Highest ISO without grain?

[Angus_Wolf]

how high you can set your ISO before your image becomes Grainy?
 

[adwb]

how long is a piece of string?

 

it depends on the camera make and  model, the image subject and the distance viewed, as well as your eye.

 

A Building will not show grain/noise like a clear blue sky for example.

 

on my A7r2  iso 6400 is about the max i will use normally.

[joshinthecity]

It's not an easy question to answer..

But yes, as adwb suggested. 6400. If you're shooting a body with IBIS, you would very rarely need to go above that.

 

That said, shoot B&W and embrace the grain when necessary.

[GhostWalker]

I've found that with the aR7II, the amount of noise (after post, and for a given histogram) stays about the same up to ISO 640, then it noticeably increases, but stays at that plateau through at least ISO 8,000 (I haven't tested with any rigour higher than that...).

 

For practical purposes, that means that for shots in low light I prefer to shoot at (or below) 640 and push a couple of stops in post rather than using the range from 800 to about 3200. However by the time the conditions require pushing three or more stops in post, there's not appreciable advantage and it makes as much sense to shoot in the ISO 6,400 to 8,000 range.

[christer]

I've found that with the aR7II, the amount of noise (after post, and for a given histogram) stays about the same up to ISO 640, then it noticeably increases, but stays at that plateau through at least ISO 8,000 (I haven't tested with any rigour higher than that...).

 

For practical purposes, that means that for shots in low light I prefer to shoot at (or below) 640 and push a couple of stops in post rather than using the range from 800 to about 3200. However by the time the conditions require pushing three or more stops in post, there's not appreciable advantage and it makes as much sense to shoot in the ISO 6,400 to 8,000 range.

 

 

This agrees with the test results in Kasson's blog.

 

http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20160610  (You will have to search for the relevant posts yourself. ISO-less is the key word))

 

And yes, I too set  ISO to 640. If exposure times for 640 get too long, then I underexpose and push in post to compensate.

 

If that is not enough, then I set ISO to 6400 - and underexpose and push in post as above.

[Golem]

how long is a piece of string?

 

it depends on the camera make and  model, the image subject and

the distance viewed, as well as your eye.

 

A Building will not show grain/noise like a clear blue sky for example.

 

on my A7r2  iso 6400 is about the max i will use normally.

  

What adwb said. All of it. plus one more thing: exposure. 

  

For a given ISO, at least for the higher ISOs, if you slightly

under expose, grain looks a lot more obvious. The opposite

also holds true, and so is a good thing, as long as it doesn't

blow out a lotta highlights. Thus the value of dynamic range.

I keep my DRO maxed out [at 5] all the time.

  

When adwb says that one of the variables is "image subject"

you should be taking two separate advices from that. "Image

subject" could refer to the dynamic range within the subject.

A scene doesn't really have just one meter reading. This is

why I remind that exposure also affects grain. Another way

"image subject" affects grain is simply what adwb pointed

out, in mentioning "blue sky" and such. Some subjects hide

grain and some emphasize it.  

 

Blue sky shows grain MORE than a brick building. That is all

about texture hiding grain. But, blue sky shows grain LESS

than a night sky. That is all about exposure affecting just how

much grain is generated. Most subject scenes contain various

textures, and various exposure levels [scene's dynamic range].

 

If your areas of darkness are small, and display a bit of texture

[in focus] that is less trouble than a night sky, or a large out of

focus deep dark shadow area in your background.

  

I think I have about the same eye for grain as adwb, since he

personally caps his ISO at 6400 using an a7R-II. I use a basic

a7-II and my personal cap is 3200, 1 EV slower. Technically,

that is the acknowledged difference between our cameras, so

I think we both apply the same standard when seeing grain.   

[Guest Peter Kelly]

I agree with 'adwb' to an extent, as it's a question almost without an answer; it depends upon a subjective idea of 'grainy'.

 

Shooting with limits implies people would never accept a result using settings above that level, but I think it more important as to what you need to photograph.

I have absolutely no qualms in using up to 25600. I'll go higher if necessary, but it is simply a case of having to get a shot even though the limitations imposed mean you have to compromise somewhere.

 

If there is no way of getting extra light, ultimately, you either don't get everything in focus, risk motion blur, accept a degree of grain, or don't get the picture at all. Given the ability of current software and cameras, I'll take the grain.

[Golem]

... .. . .  . .. ... . .... .. .. .... .. . . . . ...... . . . . . .. . .

 

If there is no way of getting extra light, ultimately, you either don't get everything

in focus, risk motion blur, accept a degree of grain, or don't get the picture at all.

Given the ability of current software and cameras, I'll take the grain.

    

P Kelly steers you down the right path. 

 

Here's ISO 3200 from a current model, but basic version, Sony. IOW

it's not old tech, but it's not a "low-noise-see-in-the-dark" state of the

art deluxe version. I couldn't drop to lower ISO as I was already wide

open at 1/50 sec and handholding around 100mm end of a midrange

zoom [so wide open varies f/4 to f/4.5]. The pics make the room look

well lit but 1/50 at f/4 with ISO 3200 does NOT indicate a bright room.  

   

Fortunately, it's a lightly colored room. Dark backgrounds would look

more grainy at the same exposure. There are some large dark items

in the scenes anyway, so you get a sense of the difference that local

exposure differences within the scene can have upon grain.

 

Have you a look-see: 

 

http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/4849-28-105-maxxum/  

  

If you view the pix carefully in the darker areas, you will likely agree

that any further increase in ISO would be a real problem. OTOH if

you check the placement of exact focus, and check for a bit of hand

held motion blur, you'll see that these are barely still OK and further

loss of shutter speed would ruin them. So, ISO 6400 and ISO 1600

are both WORSE ideas than ISO 3200. Howboutdat.