ISO 100-800...any big dif in IQ?

[Solarflare]

In short, no matter the camera, you always want to work at ISO 100. Or whatever the optimal working ISO of your camera is (usually 100, but for some its ISO 80, for others its ISO 200 or 400).

Only at this point the camera will give the best results, the best dynamic range, the best color depth, the best resolution and sharpness, the lowest noise.

Anything higher and these parameters always deterioate. How much depends upon the camera. A Nikon D3s or D4 will work better than a typical cheap compact. The later will probably have deterioated at ISO 800 already, while a D3s/D4 reportedly still produces useable pictures at ISO 25,600.

 

[Hobbytog]

On the more recent cameras no. But on some older models blowing up to 16 x 20 you will definitely notice a fall off in IQ. I've got the Canon 600D and there is no noticeable difference but compared to the 450D this would not be able to perform favourably.

 

[pgriz]

Um, why don't you try it - takes almost no time. Take one shot at ISO 100, then up the ISO to 1600 and take a second shot. Print both. Let us know what you found, and don't forget to tell us which camera model, and what post-processing you did. This exercise will give you hard, actionable knowledge, compared to the internet advice/information you can receive that may or may not be applicable to your situation.

 

[SoCalTiger]

Short on time. Like to get feedback from forums...they are discussion forums right? Cambridge in color is a nice site. Thanks!

Now, with the current crop of cams. What ISO is for practical purposes = to another with IQ?

If we are shooting at between the 100 - 300 range are they pretty equal?

Or can we always tell the difference in prints of moderate size?

So you say that you are short on time but you have enough time to post this reply and you STILL haven't even told us what camera you are using? Details which should have been in your original question in the first place?

In otherwords... you are just wasting everyone else's time.

 

[Derrel]

SOme of the newer sensors have excellent color depth from 100 to 400 ISO, and then start to lose out as the ISO goes above 400.Basically, I think every single d-slr has its widest DR and best color rendition at its base-line ISO setting, and then as ISO is elevated, both DR and color depth tend to go down. Some of the Nikon bodies that START at 200 ISO are designed for being used at HIGHER ISO values than other cameras. As far as noise that is visible on-screen, versus in prints...on-0screen noise that a pixel-peeper can make out on his screen is often sublimated by the ink in the darker areas on paper. I think that the better cameras all do pretty well up to ISO 800, for "most" uses. And quite often the SHOOTING advantages of using a higher ISO level are of major benefit!!!

I am not afraid to shoot at 250 to 640 ISO most of the time.

 

[Gaerek]

In short, no matter the camera, you always want to work at the lowest ISO that gives you the shutter speed/aperture you need.

Fixed it for you.

I understand what you were getting at, as in there is an optimal ISO for each camera, but in practical usage, it's terrible advice to say to always work with the optimal ISO. This is better advice.

 

[Heitz]

SOme of the newer sensors have excellent color depth from 100 to 400 ISO, and then start to lose out as the ISO goes above 400.Basically, I think every single d-slr has its widest DR and best color rendition at its base-line ISO setting, and then as ISO is elevated, both DR and color depth tend to go down. Some of the Nikon bodies that START at 200 ISO are designed for being used at HIGHER ISO values than other cameras. As far as noise that is visible on-screen, versus in prints...on-0screen noise that a pixel-peeper can make out on his screen is often sublimated by the ink in the darker areas on paper. I think that the better cameras all do pretty well up to ISO 800, for "most" uses. And quite often the SHOOTING advantages of using a higher ISO level are of major benefit!!!

I am not afraid to shoot at 250 to 640 ISO most of the time.

It always seemed odd that D700 had base iso of 200. I figured ISO 100 is simply that setting that has no multiplicative sensor gain. So why 200? why would you not want 0 gain? And if there is no gain, why call it 200? I'm missing something ...

 

[greybeard33 5]

With d5100-d7000 100-320 is pretty smooth.............400-800 will show more noise with heavy cropping.

 

[Solarflare]

Fixed it for you.

*PLONK*

 

[Helen B]

It always seemed odd that D700 had base iso of 200. I figured ISO 100 is simply that setting that has no multiplicative sensor gain. So why 200? why would you not want 0 gain? And if there is no gain, why call it 200? I'm missing something ...

ISO 100 does not mean zero gain. The ISO speed standards are intended to be roughly translatable between cameras, camera brands, digital and film etc (ie ISO 100 on one camera should be roughly the same as ISO 100 on another camera). They are, therefore, absolute speeds, they are not relative to each sensor - which would lead to enormous confusion. There's more flexibility allowed by the digital speed standards than there is by the film speed standards, but the ISO for digital can be determined by the exposure required to saturate the sensor (or more accurately, a grey card exposure with a specified amount of headroom before saturation) and/or the noise level (in simplified terms).

 

[joshhuntnm]

This is highly... VERY highly dependent on the camera.

Indeed!

It doesn't make near as much difference as it did a few years ago. Also, the procesing that lightroom does to noise is great.

 

[Derrel]

It always seemed odd that D700 had base iso of 200. I figured ISO 100 is simply that setting that has no multiplicative sensor gain. So why 200? why would you not want 0 gain? And if there is no gain, why call it 200? I'm missing something ...

I think the reason it was designed with a base ISO value of 200 is because Nikon designed it to be a camera for action/sports/news/events/weddings, and other types of jobs where higher ISO sensitivities are RELIED UPON with high regularity. STarting out at 200 means that ISO 400 is only a one-stop increase over base, and not two stops. I think Nikon's base level of 200 ISO is/was an effort to tailor the camera to an expected set of uses, in which BETTER HIGH ISO performance would be looked upon very favorably.

 

[jake337]

This is highly... VERY highly dependent on the camera.

And the software being used, lighting being used and the users skill-set in both aforementioned criteria, which comes last to the composition of the final image.

I forgot about the viewing distance that will be recommended.

 

[charlie76]

I think the reason it was designed with a base ISO value of 200 is because Nikon designed it to be a camera for action/sports/news/events/weddings, and other types of jobs where higher ISO sensitivities are RELIED UPON with high regularity. STarting out at 200 means that ISO 400 is only a one-stop increase over base, and not two stops. I think Nikon's base level of 200 ISO is/was an effort to tailor the camera to an expected set of uses, in which BETTER HIGH ISO performance would be looked upon very favorably.

This is really good stuff...I didn't know all this about this digital ISO thing...I'm new to digital.

Optimal ISO for brands/models?

Does (Derrel) anyone know the best/operating ISO for my beloved D7000?

 

[greybeard33 5]

My D7000/D5100 operates best at an ISO of 100-400, 500-1600 is descent, 2000-3200 is acceptable, 4000 and beyond will have to do in a pinch. It really depends on the amount of crop, the amount of enlargement, and your ability to post process. Light Room's noise reduction can do wonders. Older digital cameras were a lot more picky about ISO. My old Sony F828 is good 100-200 and that is it, period. Anything higher is pretty rough.