fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2009 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?

  
 
dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


I was shooting in a lot of outdoor sports at f2.0 & f/2.8 @ ISO 100 & on a lark 160 (said to be Canon's "native ISO". I dunno why this is the case either), +1 EV and noticed that at Aperture Priority the shutter runs around 1/500 to 1/3200. At that shutter speed everything pretty much freezes which detracts to the sense of motion.

Now my question is whether ISO 50 wouldn't be a detrimental to image quality. I know every time you increase ISO more noise is introduce. Would it be the same with ISO 50? Other than ND filters & stopping down an f-stop is there another way to cut the amount of light that enters the camera?



Nov 18, 2009 at 12:53 PM
bpark42
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


ISO 50 will be extremely clean, however you have to watch your highlights very carefully. As far as I know, it is really just ISO 100 pulled a stop, so you are going to have almost no headroom in the highlights.


Nov 18, 2009 at 01:03 PM
24Peter
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


I shoot mostly in-studio with strobes but coming from xxxD and xxD cams, I love ISO 50 - one of my favorite things about my 5D II.


Nov 18, 2009 at 05:05 PM
Matt Shelton
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


I agree with the previous two posters. I've used ISO 50 on my 5D II several times, and I've been very pleased with the results. However, both times I was shooting waterfalls, and I shot stopped way down and at ISO 50 in order to get a longer shutter speed - a different situation than yours.


Nov 18, 2009 at 07:00 PM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


I use ISO 50 for long exposures with ND filters in broad daylight....

http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/Cabo/IMG9441-161/468343008_9igB7-XL.jpg



Nov 18, 2009 at 07:05 PM
SloPhoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


My solution was ND filters.


Nov 18, 2009 at 07:25 PM
hauxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


I use ISO 50 all the time, in studio (to open up the lenses) and for long exposures. I did also use it to be able to shoot at f/1.2 in broad daylight without hitting 1/8000.


Nov 18, 2009 at 07:49 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · ISO 50: Is it really that bad?


dolina wrote:
I was shooting in a lot of outdoor sports at f2.0 & f/2.8 @ ISO 100 & on a lark 160 (said to be Canon's "native ISO". I dunno why this is the case either), +1 EV and noticed that at Aperture Priority the shutter runs around 1/500 to 1/3200. At that shutter speed everything pretty much freezes which detracts to the sense of motion.

Now my question is whether ISO 50 wouldn't be a detrimental to image quality. I know every time you increase ISO more noise is introduce. Would it be the same with ISO 50? Other than ND
...Show more

ND are probably best, ISO50 is kind of crappy in that it loses an entire stop of DR, on a 5D2 all it does is overexpose ISO100 by 1 stop I seem to recall, of course that does let a stop more light be collected but at that low down i'm not sure is half as important as losing so much DR



Nov 18, 2009 at 07:57 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account