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 shot youth sports for many years. Venues included indoor soccer arenas which are basically warehouses, small school lacrosse and soccer fields that have lousy non-LED lighting, and gyms. To freeze action that fills the frame, even at f2.8 in a long lens, requires a shutter speed of 1/1000, though I preferred 1/1500. To achieve that, ISO 12800 was necessary.
With newer cameras I could see using ISO 25600 if necessary. These days sensors can handle it well enough, and the newer NR apps like Topaz Denoise AI work really well. Sports is not fine art so there’s enough quality wiggle room.
Other than sports and events, I tend to keep things around ISO 100-400.