Low versus High ISOs

[devermb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yet another basic photog question: the thrust of advice about ISO seems to be that the lower the ISO the better the photo will be, higher ISO increases the chance of noise, etc. (And on the Leica-oriented sites I see frequent reference to a basic ISO of 160). But are there other reasons why lower ISO is better? Is there for instance less depth or dimensionality to photos at higher ISOs? Are photos flatter at higher ISOs? It sounds as tradeoffs are inevitable, because when taking portrait-studio photos of darker skinned people I have to raise the ISO to enable me to take hand held shots at 1/70 or 1/80 at a minimum in order to avoid shaking the camera.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

You lose some dynamic range at higher iso - whether that is a bad thing depends on your subject matter. I sometimes find the higher iso noise gives the image more plasticity.

For instance, this is an ISO 1600 shot:

[devermb]

Jaap: Thanks! It looks from your photo that dimensionality and sense of space is not flattened at a higher ISO. So what then is the advantage of higher ISOs, aside from exploiting noise to add vibrancy to the picture? Is what remains as an advantage only the ability to expose at higher shutter speeds in lower light situations?

[jaapv]

Umm- yes. Or add the noise you want to have, especially for B&W.

[richfx]

Devermb:

Justin Staley of Leica, in discussing ISO at yesterday's M9 Road Show in NYC, explained that the native ISO of the M9's Kodak sensor is in fact 160. This is what he uses and recommended as ISO setting for most shots, assuming that lens, f/ stop and aperture can accommodate.

Best,

Rich