Although the megapixel fetish race is the one that gets the most attention, I think the ISO equivalent is also pretty amusing (in a “shakes head, looks baffled” kind of way).

Now, I should preface all this by mentioning that I don’t have a “genre” of photography. I just photograph whatever attracts my attention at any given time, and that can be day or night.

Recently I saw a camera review in which the reviewer was showing pictures captured at ISOs that would have been considered witchcraft even ten years ago. They looked like garbage - noisy as anything and generally an aesthetic mess. But apparently the fact that they were taken at stratospheric ISO levels means that the whole world must see them because, I don’t know, reasons.

Although I’ve used cameras that are well known for good high ISO performance, a look through my Google photos collection shows me that I almost never go beyond ISO 3200, and I would guess that less than 5% of my (tens of thousands of) photos are shot at that sensitivity. On a usual day, I find that if I have a fast lens (F2 or quicker), I can get almost anything I want to shoot without going past ISO 800, or 1600 in a pinch.

I’d be interested to hear from people who do use these 5-or-6 digit ISOs on a regular basis, and what they shoot that necessitates these ISOs. Let’s hear some thoughts.

  • Tasty_Comfortable_77OPB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I definitely agree with this - although given some of the rather aggressive responses to this thread, it seems to be a minority opinion. The thing about these mega-high ISOs is that they can encourage people to shoot in practically zero light “because they can”, regardless of whether they should.