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.
I feel like some people shoot high iso to cover up for their laziness… At least for street/ travel style photography, resorting to noisy high iso where you shouldn’t even be taking that photo in the first place as the lighting is shit.
At the end of the day, photography is about capturing light… if you don’t have any, you either create it, go long exposure, or leave the scene!
I definitely agree with this - although given some of the rather aggressive responses to this thread, it seems to be a minority opinion. The thing about these mega-high ISOs is that they can encourage people to shoot in practically zero light "because they can", regardless of whether they should.
yep exactly... I mean if you're on a job, fair enough... but even then I would never go for a commercial shoot without any lights regardless! And if you're doing a commercial shoot, you generally have to plan for the lighting as well, i.e., end of day softer sunlight, rain/overcast, morning hard contrast etc etc.
It does seem we're on the minority which is surprising, then again, remember this is only reddit/ many self proclaimed pros here! I am by no means a professional but if I know for a fact from many pro friends that if I were to just suggest 'just max out the ISO' to cover up for boring or lack of light, they would definitely chuckle ahahah
what the hell does this even mean?
I'm shooting basketball in a dim gym so need fast shutter speed and high iso. can't use flash to blind players. so your solution is to not shoot anything?
I'm shooting a concert, singer is jumping around, low light, I can't use a flash. so don't shoot?
I'm shooting owl that only flys and hunrs when it's dark. just don't shoot it?
high iso enables use cases that are difficult to capture other wise. that's the whole point
Sometimes though, you're paid to capture something and using your own light is not an option for whatever reason. You might not be capturing anything worthy of a magnum portfolio but you still gotta get the shot.