High ISO shooting

[John Camp]

"No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. " -- Jonathan

There's a concept I could get behind. I'd love to see a Formula 1 race a Ford Festiva along Sunset Boulevard from the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu around Hollywood down to the Pasadena Freeway. This could be a movie.

[sojournerphoto]

Your arguing against a strawman here.  Just because a camera has some new capability is no guarantee that any given photographer will use that feature or capability competently. I've said as much more than once; go back and read my previous posts again.



I have never said or implied any such thing. High ISO capability is simply another creative tool that a skilled photographer can use to shoot under conditions that previously disallowed photography.



The camera ALWAYS matters. Try capturing a dancer in mid-leap, or shooting insect macros with an 8x10 view camera. You'll quickly discover it is far from the ideal tool for the task. If your chosen artistic genre is urban street shooting at night, high-ISO capability is essential, as is fast glass. The capabilities of the equipment are an integral part of realizing the artistic/creative vision. This true of every profession that relies equipment to accomplish a goal; you don't see too many Ford Festivas competing on the Formula One race circuit. No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. And no matter how skilled the photographer, shooting insect macros with an 8x10 is not going to deliver particularly good results.



You're raising more strawman bullshit here. As I've said several times, increasing a camera's capabilities increases the ways in which the camera may be used to achieve one's creative vision. But it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the photographer to use his tools' capabilities intelligently and creatively. Giving a bad photographer a state-of-the-art camera will not guarantee good results any more than giving a bad writer a word processor instead of a manual typewriter. But a good writer can express his creativity through the word processor with less hassle and frustration than the typewriter; it may only take him two days to write a chapter instead of five.

The ultimate flaw in your argument is that you have no basis for decisively defining how much camera capability is "enough". Is ISO 400 enough for a Real Photographer®, or should we draw the line at 100? Maybe 100 is too much of a crutch; should we draw the line at 25, or 10, or 1? What about viewfinder technology? Is an optical viewfinder OK, or should Real Photographers® be limited to upside-down images on ground glass? Or a rangefinder? Is film OK, or should Real Photographers® use hand-coated glass plates? What about lenses? Should they be allowed, or should Real Photographers® limit themselves to pinholes?

Then there's the small matter of who died and put you in charge of deciding which photographers need what capabilities? Who the hell are you to judge the merits of any other photographer's choice of tools, or whether they are using them effectively to achieve their creative vision?

Steve did none of this. You have misconstrued his original post and intent, which was a response to your comment that people who choose not to take the continuous digital upgrade path 'deserve to be left behind'. Do they not bleed when you cut them?

Mike

[Jonathan Wienke]

Steve did none of this. You have misconstrued his original post and intent, which was a response to your comment that people who choose not to take the continuous digital upgrade path 'deserve to be left behind'.

I never said that anyone should buy every new upgrade that comes along. My point was that as a professional, if you don't have a compelling reason to offer as to why someone should hire you instead of letting Aunt Sally handle the job with her digicam, you don't deserve to be in business. Having a camera with high-ISO capability so that you can shoot clean naturally-lit images of an engaged couple having dinner by candlelight (thus better capturing the mood of the setting than if flash was used, and something Aunt Sally probably can't offer) is one way one could make that argument to a client.

The point of my original post was that technological advances are not to blame for the decline in professional photography, it's the "640K should be enough for anybody" attitude of many professional photographers, expressed in this thread as "ISO 100 should be enough for anybody". It's a stupid and short-sighted attitude, and a perfect example of why many clients are choosing to do projects themselves instead of hiring a professional. The whole justification for hiring a professional anything is that the professional can do things that an amateur cannot. If this is not so, then there is no reason to justify paying money for the services of a professional. Photography as a profession is in the toilet is because many photographers have failed to offer their potential clients sufficiently compelling reasons for the potential client to choose the professional instead of Aunt Sally.

This is not the fault of technology; technology has offered the same degree of advancement to the professional as to the consumer. The gap in capabilities between consumer and pro gear is about the same as it always has been. What has happened is that professionals have been slower to adopt and embrace the new opportunities offered by technological advances than amateurs (the "ISO 100 should be enough for anybody" sentiment is a perfect example if this), and as a result the creativity gap between the pro and amateur has narrowed. A professional should always be looking for new tools and methods to advance the level of their work, and not merely be content to sit back and do things the way they have always been done, expecting that clients will continue to fork over their cash the way they always have. Embracing new technology is part (but not all) of the process of continuously striving to improve one's work. If the "ISO 100 is enough" crowd expended as much mental energy devising creative ways to use higher ISO as they did questioning its validity and denigrating those who use it, they'd probably attract and retain more clients.

[BJL]

... if I have to use a tripod or flash that's fine. ...

That is it in a nutshell. For some photographers in some situations, neither a tripod and long exposures nor flash are appropriate, so getting a high enough shutter speed in low light is important ... and there is still some room for useful improvement.

Which does not mean that some other photographers can do what they want entirely at low to medium sensitivities ("ISO"). I happen to be in your camp on this one: IS plus sensitivities up to 800 ISO have handled everything for me so far.

But I do not pretend that this works for everyone. I am happy if certain people stop accusing me of suppressing a secret desire for ultra high speed/low light capability in order to deny the inadequacies of my system!

[Ray]

That is it in a nutshell. For some photographers in some situations, neither a tripod and long exposures nor flash are appropriate, so getting a high enough shutter speed in low light is important ... and there is still some room for useful improvement.

Which does not mean that some other photographers can do what they want entirely at low to medium sensitivities ("ISO"). I happen to be in your camp on this one: IS plus sensitivities up to 800 ISO have handled everything for me so far.

But I do not pretend that this works for everyone. I am happy if certain people stop accusing me of suppressing a secret desire for ultra high speed/low light capability in order to deny the inadequacies of my system!

I think you've got the wrong emphasis here, BJL. ISO 800 might well provide you with a sufficiently fast shutter speed for all your purposes, but does it provide you with sufficient SNR, dynamic range and resolution?

The really useful benefit of cameras with high ISO capability is not so you can shoot at ISO 12,800 because another camera might not have such a high a setting (you can always underexpose), and not so you can take a shot at ISO 12,800 which is slightly less awful than that from another camera which doesn't boast an ISO 12,800 setting, but so you can take a shot at ISO 800 (or 400) which is perhaps technically as good as (or close to) the shot from another camera at base ISO.

You might recall that I was so impressed with the high ISO performance claims for the Nikon D3 when it was first available, I took the trouble of visiting the Nikon Centre in Bangkok to compare the camera with my 5D at ISOs of 3200 and above, underexposing the 5D to simulate the higher settings.

Whilst there was no doubt that the D3 produced slightly better results at high ISO, of the order of 1/3rd to 1/2 a stop better than the much older 5D, it was really nothing to shout about. I felt people were being duped.

However, I later discovered that the real benefits of the D3 and D700 (compared with equivalent Canon models) are their significantly better performance at more moderate ISO settings such as ISO 800.

If you compare cameras at the DXOMark website, you'll see that at ISO 800 the D700 has slightly less noise than the 5D at ISO 400, and slightly better DR than the 5D even at base ISO.

That's the truly remarkable thing. At ISO 800, the D700 has better DR than the 5D has at base ISO.

[BJL]

I think you've got the wrong emphasis here, BJL. ISO 800 might well provide you with a sufficiently fast shutter speed for all your purposes, but does it provide you with sufficient SNR, dynamic range and resolution?

Yes, it does. Partly because I only ever hit 800 for relatively rare "people in a dimly lit room" shots that have only modest DR needs, and mostly work below that. Can you offer evidence to the contrary, or explain why I am wrong about my own photographic needs, without ever having seen one of my photos, or knowing what camera and lenses I am currently using?

You seem to have missed a main theme of my post: the folly of people projecting their own needs, wants and priorities onto other photographers.


P. S. Aside: to me, "DR is the new MP": a spec. number which some people simply as "more is better" with no sense as to "how much better". That is, overlooking The Law of Diminishing Returns, which for DR sets in once one goes much past the six or seven stops that a "straight print" has any use for, into the territory of contrast flattening tone curves, dodging, burning and such. Yes each extra stop has some value, but each extra stop has less value than the previous one.

[Ray]

Yes, it does. Partly because I only ever hit 800 for relatively rare "people in a dimly lit room" shots that have only modest DR needs, and mostly work below that. Can you offer evidence to the contrary, or explain why I am wrong about my own photographic needs, without ever having seen one of my photos, or knowing what camera and lenses I am currently using?

You seem to have missed a main theme of my post: the folly of people projecting their own needs, wants and priorities onto other photographers.

Not at all. I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the 'camera doesn't matter'. If you don't need or want high resolution, high dynamic range, low noise images with excellent tonal range and color sensitivity at moderately high ISOs, that's fine by me. But judging from most of your posts on this site you seem to be very interested in such qualities.

Could we say there appears to be a distinct separation between your interest in the technology and your need or desire to use the technology when taking photos.

Even if the subject doesn't have a high SBR, you will probably find that cameras with good high-ISO performance also have lower noise, better tonality and better color sensitivity. For example, the D700 has about the same tonal range and color sensitivity at ISO 400 as the 5D has at ISO 100. Noise at ISO 400 is just slightly greater than 5D noise at ISO 100, but the difference is probably invisible on a print.

At ISO 200, the D700 has better 'everything' than the 5D at ISO 100.

[250swb]

Your arguing against a strawman here.  Just because a camera has some new capability is no guarantee that any given photographer will use that feature or capability competently. I've said as much more than once; go back and read my previous posts again.



I have never said or implied any such thing. High ISO capability is simply another creative tool that a skilled photographer can use to shoot under conditions that previously disallowed photography.



The camera ALWAYS matters. Try capturing a dancer in mid-leap, or shooting insect macros with an 8x10 view camera. You'll quickly discover it is far from the ideal tool for the task. If your chosen artistic genre is urban street shooting at night, high-ISO capability is essential, as is fast glass. The capabilities of the equipment are an integral part of realizing the artistic/creative vision. This true of every profession that relies equipment to accomplish a goal; you don't see too many Ford Festivas competing on the Formula One race circuit. No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. And no matter how skilled the photographer, shooting insect macros with an 8x10 is not going to deliver particularly good results.



You're raising more strawman bullshit here. As I've said several times, increasing a camera's capabilities increases the ways in which the camera may be used to achieve one's creative vision. But it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the photographer to use his tools' capabilities intelligently and creatively. Giving a bad photographer a state-of-the-art camera will not guarantee good results any more than giving a bad writer a word processor instead of a manual typewriter. But a good writer can express his creativity through the word processor with less hassle and frustration than the typewriter; it may only take him two days to write a chapter instead of five.

The ultimate flaw in your argument is that you have no basis for decisively defining how much camera capability is "enough". Is ISO 400 enough for a Real Photographer®, or should we draw the line at 100? Maybe 100 is too much of a crutch; should we draw the line at 25, or 10, or 1? What about viewfinder technology? Is an optical viewfinder OK, or should Real Photographers® be limited to upside-down images on ground glass? Or a rangefinder? Is film OK, or should Real Photographers® use hand-coated glass plates? What about lenses? Should they be allowed, or should Real Photographers® limit themselves to pinholes?

Then there's the small matter of who died and put you in charge of deciding which photographers need what capabilities? Who the hell are you to judge the merits of any other photographer's choice of tools, or whether they are using them effectively to achieve their creative vision?

Nobody died and put me in charge. I just don't buy into your statements that a new camera is needed to do the same job that skilled photographers have done for years without mega high ISO. If you need a lesson in taking a romantic candlelit portrait thats OK, be brave enough to say so, but you don't need to wait for the latest camera to come along before you can embark on some of the more tricky skills.

But you are wilfully stubborn if you think my posts were against high ISO capability. You seem to want to talk about technique when the gist of argument is one of aesthetics. Put simply (again) for many years photographers covering concerts and theatre (or candlelit romance) have employed skill and guile to produce excellent images worthy of publication. There skills have been due to things like being in the right place at the right time and being able to capture the decisive moment. All against a typical backdrop of moody lighting and high contrast. It is a type of photography not everybody could do because not everybody had the skills to cope.

But, with the advent of mega high ISO cameras all these scenes stand the chance of looking like any normally lit daylight scene. And given the bullshit being circulated that we all need a high ISO camera or we aren't a good professional, then even the worst professionals will consider themselves experts in theatre and concert photography. Skill and making a photograph that is true to life, or expressive, will largely go out the window, and the ease of cranking up the ISO will become default for many 'photographers'. Likewise instead of capturing the speed and excitment of Formula 1, of which there is a long tradition of skill, the camera will be used to capture in perfect clarity the sponsor logo seemingly standing still while doing 200 mph. The blandness that is possible with high ISO is staggering in its implications. And don't say it won't happen, because a good example of in camera technology creating bland images is already evident in news video, where a digital filter is used  to make everybody look like they have smooth glowing perfectly pampered skin.

But I will take on board your kind invitation to go back and read all your other posts, ...........when I decide enough is enough and I need an excuse to slit my wrists.

Steve

[dwdallam]

This is not the fault of technology; technology has offered the same degree of advancement to the professional as to the consumer.

I agree with this but for a slightly different reason.

It is a fault of technology for those photographers who built their business mainly on getting a correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style because today Aunt Sally's camera can get a "correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style" by leaving the camera auto mode, reading the Kodak site for 10 minutes on composition, and pulling the trigger. This was previously not possible.

Where I agree with Jonathan is that although this is now available to Aunt Sally, as a professional you should be offering much more than "correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style."

A case in point is that I just finished a commercial gig about saw milling. The mill owner had a "professional" photographer make images, she paid him, and the magazine said no to all but two of the images. I saw some of the images and they were "correct exposure, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composition style."

My images will be shown in Saw Milling Magazine along with two from the previous photographer where the magazine needed two "correct exposures, sharp focus, and a technically but redundant composed images."

Another case in point is a wedding I recently did. The clients loved the images, but I told them beforehand I'm not a wedding photographer and there were better people to do it. I also saw a package of images as a present for the bride and groom done by an Aunt Sally at the wedding with a digicam. I was amazed because the person who did them was an amateur and the the images were "correctly exposed, sharply focused, and a technically but redundantly composed." They were actually a little more creative than redundant, but you get the picture. She got to take pictures and I got the "job."

I want a camera that allows me to make decisions that I want to make. What I do with those decisions is why I get the job and Aunt Sally doesn't. To say that "But, with the advent of mega high ISO cameras all these scenes stand the chance of looking like any normally lit daylight scene" (25swb) is exactly what Jonathan is talking about and what I agree with and have tried to explain above. If you can't make a night shot look like a night shot, or a candle lit dinner look like a candle lit dinner, simply because you have high ISO, then you're not a professional and you deserve to "get left behind."

[BJL]

... high resolution, high dynamic range, low noise images with excellent tonal range and color sensitivity at moderately high ISOs ...judging from most of your posts on this site you seem to be very interested in such qualities.

I am interested in where the technology is going for a couple of reasons:

1. For the sake of those far better photographers than me who are willing to put far more resources (time, money, gear carried, staff, post-processing tools, practice) than me into producing works of art that I and others can enjoy viewing. I want professionals in many areas to have tools that I will never buy!

2. Because one dominant effect of these improvements is improvement in what can be done at a given format size, camera size, weight, and cost ... or to put it another way, allowing given standards of IQ to be achieved with ever smaller, lighter, less expensive gear than it used to. Even the 12MP of current 4/3 is sometimes (often?) more than needed for my purposes ... but it gives me more telephoto reach for wildlife, through heavier cropping latitude. Effectively, that is a shift to a smaller format for long telephoto. And Live View could some day make that more convenient, by showing roughly the intended smaller format image (the planned crop) with a magnified VF image.


By the way, I count 800 as a moderately high ISO, only partly because I never used film that fast even without IS.

[Ray]

... Even the 12MP of current 4/3 is sometimes (often?) more than needed for my purposes ... but it gives me more telephoto reach for wildlife, through heavier cropping latitude. Effectively, that is a shift to a smaller format for long telephoto.

.....By the way, I count 800 as a moderately high ISO, only partly because I never used film that fast even without IS.

This is why I am puzzled that you claim to have no need for high ISO and only rarely use ISO 800. You gave the impression that you generally shoot only mushrooms and still life using a tripod. But now you indicate you also shoot wildlife. What sort of wildlife? Slow-moving stationary buffalo?

Whevever I use my 100-400 IS for wildlife, I find I often struggle to get sharp images at 400mm as a result of image degradation at high ISO and/or too slow a shutter speed. I find I'm constantly juggling compromises and trades-off. On my copy of this lens, F5.6 is not as sharp as F8. F11 is virtually as sharp as F8, gives better DoF and focussing need not be as critical. However, in lighting conditions where F11 requires ISO 3200, F8 requires ISO 1600, and F5.6 requires ISO 800.

I also count ISO 800 as being moderately high. Doesn't everyone?  

[BJL]

Whevever I use my 100-400 IS for wildlife, I find I often struggle to get sharp images at 400mm as a result of image degradation at high ISO and/or too slow a shutter speed. ... On my copy of this lens, F5.6 is not as sharp as F8. F11 is virtually as sharp as F8, gives better DoF and focussing need not be as critical. However, in lighting conditions where F11 requires ISO 3200, F8 requires ISO 1600, and F5.6 requires ISO 800.

Where you use your 100-400 f/4-5.6 with 35mm format (5DMkII?), I use my 50-200/2.8-3.5 at half the focal length, and for distant subjects, I am comfortable using that lens wide open for sharpness, and usually for DOF (like f/7 in 35mm format.) Where f/5.6 requires ISO 800, f/3.5 requires only about ISO 320.

And when you talk about stopping down for better DoF with 35mm format, I am of course matching the DoF at half the f-stop, and thus 1/4 the ISO speed, so your f/11, ISO 3200 is my f/5.6, ISO 800. Surely we do not need to revisit the fallacy of comparing different formats at equal ISO speeds even when usable f-stop is clearly different.

The ISO speed need difference is greater if you are going for the "sharp at 22MP" that you camera is capable of, while I am at a lower pixel count, and so have a coarser angular resolution limit anyway from the sensor. This could also be related to your need to stop down to f/8 for sharpness while I am comfortable wide open.

[eronald]

I once posted an action picture on FM of a skate jumper *upside down* in the air, taken with an AF SLR. And then all these old guys lectured me about how *they* didn't need AF to take that shot because you can preset your MF to the right place and wait. In the same way, we're getting lectured by the dinosaurs here about how *they* don't need high ISO. Well, dear old-timers, I  love your lectures about composition, about beauty, about the greater meaning of life. But as regards technology, I 'll make my own calls.

Edmund

[Ray]

Where you use your 100-400 f/4-5.6 with 35mm format (5DMkII?), I use my 50-200/2.8-3.5 at half the focal length, and for distant subjects, I am comfortable using that lens wide open for sharpness, and usually for DOF (like f/7 in 35mm format.) Where f/5.6 requires ISO 800, f/3.5 requires only about ISO 320.

No, no, no! 400mm on 35mm format is not long enough for me. I use the 100-400 IS with my 50D, and even then I often can't get close enough, just as I wasn't able to when I discovered this young wallaby eating my peaches. Damn! You'd think it would have the consideration to eat my peaches in the direct sunlight so I can use a lower ISO.

To get a minimum shutter speed of 160th for a reasonably sharp image at F8, I had to use ISO 1600. Even then, the image was slightly underexposed and I would have preferred to have used ISO 3200 at, say, a 250th if the high-ISO performance of the camera were better.

[attachment=17466:3129_ISO...ncropped.jpg]  [attachment=17467:3129_ISO...0th_crop.jpg]

Earlier, in more direct light of the late afternoon, I took the following group shot at F11 and ISO 800. This is fully exposed but I used a dangerously slow shutter speed of 1/125th. I think I might have leaned against the verandah post to get this shot reasonably sharp, and leaned against a tree to get the wallaby reasonably sharp. With a 640mm full-frame equivalent I'd generally prefer to use at least 1/320th with IS enabled.

[attachment=17468:lorikeet...11_125th.jpg]


I haven't bought a 5D2 yet. I feel I've been overindulging recently with the purchase of a 40D, a 50D, a D700 and the Nikkor 14-24. That's enough to keep me going for a while   . What I'd really like is an upgrade to the Canon 100-400 IS.

[BJL]

No, no, no! 400mm on 35mm format is not long enough for me. I use the 100-400 IS with my 50D, and even then I often can't get close enough ...

Can't get close enough? Then you need a smaller format! (Fortunately, cropping counts as a smaller format, so long as your photosites are small enough to sustain the crop.)

So the difference is down to about one stop at equal FOV (200@f/3.5 on 4/3 vs 280mm at about f/5 on the 50D) or 1.3 stops at the long end, but then I have to crop from my mere 200mm because I would need 250mm to match the FOV of 400mm on the 50D. And then there is adjustment for different pixel counts, so in fact the pixel sizes are not much different and we could in fact get about equal pixels on the subject at about equal focal length ...

I do not feel like doing all the calculations, but the rough guideline is still that the 50-200/2.8-3.5 achieves a given shutter speed at about one stop lower sensitivity due to being able to use a lower f-stop, so 800 ISO works for me about like 1600 ISO works for you with the 100-400/4-5.6.

So out of interest, how often is sensitivity of 1600 ISO not fast enough for you with wildlife, using that kit? Your example of f/8@400mm, 1600 ISO seems to become "f/3.5@200mm, ISO 500 and crop" for me. Maybe I would benefit from more pixels or a TC.

[eronald]

Very true, but if you own some Canon models you need to go up by one stop at least in speed to stop action.

Edmund

Can't get close enough? Then you need a smaller format! (Fortunately, cropping counts as a smaller format, so long as your photosites are small enough to sustain the crop.)

So the difference is down to about one stop at equal FOV (200@f/3.5 on 4/3 vs 280mm at about f/5 on the 50D) or 1.3 stops at the long end, but then I have to crop from my mere 200mm because I would need 250mm to match the FOV of 400mm on the 50D. And then there is adjustment for different pixel counts, so in fact the pixel sizes are not much different and we could in fact get about equal pixels on the subject at about equal focal length ...

I do not feel like doing all the calculations, but the rough guideline is still that the 50-200/2.8-3.5 achieves a given shutter speed at about one stop lower sensitivity due to being able to use a lower f-stop, so 800 ISO works for me about like 1600 ISO works for you with the 100-400/4-5.6.

So out of interest, how often is sensitivity of 1600 ISO not fast enough for you with wildlife, using that kit? Your example of f/8@400mm, 1600 ISO seems to become "f/3.5@200mm, ISO 500 and crop" for me. Maybe I would benefit from more pixels or a TC.

[Ray]

Can't get close enough? Then you need a smaller format! (Fortunately, cropping counts as a smaller format, so long as your photosites are small enough to sustain the crop.)

C'mon, BJL. Get real! Whilst I'm sympathetic to the idea that the smaller format can compensate to some extent for it's lower performance regarding noise, DR, tonal range etc through use of a lower ISO setting, in conjunction with a wider aperture, to provide a shutter speed and DoF equal to that of the larger format, you seem to be forgetting that a 12mp image through a 400mm lens cannot compete with a 15mp image through a 640mm lens. The differences are huge. In fact, the differences would be more significant than the differences between a 400mm lens on the 12.7mp 5D and the same lens on the 50D, because at least the 5D has a noise, DR and tonal-range advantage over both the 50D and equivalent 4/3rds format, say the E-30.

In other words, I would rather use the 100-400 IS on a 5D than the Zuiko 50-200 on the E-30. You're better at maths than I am, but according to my calculations, a 12mp E-3 image taken with a 200mm lens, cropped to the same FoV as the 50D with 400mm lens, would result in approximately a 5mp image for the E-30, or even less depending on aspect ratio.

How can you compare a 5mp image with a 15mp image? As I said, get real!  

I do not feel like doing all the calculations, but the rough guideline is still that the 50-200/2.8-3.5 achieves a given shutter speed at about one stop lower sensitivity due to being able to use a lower f-stop, so 800 ISO works for me about like 1600 ISO works for you with the 100-400/4-5.6.

We've been through these calculations before. The one stop 'equivalence' difference between the 4/3rds and Canon APS-C formats is an exaggeration. It's more like 2/3rds of a stop, but let's not quibble. A more significant concern is the much lower DR of the E-30. On equal size prints, we're looking at almost a 2 stop difference in DR at high ISO.

Here's the DXOMark results showing that huge DR difference between the E-30 and the 50D on normalised prints.

[attachment=17490:DXOMark_50D_v_E_30.jpg]

So out of interest, how often is sensitivity of 1600 ISO not fast enough for you with wildlife, using that kit? Your example of f/8@400mm, 1600 ISO seems to become "f/3.5@200mm, ISO 500 and crop" for me. Maybe I would benefit from more pixels or a TC.

Frequently, especially when I don't have a tree to lean against. I ruined lots of shots some time ago when travelling along the Daintree river in a boat, due to inadequate high-ISO performance of my 40D. When you have to underexpose at ISO 3200 to get a fast shutter speed with an APS-C camera, then forget it. Also, wide apertures with a long telephoto lens have their disadvantage with regard to focussing accuracy. Not much point in getting the bird's beak sharp when you really wanted its eye sharp. Better still, get both its beak and eye sharp at F11.

The greatest upgrade to this 100-400 IS lens I've experienced was when Canon brought out the 20D and ISO 1600 was usable for the first time in my life. Teleconverters at best provide a very marginal improvement in my experience.

[BJL]

... you seem to be forgetting that a 12mp image through a 400mm lens cannot compete with a 15mp image through a 640mm lens.

But my point was that you do not have a 640mm lens. (Real focal lengths please: I do not claim to have a 400mm lens!) and sometimes your actual 400mm is not enough, and if you try to get beyond 400mm with a 1.4x TC, you get a minimum f-stop so high that AF fails (your tried that didn't you?), and you are pushed to twice the ISO speed. And do remember, I was only explaining why I have little need for over ISO 800 when using the 50-200/2.8-5.6 not claiming that it gives equal telephoto reach to your longer, dimmer, 100-400/4-5.6!

The point that you seem to be forgetting is that the most basic ingredient in low light handling "speed" at elevated ISO speeds is how fast the camera (the lens, mostly) gathers light from the subject, in turn measured by the effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil diameter: focal length divided by aperture ratio. So within limits, a somewhat shorter lens of equal entrance pupil diameter (like 300mm f/4.2 vs 400mm f/5.6) used with proportionately smaller photosites to give the same angular resolution and used at the same shutter speed (so at suitably reduced ISO speed) will gather a roughly equal amount of photons at each of a roughly equal number of pixels over the same subject, and give roughly similar results for that subject. Lab. measures of DR are rather irrelevant at high ISO since wells do not fill (except at very extreme highlights, probably specular): shadow noise is the key, and photons gathered is the main key to that.

I did say that I might benefit from a TC and/or smaller pixels (to allow more cropping and avoid the lens brightness loss to a TC) didn't I? It would also be nice if something like the Sigma 100-300 f/4 were available in Four Thirds mount, but I see little point in getting a telephoto lens much dimmer than f/4 (like the Olympus 70-300/4-5.6) so long as the job can be done with a shorter, brighter lens used with either smaller pixels at less high ISO speed or with a TC.

[Ray]

But my point was that you do not have a 640mm lens. (Real focal lengths please: I do not claim to have a 400mm lens!) and sometimes your actual 400mm is not enough, and if you try to get beyond 400mm with a 1.4x TC, you get a minimum f-stop so high that AF fails (your tried that didn't you?), and you are pushed to twice the ISO speed. And do remember, I was only explaining why I have little need for over ISO 800 when using the 50-200/2.8-5.6 not claiming that it gives equal telephoto reach to your longer, dimmer, 100-400/4-5.6!

The point that you seem to be forgetting is that the most basic ingredient in low light handling "speed" at elevated ISO speeds is how fast the camera (the lens, mostly) gathers light from the subject, in turn measured by the effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil diameter: focal length divided by aperture ratio. So within limits, a somewhat shorter lens of equal entrance pupil diameter (like 300mm f/4.2 vs 400mm f/5.6) used with proportionately smaller photosites to give the same angular resolution and used at the same shutter speed (so at suitably reduced ISO speed) will gather a roughly equal amount of photons at each of a roughly equal number of pixels over the same subject, and give roughly similar results for that subject. Lab. measures of DR are rather irrelevant at high ISO since wells do not fill (except at very extreme highlights, probably specular): shadow noise is the key, and photons gathered is the main key to that.

I did say that I might benefit from a TC and/or smaller pixels (to allow more cropping and avoid the lens brightness loss to a TC) didn't I? It would also be nice if something like the Sigma 100-300 f/4 were available in Four Thirds mount, but I see little point in getting a telephoto lens much dimmer than f/4 (like the Olympus 70-300/4-5.6) so long as the job can be done with a shorter, brighter lens used with either smaller pixels at less high ISO speed or with a TC.

It doesn't matter. The relativities are the same. You have a real 200mm lens and I have a real 400mm lens. In FF 35mm terms, you have a 400mm equivalent and I have a 640mm equivalent. Shooting the same subject from the same distance then cropping your shot from an E-30 (if that's what you have), you end up with a 5mp image and I've got a 15mp image.

Issues of lens quality and high-ISO sensor quality must be taken into account. Zuiko lenses are generally sharper than Canon lenses, but they need to be as a result of the higher pixel density of the smaller 4/3rds sensor. In the absence of controlled 'shoot-outs' comparing both systems, we can only speculate and make reasonable deductions. I doubt that a 5mp image from an E-30 at F4.5, ISO 800 and 200mm would be as sharp and detailed as a 15mp image from the 50D at F5.6, ISO 1600 and 400mm. However, according to DXOMark, there's no doubt that the DR of the E-30 would be less in such circumstances.

If you use a 1.4x teleconverter, your E-30 image becomes 10mp, your ISO jumps to 1600, your DR goes down a stop, and your lens quality is reduced. Not a good scenario, BJL. I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.  

The fact that my 100-400 at 400mm and F5.6 loses autofocus with a teleconverter would be a problem if the teleconverter provided more than a very marginal advantage. But it doesn't, so it's not an issue. My teleconverter is essentially redundant. There's no substitute for a well-designed lens without teleconverter. This is particularly true in the current situation where sensors often out-resolve lenses and the clamour is for better lenses. Teleconverters make lenses worse.

I can inform Canon of my requirements for a realistic upgrade to the 100-400 IS, if they are listening. I want performance at F5.6, F8 and F11 (at 400mm) on a par with that of the 70-200 F4 IS (at 200mm). I don't need F4 because that would make the lens too heavy and I'm not particularly enthused with ultra-shallow DoF which causes focussing problems in complex environments. A 400mm lens at F11 on APS-C format provides sufficiently shallow DoF for me, although a significantly higher resolution at F5.6 would be appreciated on many occasions.

Image stabilisation in the latest lenses is also significantly improved. My 100-400 claims a 2 stop advantage. I believe up to 4 stops is now possible. That in itself would be a tremendous upgrade, but I'll settle for a realistic one stop improvement, if a 2 stop improvement is too difficult.

[BJL]

You have a real 200mm lens ...

And that is all that matters: I have a 200mm, f/3.5 lens. Do I have to repeat that I am not arguing the superiority of my gear over yours!

I was originally just explaining why, with f/3.5 at my longest available focal length, I have little need for more than ISO 800! If and when I add a TC, or a longer, slower lens, that could change.

And the second point I was making was than when the longest focal length(*) that you, or I, or anyone can justify having is not long enough to fill the frame with the desired subject, the solution is always in effect to use a smaller format, preferably with high enough resolution (small enough pixels) to give adequate detail. Maybe the smaller format is just a crop from the same sensor, but in your own case, the choice already has been a smaller format 40D body with smaller pixels than the 5D. Because, despite much speculation, the trend of smaller formats offering higher resolution in l/mm (smaller pixels) is holding up very well. (Except that DMF often offers pixel sizes as small as 35mm, like now.) For me, a DLSR format smaller than 4/3 is not an option, which is why I upgraded beyond my former 5MP when some of the crops looked ugly.

(*) "focal length", not "lens", to include possible TC usage.