screw you! I do what I want!"

Nikon: "The D800 was built with high resolution and high dynamic range at lower ISO settings in mind."

You: "WHY DOESN'T IT PERFORM WELL AT HIGH ISO!"

Nikon: "Well, we have the D4 as well. We designed it for high-ISO performance as well as a faster frame rate for those shooting sports, wildlife, low-light, and photojournalism."

You: "THE D800 SUCKS AT HIGH ISO!"

Nikon: "Right... because it's not meant for high-ISO... oh nevermind..."

LOL lame...

Where did you see something from me saying that the D800 sucks at high ISO?

I used my 1D series bodies for everything for several years despite the fact that Canon had the 5D and 1Ds series.

I can see that you are particularly susceptible to marketing messages...my granny willed me some land in Florida that grandad got from one of his clients...it sucks for anything but growing grass. Great view though, wanna buy it?