ISO setting for indoor photography with Nikon D200

fanny_mae

I've been looking through my wedding photographs that were taken by a professional photographer and I was noticing how grainy/noisy the indoor photos looked.

From the meta data with the images, the camera used was a Nikon D200 and the ISO was set to 1250. I don't know much about Nikon (I use Canon) so I'm not sure if ISO 1250 is a setting that can (recommended) be used without there being too much noise. I have read that with the Canon 5DMkII, it's possible to shoot at ISO 1600 and have no noise (the article I read said that ISO 1600 was the new ISO 400 in the 5DMkII ... I digress ...).

Another thing I was thinking about was maybe the photographer was looking for the grainy effect with the indoor photo. But even so, these images are very soft. Could it be the case that this is the effect he was going for? But that doesn't explain why he shot all indoor photos at ISO 1250.

The church wasn't that dark either and ISO1250 was used even if the flash was on.

Could this a sign of a poor photographer. Was it a mistake on his part? Or could that be the effect he was looking for?

Opinions greatly appreciated.

melekalikimaka

fanny_mae wrote: »

Could this a sign of a poor photographer. Was it a mistake on his part?

id go with one of these

Fajitas!

I use the original 5D for weddings, and happily stick to 800-1600 all day. The 5D is much better than the D200 as regards noise, afaik, but I don't think it was a mistake on his part. He was using the high iso for a reason, as churches can be very dark at the best of times. Tbh, I'd prefer a grainy photo than one blurred due to camera shake

fanny_mae

Fajitas! wrote: »

I don't think it was a mistake on his part. He was using the high iso for a reason, as churches can be very dark at the best of times. Tbh, I'd prefer a grainy photo than one blurred due to camera shake

I agree - a grainy photo is much better than a blurry one. But even when using the flash ... that's got to be a mistake, right?

I've shot in the same church as he did on a darker day with a 40D and managed to use ISO800 without sacrificing the shutter speed.

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

I use the original 5D for weddings, and happily stick to 800-1600 all day. The 5D is much better than the D200 as regards noise, afaik, but I don't think it was a mistake on his part. He was using the high iso for a reason, as churches can be very dark at the best of times. Tbh, I'd prefer a grainy photo than one blurred due to camera shake

even using flash?

noise is pretty cack over 800 on the d200

Fajitas!

I'd even use high iso's with flash to get a faster recharge rate - As I said though, my camera'll handle high ISO's quite well!

mikeanywhere

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'd even use high iso's with flash to get a faster recharge rate - As I said though, my camera'll handle high ISO's quite well!

As the man says.

The 5D has a superb high ISO/low noise feature and not every camera on the market has the same capability. You cant compare like for like ie D200 vs 5D Mk II. It is known that the D200 once it gets above 800 will start to get quite grainy.

Again to reiterate, the location may have warranted using that kind of ISO especially if it was a pretty dark place to try and shoot. Was that high ISO used for the outside shots afterwards??

fanny_mae

mikeanywhere wrote: »

The 5D has a superb high ISO/low noise feature and not every camera on the market has the same capability. You cant compare like for like ie D200 vs 5D Mk II. It is known that the D200 once it gets above 800 will start to get quite grainy.

I now understand the 5D and 5DMkII have much better noise reduction at higher ISOs than the Nikon D200 (it was a hunch I had anyway). Thanks for clearing that up everyone.

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Again to reiterate, the location may have warranted using that kind of ISO especially if it was a pretty dark place to try and shoot.

I understand that the location can warrant higher ISO. But not for all shots and especially not for shots with a flash. He also had a mono-pod so that would have helped to reduce shake.

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Was that high ISO used for the outside shots afterwards??

ISO500 was used outside afterwards (it was a bright summers day).

mikeanywhere

If they are soft, another option could be that he has forgotten to sharpen the images before sending out the JPG's.

Just out of interest, have you actually spoken to him and asked why this was the case?? Might save you a lot of time and guess work

fanny_mae

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Just out of interest, have you actually spoken to him and asked why this was the case?? Might save you a lot of time and guess work

No, I haven't asked him - that would be too obvious:pac: It's been a while since I got the photos back and I don're really have any contact with him.

mikeanywhere

fanny_mae wrote: »

No, I haven't asked him - that would be too obvious:pac:

LOL I suppose!!

Isar

I just got the 50D, and i'm suprised how well the ISO is workling. Even when i view the images full size with ISO at 3200 theres not much noise, at least the little noise doesn't bother me. So i'd say it was a mistake on the photographers side.

pete4130

Had a D200, anything over 800 is pushing it. I shot a wedding and had to use 1600 and it wasn't nice. Grain and once it goes past ISO 800 on a D200 the colour looks drab too.

andreas gross

wich lense do you adivice me to take a 18-70 or a 70-300.. i just need some good and diferent lense to take regular photos.Which one of those do you think is better???

thanks!
Andreas...

32finn

fanny_mae wrote: »

I now understand the 5D and 5DMkII have much better noise reduction at higher ISOs than the Nikon D200 (it was a hunch I had anyway). Thanks for clearing that up everyone.


I understand that the location can warrant higher ISO. But not for all shots and especially not for shots with a flash. He also had a mono-pod so that would have helped to reduce shake.


ISO500 was used outside afterwards (it was a bright summers day).

iso 500 outside!!!!!!!! thats madness imo, using such high iso's he had to be looking for a grainy effect, either that or he didnt really know what he was doing, again just imho.

eolair

I've not had a d200, but do have a d70s - so similar generation and processing. As others have said, 600-800 is really the limit before noise kicks in big time, and above 800 the colour can go askew too. The real kicker with the noise is that it doesn't sharpen well in post processing - so if your image started soft, it's probably better to keep it that way.

Having said that, I regularly shoot at 1600, but work in B&W, as the grain is moody. I'd not consider it suitable for wedding work except maybe a handful of shots, or the client specifically asked for it.

Either the 'tog didn't know how to use the camera, didn't know what the demands of a wedding were, or didn't have the glass to cope with low light.

smash

Did he have the camera set to auto or something?

eas

really the only way we'd know if he needed iso 1250 would be to know the shutter speeds and focal lenght used.

if he was getting 1/200th at 50mm them he could have gotten away with much less iso (roughly 2 stops)

if he was getting 1/50th at 50mm then he needed every bit he could get.

I guess it could also boil down to DOF required, but I'm guessing not.

I'm struggling to figure a real reason to continually shoot ISO 1250 with flash, particularly with the d200. I think it would serve very little purpose in 90% of situations. Unless you're trying to light something very big or very far away or both. Again, I'd think in most situations the difference in the recycle times would be nearly unnoticeable once you get above iso 800.

mloc

The ISO 500 outdoors on a sunny day is a bit suspect. Noise is noticable after ISO 400 (even at ISO 400 a good eye can see it) and as for the "grainy effect", the D200s noise profile is far from a desirable effect. It tends to have loads of chroma noise and is most un-film like. I've shot a few things at 1600 or so with my D200 and for non-web use, its limited. Very limited.

If it really was a bright sunny day, shooting over ISO 200 even with a medium telephoto shouts "I'm a numpty" to me. Shocking amount of professional wedding photographers are technically challenged.

melekalikimaka

surely the flash negates the need to be pumpin up iso in all but a dark windowless cellar?

smelltheglove

I use d200's and keep to 100 the majority of the time, 200 at a push and 400 if it is quite dark. I never go past this. Yes it makes it hard for me but I know in my head how much I can lift exposure in processing and this works perfectly for me. I hate noise, as you might guess so the last thing I want is to show noise to my clients.

oshead

smelltheglove wrote: »

I hate noise, as you might guess so the last thing I want is to show noise to my clients.

The last thing I'd want are blurred underexposed images. Bump ISO up as high as needed. Noise can be cleared up later in PS if not desired.

smelltheglove

oshead wrote: »

The last thing I'd want are blurred underexposed images. Bump ISO up as high as needed. Noise can be cleared up later in PS if not desired.

True but using iso 100, 200 or 400 does nto mean it has to be blurred, I never release blurred images, rarely even take them blurred as I know exactly what settings will work for me and use a hig apereture where needed. I'd prefer to capture the moment and essence of the wedding than add a load of noise or flash in the church.

wersal gummage

i think this thing is a few years old?

anyway, as a very amateur photographer, i find it interesting that loads of people have commented that its well known that the camera in question performs poorly over iso800. i have to say, if i was hiring a professional - in any industry - i'd expect them to have the right equipment. should the photographer not have a camera capable of shooting high ISOs, if thats what is necessary?

also, as an amateur, i'd know to dial down the ISO when using my external flash and i'd also know that ISO 500 isn't necessary when outdoors on a summer day.

in fact, if i was shooting a wedding, i'd probably have two bodies with me i think, one with the high ISO set, and one with the flash and a lower ISO set, no ???

smelltheglove

wersal gummage wrote: »

in fact, if i was shooting a wedding, i'd probably have two bodies with me i think, one with the high ISO set, and one with the flash and a lower ISO set, no ???

2 bodies is the norm and I suppose each photog is different. I use one with a 1.8 in the church and then I have one with a 2.8, I have the flash on this one though I very very rarely use the flash. Neither would go above 400 iso.

Every photog is different, some feel comfortable shooting at 800, or 1200, I dont know if I would even if I had a 5d, which I know os more capable of high iso. I like my clear sharper images. I use d200's although I would much prefer to use a better camera and hopefully will be doing so this time next year. We all start somewhere.

eas

wersal gummage wrote: »

i think this thing is a few years old?

Cripes, how does this happen?

D200 was and still is a very capable camera. The ability to use higher ISOs has only been around for a few years. Wedding photographers have been making things work much longer than that.

wersal gummage

eas wrote: »

Cripes, how does this happen?

D200 was and still is a very capable camera. The ability to use higher ISOs has only been around for a few years. Wedding photographers have been making things work much longer than that.

not the camera, i meant the thread is a few years old !!!!!!!!!!

eas

yeah - I know. I meant how do these threads get revived.