Fast Glass vs. High ISO's

Hi Everyone,

This might be an elementary question to the pro shooters out there, but some clarity on the issue would be great for me. I noticed that David Ziser, wedding photographer from Cincinnati, shoots fantastic low light pictures and typically shoots at F5.6, but at higher ISO's (1600 is typical).

So the question is, If your camera is pretty clean at higher ISO's, why the need for the really fast glass? Seems like you could get away with less expensive glass with high quality camera? Everyone's thoughts are deeply appreciated. This site is awesome!

John

Views: 43

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Erin on August 17, 2009 at 12:42pm
Well, you don't just lose speed with cheaper glass, but sharpness, contrast, increased vignetting, arbitration...etc. Plus, you are going to see increased grain at those high ISOs....my 5d definitely handles high isos well, but there is still more grain than you might want.
Permalink Reply by John Hynes on August 17, 2009 at 12:53pm
Hi Erin,

I should probably clarify just a bit. I'm not talking about really "cheaping" out on lenses. I agree there's a big difference in quality. I guess more precisely I'm talking about say an F2.8-3.5 lens vs. an F1.2 lens.
Permalink Reply by Sara Petty on August 17, 2009 at 2:51pm
David Ziser shoots with a 5D Mark II. So his ISO's go all the way to 6400 (without expansion). The grain/noise for a shot at 1600, is almost crystal clear with the new 5D. But once you get up to 6400, you start to see the noise.

I use my 5D, with my 24 to 70 2.8 Canon brand lens. I subscribe to the theory of exactly what Erin mentioned below..... if you couple the right products together, your images will "sing".

With a 50D, John, you will NOT see the same quality of image shot at 1600 ISO vs an image shot at 1600 ISO on a 5D. It's kind of like comparing a Toyota Highlander to a Lexus RX450. both made by the same company - just one is a luxury car and one is only "kinda" luxurious.

5D = Luxury model. 50D = One step down.
Permalink Reply by John Hynes on August 17, 2009 at 4:49pm
Hi Sarah,

Thanks so much for the input. Of course I do recall seeing many splendid images from you shot with 40D's, but that's another topic. :) Seriously, one last question for you since you've been so kind to help me out. In your wedding work, do you find yourself shooting more than 1600 ISO much?

Thanks again for the time!

John

Sara Petty said:
David Ziser shoots with a 5D Mark II. So his ISO's go all the way to 6400 (without expansion). The grain/noise for a shot at 1600, is almost crystal clear with the new 5D. But once you get up to 6400, you start to see the noise.

I use my 5D, with my 24 to 70 2.8 Canon brand lens. I subscribe to the theory of exactly what Erin mentioned below..... if you couple the right products together, your images will "sing".

With a 50D, John, you will NOT see the same quality of image shot at 1600 ISO vs an image shot at 1600 ISO on a 5D. It's kind of like comparing a Toyota Highlander to a Lexus RX450. both made by the same company - just one is a luxury car and one is only "kinda" luxurious.

5D = Luxury model. 50D = One step down.
Permalink Reply by Sara Petty on August 17, 2009 at 5:37pm
I honestly don't shoot much 1600. It's pretty rare.

With the 40D, I have the 2.8 with IS. So I can hand-hold that one, down to about a 1/15 on the shutter and still nail it. About the highest I go on that camera is 1000 or 1200 ISO.

However, I use the hell outta the high ISO's on the Mark II!!! I will crank that bad boy up to 6400 and it is SAWEEEEET! We did some back-lighting this past weekend of the couple on the dance floor (like David Ziser does) and it ROCKED! It gave me enough to expose the front side of the couple just enough, with enough back light spilling over from the rim to make it sing.
Permalink Reply by John Hynes on August 17, 2009 at 6:21pm
Sarah,

Any chance you can share that image with me? I'd love to see it!

Sara Petty said:
I honestly don't shoot much 1600. It's pretty rare.

With the 40D, I have the 2.8 with IS. So I can hand-hold that one, down to about a 1/15 on the shutter and still nail it. About the highest I go on that camera is 1000 or 1200 ISO.

However, I use the hell outta the high ISO's on the Mark II!!! I will crank that bad boy up to 6400 and it is SAWEEEEET! We did some back-lighting this past weekend of the couple on the dance floor (like David Ziser does) and it ROCKED! It gave me enough to expose the front side of the couple just enough, with enough back light spilling over from the rim to make it sing.
Permalink Reply by Sara Petty on August 17, 2009 at 8:58pm
Sure, no problem. I will post them to my page.
I left them as is. No touching up. That way you can see what it looks like straight out of the can.
Mehhh....it was a little hot on the backlight, but not bad for straight out of the gate.
Permalink Reply by John Hynes on August 17, 2009 at 9:08pm
Wow, that's a really nice image, and like you said, really clean. That's 6400 ISO? Being an old film guy, who just recently converted to digital, it's hard to imagine that kind of quality. Very nice. You've really given me a lot to think about as I search out which lenses to buy. What lens were you using in this shot?

Sara Petty said:
Sure, no problem. I will post them to my page.
I left them as is. No touching up. That way you can see what it looks like straight out of the can.
Mehhh....it was a little hot on the backlight, but not bad for straight out of the gate.
Permalink Reply by Sara Petty on August 17, 2009 at 9:18pm
That was the 5D Mark II with the 24 to 70 - 2.8 attached to it.
Shot at 6400 ISO and 1/25th of a shutter and 5.6. Hand held by using my boobs as a tripod. LOL!
Permalink Reply by Jason Holzworth on August 18, 2009 at 1:20am
with a bigger apeture you can also give that magical depth of field. even if you can shoot at a higher ISO @ f/5.6, and your lens's max ap is 2.8, you won't be able to shoot at 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, etc.

in most situations i like to shoot wide open on the apeture.
Permalink Reply by John Hynes on August 18, 2009 at 9:22am
Sarah, thanks for finally revealing the secret of low light hand held photography to me! That's funny!

Sara Petty said:
That was the 5D Mark II with the 24 to 70 - 2.8 attached to it.
Shot at 6400 ISO and 1/25th of a shutter and 5.6. Hand held by using my boobs as a tripod. LOL!
Permalink Reply by Sara Petty on August 18, 2009 at 9:50am
LMAO! Haha! Wanna borrow my boobs? Wait.....that sounded better in my head.

Jason, I am a HUGE believer in having great depth of field, but I have noticed that if I go all the way down to 2.8 with the higher shutter speeds, I sacrifice the clarity of the subject. So I have been practicing staying at 4.0 to 5.6 to compensate for this. I find that it gives me the same "shallow" depth, (but not at the cost of the subject), especially if you zoom that lens in. Does this make sense?

RSS

© 2012   Created by Ryan Armbrust.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service