Nikon's ISO 200

Alan Browne wrote:
...setting the camera to ISO 100 (were it possible) would narrow the
dynamic range of the sensor (and probably have other effects).

The difference is probably trivial for noise as other replies suggest.
100, 200, whatever is already stunningly clean & good for most purposes
(excluding astrophotography or scientific measurement uses).

Dynamic range is what concerns me more and I don't know how much impact
there is on that. The only times I've been tempted to set pushed Lo -1.0
compensation is where I want to have the lens wide but there is too much
light and in those cases, too much light usually means bright highlights
in full sun prone to blowing out so I usually back off that idea unless
it's crucial for my aims.

So, for me, it's very rare that I need or care about ISO 100, in the
real world. High ISOs are much more valuable.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:

Dynamic range is what concerns me more and I don't know how much impact
there is on that.
The data I've seen suggests that with a D300, dynamic range (measured at
a standard signal to noise ratio) is very slightly better at "Lo 1.0"
than ISO 200, and it's very slightly worse with a D3. That's probably
due to the fact that at ISO 200, "shot" noise with APS-c is slightly
over 2x that with 35mm, read noise more or less the same, but shot noise
decreases slightly as ISO reduces a further half stop to "native" ISO.
Despite "common knowledge" to the contrary, there's actually very little
difference in usable dynamic range between current APS-c and 35mm Nikons
at base ISO (200), except for the D3x, which has extremely low read
noise reducing down to ISO 100. I haven't seen any data for the D3s yet.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
OldBoy wrote:
"Brianm" wrote in message
...
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent? Up until now I had resisted buying a Nikon,
thinking Nikon's 200 was equivalent to Canon's 200, but maybe I have to
reformulate my entire way of thinking about Nikons.

See www.dxomark.com

They do some kind of calculation to indicate the 'true' ISO of various
cameras. I don't recall the details but the basic test would be to put the
same lens at the same aperture on different cameras and measure the
exposure time to achieve identical brightness from the raw files. But
there are other little fiddles that each manufacturer makes so it's
probably not that simple. DXO's calculations are probably not perfect
either but no doubt there is some similar variability in various cameras.
It's all he-)
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...nt-definitions

On 2009-11-22 22:46:31 -0800, Brianm said:

I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent? Up until now I had resisted buying a Nikon,
thinking Nikon's 200 was equivalent to Canon's 200, but maybe I have to
reformulate my entire way of thinking about Nikons.

Thanks in advance!

Nikon says (in their owners' manuals) that you will lose some contrast
if you shoot at ISOs less than the minimum. "Noise" is not entirely a
bad thing, as it relates to our perceptions of color, contrast and
sharpness. A picture with no noise at all would tend to look flat and
lifeless. Increasing sharpness, contrast and saturation will all
increase the apparent noise in a picture.

Nikon's sensors in general seem to be slightly noisier than those of
Canon (with some notable exceptions, such as Nikon's FX sensors).
However, the noise is also qualitatively different -- it looks
different. At any ISO below 400 you are just not going to see that much
noise anyway.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Brianm wrote:
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

The "natural" ISO of many Nikon's based on Sony sensors is in the mid
100's region (around 150 more or less) AFAICT from the various graphs.
So setting the camera to ISO 100 (were it possible) would narrow the
dynamic range of the sensor (and probably have other effects).

On most of the Minolta/Sony's (using the same or similar sensors), ISO
100 is enabled by the user - eg: Sony recommend 200 as the slowest ISO.

There's a slight reduction in contrast. Tests seem to show some models
have a slight reduction in DR, and others show a slight increase when
set at "Lo 1.0" (ISO 100), but the difference is only a fraction of a
stop either way, not IMO worth worrying about, probably just related to
ratio between read and shot noise. If you want to use a Nikon (and
probably Sony with similar sensor) at "forced" ISO 100, and you adjust
contrast etc in PP as a matter of course anyway, just use it and don't
worry.

Unless I need the slower ISO for a particular exposure issue, I shoot
160 or 200 most of the time. Nevertheless, it's a fateful shortcoming
that we can't get much lower ISO's (25).

Oh well, break out the ND's.

"Brianm" wrote in message
...
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent? Up until now I had resisted buying a Nikon,
thinking Nikon's 200 was equivalent to Canon's 200, but maybe I have to
reformulate my entire way of thinking about Nikons.

Thanks in advance!

Unless your shots are banking on it, these kinds of exercises are academic.
Once digital came along far enough, and once we switched from film to
digital, worrying about clear, grain free images at low iso became a thing
of the past. Nikon ISO 200 vs Canon ISO 100 is only meaningful to pixel
sniffers and academicians.

--
www.mattclara.com

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
...setting the camera to ISO 100 (were it possible) would narrow the
dynamic range of the sensor (and probably have other effects).

The difference is probably trivial for noise as other replies suggest.
100, 200, whatever is already stunningly clean & good for most purposes
(excluding astrophotography or scientific measurement uses).

Dynamic range is what concerns me more and I don't know how much impact
there is on that. The only times I've been tempted to set pushed Lo -1.0
compensation is where I want to have the lens wide but there is too much
light and in those cases, too much light usually means bright highlights
in full sun prone to blowing out so I usually back off that idea unless
it's crucial for my aims.

So, for me, it's very rare that I need or care about ISO 100, in the
real world. High ISOs are much more valuable.

For me it's the other way around. I do most of my shooting between 160
and 800. In the studio I can light to the required ISO. I could light
to ISO 25 in the studio for that matter. In daylight shooting 200
covers most everything. I don't shoot wildlife, though I occasionally
shoot sports and that is one place where higher ISO's would be welcome
for indoor or after dark on marginally lit grounds.

I guess my exposure requirements are narrower than some people. Bret
shoot higher ISO's regularly and gets great results with wildlife. He
also has a better camera than mine for high ISO.

Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

Dynamic range is what concerns me more and I don't know how much
impact there is on that.
The data I've seen suggests that with a D300, dynamic range (measured at
a standard signal to noise ratio) is very slightly better at "Lo 1.0"
than ISO 200, and it's very slightly worse with a D3.

Could you clarify:

Does that mean "ISO 200 + Lo. 1.0"?

Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

Dynamic range is what concerns me more and I don't know how much
impact there is on that.
The data I've seen suggests that with a D300, dynamic range (measured
at a standard signal to noise ratio) is very slightly better at "Lo
1.0" than ISO 200, and it's very slightly worse with a D3.

Could you clarify:

Does that mean "ISO 200 + Lo. 1.0"?

Lo 1.0 is one stop below ISO200.
(increments can also be set)

Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

Dynamic range is what concerns me more and I don't know how much
impact there is on that.
The data I've seen suggests that with a D300, dynamic range (measured
at a standard signal to noise ratio) is very slightly better at "Lo
1.0" than ISO 200, and it's very slightly worse with a D3.

Could you clarify:

Does that mean "ISO 200 + Lo. 1.0"?

Lo 1.0 is one stop below ISO200.
(increments can also be set)

Still not clear to me.

1. Can you even set ISO 100?

2. To do get this "one stop below ISO200" do you set ISO 200 _AND_ Lo 1.0?