Is 20000 ISO usable for wildlife photography?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

jcgamble

jcgamble

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I have my Z9 set to 20000 ISO maximum, and on occasion have gotten photos that I thought were pretty good. I would like your opinion on the attached photo and it was processed in CaptureOnePro23 with noise reduction.

20230405 522A.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
To my eyes the photo certainly works at web posting size but in the end how high an ISO you can get away with is up to you and as others have posted things like final use and whether you were able to reasonably fill the frame or if you have to deeply crop into the photo can limit how high you might want to push ISO.
 
It looks like you did your best to keep the aperture wide open and the shutter speed as long as possible, so yes, it would be better than no image at all. Some of the ai based noise removal is able to help images like that, looks like yours did pretty good.

Folks here, I think starting with Steve, have mentioned a little formula for cropping, if I remember it right. The crop factor squared times the ISO gives the equivalent iso compared to not cropping. So if one crops less the image seems less noisy.
 
Member's gallery
Great image!

As others have said, it depends on the use.

However, you might want to change your processing approach or even your software tool kit. While the owl looks OK, I still see a lot of noise, especially color noise, in the background of the image. Applying selective noise reduction might be able to clean up the background a bit more. Also, I only have experience with PS, DxO and Topaz products. But the NR available in them is excellent and I often use DxO or Topaz to first address noise, and the open the image in PS to finish processing.
 
Member's gallery
This thread is perfect for something I wanted to share but was struggling to figure out where to put it. These shots are not intended to show anything but ISO possibilities & comparison.

I took my wife out to try out her new 600PF for the first time this weekend. We were on a dock at a local lake hoping to see some action when she heard rustling in the thicket behind us. She turned to see this squirrel and immediately snapped his photo w/o adjusting for the reduced light. I reminded her to slow the SS, and she did.

The 1st shot below ended up at 25,600 ISO, vs 5600 ISO on the 2nd shot. Both were processed identically.

As Karen mentioned above, I ran the raw files through DXO DeepPrime before tweaking exposure & color.

She was shooting a Z8 with the Z600PF.

1/3200, f6.3, ISO 25,600
20231104 TLM Z8B, 600PF Squirrel ISO25.6k-00130 by Phil McKinney

1/800, f6.3, ISO 5600
20231104 TLM Z8B, 600PF Squirrel-00151 by Phil McKinney
 
Member's gallery
I'm not sure what direction this thread is taking, though high ISO images can produce great prints depending on the subject, exposure (ETR), etc. I have many images shot at ISO 6400 and up which have turned out spectacular prints, though again all of the other factors have to be perfect. The loss in DR, increase in color noise, and other factors can adversely affect the final result.
 
Member's gallery
PhilM said:
This thread is perfect for something I wanted to share but was struggling to figure out where to put it. These shots are not intended to show anything but ISO possibilities & comparison.

I took my wife out to try out her new 600PF for the first time this weekend. We were on a dock at a local lake hoping to see some action when she heard rustling in the thicket behind us. She turned to see this squirrel and immediately snapped his photo w/o adjusting for the reduced light. I reminded her to slow the SS, and she did.

The 1st shot below ended up at 25,600 ISO, vs 5600 ISO on the 2nd shot. Both were processed identically.

As Karen mentioned above, I ran the raw files through DXO DeepPrime before tweaking exposure & color.

She was shooting a Z8 with the Z600PF.

1/3200, f6.3, ISO 25,600
20231104 TLM Z8B, 600PF Squirrel ISO25.6k-00130 by Phil McKinney

1/800, f6.3, ISO 5600
20231104 TLM Z8B, 600PF Squirrel-00151 by Phil McKinney
Click to expand...

I started this because I see a lot of people that don't shoot over 3200 or 6400 ISO. I believe these new mirrorless cameras and software can produce stunning images above those ISO levels. Shooting at lower light levels creates more opportunities.
 
Member's gallery
jcgamble said:
I started this because I see a lot of people that don't shoot over 3200 or 6400 ISO. I believe these new mirrorless cameras and software can produce stunning images above those ISO levels. Shooting at lower light levels creates more opportunities.
Click to expand...
Sure, we can push ISO pretty hard when necessary but if I intend to print large and especially if I’ll have to crop much I’ll still avoid sky high ISO.

But yeah if your images are primarily destined for web or other computer viewing uses and especially if you can fill the frame and use most or all of the sensor then yeah it’s pretty amazing how hard we can push ISO these days.

Just remember that there’s no free lunch when shooting at something like ISO 20,000 dynamic range will take a big hit. The good news is that when light levels are low enough to need ISO that high and especially if your subjects and scenes are largely midtone that don’t mandate a ton of dynamic range you can often get away with higher ISO.
 
jcgamble said:
I started this because I see a lot of people that don't shoot over 3200 or 6400 ISO. I believe these new mirrorless cameras and software can produce stunning images above those ISO levels. Shooting at lower light levels creates more opportunities.
Click to expand...

I think it's more the software. In my view a similar dslr might even do slightly better noise-wise.
 
Member's gallery
Higher ISO reduces color fidelity of the image and how much varies by subject. With human skin and the skin of a sea lion the loss of tonality is very apparent even with a 12MP sensor. For birds one can get away with more color distortion as the viewer lacks a frame of reference and can only judge detail and contrast.

With a subject that is still for long intervals a shutter speed can be much slower and allow for a lower ISO setting. With modern mirrorless cameras the image stabilization also allows the use of much slower shutter speeds with long telephoto lenses.

With my own shooting with each new camera I tend to carry forward habits from my shooting with previous cameras that no longer apply but are difficult to recognize as no longer being applicable. It is for me still a trial and error process to find the best path forward with new cameras and new lenses. This is why I appreciate the time and effort put in by Steve Perry to produce his very instructive videos.
 
Member's gallery
Here is a photo of a blue-tailed magpie from the Singaraja rain forest in Sri Lanka, taken with my D780 at ISO 18,000 and processed with Topaz DeNoise. I very happy with it. It was so dark i could barely see the bird in my viewfinder. I also took some ones with high ISO on my D9 but the 780 is actually better in low light in my opinion.
780_0273-Edit-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for posting, it's fun to see others' no flash, in the dark or twilight efforts. On the owl photo, I actually think if the image was less bright, it would reduce the perception of the noise, and show that this is not a daytime shot. At least I assume it wasn't due to needing the high iso.

Your owl was on the hunt and realized it was being watched. It was night and I think letting the viewer know this might make the image more interesting. By being as bright as day, the perception is that the image should be sharper, but recognizing that it's a night shot gives the viewer a "window" into the owl's world, and personality. Certainly darkening the background might help.

I really like looking for night opportunities for nightjars and owls. Poorwills (thanks to @jhallettbbc for posting) are particularly fun because their tendency is to freeze when they feel threatened. I've had good luck with handheld flashlights or headlights, and no flash, but that means high iso. In fact, in my experience, I have to find them with a flashlight (look for the gleaming eyes), then do a slow careful approach (10-15 mins or more), keeping the light on them. If I use a flash, it's a one-time shot, they disappear after that photo. So, high iso is what I get. Finding nightjars in the day is really a challenge. I've only succeeded a couple of times.

My 300mm f/4 PF is what I'm trying now instead of my 500mm f/5.6 PF, to reduce the iso. Cold nights are harder as there are fewer insects out.

Here's a few shots in separate threads: https://bcgforums.com/threads/learning-low-light-technique-with-a-d500.27249/ and https://bcgforums.com/threads/common-poorwill-project-cont.28699/. (I haven't yet revisited editing of these.) All were handheld.
regards, Alan
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I just realized that another suggestion is that in this case, iso in the range of 12800 to 16000 would have reduced the light level (and noise) and perhaps worked because the owl was still.
Take all my suggestions with a (big) grain of salt, as I consider myself as a beginner. My suggestions are a product of looking at my own photos and trying to get them to tell a story. In your case, the story I see is to show what the owl was doing: getting ready to hunt at twilight, got surprised, and reacted. Showing the image a little darker might help with that story that shows in it's eyes...
--Alan
 
Member's gallery
A couple of examples of the D5 sensor, with some standard PP in LR Classic

ISO 18000
Young Buffalo with oxpeckers on muzzle backlit_June2022-57915.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.




ISO 14400
Cow elephant herd line Shingwedzi calves trunks_June2022_June2022-53719.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
IMO, no matter the ISO, the best way to increase the potential of an image is to ensure proper exposure. To avoid, or limit, noise, I do everything I can to limit underexposure in an image. Even as sensors and post processing products get so much better at handling noise, there is a limit to what they are capable of.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
IMO, no matter the ISO, the best way to increase the potential of an image is to ensure proper exposure. To avoid, or limit, noise, I do everything I can to limit underexposure in an image. Even as sensors and post processing products get so much better at handling noise, there is a limit to what they are capable of.
Click to expand...
Sure... But then sometimes you're shooting early am with a not clear sky and you're already at super low shutter speeds (1/200th or less) wide open.

Then what?

Your post is akin to "just shoot in better light". If only we could get wildlife to cooperate with us...
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
Sure... But then sometimes you're shooting early am with a not clear sky and you're already at super low shutter speeds (1/200th or less) wide open.

Then what?

Your post is akin to "just shoot in better light". If only we could get wildlife to cooperate with us...
Click to expand...
There is no intent in my post of saying "just shoot in better light."

There are tools you can use when you're already at 1/200 sec shutter speed, such as supportimg the camera with a tripod, monopod or any other item available, and slow the shutter speed if needed. That may not work for subjects moving at some speed, but can work with some static and very slow moving subjects.

I've taken shots with far faster shutter speeds than needed, as well a too small an aperture, and witnessed others do the same, which resulted in an underexposed image. And no, I'm not talking about starting at 1/200 sec shutter speed.

The bottom line in my post was to stress the importance of proper exposure in limiting noise in an image. While there are circumstances where this may not be possible, or practical, there are those where it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top