Tripods are only useful for stopping camera motion..

If the subjects people, waves, et al are moving significantly during your exposure, they'll be blurred in the image. If you shoot still lifes only, this won't really be a problem unless you're shooting through a telescope and dealing with the motion of the Earth, or other moving-platform issues...

If you're shooting subjects that don't move very much and have the option of using a tripod, then it might be possible to get away with 100-200 ISO. I often find in low light situations (eg. inside dark churches in Europe) it's necessary to bump the ISO up to 400-800 in order to get the shot I want. Many places won't allow you to set up a tripod so it's necessary to use a higher ISO or prop the camera against something to hold it steady. Personally, I've used a number of cameras that have been panned for poor high ISO performance but have found them entirely acceptable, at least for my purposes. The attached shot would have been taken with a fairly high ISO in a dark church with a point and shoot camera.



Http://www.pbase.com/duncanbristow/image/79098946.

Duncan Bristowhttp://www.pbase.com/duncanbristow..

It all depends on your style of photography..

If you take photos mostly of things that don't move, like me, then noise at high ISO need not be a worry at all because you'll never be using it. As long as you can use a tripod or have an image stabiliser you can set your camera to the lowest ISO and leave it there..

That's what I do when I use my little Panasonic camera because it has IS and I carry a miniature tripod that weighs nothing for really dark places. But when I use my non-IS Canon 400D SLR without a tripod, I really need the high ISO to get the shutter speed to something sensible.Androohttp://Androo.smugmug.com..

I grew up thinking 80 or 100 ISO were medium to fast (slide film was about 12 ISO when I started). The 200 ISO came along and was usefull but I don't do sports action etc so I tried it and went back to 100 ISO or 125 ISO when it came along..

So I look at the comments about low light and high ISO and noise and wonder who _needs_ them. With an f/2 lens and 1/1000th second and 125 ISO film I could handle most things. As I see it; having 1600 ISO available all the time is not the same as needing it all the time..

High ISO means noise and to get the exposure right they fit silly 1/10,000th second shutters. Who needs them that would be in the beginners' forum or most other forums?.

So my advice is to look at the performance at 100 ISO and decide, as it will determine how well it performs for 90 to 95% of the pictures you take. Look also at 200 and 400 ISO but treat 400 as an extreme. A lot of us have been doing this for years and years..

Not all moving subjects are moving at high speed: for many years pro photographers were quite happy with top speeds of 1/500 and 1/1000 (many of them still are). And when consumer testing started a few found out that their top speed of 1/500 was nearer 1/300 th! Yet they managed....

Just my 2d worth..

Reghards, David..

David Hughes wrote:.

I grew up thinking 80 or 100 ISO were medium to fast (slide film wasabout 12 ISO when I started). The 200 ISO came along and was usefullbut I don't do sports action etc so I tried it and went back to 100ISO or 125 ISO when it came along..

So I look at the comments about low light and high ISO and noise andwonder who _needs_ them. With an f/2 lens and 1/1000th second and 125ISO film I could handle most things. As I see it; having 1600 ISOavailable all the time is not the same as needing it all the time..

High ISO means noise and to get the exposure right they fit silly1/10,000th second shutters. Who needs them that would be in thebeginners' forum or most other forums?.

So my advice is to look at the performance at 100 ISO and decide, asit will determine how well it performs for 90 to 95% of the picturesyou take. Look also at 200 and 400 ISO but treat 400 as an extreme. Alot of us have been doing this for years and years..

Not all moving subjects are moving at high speed: for many years prophotographers were quite happy with top speeds of 1/500 and 1/1000(many of them still are). And when consumer testing started a fewfound out that their top speed of 1/500 was nearer 1/300 th! Yet theymanaged....

Just my 2d worth..

Reghards, David.

This is odd, am I the only one on this forum who needs high ISOI like taking aquarium pictures, the fishes are fast moving, the light is dim but the light also has fantastic colours that would be spoiled with flash..

So, you cant use flash, tripod doesnt do any good nor does prolonged exposures. The only way to go is high ISO settings..

Point being forget any advise regarding ISO settings without knowing what kind of pictures that would be taken..

S5 will do just fine for you combined with noise reduction software and post processing, until you can afford true dSLR camera..

PS: I also like taking Zoo pictures hence I need the large zoom too, otherwise there would be better choices than S5. Fujifilm FinePix has the best in camera noise reduction on non dSLR camera for the time being...

David Hughes wrote:.

I grew up thinking 80 or 100 ISO were medium to fast (slide film wasabout 12 ISO when I started). The 200 ISO came along and was usefullbut I don't do sports action etc so I tried it and went back to 100ISO or 125 ISO when it came along..

So I look at the comments about low light and high ISO and noise andwonder who _needs_ them. With an f/2 lens and 1/1000th second and 125ISO film I could handle most things. As I see it; having 1600 ISOavailable all the time is not the same as needing it all the time..

High ISO means noise and to get the exposure right they fit silly1/10,000th second shutters. Who needs them that would be in thebeginners' forum or most other forums?.

So my advice is to look at the performance at 100 ISO and decide, asit will determine how well it performs for 90 to 95% of the picturesyou take. Look also at 200 and 400 ISO but treat 400 as an extreme. Alot of us have been doing this for years and years..

Not all moving subjects are moving at high speed: for many years prophotographers were quite happy with top speeds of 1/500 and 1/1000(many of them still are). And when consumer testing started a fewfound out that their top speed of 1/500 was nearer 1/300 th! Yet theymanaged....

Just my 2d worth..

Reghards, David.

800ISO or 1600ISO is very useful for indoor, available light pictures. Besides, very few P&S cameras have a f/2 lens.___JS..

800ISO or 1600ISO is very useful for indoor, available lightpictures. Besides, very few P&S cameras have a f/2 lens..

Exactly. When I had a film SLR the 'standard' lens was a 50mm f/1.8. Now, standard lenses on DSLRs are mid-range zooms with f/5.6 at the longer end, and the 'superzooms' will only do f/6.3. For people who just want the convenience of one long range zoom, high ISO is essential..

I guess it boils down to whether you prefer primes or zooms... I've only had my DSLR for a couple of months and find myself using ISO800 and 1600 regularly indoors without flash (yes there is some noise but it's not as bad as I used to get on ISO-400 film so I regard it as perfectly acceptable). My next purchase will likely be a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at which point these high ISO values will not be necessary most of the time..

Mike..

It works like this :.

(1) If you MUST shoot at high ISO ( that above 200 or 400 ), get any DSLR. Even the cheapest DSLR with the worst kit lens possible will do a better low-light photo than the best non-DSLR under similar conditions..

(2) If you MUST shoot at high ISO but cannot afford a DSLR get a Fuji S6000/6500. That's the best low light performance you'll get outside a DSLR..

(3) Using either a tripod or relying on IS will NOT help IF you need to freeze low light action. Raising ISO to allow a reasonably fast shutter speed is all you can do. A tripod won't hurt, but IS might under those conditions..

(4) If you can do long exposure low -light shots then either IS or a tripod will help and most cameras will be fine, because you can peg ISO at something low. You'll see noise in long exposures and moving objects blur, but the noise is relatively low and the blur is presumably acceptable if you've chosen a long exposure. If you use a tripod IS is useless or can actually cause problems..

(5) Regarding aperture. Smaller aperture numbers are better - they allow more light. Typically you get this at the wide end of a zoom, and it might start at 3.5 or 2.8 ( if you're lucky ). The S6500 has a fairly good aperture range..

(6) Shoot RAW. This will, if you know what to do with it, be of considerable help getting low light shots with a small sensor camera ( a non-DSLR ). With a DSLR you do not need to do this, although I'd still recommend RAW. This allows you to recover dark areas which were under-exposed and to apply better noise control software than the in-camera stuff..

(7) With a non-DSLR keep ISO as low as possible, raise it as a last resort. Rest your camera on something ( use a tripod, the bag you carry it in, a bench, a wall, whatever ) and where possible use a timed exposure to avoid holding the camera ( which will induce shaking ). Use as long a shutter speed as you can depending on whether you want to freeze action or not. Shoot RAW..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

Well, I thought I said something about "on this forum". So my answer was aimed at someone starting and not knowing owt. Not specialists' photography..

As for f/2 lenses I have two digitals with f/2 lenses on them as standard and a 35 yr old camera with a Summicron on it (that means f/2) and I agree that film often had f/1.8 lenses but they didn't work so well at full aperture. Mostly I thought they were for screen brightness when focusing and composing but not for taking. If I could afford it I'd have that lovely 35 - 100 mm (70 to 200 mm in 35 mm film terms) f/2 lens that Olympus do in the stable (sigh)..

And I agree that fast is usefull but have done a lot of pictures at night deliberately under exposed to make the sky dark, and they've been published and I took most of them at ISO 100 (except for the ones at ISO 80). Here's a couple:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The first 1/30th at f/2 and the second at 1/15th at f/2 both 100 ISO and both should have been f/2.8 or more but I wanted the darkness dark. Will that prove my point?.

Most of my aviation pictures are taken at ISO 80 or 100 because people like to see the detail and not having noise (or worse noise removal) is what does the trick..

Regards, David..

Well a Canon Powershot S5 IS can't do that 1/30th at f/2 is not possible. It would be 1/30 at f/3.5 and that is far to dark. In the end is all a matter of equipment ..

You need higher ISO when you don't have enough light and the flash is useless.VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..

Booorad wrote:.

Hi,.

I am looking to purchase a camera and was thinking SLR but my budgetwon't allow it right now. That said, I will have to go with a bridgecamera. I am choosing between the S5IS (by the way, does anyone knowwhen the full review will be posted?) and the Panasonic Lumix FZ8..

My question is why do I need to be able to shoot at ISO sensitivitieshigher than 100 or 200.....

Brad,.

You need high ISO:.

For low available light shots (museums, churches, sports halls, group shots indoors etc).

To allow you to increase shutter speeds and stop action in other than good daylightto increase the working range of the camera flash.

If none of the above will ever apply to you you do not need acceptable low noise ISO above 400..

You say you cannot afford a DSLR. Why not buy a used one? - e.g a Nikon D50/D70 or a Canon 300D? The quality of your pictures will be so much better. You might also consider a Nikon D100 or Canon EOS D60. They often get sold with lots of extras like a battery grip but if sold without such extras may go for not much more than the cameras above..

All of these cameras use 6 megapixel sensors. You can buy a body then get some lenses and get a better/newer body later..

I know of several people who are shooting weddings using a Nikon D100 and/or Nikon D70..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Your post of a couple weeks ago made a lot of sense in terms of your need for a DSLR ("I was looking at the Panasonic FZ8 and the S3 IS but after months of research, it does not appear that these cameras improve that drastically on the limitations I am currently experiencing with my Powershot A520."), and if you're now considering a camera in the S5 IS's price range, I would encourage you to look at refurbished (inspected, tested, and warranteed), entry-level DSLRs as an alternative. I've been very happy with my recent purchase of an E-300, two-lens kit at just $498.00, shipping included. If you prefer another brand, you can find body + lens deals for a variety of older, refurbished models at between $400 and $500...

And I agree that fast is usefull but have done a lot of pictures atnight deliberately under exposed to make the sky dark, and they'vebeen published and I took most of them at ISO 100 (except for theones at ISO 80). Here's a couple:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The first 1/30th at f/2 and the second at 1/15th at f/2 both 100 ISOand both should have been f/2.8 or more but I wanted the darknessdark. Will that prove my point?.

Depends what your point is. These were taken under ideal conditions for low light (stationary subject, wide-aperture lens, and probably a tripod for 1/15th sec). As soon as any of these conditions is not met you have to increase the ISO..

Personally, I tend not to carry a tripod when I go out for a walk or take the kids to the zoo... and my mid-range zoom lens only has f/5.6... and just sometimes I take pictures of things that move around more than aircraft hangars. High ISO is a real boon for me, but we obviously have different requirements. Vive la difference..

To turn your earlier comment around: just because you don't need high ISO all the time, doesn't mean that it's not useful some of the time.....

I really liked your hangar pictures BTW, very atmospheric (and nicely judged exposure)..

Mike..

Mike703 wrote:.

And I agree that fast is usefull but have done a lot of pictures atnight deliberately under exposed to make the sky dark, and they'vebeen published and I took most of them at ISO 100 (except for theones at ISO 80). Here's a couple:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The first 1/30th at f/2 and the second at 1/15th at f/2 both 100 ISOand both should have been f/2.8 or more but I wanted the darknessdark. Will that prove my point?.

Depends what your point is. These were taken under ideal conditionsfor low light (stationary subject, wide-aperture lens, and probably atripod for 1/15th sec). As soon as any of these conditions is notmet you have to increase the ISO..

No; the tractor was coming forward and people were walking about. You might just see it in the larger version I've altered it to. Others in the series were more blurred as people in the background moved but they were taken just at the right moment to minimalise movement. Gives it a bit of atmosphere, IMO, like propellers blurred. And the camera was hand held but it is a "T" shaped camera (not "L" shaped) so held with both hands and I used to do a lot of pistol shooting when a lot younger so also timed my breathing carefully....

Personally, I tend not to carry a tripod when I go out for a walk ortake the kids to the zoo... and my mid-range zoom lens only hasf/5.6... and just sometimes I take pictures of things that movearound more than aircraft hangars. High ISO is a real boon for me,but we obviously have different requirements. Vive la difference..

To turn your earlier comment around: just because you don't need highISO all the time, doesn't mean that it's not useful some of thetime.....

Agreed but I wouldn't make it the reason to buy a camera. There's more important things. I often think that people seem to chose cameras by the headline numbers instead of thinking about it. An obvious example is chosing a car by it's top speed when the speed limit is half that. Or, I have a sixth gear on the Audi and it is usefull at times but best used at 80 to 85 mph and the speed limit in the UK is 70 mph..

I really liked your hangar pictures BTW, very atmospheric (and nicelyjudged exposure)..

Thanks: I'm pleased with them. The series started with a young lady picking a 'plane up by it's tailwheel and pulling it back to the hanger but got more interesting as it got darker. Several in the set have been published elsewhere..

Regards, David..

David Hughes wrote:.

Well, I thought I said something about "on this forum". So my answerwas aimed at someone starting and not knowing owt. Not specialists'photography..

Though he didn't make it clear in this latest post, Boorad mentioned a couple weeks ago that he believes he has pretty much taken his A520 to the limit of it's capabilities and needs something more versatile. Perhaps the "beginners" forum isn't where he needs to ask his questions..

I very much appreciate your point about photographic "needs" and the difference between general and specialist photography. A person can always envision a situation for which a particular camera is not the best tool, but we lose sight of just how many great pictures can be made with simple equipment. I still have the Ansco Junior Vest Pocket camera my grandmother gave me, and yes, it's F/11 maximum aperture, 6ft. close focusing distance, shutter speed range of 1/25 to 1/100 second (plus T and B), and fixed focal length lens impose some limitations, but Grandma managed to fill several albums with memorable 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 contact prints of friends, family, home, holiday, and travel photos. My most-used film camera at present is a Zeiss TLR with a maximum marked shutter speed of 1/300 second (not quite that fast in actuality). Loaded with 100 ISO Fuji Astia, it remains a highly satisfying photogaphic tool, and my DSLR, though more flexible in terms of the specialized subjects and settings it can handle, can't compete in terms of visual appeal with a projected medium format slide...

Of the two cameras you are considering I agree you might want to wait for some S5 reviews. With the increase in pixels it might not be that much better than the FZ8 for noise. The FZ8 has the great advantage of raw mode if you dont mind a little post processing. Raw eliminates the in-camera noise reduction and I think you can make much better decisions yourself with a good noise reduction plug-in. And the FZ8 has good enough cycle times in raw that it is a decent option in most situations..

You dont necessarily need high ISO if it means forfeiting stabilization. There are times when both are useful. For limited light situations like museums you will get better hand held images with stabilization. With subject movement you need high ISO..

Some manufacturers are claiming a four stop advantage for stabilization. Ive used cameras with highly rated stabilization and cant come close to a four stop advantage. But I think three stops or close to it isnt unrealistic with Canon and Panasonic non-DSLR stabilization. So the handheld shot you can take in a museum at ISO 200 with stabilization would require somewhere near ISO1600 if you depend on high ISO only. An ISO 200 shot from a FZ8 will be better than an ISO 1600 shot from a S6000, especially if you shoot raw. If you were at full zoom that number would go up to ISO3200 since the S6000 lens is a stop slower.



One day Fuji will put stabilization on a camera with their great 6Mp sensor and non-destructive noise reduction. They might even give you some control over their high default contrast on the F series. When they do everyone will be playing catch-up as there wont be any question as to the best overall GP camera..

But for now, you have to decide based on your shooting habits as has been pointed out. Ive opted for stabilization and wide aperture at zoom over high ISO. A good flash attachment on a camera with a hot shoe lets me take most people shots without motion blur. If I tended to shoot a lot of action in limited light where I couldnt use flash I would buy a S6000 though...

To turn your earlier comment around: just because you don't need highISO all the time, doesn't mean that it's not useful some of thetime.....

Agreed but I wouldn't make it the reason to buy a camera. There'smore important things. I often think that people seem to chosecameras by the headline numbers instead of thinking about it. Anobvious example is chosing a car by it's top speed when the speedlimit is half that. Or, I have a sixth gear on the Audi and it isusefull at times but best used at 80 to 85 mph and the speed limit inthe UK is 70 mph..

Absolutely - the obvious example being the headline megapixel figures..

Your expanded pics show well how beautifully smooth the deep blue sky is, which would have been spoiled by any signs of noise..

Here are a couple of examples of the sort of pics I take regularly:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

...both with the kit lens on my K100D at 55mm, f/5.6 (wide open), 1/60 sec, ISO-800. Indoors by a window in both cases... much better light than a flash..

Since I take pictures of this nature quite often, high-ISO performance was a particular issue for me, which is one reason (apart from cost) why I went for a 6MP camera rather than 10 MP. I would say that I use ISO-800 in about 30% of my shots, and these look fine at A4. I avoid 1600 which is much worse, as you'd expect, but have been pleasantly surprised by how good ISO800 is..

I think the OP probably has more than enough information and opinions by now to get thoroughly confused with....

Best wishesMike..

Can someone please explain what all of these f numbers and 1/30 fractions mean?.

Sorry,.

Brad..

Booorad wrote:.

Can someone please explain what all of these f numbers and 1/30fractions mean?.

There's a pretty good explanation of shutter speeds (1/30 refers to the fraction of a second the shutter stayed open), apertures (f numbers), and ISO (and how those three things are interrelated in making exposure decisions), as well as listing exposure values (EV) for many typical shooting situations and other tips about determining exposure in this article:.

Http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm.

You had written previously that you like to shoot before or during sunrise and during or after sunset. If you look at the exposure value chart in the article linked to above, you will find that pictures of sunsets have an exposure value around 11, and that it drops to an EV of 9 for a landscape 10 minutes after sunset. If you keep your tripod-mounted A520 at ISO 50 for lowest noise and your aperture at maybe F/5.6, then you can see from the exposure factor relationship chart that your shutter speed might be 1/30 second for a sunset and quickly dropping to 1/8 second just minutes later. If you need a faster shutter speed to freeze motion (e.g., if a breeze is causing some movement in nearby plants), you might need to sacrifice depth of field and open up the aperture (usually not a problem with a small-sensor compact) or risk more noise by increasing the ISO...

Booorad wrote:.

Can someone please explain what all of these f numbers and 1/30fractions mean?.

The f number gives you a standardised measure of how much light the lens lets in and it can be adjusted (manually or automatically) to get the exposure right. Each lens has a figure quoted showing the widest aperture available. So some are f/1 (rare and expensive), some f/2 and some f/4. Small numbers let in most light..

The f numbers run in a series: f/2 - f/2.8 - f/4 - f/5..6 - f/8 - f/11 and so on. Each number in that scale doubles the amount of light getting through the aperture..

The fractions are how long the shutter stays open in seconds so you get 4 - 2 - 1 - - and so on but they standardised them in the 1950's and it isn't quite as clear cut as that..

On both scales you can get halfway points for fine adjustment and, sometimes, in stead of halves they use thirds..

On zoom lenses you get two f numbers given; one for the wide angle end and the other for the tele end. So it might say f/2 - f/5.6 but these days they show that as 1:2 - 56 BTW, the f number is a ratio of the aperture to th focal length. it's rather cleaver in that an f/2 lens for a 35 mm camera, or an f/2 lens on a tiny P&S or an f/2 lens on a studio 4" x 5" camera will all let in the same amount of light regardless of their relative size..

Of course, you vary (or the camera does) the f numbr and shutter speed to get the exposure right for whatever you are photographing and the ISO speed selected..

Hope this makes sense..

Regards, David.

PS In the same way that shopkeepers never charge 5 when they can charge 4-99, so lenses will be f/18 rather than f/2 - it looks good and won't be used often so no one will notice if it's good bad or indifferent. Very few lenses are at their best wide open. Ones that are cost a lot of cash; Leica's lenses are a good example of a good one and they for many years made an honest f/2 as their best...

Booorad wrote:.

Can someone please explain what all of these f numbers and 1/30fractions mean?.

F numbers are to do with aperture - the hole the light passes through. Oddly, the smaller the number, the bigger the hole or aperture. You need a bigger aperture to let more light through when it's darker..

The 1/30 fractions refer to shutter speed or the length of time the shutter stays open. 1/30 means one thirtieth of a second. The longer the shutter speed, the more light gets through, so you need a longer shutter speed when it's darker..

Androohttp://Androo.smugmug.com..

Andrew Butterfield wrote:.

F numbers are to do with aperture - the hole the light passesthrough. Oddly, the smaller the number, the bigger the hole oraperture. You need a bigger aperture to let more light through whenit's darker..

If you think of 'f' as being a variable, then something like f/2.8 is a fraction:.

F2.8.

It makes sense that the fraction gets smaller as the number on the bottom gets bigger..

The other thing to remember about f-stops is that they are proportional to the radius / diameter of the "light-admitting" circle. But the amount of light (per time unit) that comes in is proportional to the area..

So f/2.0 lets in two times as much light as f/2.8, four times as much light as f/4.0...

I have taken some pictures at night and they turn out far brighter than what I actually saw. It's like the light has been magnified. Is there any way to tell (apart from simple experimentation) how long to leave the shutter open for so the picture will look more like what I see?.

Thanks for all the help!.

Brad..

Sorry Mike I forgot to say that they were two great portraits. Don't know which I like best..

Regards, David..