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



## slackercruster (Aug 3, 2012)

Anyone do some tests with the lower end ISO range? 

Can the difference between 100, 200, 400 or 800 be seen in prints up to 16 x 20? If so, where do the ISO's overlap and don't show much difference? 


Thanks


----------



## usayit (Aug 3, 2012)

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


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 3, 2012)

usayit said:


> .......... VERY highly dependent on the camera.




Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!


----------



## nickzou (Aug 3, 2012)

With my D7000, 100 to 800 is almost indistinguishable even on screen (provided proper exposure). But with my old D80, 800 is practically unusable.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 3, 2012)

If you define color depth and saturation to be a part of IQ then yes it does make a difference.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 3, 2012)

usayit said:


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


And on the person using it. I could use images all of the way up to 12800 on my old 50D. Many people complain about the noise issues on the 50D.


----------



## KmH (Aug 3, 2012)

usayit said:


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


Plus, the accuracy of the exposure relative to the brightest stop of luminosity in a scene. 

You are shooting yourself in the foot by posting all these questions you have been posting.
By doing your own research you necessarily encounter information you didn't know you would want to know.

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...e/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...ly/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

Image noise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types

Understanding Dynamic Range in Digital Photography


----------



## slackercruster (Aug 4, 2012)

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?


----------



## BRN1 (Aug 4, 2012)

No expert here but 200 speed 35mm film that became so popular gave you a little better low light ability compared to 100. That's why people liked it. 200 had better IQ than the 400 but not as good as 100. In most cases though the IQ from 100 to 200 was difficult to tell. I used a lot of 200 before I started using digital. Now "it's all automatic" but I still try to keep my ISO around 200. Old habit i guess. 
Like the other replies said, it has a lot to do with the exposure being correct and the particular camera being used. And the 300 or 320, I have not used that (on purpose).


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 4, 2012)

16x20?   Heck yeah.  If you can see the difference on your screen, then you can see it on the print.  I can see the difference on the screen with ISO800.  Now if you had said 4x6....


----------



## usayit (Aug 4, 2012)

If you want people to put time and effort to answering, you should be willing to do the same in forming the question with details and participate.  If you are short in time, take your time and post later.  this isn't google.... its people... a discussion.  You are requesting their time and input which is not free.

For starters, specify which camera or cameras would make the discussion a whole lot more fruitful.  KmH already posted links to read.. did you read them? or do you "not have enough" time and want others to do it for you?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 4, 2012)

usayit said:


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



^^^

Close thread.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 4, 2012)

slackercruster said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



I think you are wasting your time. 
You will tell the difference in IQ at 100 ISO if the photographer took a sh!tty, underexposed image and bumped it up. 
16x20 is small in the relative terms of things. Most current cameras can print a 16x20 with ease at nearly their full ISO range. 
I have printed posters taken at 3200 ISO with excellent quality. I have printed 60"x20" canvas at ISO 800 with outstanding quality. 
There is so much more that goes into a print than the camera. The photographer has a HUGE amount of control over the quality of each and every image coming out of the camera. The processing has a huge impact on the image when it's printed.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 5, 2012)

The problem is even with the current crop of cams the noise level at different ISOs are very different across models. But it's not just absolute noise. It also depends on how much you value sharpness since noise reduction can do wonders for noise at the expense of perceived sharpness.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Aug 5, 2012)

Short and simple answer - Compact yes, DSLR no. - and don't be wise guys, i mean compacts with small sensors not the new ones with medium sized sensors


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 6, 2012)

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 (Aug 6, 2012)

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 (Aug 6, 2012)

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 (Aug 6, 2012)

slackercruster said:


> *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?
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 6, 2012)

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 (Aug 6, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> 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 ...


----------



## greybeard (Aug 6, 2012)

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


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 7, 2012)

Gaerek said:


> Fixed it for you.


 *PLONK*


----------



## Helen B (Aug 7, 2012)

Heitz said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2012)

usayit said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2012)

Heitz said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 7, 2012)

usayit said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## greybeard (Aug 7, 2012)

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.


----------



## charlie76 (Aug 7, 2012)

greybeard said:
			
		

> 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.



Hey thanks for the feedback!  I have found the same with my camera...low noise all the way up to 600-800!  But I still use 100 whenever possible.


----------



## usayit (Aug 7, 2012)

Nah.. I think it base iso is a factor of the sensor design.... (and too much credit given to Nikon).

There are tons of cameras whose base iso is 200 and not designed for action/sports etc...


----------



## markj (Nov 3, 2012)

I was told by a self proclaimed photo journalist I met last week while shooting landscapes, that color rendition at 200 iso was the optimum setting for color. Can anyone confirm or depute that thesis?


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 3, 2012)

markj said:


> I was told by a self proclaimed photo journalist I met last week while shooting landscapes, that color rendition at 200 iso was the optimum setting for color. Can anyone confirm or depute that thesis?


I believe Nikon's native, base ISO is 200. Might that  have something to do with it?


----------



## KmH (Nov 3, 2012)

Not all of Nikon's DSLR's use ISO 200 as their native base ISO.

markj, the PJ you talked to was blowing smoke up your


----------



## unpopular (Nov 3, 2012)

markj said:


> I was told by a self proclaimed photo journalist I met last week while shooting landscapes, that color rendition at 200 iso was the optimum setting for color. Can anyone confirm or depute that thesis?



If the base ISO is 200, then the maximum dynamic range will be at 200. Because RGB color and tone are intrinsic, greater dynamic range means better color depth.


----------



## markj (Nov 3, 2012)

My base with a D7000 is 100 iso. So your saying then that the MDR will be 100 iso? KmH, how did you possibly know we were smoking???


----------



## unpopular (Nov 3, 2012)

^ you do know that the base/native ISO is not the same as the minimum ISO, right? I don't know what the base ISO is, it could be ISO 100, but I am betting on 200.

ETA: on the D7000, there is no dynamic range difference from ISO 100 to ISO 800, according to dpreview. So in this regard, color should be similar. Noise OTOH may play a roll.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 3, 2012)

Nikons tend to have a base ISO around 200 while Canon's is around 100, however there is some variation. One example is the 60D, which apparently has a base ISO around 160.


----------



## markj (Nov 3, 2012)

Sorry, I thought the base number was the lowest available iso number. Could someone through a simple definition this way. Thanks.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 3, 2012)

With film the speed was already set for the specific film you were using.

With digital, there are certain ISOs that are native to the actual sensor and its sensitivity.

Like, if the base ISO of the actual sensor for your camera is 100, then all of the multiples of 100 are also native to the sensor. 

IE: 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600

But, say, you use ISO 160. Then the sensor is actually using software to simulate that ISO by using the native ISO of 200 and pulling down the exposure to match what 160 ISO would look like.

And with an ISO of 125 it would push the exposure of ISO 100, meaning more noise.

I think all of that is correct. Does it make sense?


----------



## usayit (Nov 3, 2012)

Base iso is not necessarily the lowest iso setting.  Some cameras have iso settings that are less than the base iso.  Shooting at those lower iso settings also reduces dynamic range.  

Digital cameras are essentially iso-less.  I would not be caught up in he technical aspects so much as its only applicable in the sense that it approximates he sensitivity of film iso.  It was intended  to make the transition from film to digital easier.  Digital sensors only operate optimally at a single setting... its base iso.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 3, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> With film the speed was already set for the specific film you were using.
> 
> With digital, there are certain ISOs that are native to the actual sensor and its sensitivity.
> 
> ...



Kind of. First of all, film manufacturers lie ... but that another topic.

With digital, the signal gain is typically done on the analog side of the camera, not the digital (software) side. This is a pretty important distinction because digital data is discrete while analog data is continuous. So it's not exactly like bumping up the exposure knob.

OTOH, I have heard a rumor that the D7000 handles ISO on the software end.

But yes. The sensor in your camera has a fixed sensitivity whose signal is amplified or attenuated to meet a given equivalent sensitivity of higher or lower ISO value. What ever this sensitivity is is the "base ISO".


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 13, 2012)

With film, I could see difference in ISO by the graininess. 
I had used slow films from 25 iso to fast speed films at 3200 iso.
The lower the iso, the less grain (now noise), on my prints. This theory was standard and reliable.


But since I have a digital camera (5 years old DSLR), I see lots of grain at 800 iso, but with my brothers newer digital camera (DSLR), there is no grain at 800 iso. 
So that digital noise-by-iso theory isn't reliable anymore.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

^^ I think at this point, starting at around 2005 the signal to noise ratio of most DSLRs out performs film. There is a lot of hoohah about noise/grain, I think it's a bunch of malarky... Ok, maybe not entirely malarky. While the two qualities are functionally and aesthetically different, they represent the same limitation to SNR, and can be statistically measured in the same way.

The way you make a film more sensitive is by adding dopants that physically change the surface of the silver halide such that it can more readily develop out; sensitivity is a function of post-exposure, and silver halide has the same quantum yield (right word?) regardless how the crystal is shaped. Provided that you applied this process linearly and predictable under similar development conditions, any similar emulsion formula will likewise have predictable grain. However, variation between films does exist, and so it's not really possible to say "If I use Kodak Royal Gold 400 it will be just as grainy as Fuji Supra 400" And slide film is entirely different yet, with grain that is merely a product of where silver used to be.

With digital, it's really no different except that the "film" is in the camera and that technolgy is still being improved upon, so variation is going to be more apparent. Eventually, as with film, manufacturers will be pressed up against what is economically and physically possible or practical and camera manufacturers will have to go back to developing and marketing cameras.


----------

