As the man himself once said, "A noisy photo is better than no photo."

Well said, David! I upgraded to the EOS R5 recently and had the need to push my ISO higher than ever last week. I photographed a local wheelchair football league with an adapted EF70-200 F2.8 which was played under parking lot lights at the local community college. Aperture was locked at 2.8 and the lowest comfortable shutter speeds to stop the action was between 1/80th - 1/250th second. (Thank you IBIS and IS) This meant ISO settings in the 25600-51200 range. I was pleasantly surprised to find numerous images that still seemed acceptable considering all the circumstances. Like you, I believe that I'd rather have some noise in the image than miss the shot.

So true, David! The day I got my Nikon Z6II, we went out to Knik glacier, here in Alaska, in the middle of the pitch-black night. I shot a huge number of photos with the aperture and shutter speed set for the bumpy driving conditions, and set the ISO to "Auto". This typically hovered around that 51,200 mark, and of course, there was noise in the dark areas... and it didn't matter at all. I got the shots, and they were absolutely fine for online publishing. (And... If I really felt compelled to correct it, I'm currently a huge fan of Topaz Denoise AI. It has improved some remarkably-noisy shots, and if you follow it up with Topaz Sharpen AI, (if required) it's an amazing combo.) It's better to have the shots, than to just declare it "impossible" and not even try. :)

I love the callout on the pronunciation of "iso". That alone is a reason to like this vid.

Any video that explains that ISO is pronounced "eye-so" rather than "eye-ess-oh" deserves a thumbs up!

Thanks for reminding us that sometimes we get stuck on the technicals vs just capturing the image. I just had a customer love an element in a image that actually drove me nuts. Great explanation of iso

David, thanks for the 'out' = "... usually, no one notices the noise in a good image." 😁 I appreciate it and your excellent video answering this question about eye-so.

Hi David, Very comprehensive tutorial! Thanks a lot, God bless you!

Great advice to test the H1 and H2 settings before you count on using them. I photograph fast (7+ yard/sec) animals under arena lighting with f2.8 lenses. Before the 1DX gave us native 51,200 ISO I preferred to underexpose the image than to use the H1/H2 settings.

Sir, very well explained. Thank you so much. 👍

Very very helpful answer Thank you!

@ 7:30 That image still looks amazing, even at that iso. Like you said, nobody would zoom that far into an image, only the photographer while doing small touch ups in editing.

Very informative.. Thanks!

David, I would suggest adding a follow up video to answer why would you boost iso in camera vs. in post

Great video and great closed remarks! I am now going to “take the noise” as well:)

Great information and points. I saw a KZfaq video awhile back that said photographers must keep ISO at 50-200. I couldn't keep it that low, got discouraged and stopped shooting for awhile.

Thanks David !

another excellent video. I don't think you mentioned that crop sensor cameras tend to be much nosier at high ISO than full frame cameras. I tried out the 7D MKII and found that while the noise was better at high ISO it was not worth the upgrade from my original 7D. I do a lot of music photography in a small club I shoot at and for the most part I rarely go beyond ISO 5000. I usually shoot between 2500-4000, depending on my shutter speed and/or f stop. I use full frames cameras for this. And one has to ask themselves what is going to be the end product with those images? For an 8x10 in a magazine high ISO is no problem. I am not afraid to crank the ISO if needed because that's is why I paid extra for a full frame camera, to have that option. Thanks again for the great video! UPDATE 11/6/2022 - I started reading up on Auto ISO and found it intriguing so I have started using it. My main camera is the Sony A7iii. I set the Auto ISO settings to be between 500-12,800. I eventually settled on 8000 as the highest ISO. Even the few images I got at 12,800 are still very good. I was surprised how well the Sony handled that ISO. For now I will stick with Auto ISO.

Excellent intro about ISO. It really sounds like I Ass Oh when people make it an acronym. It is from Greek "isos" indeed, but in many Western languages, the "iso" version is used in compound terms. On a weather map with lines of atmospheric pressure, each line represents equal (=isos) pressure and hence these lines are called "isobar". Same for lines of equal temperature: isotherm.

Excellent video.

Excellent explanation David, I wish if you make something on HOW TO SEE LIGHT? for photography.

Good answer! 😆👏🖤 Thanks!

great way you nailed ISO as word so everyone be on the same page. Nice explanation on bring those ISO numbers up for the shoot and test one's camera on how it handles noise in the images became each sensor is different in each model of camera. As full frame and asp C sensor have specs and each camera has new tech designed in to them as well So like the difference between an old 420 line TV vs LED and vs QLED there is a vast improvement as the tech defines the enhancements thanks David

Great explanation!

Really well explained Dave. The ISO capabilities of my new R6 are phenomenal compared to what I was getting with my 600D (Rebel T3i). Shot with that for my first 6 years as a photographer and could not believe the difference when I upgraded to the R6.

The Bon Jovi portrait is truly beautiful. A good lesson on making use of interesting ambient light when the opportunity presents.

You may be right regarding the pronunciation of ISO, however, the piece you quoted didn't actually say anything about how it was pronounced, just how it was spelled.

I mentioned this before.. I shoot minor hockey. Some arenas have bad light, some with strange colour on glass and most have netting from the ceiling to the glass I was at an arena about 10 rows up from the ice surface. No net going up to the ceiling and the glass wasn’t present in my shot with a variable aperture zoom lens. This particular arena had good logging but fell off the higher you went. I was in a spot where I wasn’t having anyone behind me. I ended up shooting at. ISO 12800. Looking at these images with brighter background compared to a night shot at 25600, no noise is present. Dark background, very little for the camera to work with. Very bright backgrounds, the camera has lots of information to work with.

Great Video

Thanks, David! When I deliver an image shot at an ISO higher than I would like, I tend to cringe, and the recipient has never asked about the noise.

ISO, cool fact. thanks.

Super high ISO can be a fun creative choice for for some situations. I have a $14 Holga lens for Canon for that looks awesome in black and white with super high ISO for that grainy lofi look. (Also, I love the vignette it produces to frame the subject) Not perfect for every situation but it has its moments :) Thanks for the great videos, David! -Chad

What's this? A sensible and reasoned discussion of ISO on the internet? Shocking. ;) Seriously, I've been as guilty as anyone of worrying about grain. Just shot an indoor concert rehearsal and actually crept up to 24,000 on one shot... way out of my comfort zone. And of course the organizers didn't bat an eye. It really is just photographers, isn't it?

I'm happy you mentioned that it's ISO and not ISO.

So, why not use a high ISO for "artistic" rendering. I loved pushing Tri-X film to 1600 back in the day. Loved the grain. Would higher digital ISO's today yield similar results when converted to b&w?

In a way, it is good to know you face the same challenges with ISO as we mere mortals. Accepting those limitations is now a relief.

Wow. What is the maximum magnification at which I should be analysing my pictures for noise or overall quality. I have a Nikon D5300.

Noise can be artistic as well. Remember concert photography 20 years ago. Noisy as hell and with great atmosphere. Now, there is a lot less atmosphere.

What about in camera noise reduction v lightroom noise reduction. Should you turn in camera off and use lightroom?

Thankyoudavidbergman Are you replacing your 1dx M3 for a R3?

OMG! CAN'T BELIEVE I FOUND THIS VIDEO RIGHT NOW. that's 100% correct and i agreed with this explanation. why you keep using high iso but there isn't enough lighting to capture with? iso in my opinion just a number not help to solve the problem. nowadays i just realize when go out to take a picture with my camera i started to observe and looking for a good object with enough and good light source. then all the technic of photography will follow along. instead found a good object but there is no good light source around.. right? totally trash but THIS SITUATION are iso made for. but again, higher iso doesn't totally looks good at all.

I am shooting Canon EOS R i know you shoot at 3200. but for some strange reason i get a ton of noise shooting 1250 or more. are my settings wrong? I am using flash and without flash my camera over 800 has a lot of noise. I rather get the shot, i just wonder if my settings are wrong. This is my go to setting to start ss160 to 200, F8, ISO 200 and at low light i take shutter down with flash and increase my ISO or my flash. What am i doing wrong since there is still noise?

How do you even get into shooting concerts & bands anymore? When I lived in FL I started that way, shooting bands.. but haven't now in years and moved to NYC.. so I wouldn't know how to get back into it.. plus get paid well for it. I always enjoyed it, but I have expenses. Current camera bodies are: CANON R5, EOS-R, 6DMKII & 5DMKII Plus a respectful set of lenses.

I think people confuse grain with noise. You will obviously get more grain in your images with higher ISO.

When was this released? It certainly wasn’t said like this in the 70s and the only reason it was ever established was as a European reaction to ASA, which is exactly the same thing and most english speaking countries used the determinant ASA instead of the Eurocentric ISO.

You did not mention using software to reduce high ISO noise. Can use ISOs two levels higher with DxO PureRaw2.

I’m a little bit surprised that you didn’t take the opportunity to mention the new R3 which has gained another stop on the ISO.

Is not about noise but about loss in dynamic range you should worry about.

Hi David, I loved the information that you shared with us. One thing to have in consideration is that not everyone from your audience is native speaking from USA. And since you speak too fast 💨 it is difficult to follow you. I know, I know, I can hear many times until I understand. But David, be real, who has too much time to do it. If you and Adorama would like to expand the boarders of USA, you need to speak slower. And a lot of these people, like me, lives in USA and buy products in Adorama store and online. Just my humble opinion.

Great tutorial as usual, David. One question: You seem to define "usable ISO" based on your image as it comes out of the camera; is this correct? I wonder how modern applications such as Topaz DeNoise, DXO Photolab and On1PhotoRaw NoNoise would enter into your recommendations. Thank you!

Reading the comments here, I can see that our knowledge is our curse and at times a limitation

Oh nice I’ve been saying ISO right all these years lol 😂

Great expanation of the triangle. It's so important to know your equipments capabilities along with your own. Unlike in the film days it won't cost you $ 25 per roll to do your tests.

While high ISOs like 51,200 or higher don't really (in my opinion) have any real photographic use, they are useful if say you're using a mirrorless camera and trying to compose a scene that is near dark (say you're doing a long exposure). This can be useful even though the resulting image may be very noisy. At least you will have an idea of how your composition will look (roughly speaking). It's a bit quicker since if you're shoot at say 51,200 versus your base ISO (say 100) you're shooting a full 10 stops "faster" so you can quickly tell your composition, versus doing, say a 30 or 60 second exposure at ISO 100only to find out your composition is off. So for composition testing, it works great. Second, people shouldn't be afraid to up their ISO to get a sharper shot. Cameras these days can usually shoot up to ISO 3200 without too much image quality (sharpness) loss, so people should not be afraid to shoot above their base ISO. As one instructor put it to me once, "I'd rather have a slightly noisy shot than a blurry shot. We can fix the slightly noisy shot, but we can't fix a blurry shot." Use the ISO to help you get a good shutter speed to ensure a sharp shot (along with using stabilization, such as IBIS or in-lens stabilization). This will help you keep a lower ISO, but still I would get in the habit of exercising good shooting technique and at last following the minimum shutter speed rule (1/focal length) in most cases. IBIS and VR will help but you shouldn't rely on them alone to get a sharp shot, as they have their limits. Utilize your ISO to get faster shutter speeds. Of course how high you can go in terms of ISO will depend on the camera and your preference to how much noise you will tolerate. For example, my 24MP Nikon I can safely shoot up to ISO 6400 without much of a noise problem (usually just some luminance noise I can remove in post without degrading the image much) whereas my other camera (a 45MP Nikon camera) I can only shoot up to about 3200 before noise gets to be too much where it degrades the quality of the image (either because of color noise, or the amount of NR required would degrade the details to a point where the image is soft/not sharp). Basically know the limits of your camera, but don't be afraid to use higher ISOs on modern cameras (cameras made in say the last 5-7 years) as most can shoot cleanly up to ISO 1600 and some can go higher. Also if you're shooting JPEG, sometimes you can get away with even higher ISOs, like 12,600 as the camera will apply some NR when processing the JPEG. I know with my 24MP Fuji cameras shooting JPEGs, I could get mostly clean JPEGs up to ISO 12,600.

ah! Here we are used to call it [aayzo] but I really thought it is an acronym as well! We like to make words out of acronyms (quicker to say it that way). Did you say "generasin" there? French hit very hard there :)

To me, noise on an image is like its audio counterpart in a song. Pristine sound doesn't mean the song is interesting. These are two different and independent notions. Some photos I like partly because they look dirty. Because it fits their purpose. Other photos I'm amazed at how they are technically clean and sharp. As you said, David, some iconic images have a lot of noise and we don't care. I'll go even further: that's part of what makes them iconic. What if Robert Capa had had one of our DSLRs on D day?

I didn't trust my old Canon 5DIII above Iso 2500 but my new R6 I dare to use at iso 10.000 when necessary

How does Exposure compensation relate to ISO's?

I used a high iso to photograph a newborn baby, flash or high intensity lights would have upset her. So high iso it was she was happy, more important mom was happy.

Prior to ISO, it was the combined term, ASA/ISO, then ASA and pronounced A-S-A -- not A-SAH. It was pronounced ASA in reference to the abbreviation for an organization's name that did light measurements for standard film speeds. And today ISO are the letters in an organization's name, that sets industry standards for dslr sensors light measurements. The letters refer to ISO = International Organization for Standardization, ASA = American Standards Association. Pronounce it however you like. And there's nothing wrong with pronouncing it EYE-ES-OH, since that's how abbreviations are pronounced. Or pronounce it as one word EYE-SO, if you so choose. Now it might be that EYE-SO is how the ISO organization would LIKE to have it pronounced, but it is certainly NOT incorrect to say it EYE-ES-OH. In the end I say, pronounce it however it sounds best to YOU. We are all free to do that. But please don't claim EYE-SO is the ONLY CORRECT way, and therefore the way we should all be saying it! Not true. The photography community has a long history of pronouncing it EYE-ES-OH. That means something. It became a culturally accepted form of communicating the term long before the internet age and is valued by the photographic community as part of our history and tradition and commonly understood way of communicating that term -- from film days when it was originally referred to as a combined term ASA/ISO. That's important. Doesn't mean anyone has to continue to say it that way, but please don't try to convince everyone that EYE-SO is the only correct way. EYE-SO is a very new and revisionist history way of pronouncing ISO. Go for it though! Just don't tell those of us who are pronouncing it EYE-ES-OH that we're wrong. And what really matters is what the term represents, technically and artistically to photographers -- its MEANING, in real world practical use -- exposure, light measurement -- the things that have real practical purpose in the work photographers do. Let photographers communicate with one another the way they always have if they choose to do that. When photographers talk amongst each other about EYE-ES-OH, they are NOT thinking about a company and how it says its name -- and certainly not caring about said company.

David - It's PF. ASA just called from the 80's and they're really pissed at this ISO stuff. I gave them your cell number....Their lawyers will be in touch.

Well I wouldn't care that much about luminance noise... and when colours start to fall apart you can always go black & white :)

You just can't imagine the number of extremely high iso images coming to me as a pre-press employee. It drives me mad. Many of these guys call themselves 'nature light photographers' and count on expensive cameras. Huh, in plain words they just can't use strobes when necessary.

Shoot high ISO only if you love gobs of digital noise and very poor color quality. On the contrary, always shoot at the very LOWEST ISO you can if you want the best quality which your camera can offer you. The cheapest camera set at ISO 100 or 200 will offer you MUCH better image quality than even the most expensive camera will when set at a very high ISO. Generally speaking, you're starting to push things when you set it as low as ISO 800 or even ISO 400. Starting at somewhere around ISO 1600, image quality begins to be very UN-acceptable indeed. And the smaller your image sensor is, the more noticeable it is. DX format is the smallest format I will go -

Lol I say the same thing

If ISO is a word, why isn't it spelled "Iso"?

So is CIA “seeya” and how about FBI? I’m sticking with eye es oh

nice french accent BTW...

The iso thing only bothers me when someone acknowledges they don't know but says whatever and continues to use it wrong. I get it, we've been conditioned in certain ways but its not a hard thing, there's really no controversy about it. People just got it wrong. It's like saying, "Hey Dan..." and you go, "It's David." Then they go, "Whatever" and continue on. It's like making three lefts instead of just taking a right.

And on the other hand, it doesn't bother me if someone thinks I'm ignorant if I say "I.S.O."

Dude...why aren't you at the circus?