What does 'hi' means?

[Kerbouchard]

The thing is...you don't have to "properly" expose the image in the traditional sense because you will be deciding later (on the computer) how bright you want your image to be. Since we are talking about low light photography here, our goal is to capture as much light as possible. So...set the aperture at the absolute smallest you can to maintain the depth of field you would like. Then set the slowest shutter speed you can handle. This is what you would do normally, right? All we are skipping with this new way of shooting is the step where the iso is boosted. But as we remember, changing the iso setting is not going to change the amount of light we ultimately capture or are able to display in the finished photo.

If you want some idea of whether the aperture and shutter speed you've chosen will capture enough light to produce a decent picture, then go ahead and set your camera to iso 3200 or so and see what the camera tells you. Or use an external meter. Or take a sample shot and look on the jpg or histogram or whatever. If you're satisfied, then keep the aperture and shutter speed but just dial the iso back to 100 or 200 (some sensor engineers recommend iso200 on the D7000 for reasons that are a bit over my head to understand).

Except it results in less noise to amplify analog data instead of digital data. ISO amplifies analog data. Photoshop amplifies digital data. This may change in the future, but we aren't there, yet.

The reason ISO have less noise is because they amplify the data before read noise is added. Photoshop amplifies read data - aka analog data + read noise - so there is more noise. But if you have a sensor with low read noise, there is no need to amplify the data (analog) before reading because there is barely any extra noise.

I agree. Heck, it would be hard not to after you just rephrased what I wrote.

In any case, there is one more piece of the puzzle that you are overlooking, and that is that Photoshop has to reverse engineer the algorithims to process RAW files. Nikon gets to design them right into their A/D converters, sensors, and chips. And they get to do it for each individual camera based on years of testing. Yes, my D700 RAW files have some noise reduction applied. I know that. I also trust Nikon to make the right decisions when it comes to engineering things like that. By using Base ISO, you aren't, IMO, giving the camera the information that it needs to make those decisions.

I trust Nikon to have made the best decisions possible about filtering out read noise, deciding what is noise and what is an actual signal, and providing me the best RAW data available. At least I trust them more than the alternative.

So basically, my opinion is that it is more efficient to amply analog data than digital data. I also trust Nikon to make very specific decisions about how their algorithims, sensors and electronics work together to provide me the best possible image.

 

[rsbones]

You could always choose to use Nikon's own raw converter software on the computer. That way you would preserve the entire dynamic range possible without cliping the highlights (something the incamera processing necessarily has to do).

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Except it results in less noise to amplify analog data instead of digital data. ISO amplifies analog data. Photoshop amplifies digital data. This may change in the future, but we aren't there, yet.

The reason ISO have less noise is because they amplify the data before read noise is added. Photoshop amplifies read data - aka analog data + read noise - so there is more noise. But if you have a sensor with low read noise, there is no need to amplify the data (analog) before reading because there is barely any extra noise.

I agree. Heck, it would be hard not to after you just rephrased what I wrote.

In any case, there is one more piece of the puzzle that you are overlooking, and that is that Photoshop has to reverse engineer the algorithims to process RAW files. Nikon gets to design them right into their A/D converters, sensors, and chips. And they get to do it for each individual camera based on years of testing. Yes, my D700 RAW files have some noise reduction applied. I know that. I also trust Nikon to make the right decisions when it comes to engineering things like that. By using Base ISO, you aren't, IMO, giving the camera the information that it needs to make those decisions.

I trust Nikon to have made the best decisions possible about filtering out read noise, deciding what is noise and what is an actual signal, and providing me the best RAW data available. At least I trust them more than the alternative.

So basically, my opinion is that it is more efficient to amply analog data than digital data. I also trust Nikon to make very specific decisions about how their algorithims, sensors and electronics work together to provide me the best possible image.

Indeed, it is really not efficient yet. There is really no good software/in camera user interface that thoroughly support this type of photography (ISOless). I don't plan to shoot ISOless until Lightroom give me more flexibility on increasing the exposure and I also am not ready to give up the histogram, LCD etc in camera. The metering also need to be completely different.

 

[photography.next]

Mm By the way why is there a dire need of such sort of limitations in your expenditure or similar stuff? Just give this D7000 a single chance and you would forget everything!

Charleston Bridal Photographers