Many reasons some need ambient only, rules, need for sensitivity for subjects, need not to draw attention and you want the look that a viewer would see. You get a well-rounded softness, very easy on the eye. It's entirely different from a professional setting, both are valid.
Lighting can be interesting in my game. After working for four months to get permission to shoot 1000 year old Tabo Monastery, I showed up with a very soft LED light. The caretakers freaked out, so I put it away.
Luckily, the a7rII let me carry on in near pitch darkness, just a small skylight, people were falling over, could not see where to walk. Then some upper class Brahmin visitors almost rioted and it nearly got out of control. I faced them down and ended up with 400 great images. What a hoot.
The Sonys literally enabled my doco work, impossible with say, Canons of the same era. They retain colour and DR pretty well, recover surprisingly well. Sony noise is really easy to handle, it's all lum. You often need f2 or more for close distance DOF so f1.2 is not the answer. So yes, high ISO is often needed, despite the losses.
It's interesting that the A7rIV can't really beat a 4 year old camera that pretty much nobody is buying for high iso. 5D4 is supposed to be good high iso, maybe even old 6D.
I mean, Canon didn't even put 25600 setting on 5DsR.
These responses /rationalizatons are pretty, ummm, shall we say, "interesting," too. Fan boys out in full force today. I shoot aps at 6400 on a regular basis, and probably the major reason I'd put up with the larger size and expense of ff is to be able to use 12800 & 25600, if not higher. My MA entry this month is at 12800 with old tech 18mp Canon, I tried to turn off all NR since the theme "doom and gloom." Was supposed to look bad. But really turned out too clean after resizing, I think. So yes, resizing smaller cleans up the A7rIV (or 5DsR,) potentially a lot. But why buy one to shoot at 25-30mp?
Holger wrote:
"If you want to fake situations then yes, bring flash everywhere"
I call that nonsense, to be honest (personal opinion).
In that case why not shooting everything in jpg, without shadow boosting, highlight protection, noise reduction etc. on, as all of that results in fake situations. Do go for a bridal shoot at weddings - fake. Don't make yourself seen to possible get an unnatural reaction of the person being photographed -faked....
Same with lenses. f1.2 will blurr out the background in a way, no one sees the scene in reality.
If you are a pro, people expect optimal results.If you can use lights, use them. ...Show more →
Fully agree, that comment about flash and fake was just absurd and shows lack of knowledge of how to implement lighting.
If you want to see the results at the same size, click "comp," on the upper right hand corner of the image comparison tool.
If no one has pointed this out, that is probably telling.
I don't think that the A7RIV (or 5DsR, or for that matter 60D) is a bad camera, and I find the claim that Canon isn't innovating at least somewhat, if not completely, absurd. I now have one more piece of evidence to throw at people trying to peddle such garbage on the Canon board.
"No they did not. The fastest film in transparency I think was ISO 160. Testing my memory here.
Why we had 300 2.8 , 200 F 2 and the list goes on. It was never about bokeh like it is today . It was about speed in lenses because we had low ISO film. "
I remember Ansco made an ASA320 slide film. I think you could push E6 processing one stop.
I'm older than you so maybe they weren't around for you.
I also remember being young and good looking, so take my memories with a grain of salt.
walknorth wrote:
"No they did not. The fastest film in transparency I think was ISO 160. Testing my memory here.
Why we had 300 2.8 , 200 F 2 and the list goes on. It was never about bokeh like it is today . It was about speed in lenses because we had low ISO film. "
I remember Ansco made an ASA320 slide film. I think you could push E6 processing one stop.
I'm older than you so maybe they weren't around for you.
I also remember being young and good looking, so take my memories with a grain of salt.
Lol I think your right. E6 had a 1 stop push. Seems like a really long time ago. I stopped film around 1997
AmbientMike wrote:
It's interesting that the A7rIV can't really beat a 4 year old camera that pretty much nobody is buying for high iso. 5D4 is supposed to be good high iso, maybe even old 6D.
I mean, Canon didn't even put 25600 setting on 5DsR.
These responses /rationalizatons are pretty, ummm, shall we say, "interesting," too. Fan boys out in full force today. I shoot aps at 6400 on a regular basis, and probably the major reason I'd put up with the larger size and expense of ff is to be able to use 12800 & 25600, if not higher. My MA entry this month is at 12800 with old tech 18mp Canon, I tried to turn off all NR since the theme "doom and gloom." Was supposed to look bad. But really turned out too clean after resizing, I think. So yes, resizing smaller cleans up the A7rIV (or 5DsR,) potentially a lot. But why buy one to shoot at 25-30mp?...Show more →
What is a "fan boy?" Someone that doesn't look for every fault or short coming of their new camera. Then I must be one. I have been out shooting this morning and finding all the new things I like about my R4. "But why buy one to shoot at 25-30mp?" Because not everything is going to be shot at high ISO. Matters of fact everything I shot this morning was sub ISO 400 and at full 60mp! Awesome camera. Maybe the fans boys are out in full force but I guess the haters are too. By the way the APS-C mode if great too on the R4. Not sure how they compare to my 6500 but they look great. Happy fan boy here so far.
chez wrote:
Well the point is to show situations where I need to shoot high ISO and CANNOT use flash as you suggested. YOU are the one that came down hard on people indicating they require using high ISO and tried to belittle them because they haven't mastered flash.
These images show examples where I could not use flash...unlike when shooting head shots or nicely lit runways. Many of us venture into areas where light is challenging and we cannot enhance it with artificial light...so we must deal with very dim conditions.
A waste of time trying to argue that point with "Pros" that know how to shoot every subject in the world under every possible condition.
The advantages of better and higher ISO's is nothing new and if the captured image is important enough, noise is hardly the primary concern. Just review many of the most historically important photos ever published in newspapers and magazines. I don't recall readers whining about the images being too noisy.
Imagemaster wrote:
A waste of time trying to argue that point with "Pros" that know how to shoot every subject in the world under every possible condition.
The advantages of better and higher ISO's is nothing new and if the captured image is important enough, noise is hardly the primary concern. Just review many of the most historically important photos ever published in newspapers and magazines. I don't recall readers whining about the images being too noisy.
Not to mention that some of us lowly hobbyists have limited time/circumstances in which to shoot. I would love to take multiple long trips a year and wait days for a wolf or grizzly bear to make an appearance in optimal light, but my work schedule and budget don't allow it. More often, the animals are in deep vegetation or appear unexpectedly for a few seconds in the worst light, so I don't have time to do much other than fire off a few shots at the best exposure I can and hope something comes out. I make the best of the situation since I may not get another chance in the few days I have per trip. I'd rather have a noisy shot of a sow and cub or eagle talon lock than no shot at all because it's not 'professional' to resort to ISO 12800. Guess I have to fire myself from my favorite pastime now .
ohagym wrote:
Not to mention that some of us lowly hobbyists have limited time/circumstances in which to shoot. I would love to take multiple long trips a year and wait days for a wolf or grizzly bear to make an appearance in optimal light, but my work schedule and budget don't allow it. More often, the animals are in deep vegetation or appear unexpectedly for a few seconds in the worst light, so I don't have time to do much other than fire off a few shots at the best exposure I can and hope something comes out. I make the best of the situation since I may not get another chance in the few days I have per trip. I'd rather have a noisy shot of a sow and cub or eagle talon lock than no shot at all because it's not 'professional' to resort to ISO 12800. Guess I have to fire myself from my favorite pastime now ....Show more →
But, but, but, you have not been a working pro for 43 years and shot Kodachrome 64 for decades, so what would you know?
Check Mark Galer's video at 22-minute mark. Of course he is only a Sony Global Ambassador, so what does he know about Sony cameras or high ISO's?
Wellnow we are at the point of insulting me and berating me in public. Break forum rules
Now what I actual said . Pay attention because you have been rewriting everything I said
These are my comments
1.Laymans terms the A7RiV horizontal image its native size(300)DPI is basically 32x22 inches
A A7rIII horizontal native size is basically a 28 x18
To do a comparative between the 2 cameras you need to resize the A7rIV to 28x18 to normalize it
Beat me to it.
2 Seriously I’d fire myself if I was shooting that high. I never ever go over 2000 but more likely 1600. Seriously my Profotos would come out to play. Now I say that and I’ve shot everything under the sun for 43 years professionally.These people living in a hole or what.
If you did not get it Im half joking here but obviously you did not get it.
Im talking about what I would do not what anyone else would do. Again I don't shoot animals or sports for a living. Im insulting no one, Im stating a fact of what i dont shoot for a living but I do for my own personal work
3 than I said this . Im talking about testing ISO
No it’s fun to see what things do for sure but you need to look at it as data points than relate it to your reality. What we have seen is the high ISo looks horrid so I’m not buying and those comments are really not fair because it’s not really the case. As a lot of us test around here we are always trying to eliminate the variables
Im agreeing with testing it for sure.
Lets be clear one more time I am referring everything about the A7RIV no other camera no style or subject of shooting. Im talking camera
4
That’s not the case at all. I just won’t go there. But I can see where it has some merit especially with very long glass and speed issues.
My reality is different than yours . But I would not expect a 60 Mpx sensor to do it either. Its a pipe dream
Where did i say anything bad. Im talking about me i dont want to shoot that high if I can help it this camera won't do it is the bottom line. I would pick the A9
5 this is my take on what I think the limit is . Wait have I said anything about what your shooting. Nothing. This is my opinion.
From what I have seen so far and obviously up to your own expectations and preference it looks like ISO 3200 is the max I’d go on this cam. Now I owned a 60mpx CCD back not a CMOS in medium format . No way you get past ISO 400.
Heck I ate,slept and shot Kodachrome 64 for decades. 12800 was never ever a option . This is a joke but maybe you dont understand joking.
You wonder where 1.4 lenses came from , it was not about bokeh
The Kodachrome is a fact. I was the Chief Photographer for Honeywell International for 16 years and traveled the globe for them doing marketing and annual reports Been a working Pro since i was 19 im 62 years old been a photographer all that time as a freelancer mostly. You dont get a job like that not knowing what you doing.Ive shot just about every piece of gear ever made. Big statement but true. I have 16 years of work that I simply cant post. I was a employee I dont own it and it would break the copyright laws
This is number 6 that had anything that would be debatable but you continue to harass me for no cause at all. Son this jealousy pure and simple. Im a very good Pro and you simply cant handle that and actually learn something.
Flash is not evil and people that complain about it usually don’t know how to use it properly. It’s used to supplement the ambient light when needed. I’m very good at using it but that’s besides the point. As I said earlier from all that im seeing I feel comfortable at Staying below ISO 3200 but if I have to get the shot I’ll get the shot. Be it flash or bumping ISO. But if my standard was always highISO shooting than I’d pick the A9 as a better tool to get that job done. This is a different tool and acts a lot like medium Format but certainly easier to use.
Seriously you want to buy this for that kind of work than spend the money but it’s not really designed for that.
The bigger problem is people have no idea what this camera is to begin with and just stick a camera on the highest ISO to begin with. Basically folks that have no idea what there talking about or any real knowledge. You can call them trolls or whatever you want but what this place is not is DP review . There are very serious working Pros here and Serious Hobbyists that know what they are doing. But if someone wants to spend 3500 to do a task that a camera is not really designed to do full time than that’s there money I don’t care. I’m here to give advice. Don’t want to listen than don’t. But do me a favor don’t blow off the working Pros here as some of these guys deserve a hell of a lot ofcredit for there knowledge otherwise go back to the other forums and stay there. Now what’s really horrible in your learning curve is not understanding how we did all this shooting in yesterday year without these cameras with these high ISO abilities. It’s actually something you should learn from the past. We paved the way so respect what was done and how is was done. I got along as a working Pro for 43 years. Ask yourself how all of us did it, maybe you will learn something instead of the snide replies to the ones that laid the ground work.
I said my peace and don’t like it than tough. But I don’t want all the hard work over the years to be mocked or misunderstood it’s a very important part of the history of photography. You guys learned from us. Pass on the new knowledge is what’s expected of the new generation. That’s the real history of photography is sharing the knowledge.
I’m going back to do honey does as I’m going nuts waiting for this cam coming tomorrow . Need to be busy.
Have a great day. Get out and shoot this dang thing
So here is the bottom line you owe me an apology. You treated me with no respect even as a human at all. Nevermind as a leader on this forum that helps hundreds of people to get better at this industry. You need to grow up, your age is really showing as a teenager.
In all of this I never mentioned shooting anything in particular, Never said dont do that and i always said this was my decision to try and avoid this high ISO. I suggested several times maybe the A9 would be the better tool. Im really wondering where you actually have a problem with anything I said Its my opinion. Did I say anything about your opinion, nothing or what you shoot or if you even have any talent and i did not insult you or anyone else directly in anyway shape or form. If you took it that way that's on you not me
All Of my response are about me and my choices. Dont like my comments i dont care , Im entitled to have a opinion
Just for the record I taught 30 workshops for Phase One , Leica camera, capture integration and my company GetDPI workshops. All high end destination workshops
So either you trust my opinion or don’t. It does not matter to me. Your not writing me a check so it’s all meaningless
On Mark Galer about the only guy I’ll watch his videos. Good guy
walknorth wrote:
"No they did not. The fastest film in transparency I think was ISO 160. Testing my memory here.
Why we had 300 2.8 , 200 F 2 and the list goes on. It was never about bokeh like it is today . It was about speed in lenses because we had low ISO film. "
I remember Ansco made an ASA320 slide film. I think you could push E6 processing one stop.
I'm older than you so maybe they weren't around for you.
I also remember being young and good looking, so take my memories with a grain of salt.
I'm pretty sure both sides are talking about two entirely separate things:
1. One side is talking about optimizing the potential IQ of what the sensor is capable of and using supplement (flash, or continuous light) anywhere over optimal ISO. This is true and necessary for many pro fields where high shutter speed is usually not priority and you have more control setting up and shaping light.
2. The other side is talking about how high ISO performance in certain situations and applications (pro wildlife, docu, sports etc.) makes certain shots otherwise not possible (restrictions on supplemental light to balance exposures etc.) able to be shot and useable in most intended publication formats.
Everyone is correct, but seems to be mistaking the other party for arguing against them when it's two completely different points altogether.
I can't wait until Topaz's AI software for Giga and Denoise gets an order of magnitude better. I already see the torches from both sides getting ready for a fight that doesn't exist
Timing can be funny. After I had read most of this thread, my son picked up my camera and took a picture after fiddling with the controls. He accidentally changed the ISO on my A7R3 to...get this...80,000. The exif below says 65,535 but Lightroom reads it at 80,000. Then he took this picture in the dim house at f4 and 1/1000 sec. I was shocked how decent it turned out after a tiny bit of work in Lightroom. It's very usable. Anyway, funny how things happen.
daniel.in.la wrote:
Would love to know how film photographers of yesteryear worked around dim lighting situations with the limitations of what was available back then? Boosting ISO is the luxury that once wasn’t. Photography was still possible with fast glass in low light. New cameras take away the problem solving and add new world complaints like high ISO noise like the R IV is apparently plagued with.
Interesting times...
There's a great story from British Guardian photographer Eamon McCabe back in the 80's, he'd been shooting some world championship table tennis competition, and timed his film usage to last frame right through to the last game. Then, right after that, the organizers announced a final exhibition game, and in a panic he rummaged through his bag and found one roll of FP4 which was only 125 ASA, so he shot it at whatever setting he'd been rating the HP5 at, I think it was 1600 or 3200 ASA, and thought "there'll be little to no chance that'll yield anything."
Long story short, he threw the FP4 at the lab tech, told him what he'd done, the tech proceeded to drop it in the deveoper, kinda forgot about it, and went to lunch. On his return, the tech pulled the FP4, fixed it, printed it and there was a stunning shot on there which won Eamon a few press awards. Its the 9th shot in the gallery:
E6 labs would routinely do a similar thing with Transparency film for clients like NGS, notice how beautifully grainy some of those old 80's National Geographic images are, there was a magic to some of that work, something you completely loose when you add lights or digital cameras to the mix.
Archive 2019 · Sony A7R4 incredible high ISO
that know how to shoot every subject in the world under every possible condition. 
.
