# Best iso setting for your camera



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

I'm wondering what iso setting will give you the optimal picture quality between iso 100 and iso 200?


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 14, 2013)

The lower Iso the better the Quality...But really wont notice a difference between 100 and 200...


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2013)

The base ISO for the camera you're using will give you the lowest amount of noise for a correctly exposed photo. Note that base ISO is not always the same as the lowest ISO - some cameras have optional lower ISOs which can be selected if you need them. 

That said you'll get less noise for a correctly exposed photo at a higher ISO than an underexposed one at a lower ISO (where you then boost the brightness in editing which shows up the noise). 

So depends on the light you have - the theory "Expose to the right" would be one to read up on. 
Expose Right


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2013)

134.67¾.


----------



## Tom47 (Dec 14, 2013)

I always use the lowest ISO possible that will give me a shutter speed that will produce a high quality photo.  You need to take into consideration available light and the subject such as birds in flight, wildlife, kids playing, sports and select a shutter that will capture the subject.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> 134.67¾.



That is alarmingly specific.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> 134.67¾.



...thats wrong.the correct answer 121+/- 1.5

 Could I have "Ends In Errrr" for $200,Alex....


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 134.67¾.
> ...



I'm a technical kinda guy.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2013)

ratssass said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 134.67¾.
> ...



He asked me about my camera, not yours.  Yours is actually 121+/- 1.47¼.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 14, 2013)

...tis true,spark........i stand corrected.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



How can i find out the optimal setting for the d3200?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 14, 2013)

I really dig ISO 160. We're going steady in fact.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

For some reason only the camera on automatic can choose those iso settings. I can only double starting from 100.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> For some reason only the camera on automatic can choose those iso settings. I can only double starting from 100.


Which camera?  (Edit - Nevermind, I see now)

1/2 or 1/3 stop adjustments may have to be enabled via custom function.  On older cameras, it is common for ISO to only be adjustable in full stop increments.


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I'm wondering what iso setting will give you the optimal picture quality between iso 100 and iso 200?


That will depend on a number of other factors - some artistic, some technical.


----------



## beachrat (Dec 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> 134.67¾.



You're mixing fractions with decimals. I don't think you're allowed to do that.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> How can i find out the optimal setting for the d3200?



Have you tried the Internet?

I understand there are lots of answers out there.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 14, 2013)

i saw that,but then remembered what a rebel Sparky is.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 14, 2013)

beachrat said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 134.67¾.
> ...



Those older Nikons had some weird settings.

I always used ASA 200, which is the ISO equivalent.  The hamster used film, he should know that.

I thought the answer was "the best setting for the particular shot" ?

I vary from 100, 200, to 800, 1600 etc dependent upon the light available and what you wanted to do with Shutter/Aperture.

Put it on Auto and take a variety of pictures in light to dark scenarios and see how it changes ALOT.  Then start fiddling with ISO in a variety of situations in Manual and see how it affects the Shutter - ISO - Aperture triangle give and take.

but in short, the answer is 100.  Unless it's not.


----------



## beachrat (Dec 14, 2013)

220,221 whatever it takes.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Dec 14, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Have you tried the Internet?  I understand there are lots of answers out there.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this forum IS on the internet. Therefore, this would be an appropriate place for such a inquiry. No?


----------



## ratssass (Dec 14, 2013)

_...this internet thing,everyone speaks of...ya think it'll ever take off??_

Forgive me,for I know not what I do...
Nikon D3200 User's Guide


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2013)

beachrat said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 134.67¾.
> ...



I mix water and electrickery with no issues....


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> How can i find out the optimal setting for the d3200?



It's most likely either 100 or 200.  Pick one and run with it.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason only the camera on automatic can choose those iso settings. I can only double starting from 100.
> ...



I checked, the camera doesn't let me choose what exact number of iso i want.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> beachrat said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Shocking capabilities you have ...


----------



## runnah (Dec 14, 2013)

Even if you have the correct ISO, a dirty sensor or an improperly cleaned lens will make it irrelevant.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...


You must be in AUTO ISO

check your manual to take it out of AUTO ... then it will let you pick and choose which exact ISO you want.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 14, 2013)

I found this thread interesting and informative. I recommend auto ISO for you hamlet.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > How can i find out the optimal setting for the d3200?
> ...



I don't have another choice. I'll just stick with iso 200.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 14, 2013)

runnah said:


> Even if you have the correct ISO, a dirty sensor or an improperly cleaned lens will make it irrelevant.



   i see what you did there........lol


----------



## beachrat (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



I'd go with 100.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 14, 2013)

This thread is going to lead right into the "Why are all my low light photos blurry?" thread.


----------



## beachrat (Dec 14, 2013)

Took me almost 30.482 3/4 seconds to find 

https://www.inkling.com/read/dummie...-1st/chapter-7/setting-aperture-shutter-speed


----------



## ratssass (Dec 14, 2013)

_exposure triangle........................................_


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 14, 2013)

The best ISO setting is what gives you the appropriate amount of depth of field and a fast enough shutter speed for the focal length you're using or the subject you're shooting.


----------



## MK3Brent (Dec 14, 2013)

50,000


----------



## runnah (Dec 14, 2013)

How do you pronounce ISO?

I say "is-o".


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> The best ISO setting is what gives you the appropriate about of depth of field and a fast enough shutter speed for the focal length you're using or the subject you're shooting.


That's bull****, and you know it.  The best ISO is 50.  Period.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 14, 2013)

runnah said:


> How do you pronounce ISO?  I say "is-o".



Eye ess oh


----------



## amolitor (Dec 14, 2013)

iss as in kiss
oh as in oh my god


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

beachrat said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Here is a iso comparison on my tamron 11-16 on the smallest aperture corner crop.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> beachrat said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...




These are 100% crops?

Clearly, any difference that may be present is insignificant...


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > How do you pronounce ISO?  I say "is-o".
> ...



I say ézo


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > beachrat said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Dec 14, 2013)

Your real problem is that your horizon is tilted and your WB is too warm.


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2013)

Ok guys tone back the sillyness now.


Also note ISOs between full stops on the camera (eg ISO 160) which are often enabled by a menu setting and are not set as default are often not true ISO values. The camera instead uses a higher or lower ISO when the photo is taken and then adjusts the exposure to suit the selected ISO. As a result whilst the in-between ISO's exist they are not always as noise free as it would be using the ISO higher or lower than it. Although this is likely something you won't see much difference in until you're shooting at high ISO values or unless you underexposed and then boosted brightness a fair bit.


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > How can i find out the optimal setting for the d3200?
> ...




Psst the forum is on the internet - really no joke we're all on it right now! The real Internet!


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...


I can barely tell the difference.





If you really want to see which one is theoretically better, I have an idea.  Do the same test, except underexpose by 1 or 2 stops.  Bring them back up to the proper levels in PP.  That should exaggerate any differences that are present.

I just thought that up right now, but I see no reason it wouldn't work.  If you still see no difference, the answer is: It doesn't matter.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> Your real problem is that your horizon is tilted and your WB is too warm.



I usually ignore the white balance on my camera and leave it on auto, there are too many settings i just dont want to be  bothered with. If the picture bugs, then i use lightroom to adjust my picture. Here is the full picture so you can get an idea what i was going for:


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

So, that's your "front yard"?  

Nice!


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2013)

See now I once had an earwig somehow get into the mirror box of my camera once - it fell out though. 

However I think you somehow got a hamster stuck in your camera!


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

That's just a preview, i still have to fiddle with that picture and upload it to my pictures on here. So i put the biggest watermark on it i could find, because this is only a teaser of things to come.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So i put the biggest watermark on it i could find


:lmao:


----------



## runnah (Dec 14, 2013)

Overread said:


> See now I once had an earwig somehow get into the mirror box of my camera once - it fell out though.  However I think you somehow got a hamster stuck in your camera!



Not sure but I think that might have been silly.


----------



## beachrat (Dec 14, 2013)

Did you figure out how to adjust your iso yet?


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2013)

That's no watermark 

That's a hamstermark! 





In other news I honestly can't see anything between the ISO 100 and 200 previews - the shot itself is unlikely to show ANY difference when displayed on the internet or printed. You have to have pretty serious ISO to get that to show in final prepared shots. Also did you read the expose to the right article - that should help answer most ISO questions on the subject of noise 

Then of course you've noise removal software which would further remove noise problems - and sharpening to further counter hte softening.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> ......, there are too many settings i just dont want to be  bothered with. If the picture bugs, then i use lightroom to adjust my picture. ..........



A bad habit to have.


----------



## JustJazzie (Dec 14, 2013)

What's the right google search term to figure this out? I've never even heard of adjusting by more than a full stop, and I'm curious if my camera does this or not...


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

Overread said:


> That's no watermark
> 
> That's a hamstermark!
> 
> ...



I did, thanks.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2013)

JustJazzie said:


> What's the right google search term to figure this out? I've never even heard of adjusting by more than a full stop, and I'm curious if my camera does this or not...



Check your camera's manual.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > ......, there are too many settings i just dont want to be  bothered with. If the picture bugs, then i use lightroom to adjust my picture. ..........
> ...



I just dont know enough about this subject. When i'm out on the field i'm too busy on my shot.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

JustJazzie said:


> What's the right google search term to figure this out? I've never even heard of adjusting by more than a full stop, and I'm curious if my camera does this or not...


Look up ISO in the index of the manual for your camera.  If you can adjust in 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments, one of the pages referred to in the index should tell you how.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 14, 2013)

JustJazzie said:


> What's the right google search term to figure this out? I've never even heard of adjusting by more than a full stop, and I'm curious if my camera does this or not...



"Camera Owner's Manual".  ISO will adjust in the same increments as aperture and shutter speed, normally 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

SCraig said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > What's the right google search term to figure this out? I've never even heard of adjusting by more than a full stop, and I'm curious if my camera does this or not...
> ...


Not always.  Not uncommon for ISO to only be adjustable in full stop increments.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 14, 2013)

I am pretty sure that my camera will not adjust in increments less than 1 EV. If it could, I wouldn't want to use that setting anyways, fine control of ISO just isn't built in to the way I think about exposure.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 14, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> "Camera Owner's Manual".  ISO will adjust in the same increments as aperture and shutter speed, normally 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments.


Not always.  Not uncommon for ISO to only be adjustable in full stop increments.[/QUOTE]
I haven't run across one.  All four of my Nikon bodies will adjust in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments depending on the setting in the firmware.  Film bodies yes, but I haven't run across a relatively recent model digital body that won't.  I admit I could be wrong though since I haven't used them all.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Dec 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I usually ignore the white balance on my camera and leave it on auto, there are too many settings i just dont want to be  bothered with. If the picture bugs, then i use lightroom to adjust my picture. Here is the full picture so you can get an idea what i was going for:



Sorry, that was a half hazard stab at humor. There are several on this forum that will always comment on horizons and white balance, regardless of the original question. 
Disregard my comments and carry on.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

SCraig said:


> I haven't run across one.  All four of my Nikon bodies will adjust in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments depending on the setting in the firmware.  Film bodies yes, but I haven't run across a relatively recent model digital body that won't.  I admit I could be wrong though since I haven't used them all.


My experience is exactly the opposite, lol.

My film bodies (all of them) have ISO adjustments in 1/3 stop increments (even when aperture or shutter speed can only be adjusted in full or 1/2 stop increments).  The digital bodies I've used on the other hand (which are admittedly few, and old) only support full stop ISO adjustments.


----------



## skieur (Dec 14, 2013)

200 seems to be the consensus of most of the reviewers.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 14, 2013)

Film, I liked asa 200 for a little more shadow detail. Digital, what ever works for what I'm shooting. I don't compare film and digital.  There was much more of a skill to using film.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 14, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> My film bodies (all of them) have ISO adjustments in 1/3 stop increments (even when aperture or shutter speed can only be adjusted in full or 1/2 stop increments).  The digital bodies I've used on the other hand (which are admittedly few, and old) only support full stop ISO adjustments.



I don't even know what my film body has as far as ASA (it's from before ISO was adopted) but it does have 1/3 stop exposure compensation 

My D60 is from 2008 and it has 1/3 stop ISO adjustment.  Bodies before that could well have been full-stop ISO, I don't really know since that was the first one I bought.  I guess I just assumed that they all did since that bottom-of-the-line entry-level body did.  Assumptions are not good ideas so I apologize if I posted bad information.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

SCraig said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > My film bodies (all of them) have ISO adjustments in 1/3 stop increments (even when aperture or shutter speed can only be adjusted in full or 1/2 stop increments).  The digital bodies I've used on the other hand (which are admittedly few, and old) only support full stop ISO adjustments.
> ...


It may also be one of those Canon/Nikon differences...


----------



## minicoop1985 (Dec 14, 2013)

In my Olympus E-450, the best ISO setting is buy something else. 

Seriously, though, there's noise galore at ISO 100. It's bad.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 18, 2013)

After pixel peeping, 100 iso is probably the best iso setting. Though if i put it on either 100 or 200, nobody would be able to tell the difference even at 100% zoom.


300% zoom example overexposed by 2 stops to exagurate any faults:

iso 100







iso 200


----------



## Braineack (Dec 18, 2013)

So 75 posts in to come to the same conclusion of the answer in post #2.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 18, 2013)

Sure, when considering noise levels. But there are other tests i have to perform to be sure its generally good to shoot at 100. Shooting at the extremes of my lenses has thought me that its never clear cut.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 18, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > How can i find out the optimal setting for the d3200?
> ...



That interweb stuff scares me. I think it's a fad.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 18, 2013)

In theory 100 is usually better. I only ever use 100 if I am using a tripod or trying to slow shutter speed for a reason or (and this is rare in Ireland) that I need to use 100 as another higher iso means an exceedence of camera shutter speed ability. 200 or 400 is usual for me outside. These settings do not give  (to my eyes) any noticeable image quality penalty over iso 100 and allow for an inflated shutter speed which ends up as more keepers for me. Each to their own though. 

(canon 550d only allowed full stop iso increments, in auto iso the camera could select in between these)


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 18, 2013)

ronlane said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



Not to worry, we've been doing this since it was only the Pretty Wide Web.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 18, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Should have been around in the "Well it's not as narrow as it used to be" web days.  What a hoot.. lol


----------



## lambertpix (Dec 18, 2013)

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that native ISO on Canons is typically 100, and on Nikons it's 200.  One other random tidbit, on older Canons, at least, partial stop ISO settings were accomplished by essentially adjusting exposure up or down, much as you would in Lightroom, vs. full-stop ISO changes, the effect being that the partial-stop ISO settings are more or less simulated.  I'm not sure if or when this was ever changed -- I think it's a product of the sensor technology.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 18, 2013)

Native (Base) ISO on my Nikons is ISO200.  I start from there and increase as necessary for the scene at hand.  If ISO3200 is best for the aperture and shutter speed I want, well then, it's ISO3200.  

I have tried using the Auto ISO setting, but only as a learning lesson of how the camera decides what it thinks is best.  Generally, I know what I want already, which is the lowest possible ISO setting.

BTW, eye-ess-oh.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 18, 2013)

considering it's an acronym...


----------



## lambertpix (Dec 18, 2013)

Braineack said:


> considering it's an acronym...



Like NORAD, NASA, laser, scuba, RAID, Gimp, TED, NASDAQ...


----------



## Braineack (Dec 18, 2013)

you don't spell those out?


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 18, 2013)

ISO = International Standards Organization. And I spell it out. lol


----------



## hamlet (Dec 18, 2013)

And here i thought that iso meant iso.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 18, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> ISO = International Standards Organization. And I spell it out. lol




Actually, it's _*I*nternational *O*rganization for *S*tandardization_.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 18, 2013)

But IOS doesn't have the same ring to it.

The corporation I work for are ISO compliant for medical devices and most likely for their other branches of business.  The hoops we have to jump through are many to maintain this.  Actually, this month I have to go through a series of mandatory recertifications.  Whenever we discuss these matters, the vast majority refer to it as the EYE-ESS-OH compliance.  But here's the rub, our medical equipment, at least the modalities I deal with, have an ISOCENTER.  The isocenter is the base point where all the pieces of equipment are referenced within the exam room... floor to ceiling.  All ceiling rails, table core, pull boxes, floor trenches, etc. are dimensioned from this isocenter.  However, when we refer to the isocenter verbally, it is pronunced EYE-SEW.  Go figure.


----------



## ph0enix (Dec 19, 2013)

lambertpix said:


> FWIW, I'm pretty sure that native ISO on Canons is typically 100, and on Nikons it's 200.



This isn't the case with Nikon cameras anymore.  The native/base ISO on all new models is 100.


----------



## ph0enix (Dec 19, 2013)

kundalini said:


> But IOS doesn't have the same ring to it.


Tell that Cisco Systems and Apple, Inc


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 19, 2013)

hamlet said:


> After pixel peeping, 100 iso is probably the best iso setting. Though if i put it on either 100 or 200, nobody would be able to tell the difference even at 100% zoom.
> 
> 
> 300% zoom example overexposed by 2 stops to exagurate any faults:
> ...


I agree on both counts - 100 looks better, and that the difference is negligible (considering that this is a 300% crop).


----------



## manicmike (Dec 19, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > ratssass said:
> ...


Divide by zero.


----------



## shaylou (Dec 22, 2013)

How in the world could this tread have 96 responses?


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 22, 2013)

shaylou said:


> How in the world could this tread have 96 responses?


96?
you mean 97.

sometimes threads have a life of their own


----------



## snowbear (Dec 22, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> shaylou said:
> 
> 
> > How in the world could this tread have 96 responses?
> ...



Don't forget you have to subtract one -- the original isn't a "response."


----------



## table1349 (Dec 22, 2013)

Now it's 97.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 22, 2013)

99...............


----------



## ratssass (Dec 22, 2013)

100             WOOHOOO    I ACHIEVED SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Aakajx (Dec 22, 2013)

:shock: . Mind f.ck. I feel a headache coming on. When I seen beginners I thought that's me. Nope wrong. Tmi.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Dec 23, 2013)

I would rather have a grainy photo than a blurry one, it`s much easier to correct so i up the iso as far as necessary. 

John.


----------



## weeds2nicaragua (Dec 25, 2013)

Agreed: grainy over blurry.

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum


----------

