Although the megapixel fetish race is the one that gets the most attention, I think the ISO equivalent is also pretty amusing (in a “shakes head, looks baffled” kind of way).
Now, I should preface all this by mentioning that I don’t have a “genre” of photography. I just photograph whatever attracts my attention at any given time, and that can be day or night.
Recently I saw a camera review in which the reviewer was showing pictures captured at ISOs that would have been considered witchcraft even ten years ago. They looked like garbage - noisy as anything and generally an aesthetic mess. But apparently the fact that they were taken at stratospheric ISO levels means that the whole world must see them because, I don’t know, reasons.
Although I’ve used cameras that are well known for good high ISO performance, a look through my Google photos collection shows me that I almost never go beyond ISO 3200, and I would guess that less than 5% of my (tens of thousands of) photos are shot at that sensitivity. On a usual day, I find that if I have a fast lens (F2 or quicker), I can get almost anything I want to shoot without going past ISO 800, or 1600 in a pinch.
I’d be interested to hear from people who do use these 5-or-6 digit ISOs on a regular basis, and what they shoot that necessitates these ISOs. Let’s hear some thoughts.
> Most modern cameras are ISO invariant anyway.
Very few are truly ISO invariant as upping the ISO reduces the read noise slightly even with conventional sensors, plus many are dual gain which are never as there is one spot where the read noise collapses. Including your A9.
Interestingly, it was a long time ago when many cameras behaved in read-noise invariant manner (the CCD era). Some even only marked the ISO as metadata in the raw files.
> My Sony A9 gains nothing beyond ISO 800 compared to increasing exposure in post-processing, so I generally have my ISO set to Auto 100-800.
Sony A9 has read noise of about 2.5 electrons at ISO 800, it goes down to something like 1.2 or or 1.1 at the much higher ISOs. normally it indeed is quite irrelevant, thus I’d probably use the same ISO range myself that you’re using.
> I am a low light event pro, and I regularly increase my exposure 3-4 EV in post
Being a pro, I wish you’d teach the others better than this as you know that exposure and lightness are not the same and that one can’t increase the exposure in post. It would help the beginning learners to understand the fundamentals better and learn faster to make fewer mistakes.
Nice photo, btw.
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll admit I’m not the best with technical details, my brain spaces out pretty quickly when I try to understand the finer points of the technology involved. As a photographer, I rely on instincts.
There is obviously some need for technical understanding nonetheless, otherwise I’d be making lots of pointless mistakes. We are agreed on the practical implementation of the dual gain technology in modern sensors such as the one in my A9, which for me is mainly about preserving highlights; I am less likely to blow them if I limit my ISO to 800 vs. letting the camera bump it all the way to 6400 or 12800.
I haven’t used Canon or Nikon, but the Sony mirrorless cameras I am familiar with are prone to overexposing the scene when it is mostly dark, but has occasional bright flashes (such as is the case at fire shows).
I mitigate those tendencies by mainly relying on highlight metering, limiting my ISO range, and using S mode with significant (usually around -1 EV) exposure compensation when there are very bright flashes; that is usually enough for Sony mirrorless cameras to avoid blowing highlights (fire breathers are a notable exception, I have to key in everything manually in advance).
As for exposure vs. light, you are correct of course. For good and for ill, “increasing exposure in post” is how I have learned to express my Lightroom editing process, since the slider I use for that is called Exposure and I increase that value.