Why High ISO Comparisons

[Graham_of_Rainham]

I'm fortunate to have the time to be able to read lots of magazines and forum articles. One that keeps coming up again and again is the use of High ISO Performance in comparing cameras.

Why, because it is one of the few things left that is easy to do and can be represented, often quite graphically, in an image. It's much like the days of old when we regularly saw the same picture of the same boat taken from the same position, showing the centre & edge performance of the latest lenses.

So what do we have now Nothing nearly so crude, we get to see a tiny crop from an image of a building that is shot at ISO 100 and 3200 and then put side by side in an attempt to show how much better camera A is than camera B.

What they seem to have completely forgotten is that ISO is only a very small part of the cameras capability and that by placing so much emphasis on it, they are failing to present a balanced analysis.

It is much the same as Top Gear comparisons, where we see all the emphasis on top speed performance, when in reality few if any will ever use it.

I did a quick survey of the ISO values attributed to quite a few photography magazine images and the vast majority were taken at 100, 200 and a few at 400 (even the night shots). Images taken at ISO 3200 and above were hardly ever featured.

So what is the high ISO needed for, if it's not being used? My main thoughts are, beyond that of the paparazzi outside the night clubs, the High ISO is mostly needed to compensate for the limited light transmission of the big range zooms. Most of these really need to be at f5.6 before the sharpness is at an optimum and at the focal lengths they provide, shutter speeds of 250 and above are often needed.

As for my own photography, I found a really useful bit of software that allowed me to very quickly produce a graph of my exif data; I was unsurprised that over 90% are taken at ISO 100.

I'm embarking on a series of low light images, and want to work with film and digital. I don't expect to be using film much above ISO 800, but the lenses will be fast primes, capable of transmitting many times the amout of light than the digital zoom. I expect to see grain on the film images, so see no reason to try to reduce the equivalent from the digital images.

As always any thoughts are very welcome

[Ian]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

Hi Graham,

I think high ISO is more useful than it ever used to be. Any film pushed much further than ISO 800 was pretty useless and even at 800 you had grain the size of golf balls (OK, I exaggerate, but you know what I mean! )

It may not be an everyday requirement, but we do expect pretty clean ISO 800, and usable ISO 1600, to fall back on when necessary. Some camera owners can now get usable ISO 3200 and higher. It's called progress!

But you make a good point, the vast majority of shost will be taken at ISO 100 and 200. We're talking headroom in regards to high ISO.

I wouldn't avoid a camera if its high ISO performance wasn't spectacular, as long as more general performance was good.

Ian

[ryme-intrinseca]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

I remember reading something about this in a magazine recently. I think someone had written to their 'letters' page to ask a similar question. The response was that most new DSLRs now take great pictures, basically, and when comparing cameras side by side, they are having to look for features that are different between them. Performance at different ISOs is one of the areas where there tends to be a marked difference between different models.

I can't remember which magazine it was, and I'm not sure I'd be allowed to say anyway? Are other magazine names allowed here? Incidentally, I was really pleased that I had a letter published in a mag this week, and they printed my 'snowy' picture alongside it. It's lovely to see photos in print.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

I remember reading something about this in a magazine recently. I think someone had written to their 'letters' page to ask a similar question. The response was that most new DSLRs now take great pictures, basically, and when comparing cameras side by side, they are having to look for features that are different between them. Performance at different ISOs is one of the areas where there tends to be a marked difference between different models.

I can't remember which magazine it was, and I'm not sure I'd be allowed to say anyway? Are other magazine names allowed here? Incidentally, I was really pleased that I had a letter published in a mag this week, and they printed my 'snowy' picture alongside it. It's lovely to see photos in print.

That's really interesting, because I received an e-mail from a magazine editor that said virtually the same thing.

I feel that the reviewers are simply all on the same tired old bandwagon of comparing "A" & "B" with whatever is the latest "in" feature.

Fortunatly, there are however a few exceptions, that actually take the trouble to go out and use the camera, lens or whatever it is they are reviewing and really put it through its paces in real world usage situations and then make the comparison based on overall performance rather than one element.

But, back in the real world, I guess they keep their jobs by writing reviews in ways that cater for the readers and sponsors and as someone told me "A" will always be better than "B", simply "because it is"

Thanks for the reply

[ryme-intrinseca]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

Graham - did you have a letter published in a magazine about this issue recently? If not, there's another Graham with the same question!

In the letter I saw, the editor gave the same reason that I've read elsewhere - that high ISO is one of the main distinguishing features between cameras.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

Graham - did you have a letter published in a magazine about this issue recently? If not, there's another Graham with the same question!

In the letter I saw, the editor gave the same reason that I've read elsewhere - that high ISO is one of the main distinguishing features between cameras.

Yes that's me. The editor rightly did a very tight crop to my waffle, and made a level adjustment to bring out the hi-lights.

I keep on about it, in much the same way as these magazines keep on pushing Hi-ISO performance as though it's the be-all-n-end-all of image quality. In reality it is one element that is only relavant to a minority who want to shoot high shutter speeds in low light.

What I find really funny is that often the colours on images taken at Hi-ISO are all over the place due to the lighting conditions and rarely are they corrected as that is looked on as "atmophere"

I fully appreciate why the reviewers pick this aspect of performance to compare brands, it's a very quick, simple and cheap comparison to make and it's visibly noticable. It is however similar to comparing the top speed of cars, where one will do twice the legal limit and another will do another 3 MPH more. What is always totally ignored is that 95% of the time it's on the school/shopping run at an avarage of 15MPH.

As educated consumers we need to see through this "Hype" and look seriously at the aspects of performance that maters most to each of us individually. The reviewers would do well to understand the tiny minority that they are addressing when they keep on and on concentrating on this single aspect.

One day all sensors will be created equal then they will find another aspect to use ("A" takes 97 images/s while "B" can only manage 95 - Knock at least 2 stars of the rating for that... )

I'd hate to go back to seeing tables of shutter speeds and all the other graphs and data. I'd love to see some real objective testing in real world situations. But what fun would that be when they all end up taking cracking pictures on holiday

Finally, as you may have guessed this is written very "tongue-in-cheek" as having written to nearly all the editors of the magazines, I have accepted that it isn't going to change any time soon (untill the next generation of sensors is available)

However I did get one snippet of a rumour, back from one editor, that pixel count may well give way to better Hi-ISO performance and more importantly colour rendering...



Have Fun

[coupekid]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

haha, very good Graham, however, I think you might be missing the point slightly.

I have a Canon 350D, and I would NEVER use this camera at anything above 400 ISO, as above this the photographs that are produced are unacceptably noisy.

I really wish I had a camera that would cope above that, taking pictures in lower light, such as indoors, parties, and even on darker, overcast days, can be a challenge.

So, why would you not want to see the performance of a higher ISO in review?

I think the important thing to remember Graham, is that it is one aspect of the camera that is gradually improving, and such needs to be compared.

If we take your car simile, one could argue that it could be compared to any number of things other than top speed. 0-60 times? very rarely used, but a nice benchmark of comparison.

So, lets turn the tables then Graham, what DO you think should be measured what comparing two similar cameras at similar prices other than the usual, because, if you compare just two pictures during daylight, the reviews would be pretty boring!

Oh, and lets not forget that the more magazines test, the more the brands will be encouraged to improve!

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

haha, very good Graham, however, I think you might be missing the point slightly.

I never miss a point slightly Completely, perhaps, but never "slightly"

I have a Canon 350D, and I would NEVER use this camera at anything above 400 ISO, as above this the photographs that are produced are unacceptably noisy.

I once put 1000 ASA film in my camera. The grain looked like Zink plating and the colours were all grey pastels. Once you know the limitations of your equipment - Stay within it and use something more appropriate when required.

I really wish I had a camera that would cope above that, taking pictures in lower light, such as indoors, parties, and even on darker, overcast days, can be a challenge.

The Fuji compacts are brilliant for "indoors and parties". Plus it looks "way more cool" than waving an SLR around

So, why would you not want to see the performance of a higher ISO in review?

It's not so much the reporting of the performance as the way they do it. How many more tiny crops of a bit of a building at umpteen ISO setting must we endure, simply because it's cheap to do and fills up the page.

I think the important thing to remember Graham, is that it is one aspect of the camera that is gradually improving, and such needs to be compared.

"Gradually", I agree but so is the rest of the technology. I want to see life altering step changes given this much prominence, not a 2% better than the last model...

If we take your car simile, one could argue that it could be compared to any number of things other than top speed. 0-60 times? very rarely used, but a nice benchmark of comparison.

The first time I tried to use the full power of my car, it produced a big cloud of smoke and made a lot of noise.
A complete waste of money (good fun though )

So, lets turn the tables then Graham, what DO you think should be measured what comparing two similar cameras at similar prices other than the usual, because, if you compare just two pictures during daylight, the reviews would be pretty boring!

This is one of my main points. I'm not interested in reading a review of camera B, when I'm interested and considering buying camera A. If I ever wanted such a review I'd by Which type magazine or I'd go to a good camera shop and try them for myself. I really do not want or need someone else to do the comparison.

I'd really like to see reviewers use their skills and capabilities to produce unbiased, factual, objective reviews. There are people who do this very well. They get hold of the latest bit of kit and they write about it in isolation. Highlighting the improvements, the additional features and the usability, pointing out the changes Good & Bad.

What would be very good would be a considered opinion of what sector of the market may benifit most by having the latest offering.

Oh, and lets not forget that the more magazines test, the more the brands will be encouraged to improve!

I actually think more highly of the camera manufacturers. I believe they develop and make improvements based on their own objective market analysis. I simply cannot see them waiting for the next review of the other makers to see if that is better. They probably already have it in bits in the lab

I very much appreciate your addition to the debate. This is what makes this forum such a fun place to visit.

[Patrick]

Re: Why High ISO Comparisons

I never miss a point slightly Completely, perhaps, but never "slightly"



I once put 1000 ASA film in my camera. The grain looked like Zink plating and the colours were all grey pastels. Once you know the limitations of your equipment - Stay within it and use something more appropriate when required.



The Fuji compacts are brilliant for "indoors and parties". Plus it looks "way more cool" than waving an SLR around




It's not so much the reporting of the performance as the way they do it. How many more tiny crops of a bit of a building at umpteen ISO setting must we endure, simply because it's cheap to do and fills up the page.



"Gradually", I agree but so is the rest of the technology. I want to see life altering step changes given this much prominence, not a 2% better than the last model...



The first time I tried to use the full power of my car, it produced a big cloud of smoke and made a lot of noise.
A complete waste of money (good fun though )



This is one of my main points. I'm not interested in reading a review of camera B, when I'm interested and considering buying camera A. If I ever wanted such a review I'd by Which type magazine or I'd go to a good camera shop and try them for myself. I really do not want or need someone else to do the comparison.

I'd really like to see reviewers use their skills and capabilities to produce unbiased, factual, objective reviews. There are people who do this very well. They get hold of the latest bit of kit and they write about it in isolation. Highlighting the improvements, the additional features and the usability, pointing out the changes Good & Bad.

What would be very good would be a considered opinion of what sector of the market may benifit most by having the latest offering.



I actually think more highly of the camera manufacturers. I believe they develop and make improvements based on their own objective market analysis. I simply cannot see them waiting for the next review of the other makers to see if that is better. They probably already have it in bits in the lab

I very much appreciate your addition to the debate. This is what makes this forum such a fun place to visit.

I agree with almost every word you say Graham, I have been buying AP for some time now (Gave up for years and may again if things carry on the way they are) every week its this camera V that camera, what hogwash.
Its only the reviewers opinion most of the time. My pet hate is video in a DSLR, the reviewers pile on the piont for that, I would take points away.

Black & White magazine review in isolation taking a camera and putting it through its paces out there where it matters.

Patrick