rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #9 · Do you need High ISO beyond 1600 | |
Weddings and corporate events (where receptions at each are essentially very similar) and nighttime sports or indoor sports.
High ISO capability on current DSLRs reminds me of the feeling I had back in the late 80s when TMZ first hit the market. Sure, you could always use Tri-X or HP5 pushed, but TMZ seemed to open up a range of opportunities with better quality than previously existed. I feel the same way now with the Mark III at 3200/6400 for available light wedding work, events, parties, whatever... coupled with f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses because it is a feasible option. Recent wedding ceremonies have been in the ISO 3200 1/200 f/1.2 range with receptions at around 1/50 f/1.2. I will still strobe receptions for shots that need the entire hall lit, to freeze motion or ensure a clean shot, but it's great to have the option to work discretely and preserve ambience for other types of images. Having usable high ISO adds options to better tailor coverage on an event by event basis.
Locations have not gotten worse or changed. High ISO, as mentioned, realizes options previously not considered possible or realistic. It can make the difference between working a wedding ceremony quickly hand held or slowly on a tripod, or having to use on camera flash with the inherent WB imbalance and dark background or subject movement ghosting issues. When I shot color neg film, like Fuji 800 for wedding ceremonies, it was always with on camera flash and f/2.8 lenses to ensure the ability to freeze subject motion while still pulling up some ambient in the background. Now with good high ISO and an investment in fast primes (I find I don't miss the 2.8 zooms in the normal/tele range for weddings) I can achieve those requirements while maintaining a truer look of the venue in its natural light. Several weddings this year, including one in August when you'd expect decent light, were rained out. When outdoor opportunities were present, the light was often poor and I relied heavily on ISO 1600.
For sports work, I've been trying to get away with f/4 lenses, even at night games. An advantage to f/4 lenses, like Canon's 70-200 is a reduction in size and weight, or longer reach like a 600 vs. 400. Don't just take my word for it, here's a great example by David Bergman (of SI, recently switched to the D3 like the majority of the SI shooters) who has been covering night football games with the 200-400 and 600 combo:
Quote: "As for lens selection - it really depends on what you’re shooting. The 600/4 is my main football lens. The 200-400 is extremely versatile and would be great for basketball, tennis, and even baseball if you’re only shooting the infield.
With the D3’s performance in low light, I’ve been able to stick with F4 lenses instead of pulling out the 400/2.8."
http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/2008/12/18/1304-photos-from-the-2008-sec-championship-game/
While the sports venues have not necessarily gotten darker, there have at times been issues with access, such as farther working distances, or just too crowded and the need to either work from one spot for most coverage or move to less popular spots (though my favorite) like the end zone to get away from the crowds. Being able to work longer and at f/4 at a high ISO is critical.
Ron
I also want to add that one of my sports clients never, ever covered night/indoor games prior to digital. As soon as the 1D became available and they saw the results compared to E6 pushed two stops, night/indoor games started appearing on the schedule. Now with excellent ISO 1600, nearly half the games I covered this year were indoor. And it's not just the low noise/grain. Dynamic range/shadow detail compared to +2 E6 is so much better and WB is a piece of cake.
Edited on Dec 29, 2008 at 11:35 PM · View previous versions
|
)
