[Mark Haywood]

I've been considering changing manufacturer and have been looking at the Canon 40D, Nikon D90 and Sony A700. I actually bought a Fuji S5 Pro, but think it's a little too much for me. At present I have Four Thirds cameras and wanted better high ISO performance. At first I thought I got this with the Fuji S5, but at a cost in other areas. And when I used Neat Image, I thought my Four Thirds cameras held up remarkably well. I still have a small hankering for one of the cameras mentioned, but with Olympus glass I'm wondering if I would be better served by upgrading to a better Four Thirds body - either the E30 or soon to be released E620.

After scouring the web, and feeling a little tormented by the competition's well lauded superiority in the noise department I wondered how much better would one camera have to be in its high ISO performance for you to decide to choose that camera over another? How do you compare high ISO performance? And just how much better is the competition at say iso1600?

[richard plumb]

on DSLRs its very important to me. You'd be surprised how many shots in the UK need a relatively high ISO to get a decent shutter speed - we're not the sunniest place in the world :P

Add in affordable lenses which aren't the fastest, and you're often up in the 800 area.

On the positive side, I'd say you could use any currently for sale DSLR up to 1600 ISO without a problem unless you're really fussy. I don't have specific experience of the 4/3 system so don't know if thats any better or worse than other DSLRs.

Worth checking out some pictures taken at 1600 ISO to see how you like them - you might be pleasantly surprised.

[denno75uk]

For me, if I were in the market for an upgrade, I think it may be the most important criteria. That's not to say I wouldn't consider the cameras I was considering as a whole, but comparable DSLRs these days are pretty similarly (and competently) specced.
Even with f2.8 lenses, I find myself regularly shooting at 1600 ISO, indoors especially. Being able to utilise a useable high ISO capability just gives a bit more freedom I think. Noise reduction software goes a fair way to cleaning up an image, but sometimes at the expense of fine detail.
That said, the best high ISO performers are also the most expensive (ie full frame), so money is obv also a factor.
As for Olympus' performance Vs the competition, I don't know, but would suggest that the smaller sensor in the 4/3 system would give it a distinct disadvantage.

[Mark Haywood]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

Worth checking out some pictures taken at 1600 ISO to see how you like them - you might be pleasantly surprised.

Having read most of the well known reviews, I've come to realise that iso1600 may not actually be iso1600. So if one manufacturer's iso1600 setting is reasonably close to its stated setting and another's turns out to be actually iso1125 how does one accurately compare?

It seems that whilst Olympus and Panasonic seem to be fairly accurate, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Samsung seem to be quite a ways off in their stated iso settings, at least if DXO's testing suggests what I think it does!

[andy1249]

Having read most of the well known reviews, I've come to realise that iso1600 may not actually be iso1600. So if one manufacturer's iso1600 setting is reasonably close to its stated setting and another's turns out to be actually iso1125 how does one accurately compare?

This is true.

The way it usually works for any particular digital sensor is the point on the gain curve that equates to ISO 100 is arbitrarily chosen, meaning the manufacturer picks the point that it feels is closest to ISO 100.

Then the rest of the points are calculated from there , these points are supposed to match EV values across the entire gain curve , so ideally any particular EV value chosen on any camera should give the same results , however differences in gain curves from different sensors are unavoidable so exact matches between cameras are not possible in some cases.

They should however be very close , and a difference of ISO 575 between cameras set to a value of ISO 1600 as listed above would be very poor indeed.

[Yandros]

If high ISO performance is important to you I'd cut your losses and ditch Olympus.

Canon and Nikon are currently fighting over the high ISO crown. The Nikon D90, D300, Canon 50D and probably 500D are so close it's barey worth talking about, and the 450D not far behind. The Sony sensor is a bit noisier at high ISO, and the Pentax and Olympus ones a LOT worse.

[senu]

In a word, Yes

Where you cannot use a Tripod, Flash or dont have or cant use a fast lens, usable high ISO makes the difference between a shot and a non shot

However even within the same brand I think ISO implemetation are not identical let alone comparing different brands
As an example
Pt the same lens on say a Canon 400D and 40D and take the same shot in challenging light conditions using IS0 1600: the results are nonidentical despite somewhat similar paper specs on the cameras

[Mark Haywood]

Originally Posted by andy1249

This is true.

The way it usually works for any particular digital sensor is the point on the gain curve that equates to ISO 100 is arbitrarily chosen, meaning the manufacturer picks the point that it feels is closest to ISO 100.

Then the rest of the points are calculated from there , these points are supposed to match EV values across the entire gain curve , so ideally any particular EV value chosen on any camera should give the same results , however differences in gain curves from different sensors are unavoidable so exact matches between cameras are not possible in some cases.

They should however be very close , and a difference of ISO 575 between cameras set to a value of ISO 1600 as listed above would be very poor indeed.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Perhaps I'm simply mis-reading the DXO "Compare Cameras" graph? Wouldn't be the first time I'm way off base!

Originally Posted by Yandros

If high ISO performance is important to you I'd cut your losses and ditch Olympus.

Canon and Nikon are currently fighting over the high ISO crown. The Nikon D90, D300, Canon 50D and probably 500D are so close it's barey worth talking about, and the 450D not far behind. The Sony sensor is a bit noisier at high ISO, and the Pentax and Olympus ones a LOT worse.

I've read all of the major reviews for those cameras. What do you base your opinion on, other than those reviews, though?

Originally Posted by senu

In a word, Yes

Where you cannot use a Tripod, Flash or dont have or cant use a fast lens, usable high ISO makes the difference between a shot and a non shot

However even within the same brand I think ISO implemetation are not identical let alone comparing different brands
As an example
Pt the same lens on say a Canon 400D and 40D and take the same shot in challenging light conditions using IS0 1600: the results are nonidentical despite somewhat similar paper specs on the cameras

If that's the case, then how do we compare like for like iso settings?

I've been looking here and at the SNR 18% graph... Am I just missing something?

[senu]

Originally Posted by Mark Haywood

If that's the case, then how do we compare like for like iso settings?
I've been looking here and at the SNR 18% graph... Am I just missing something?

In a sense , It would seem that objectively the differences are not chalk and cheese
What seems to make a difference (in my limited experience) is what you RAW process with for NR and how much quality is left from the Post NR RAW output
DXO results dont go that far as there are too many variables
So. paper specs aside, in use some cameras are that much " worse" in higher ISO Noise output than others
Im sure someone wih a lot more knowledge ( than I ) in these matters will shed furter light on this

[Mike.P®]

Since moving back to the UK from Spain last Sunday it's a lot more important than it used to be.
Talk about crap weather

[Mark Haywood]

Originally Posted by senu

In a sense , It would seem that objectively the differences are not chalk and cheese
What seems to make a difference (in my limited experience) is what you RAW process with for NR and how much quality is left from the Post NR RAW output
DXO results dont go that far as there are too many variables
So. paper specs aside, in use some cameras are that much " worse" in higher ISO Noise output than others
Im sure someone wih a lot more knowledge ( than I ) in these matters will shed furter light on this

But, presumably, the lower the iso setting the greater the dynamic range, which should lead to a little more leeway as far as raw processing goes. So if the iso setting isn't accurate - ie. it is actually less than stated - there would be a little more adjustability in processing the raw image.

All this is moot of course if when I look at an iso1600 shot from a Nikon D90 and compare it to an iso1600 shot from the Olympus E30 I am actually comparing similar isos! It just looks from the DXO site that this may not be the case, but I'm probably missing something obvious! Interestingly though, DPReview have often mentioned that Olympus cameras have less raw headroom adjustment than other cameras and I wondered if this was because Olympus' iso settings were more accurate?

[imcarm]

High ISO performance is a must for me. Take for example your out shooting an action shot - perhaps someone mountain biking in the woods for example, it's an overcast day and the light is really poor due to the above tree cover, even with a fast F2.8 telephoto your going to struggle to stop the action - Using flash is one way to overcome this (not always an option though) or pushing up the ISO and risking some noise is the other option, ISO noise can actually add to the shot sometimes

[Yandros]

Mark, mostly from lots of reviews and test shots in various forums. Senu is probably the best person to compare Canon/Nikon like for like as he uses both on a day to day basis.

The main thing I'd say is that you do have to take test shots in reviews with a pinch of salt. High end Nikons always undersharpen by default vs Canon, so will always look soft. Canon applies a heavy handed general noise reduction, which has traditionally been labelled 'plasticy' by Nikon shooters. Nikon on the other hand kills chroma noise in preference, leaving a more film like grain - more detail, but more obvious 'noise'. Sony use pretty much the same sensor as Nikon, but don't take out the chroma noise quite as well. Having said all this, I'm sure if you took a RAW file from a Canon, Sony or Nikon 12MP+ camera and processed it through 3rd party NR software, you'd end up with very similar results. With the 50D vs D300, you also have a resolution difference, so although the D300 has the edge at high ISO, by the time to factor in the 3MP difference, the advantage disappears.

The high ISO test shots from the K20 and the E30 at 1600 ISO just look bad I'm afraid - not just slightly worse, that could be compensated for in post - a LOT worse. I've seen some amazing shots at A3 size from a friends K10 though, but I don't think he's pushing the ISO too hard.

[tracymae]

It wasn't something I really considered...until I took some pictures at my daughter's christmas party, 90% unusuable from the panasonic bridge camera I think it has to be considered unless you plan on using only outdoor and in good light.
I havent noticed a problem with noise at all with my Olympus but maybe I have just been lucky.
Is there any chance we could do a wee comparison test of our own? If so how to go about it?

[Mike.P®]

Originally Posted by Yandros

The high ISO test shots from the K20 and the E30 at 1600 ISO just look bad I'm afraid - not just slightly worse, that could be compensated for in post - a LOT worse. I've seen some amazing shots at A3 size from a friends K10 though, but I don't think he's pushing the ISO too hard.

Well I dont know where you have been looking but do a search on Flickr for K20D and ISO 1600 as I just did and I can see some excellent shots.
There's even a couple for the E30.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Mike.P®

Well I dont know where you have been looking but do a search on Flickr for K20D and ISO 1600 as I just did and I can see some excellent shots.
There's even a couple for the E30.

Not saying there aren't some excellent shots Mike. You can pick pretty much any DSLR or lens, and find some amazing pics shot with them. The issue is whether the same shot, by the same photographer, with a different camera would be marginally less noisy. The OP is wanting to know not if an Olympus or Pentax will take great picks at high ISO (they will) but if another camera will take very slightly better ones. This I'm afraid takes us into the realms of pixel peeping at boring test shots rather than real world pics.

[Strobe]

The inaccuracy of Nikon D90 ISO sensitivity measurements is quite well known and there are disparities between review sites. Personally, I wouldn't get too hung up about it. For me, the Nikon D90 high ISO performance is very good up to ISO 1600 and still more than OK at 3200. I wouldn't usually use my old Sony A700 above ISO 1600 unless I really had to. The latest 4/3rds Olympus E30 is supposed to have better high ISO performance than previous Oly's but still short of the competition (from recent reviews I've read).

In this country with poor light so commonplace I would have to say that ISO performance is pretty important to me and was certainly one factor in my latest camera buying decision.

[Mark Haywood]

Having googled "iso settings accuracy" I found this. Had a quick read and it seems that there may be quite a lot of inconsistency. So when you look at an accurately exposed E3 iso1600 image and compare with a similar Nikon D90 image also shot at iso1600 it may actually be more like iso1125 on the Nikon.

If this is true, why don't the major review sites make it obvious? I regularly check DCResource for their night and studio shots to compare higher iso quality. If I knew I was comparing 1600 on the E3 with 1125 on the D90 I'd feel a lot less like changing my gear!

[Mark Haywood]

Originally Posted by Strobe

The inaccuracy of Nikon D90 ISO sensitivity measurements is quite well known and there are disparities between review sites. Personally, I wouldn't get too hung up about it. For me, the Nikon D90 high ISO performance is very good up to ISO 1600 and still more than OK at 3200. I wouldn't usually use my old Sony A700 above ISO 1600 unless I really had to. The latest 4/3rds Olympus E30 is supposed to have better high ISO performance than previous Oly's but still short of the competition (from recent reviews I've read).

In this country with poor light so commonplace I would have to say that ISO performance is pretty important to me and was certainly one factor in my latest camera buying decision.

Sorry, cross posted. But when you say iso performance is good up to iso1600 on the Nikon d90 you may actually be shooting at iso1125! Then when you look at an iso1600 on the Olympus E3 you may be looking at an iso1584. If we can't compare like for like then I feel a little short changed after all these years of reading in depth reviews! I'm even starting to feel better for my Panasonic DMC-L10... okay, maybe I'm going too far now.

Seriously though, with Olympus' in camera image stabilisation, combined with their excellent optics, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm actually better off where I am and no longer have that "grass is always greener" feeling.

[johnaalex]

High ISO is very important to me, I didn't realise just how useful until I got my D300. One area where I find useful is when shooting macros as I can get better DOF with a good shutter speed.

Having said low ISO is also useful, quiet often I find 200 a bit too high when working with my Nikon 50mm 1.4 in bright light.

[marchand]

It's probably the most important thing for me.

[Mike.P®]

Originally Posted by Yandros

This I'm afraid takes us into the realms of pixel peeping at boring test shots rather than real world pics.

Ah right, never go there

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Mark Haywood

Having googled "iso settings accuracy" I found this. Had a quick read and it seems that there may be quite a lot of inconsistency. So when you look at an accurately exposed E3 iso1600 image and compare with a similar Nikon D90 image also shot at iso1600 it may actually be more like iso1125 on the Nikon.

If this is true, why don't the major review sites make it obvious? I regularly check DCResource for their night and studio shots to compare higher iso quality. If I knew I was comparing 1600 on the E3 with 1125 on the D90 I'd feel a lot less like changing my gear!

Hmm, that adorama article says the D300 is half a stop out, whereas dpreview says it's right on the money.


Adorama...

Measured ISO was approximately half a stop less than the manufacturer ISO. At ISO 200, the measured ISO was 145. At ISO 400, it was 288. At ISO 800, it was 571, etc.

vs dpreview...

In a new addition to our reviews we are now measuring the actual sensitivity of each indicated ISO sensitivity. This is achieved using the same shots as are used to measure ISO noise levels, we simply compare the exposure for each shot to the metered light level (using Sekonic L-358), middle gray matched. We estimate the accuracy of these results to be +/- 1/6 EV.

Like many recent digital SLRs all four in this comparison proved to be right on the spot with their indicated sensitivity, that is to say an indicated sensitivity of say ISO 200 was exactly that (unlike some older digital SLRs which were slightly more or less sensitive than indicated).

Nikon D300 Review: 18. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review

[Farno]

Usable high ISO is very handy.
I dont have a flash and like shooting indoors. Not wanting to spend £1000 on glass I bought a 50mmƒ1.8 and found i could go up to ISO 800 on my D40, this was shooting my little lad indoors.
I then found myself out of a job and I spent some pennies on a D90. I can now easily shoot ISO 1250
Here is an example of ISO 1250
Light was from the TV and an Energy saving bulb

and another at ISO1000
Light was from a window behind him

It adds a great deal of flexibility.
Both shot are click-able for larger versions

[ryart]

I find good high ISO performance handy and one of the benefits of digital, but I personally don't worry too much about it. In my press agency days we invariably used 400 ISO for just about everything B&W and often slower for colour, push processing when needed.

Somewhere or other I have some Ektachrome 400 shots, without flash, of a cyclo-cross race in December showing the riders in mid leap across streams. We just had to get the results with what was available. Another factor is that we tended to use prime lenses with wider apertures, the zooms not being very good. Strangely enough not having a zoom didn't pose any problems, although I wouldn't want to be without one now.

Having said all that, when people ask what camera to buy I always ask what they are going to take pictures of and if low light or fast moving subjects are mentioned always recommend they think carefully about the noise issue.

In the end it depends on how you finally view your pictures, print size, projection size etc. Looking at the film grain with a magnifier was as depressing as 1:1 pixel peeping is today... and often as irrelevant to the finished article.

[sdb123]

I would have thought the type of photography/pictures you take would determine whether you need a camera with good (high) ISO capabilities.

I had a D90 and was more than happy with its performance up to and including ISO 1600. I will be venturing towards more low-light photography so went all out and purchased a D700, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

[Some Bloke]

Not very important.
I just use ISO 200 and a 3 legged camera platform

[Mark Haywood]

Originally Posted by Yandros

Hmm, that adorama article says the D300 is half a stop out, whereas dpreview says it's right on the money.


Adorama...

Measured ISO was approximately half a stop less than the manufacturer ISO. At ISO 200, the measured ISO was 145. At ISO 400, it was 288. At ISO 800, it was 571, etc.

vs dpreview...

In a new addition to our reviews we are now measuring the actual sensitivity of each indicated ISO sensitivity. This is achieved using the same shots as are used to measure ISO noise levels, we simply compare the exposure for each shot to the metered light level (using Sekonic L-358), middle gray matched. We estimate the accuracy of these results to be +/- 1/6 EV.

Like many recent digital SLRs all four in this comparison proved to be right on the spot with their indicated sensitivity, that is to say an indicated sensitivity of say ISO 200 was exactly that (unlike some older digital SLRs which were slightly more or less sensitive than indicated).

Nikon D300 Review: 18. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review

That's very interesting - it seems that something that is a little beyond me is going on in digicam review land...

[gpa]

Massively important, my move from a D80 to a D300 was good, however the move from the D300 to the D700 was a giant leap in so many ways. Pic taken at the Natural History Museum. Natural light ISO 6400 you really can stop worrying about high ISO as you move up the ranks of technology.

Camera: Nikon D700
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 48 mm
Focal Length: 49.0 mm
ISO Speed: 6400
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: No Flash
Nikon 24-70 F2.8 AF-S

If you look at the latitude I still have it is all the more impressive.

[springtide]

I'm the odd one out here by the look of it! It's not important to me at all.

I've used 'Exposure Plot' to look at my EXIF data (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/...30bc74e7_o.jpg) , and the majority of my photos are shot at the Base ISO.

I guess I don't have to deliver results on a particular day and I very rarely shoot anything that requires a fast shutter speed (without flash), so if the lights poor and I have no option of creating my own 'nice light', there's always another day when the light is better.

I would say that High ISO performance is a feature just like any other feature, but if this feature is a must have for you... your camera has to deliver. Same goes for something like a fast prime. Fantastic in low light, but if you need DOF for a group shot... it's a useless feature for that shot.