Which ISO should I use for the cleanest image? [duplicate]Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?What is “ISO” on a digital camera?Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?Should I use low-end expanded ISO?What does “expanded ISO” mean?Should I use low-end expanded ISO?For night photography with lots of unexposed areas, should I go with high iso and low exposure, or low iso and high exposure?Digital ISO vs Post-Exposure CorrectionSony a7: Is there more noise for ISO <100?Is analog gain really actually power-of-two only?Finding the best balance between ISO and exposureExpanded (low) ISO on Nikon D810Qualitywise, is there any downside to overexposing an image (within the dynamic range of the camera)?Why is same image exposed at 100 ISO noisier than 3200 ISO?
What is the word for reserving something for yourself before others do?
Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?
How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?
How to format long polynomial?
Minkowski space
Show that if two triangles built on parallel lines, with equal bases have the same perimeter only if they are congruent.
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Today is the Center
tikz: show 0 at the axis origin
Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?
Python: next in for loop
What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?
Risk of getting Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the United States?
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )
Maximum likelihood parameters deviate from posterior distributions
What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
Is this a crack on the carbon frame?
Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?
Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?
Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?
What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?
How to find program name(s) of an installed package?
Which ISO should I use for the cleanest image? [duplicate]
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?What is “ISO” on a digital camera?Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?Should I use low-end expanded ISO?What does “expanded ISO” mean?Should I use low-end expanded ISO?For night photography with lots of unexposed areas, should I go with high iso and low exposure, or low iso and high exposure?Digital ISO vs Post-Exposure CorrectionSony a7: Is there more noise for ISO <100?Is analog gain really actually power-of-two only?Finding the best balance between ISO and exposureExpanded (low) ISO on Nikon D810Qualitywise, is there any downside to overexposing an image (within the dynamic range of the camera)?Why is same image exposed at 100 ISO noisier than 3200 ISO?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
This question already has an answer here:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
1 answer
Assume the case of a Canon 6D Mark II. Its lowest ISO is regulary 100. If expanded, I can set it to L, which is ISO 50.
Until now, I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image, so whenever possible I've been using ISO 50. Now I came across this chart from photonstophotos.net:
And that leaves me completely confused. According to this chart, I have a lower noise at ISO 100. ISO 50 seems to have a higher noise than ISO 300 too. Is that anywhere near correct? As long as I would not be clipping highlights, couldn't I just use ISO 160, 300 or 600 instead of lets say 50, 200 and 400 (depending on my needed exposure) and later drop down the exposure in post to get a cleaner image?
I've seen this question about ISO 50 but the two top answers are kinda contradicting:
Since your camera offers this 'expanded ISO" that provides for 80 ISO, you can assume that this ISO is sub-optimal, and could exhibit more noise or a loss of dynamic range than the 'native' ISO. [...] Some suggest Canon cameras are 'native' for ISO 100, and full stop ISO are best (100,200,400 etc.).
Vs.:
You can use it and it gives excellent dynamic-range and very low image noise but really barely any different from the ISO 100 setting.
The chart above would suggest the first answer is right, but that definitely doesn't hold true for the latter part of the quote, as ISO 160, 300 and 600 seem to be the best choices.
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
exposure iso noise
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
marked as duplicate by Michael C, scottbb, xiota, Hueco, flolilo Apr 3 at 9:07
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
1 answer
Assume the case of a Canon 6D Mark II. Its lowest ISO is regulary 100. If expanded, I can set it to L, which is ISO 50.
Until now, I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image, so whenever possible I've been using ISO 50. Now I came across this chart from photonstophotos.net:
And that leaves me completely confused. According to this chart, I have a lower noise at ISO 100. ISO 50 seems to have a higher noise than ISO 300 too. Is that anywhere near correct? As long as I would not be clipping highlights, couldn't I just use ISO 160, 300 or 600 instead of lets say 50, 200 and 400 (depending on my needed exposure) and later drop down the exposure in post to get a cleaner image?
I've seen this question about ISO 50 but the two top answers are kinda contradicting:
Since your camera offers this 'expanded ISO" that provides for 80 ISO, you can assume that this ISO is sub-optimal, and could exhibit more noise or a loss of dynamic range than the 'native' ISO. [...] Some suggest Canon cameras are 'native' for ISO 100, and full stop ISO are best (100,200,400 etc.).
Vs.:
You can use it and it gives excellent dynamic-range and very low image noise but really barely any different from the ISO 100 setting.
The chart above would suggest the first answer is right, but that definitely doesn't hold true for the latter part of the quote, as ISO 160, 300 and 600 seem to be the best choices.
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
exposure iso noise
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
marked as duplicate by Michael C, scottbb, xiota, Hueco, flolilo Apr 3 at 9:07
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
Apr 2 at 18:55
@MichaelC Yeah but to me, especially because of the "excellent DR", it sounds like he is trying to say that 50 is better than 100, while other answers and that chart suggest it is worse, even though just by a little.
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:03
2
I agree with the suggested dupe (specifically, the accepted answer there, as @MichaelC points out). But addressing the statement, "I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image...", see the following questions: What is “ISO” on a digital camera?, Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?, and Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?
– scottbb
Apr 2 at 20:02
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
1 answer
Assume the case of a Canon 6D Mark II. Its lowest ISO is regulary 100. If expanded, I can set it to L, which is ISO 50.
Until now, I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image, so whenever possible I've been using ISO 50. Now I came across this chart from photonstophotos.net:
And that leaves me completely confused. According to this chart, I have a lower noise at ISO 100. ISO 50 seems to have a higher noise than ISO 300 too. Is that anywhere near correct? As long as I would not be clipping highlights, couldn't I just use ISO 160, 300 or 600 instead of lets say 50, 200 and 400 (depending on my needed exposure) and later drop down the exposure in post to get a cleaner image?
I've seen this question about ISO 50 but the two top answers are kinda contradicting:
Since your camera offers this 'expanded ISO" that provides for 80 ISO, you can assume that this ISO is sub-optimal, and could exhibit more noise or a loss of dynamic range than the 'native' ISO. [...] Some suggest Canon cameras are 'native' for ISO 100, and full stop ISO are best (100,200,400 etc.).
Vs.:
You can use it and it gives excellent dynamic-range and very low image noise but really barely any different from the ISO 100 setting.
The chart above would suggest the first answer is right, but that definitely doesn't hold true for the latter part of the quote, as ISO 160, 300 and 600 seem to be the best choices.
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
exposure iso noise
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
This question already has an answer here:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
1 answer
Assume the case of a Canon 6D Mark II. Its lowest ISO is regulary 100. If expanded, I can set it to L, which is ISO 50.
Until now, I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image, so whenever possible I've been using ISO 50. Now I came across this chart from photonstophotos.net:
And that leaves me completely confused. According to this chart, I have a lower noise at ISO 100. ISO 50 seems to have a higher noise than ISO 300 too. Is that anywhere near correct? As long as I would not be clipping highlights, couldn't I just use ISO 160, 300 or 600 instead of lets say 50, 200 and 400 (depending on my needed exposure) and later drop down the exposure in post to get a cleaner image?
I've seen this question about ISO 50 but the two top answers are kinda contradicting:
Since your camera offers this 'expanded ISO" that provides for 80 ISO, you can assume that this ISO is sub-optimal, and could exhibit more noise or a loss of dynamic range than the 'native' ISO. [...] Some suggest Canon cameras are 'native' for ISO 100, and full stop ISO are best (100,200,400 etc.).
Vs.:
You can use it and it gives excellent dynamic-range and very low image noise but really barely any different from the ISO 100 setting.
The chart above would suggest the first answer is right, but that definitely doesn't hold true for the latter part of the quote, as ISO 160, 300 and 600 seem to be the best choices.
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
This question already has an answer here:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
1 answer
exposure iso noise
exposure iso noise
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
asked Apr 2 at 18:53
confetticonfetti
410113
410113
marked as duplicate by Michael C, scottbb, xiota, Hueco, flolilo Apr 3 at 9:07
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Michael C, scottbb, xiota, Hueco, flolilo Apr 3 at 9:07
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
Apr 2 at 18:55
@MichaelC Yeah but to me, especially because of the "excellent DR", it sounds like he is trying to say that 50 is better than 100, while other answers and that chart suggest it is worse, even though just by a little.
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:03
2
I agree with the suggested dupe (specifically, the accepted answer there, as @MichaelC points out). But addressing the statement, "I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image...", see the following questions: What is “ISO” on a digital camera?, Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?, and Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?
– scottbb
Apr 2 at 20:02
add a comment |
2
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
Apr 2 at 18:55
@MichaelC Yeah but to me, especially because of the "excellent DR", it sounds like he is trying to say that 50 is better than 100, while other answers and that chart suggest it is worse, even though just by a little.
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:03
2
I agree with the suggested dupe (specifically, the accepted answer there, as @MichaelC points out). But addressing the statement, "I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image...", see the following questions: What is “ISO” on a digital camera?, Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?, and Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?
– scottbb
Apr 2 at 20:02
2
2
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
Apr 2 at 18:55
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
Apr 2 at 18:55
@MichaelC Yeah but to me, especially because of the "excellent DR", it sounds like he is trying to say that 50 is better than 100, while other answers and that chart suggest it is worse, even though just by a little.
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:03
@MichaelC Yeah but to me, especially because of the "excellent DR", it sounds like he is trying to say that 50 is better than 100, while other answers and that chart suggest it is worse, even though just by a little.
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:03
2
2
I agree with the suggested dupe (specifically, the accepted answer there, as @MichaelC points out). But addressing the statement, "I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image...", see the following questions: What is “ISO” on a digital camera?, Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?, and Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?
– scottbb
Apr 2 at 20:02
I agree with the suggested dupe (specifically, the accepted answer there, as @MichaelC points out). But addressing the statement, "I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image...", see the following questions: What is “ISO” on a digital camera?, Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?, and Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?
– scottbb
Apr 2 at 20:02
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
While most of your questions are already answered by Michael or the question he linked to here are my two cents about your following question:
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
The chart shows the Read Noise in dependence of ISO. This was measured by taking a completely black picture. So as long as you only shoot with your lens cap attached, the answer is yes ;-)
Otherwise these measurements are not really relevant for practical purposes. There you use the Visual Noise. These are expressed in values from 0 to "unlimited". Values up to 0.8 mean near noiseless results, up to 2 for "low" noise, up to 3 for "medium" and everything above that for "clearly visible" noise.
I googled for tests with Visual Noise for your camera and found one at PDN. It's quite a read (with links explaining the methodology) but I think the following bullet point sums it up nicely:
The amount of observable noise is consistent in each viewing condition, at ISOs from ISO100 through ISO3200. At higher ISOs, the amount of noise increases.
So don't spent too much time considering if to use ISO 100 or ISO 160. The result will look the same most of the time anyway.
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
This is a great explanation and the article linked was super helpful to get more technical insights. It also addresses the chart directly and how the test was created, that's why I'm marking it as the accepted answer. I probably should've reworded my question and focused only on that part of the question to avoid the duplicate flag, but I guess it's fine how it is.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:33
add a comment |
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the original 5D back in late 2005. The last EOS DSLR that did not appear to do it was the APS-H EOS 1D Mark IIN introduced in mid-2005. The next 1-series cameras, the APS-H EOS 1D Mark III as well as the FF EOS 1Ds Mark III that were introduced in 2007 both demonstrated this as well.
There's an extended answer regarding how all of this works out in the accepted answer and the comments following it at:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
Rather than copy/paste that entire answer here, I'm voting to close this question as a duplicate. Although the questions aren't exactly the same, the answer to both is.
The only additional information that might be relevant is about ISO 50. It is a "virtual" ISO that uses the sensor amplification set at ISO 100 and then "pulls" the exposure one full stop when the raw file is converted, just like ISO 160, ISO 320, ISO 640, etc. "pull" exposure by one-third (1/3) stop from the sensor amplified for ISO 200, ISO 400, ISO 800, etc. Even if you use a third party raw conversion application, the EXIF info attached to the raw file will let the app know to apply the exposure adjustments.
With ISO 50, the effect of the "pull" in development is to reduce the brightness of the entire picture, including the shadows where noise tends to be most noticeable, by one full stop. It also reduces the highlights by one full stop. So any areas that are right at the clipping point in the raw file (which is probably a stop or two brighter than what could fit into a jpeg with typical gamma and contrast curves applied) are also reduced by one full stop.
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that other question. It does explain most of the questions I had though, but just to make sure I'm not missing anything: That means I can basically take a shot at ISO 640 (which will be overexposed by 2 2/3 stops but no clipped highlights), bring the exposure down later in post by 2 2/3 stops and have the same image but cleaner and with less noise than if I would've taken the same shot at ISO 100 to begin with?
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:23
1
@confetti Not exactly. If your 6DII is set to ISO 640, the sensor is actually being amplified at ISO 800, with an instruction to the raw developer to initially pull exposure 1/3 stop and call that '0'. You can then reduce it an additional 2 2/3 stops. If you use the exact same aperture and exposure time at ISO 640 that you use at ISO 100 and then reduce the ISO 640 exposure by 2 2/3 stops you'll have pretty much the same picture as long as you didn't blow the highlights when shooting at ISO 640. But that means nothing in your ISO 100 shot is within three stops of full brightness.
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:31
1
There may be slightly less noticeable read noise in the ISO 640 shot after reduction by 2 2/3 stops. But you could get an even cleaner result by using ISO 100, using a three stops longer shutter time or a three stops wider aperture and then reducing the ISO 100 shot by three stops in post. This is because you would actually increase the amount of light recorded by the sensor in this case, and ultimately noise is about how much signal (i.e light) there is in ratio to the noise .
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:36
Thank you for that last explanation, it's so obvious yet I didn't even consider that. Even though changing Av/Tv of course comes with changes other than just the light gathered too.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:22
You can't change the light gathered without changing either the Tv or Av (unless you change the light itself). Changing the ISO only changes the analog amplification of the the signal from the same amount of light.
– Michael C
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
While most of your questions are already answered by Michael or the question he linked to here are my two cents about your following question:
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
The chart shows the Read Noise in dependence of ISO. This was measured by taking a completely black picture. So as long as you only shoot with your lens cap attached, the answer is yes ;-)
Otherwise these measurements are not really relevant for practical purposes. There you use the Visual Noise. These are expressed in values from 0 to "unlimited". Values up to 0.8 mean near noiseless results, up to 2 for "low" noise, up to 3 for "medium" and everything above that for "clearly visible" noise.
I googled for tests with Visual Noise for your camera and found one at PDN. It's quite a read (with links explaining the methodology) but I think the following bullet point sums it up nicely:
The amount of observable noise is consistent in each viewing condition, at ISOs from ISO100 through ISO3200. At higher ISOs, the amount of noise increases.
So don't spent too much time considering if to use ISO 100 or ISO 160. The result will look the same most of the time anyway.
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
This is a great explanation and the article linked was super helpful to get more technical insights. It also addresses the chart directly and how the test was created, that's why I'm marking it as the accepted answer. I probably should've reworded my question and focused only on that part of the question to avoid the duplicate flag, but I guess it's fine how it is.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:33
add a comment |
While most of your questions are already answered by Michael or the question he linked to here are my two cents about your following question:
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
The chart shows the Read Noise in dependence of ISO. This was measured by taking a completely black picture. So as long as you only shoot with your lens cap attached, the answer is yes ;-)
Otherwise these measurements are not really relevant for practical purposes. There you use the Visual Noise. These are expressed in values from 0 to "unlimited". Values up to 0.8 mean near noiseless results, up to 2 for "low" noise, up to 3 for "medium" and everything above that for "clearly visible" noise.
I googled for tests with Visual Noise for your camera and found one at PDN. It's quite a read (with links explaining the methodology) but I think the following bullet point sums it up nicely:
The amount of observable noise is consistent in each viewing condition, at ISOs from ISO100 through ISO3200. At higher ISOs, the amount of noise increases.
So don't spent too much time considering if to use ISO 100 or ISO 160. The result will look the same most of the time anyway.
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
This is a great explanation and the article linked was super helpful to get more technical insights. It also addresses the chart directly and how the test was created, that's why I'm marking it as the accepted answer. I probably should've reworded my question and focused only on that part of the question to avoid the duplicate flag, but I guess it's fine how it is.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:33
add a comment |
While most of your questions are already answered by Michael or the question he linked to here are my two cents about your following question:
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
The chart shows the Read Noise in dependence of ISO. This was measured by taking a completely black picture. So as long as you only shoot with your lens cap attached, the answer is yes ;-)
Otherwise these measurements are not really relevant for practical purposes. There you use the Visual Noise. These are expressed in values from 0 to "unlimited". Values up to 0.8 mean near noiseless results, up to 2 for "low" noise, up to 3 for "medium" and everything above that for "clearly visible" noise.
I googled for tests with Visual Noise for your camera and found one at PDN. It's quite a read (with links explaining the methodology) but I think the following bullet point sums it up nicely:
The amount of observable noise is consistent in each viewing condition, at ISOs from ISO100 through ISO3200. At higher ISOs, the amount of noise increases.
So don't spent too much time considering if to use ISO 100 or ISO 160. The result will look the same most of the time anyway.
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
While most of your questions are already answered by Michael or the question he linked to here are my two cents about your following question:
Can someone tell me if I interpret the chart correctly, and if ISO 160, later darkened in post, will really give me cleaner, less noisy images in the end than using ISO 50 (assuming that would be the perfect exposure) in the camera right away?
The chart shows the Read Noise in dependence of ISO. This was measured by taking a completely black picture. So as long as you only shoot with your lens cap attached, the answer is yes ;-)
Otherwise these measurements are not really relevant for practical purposes. There you use the Visual Noise. These are expressed in values from 0 to "unlimited". Values up to 0.8 mean near noiseless results, up to 2 for "low" noise, up to 3 for "medium" and everything above that for "clearly visible" noise.
I googled for tests with Visual Noise for your camera and found one at PDN. It's quite a read (with links explaining the methodology) but I think the following bullet point sums it up nicely:
The amount of observable noise is consistent in each viewing condition, at ISOs from ISO100 through ISO3200. At higher ISOs, the amount of noise increases.
So don't spent too much time considering if to use ISO 100 or ISO 160. The result will look the same most of the time anyway.
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
answered Apr 2 at 22:21
LotharLothar
28413
28413
This is a great explanation and the article linked was super helpful to get more technical insights. It also addresses the chart directly and how the test was created, that's why I'm marking it as the accepted answer. I probably should've reworded my question and focused only on that part of the question to avoid the duplicate flag, but I guess it's fine how it is.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:33
add a comment |
This is a great explanation and the article linked was super helpful to get more technical insights. It also addresses the chart directly and how the test was created, that's why I'm marking it as the accepted answer. I probably should've reworded my question and focused only on that part of the question to avoid the duplicate flag, but I guess it's fine how it is.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:33
This is a great explanation and the article linked was super helpful to get more technical insights. It also addresses the chart directly and how the test was created, that's why I'm marking it as the accepted answer. I probably should've reworded my question and focused only on that part of the question to avoid the duplicate flag, but I guess it's fine how it is.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:33
This is a great explanation and the article linked was super helpful to get more technical insights. It also addresses the chart directly and how the test was created, that's why I'm marking it as the accepted answer. I probably should've reworded my question and focused only on that part of the question to avoid the duplicate flag, but I guess it's fine how it is.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:33
add a comment |
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the original 5D back in late 2005. The last EOS DSLR that did not appear to do it was the APS-H EOS 1D Mark IIN introduced in mid-2005. The next 1-series cameras, the APS-H EOS 1D Mark III as well as the FF EOS 1Ds Mark III that were introduced in 2007 both demonstrated this as well.
There's an extended answer regarding how all of this works out in the accepted answer and the comments following it at:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
Rather than copy/paste that entire answer here, I'm voting to close this question as a duplicate. Although the questions aren't exactly the same, the answer to both is.
The only additional information that might be relevant is about ISO 50. It is a "virtual" ISO that uses the sensor amplification set at ISO 100 and then "pulls" the exposure one full stop when the raw file is converted, just like ISO 160, ISO 320, ISO 640, etc. "pull" exposure by one-third (1/3) stop from the sensor amplified for ISO 200, ISO 400, ISO 800, etc. Even if you use a third party raw conversion application, the EXIF info attached to the raw file will let the app know to apply the exposure adjustments.
With ISO 50, the effect of the "pull" in development is to reduce the brightness of the entire picture, including the shadows where noise tends to be most noticeable, by one full stop. It also reduces the highlights by one full stop. So any areas that are right at the clipping point in the raw file (which is probably a stop or two brighter than what could fit into a jpeg with typical gamma and contrast curves applied) are also reduced by one full stop.
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that other question. It does explain most of the questions I had though, but just to make sure I'm not missing anything: That means I can basically take a shot at ISO 640 (which will be overexposed by 2 2/3 stops but no clipped highlights), bring the exposure down later in post by 2 2/3 stops and have the same image but cleaner and with less noise than if I would've taken the same shot at ISO 100 to begin with?
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:23
1
@confetti Not exactly. If your 6DII is set to ISO 640, the sensor is actually being amplified at ISO 800, with an instruction to the raw developer to initially pull exposure 1/3 stop and call that '0'. You can then reduce it an additional 2 2/3 stops. If you use the exact same aperture and exposure time at ISO 640 that you use at ISO 100 and then reduce the ISO 640 exposure by 2 2/3 stops you'll have pretty much the same picture as long as you didn't blow the highlights when shooting at ISO 640. But that means nothing in your ISO 100 shot is within three stops of full brightness.
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:31
1
There may be slightly less noticeable read noise in the ISO 640 shot after reduction by 2 2/3 stops. But you could get an even cleaner result by using ISO 100, using a three stops longer shutter time or a three stops wider aperture and then reducing the ISO 100 shot by three stops in post. This is because you would actually increase the amount of light recorded by the sensor in this case, and ultimately noise is about how much signal (i.e light) there is in ratio to the noise .
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:36
Thank you for that last explanation, it's so obvious yet I didn't even consider that. Even though changing Av/Tv of course comes with changes other than just the light gathered too.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:22
You can't change the light gathered without changing either the Tv or Av (unless you change the light itself). Changing the ISO only changes the analog amplification of the the signal from the same amount of light.
– Michael C
2 days ago
add a comment |
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the original 5D back in late 2005. The last EOS DSLR that did not appear to do it was the APS-H EOS 1D Mark IIN introduced in mid-2005. The next 1-series cameras, the APS-H EOS 1D Mark III as well as the FF EOS 1Ds Mark III that were introduced in 2007 both demonstrated this as well.
There's an extended answer regarding how all of this works out in the accepted answer and the comments following it at:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
Rather than copy/paste that entire answer here, I'm voting to close this question as a duplicate. Although the questions aren't exactly the same, the answer to both is.
The only additional information that might be relevant is about ISO 50. It is a "virtual" ISO that uses the sensor amplification set at ISO 100 and then "pulls" the exposure one full stop when the raw file is converted, just like ISO 160, ISO 320, ISO 640, etc. "pull" exposure by one-third (1/3) stop from the sensor amplified for ISO 200, ISO 400, ISO 800, etc. Even if you use a third party raw conversion application, the EXIF info attached to the raw file will let the app know to apply the exposure adjustments.
With ISO 50, the effect of the "pull" in development is to reduce the brightness of the entire picture, including the shadows where noise tends to be most noticeable, by one full stop. It also reduces the highlights by one full stop. So any areas that are right at the clipping point in the raw file (which is probably a stop or two brighter than what could fit into a jpeg with typical gamma and contrast curves applied) are also reduced by one full stop.
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that other question. It does explain most of the questions I had though, but just to make sure I'm not missing anything: That means I can basically take a shot at ISO 640 (which will be overexposed by 2 2/3 stops but no clipped highlights), bring the exposure down later in post by 2 2/3 stops and have the same image but cleaner and with less noise than if I would've taken the same shot at ISO 100 to begin with?
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:23
1
@confetti Not exactly. If your 6DII is set to ISO 640, the sensor is actually being amplified at ISO 800, with an instruction to the raw developer to initially pull exposure 1/3 stop and call that '0'. You can then reduce it an additional 2 2/3 stops. If you use the exact same aperture and exposure time at ISO 640 that you use at ISO 100 and then reduce the ISO 640 exposure by 2 2/3 stops you'll have pretty much the same picture as long as you didn't blow the highlights when shooting at ISO 640. But that means nothing in your ISO 100 shot is within three stops of full brightness.
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:31
1
There may be slightly less noticeable read noise in the ISO 640 shot after reduction by 2 2/3 stops. But you could get an even cleaner result by using ISO 100, using a three stops longer shutter time or a three stops wider aperture and then reducing the ISO 100 shot by three stops in post. This is because you would actually increase the amount of light recorded by the sensor in this case, and ultimately noise is about how much signal (i.e light) there is in ratio to the noise .
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:36
Thank you for that last explanation, it's so obvious yet I didn't even consider that. Even though changing Av/Tv of course comes with changes other than just the light gathered too.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:22
You can't change the light gathered without changing either the Tv or Av (unless you change the light itself). Changing the ISO only changes the analog amplification of the the signal from the same amount of light.
– Michael C
2 days ago
add a comment |
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the original 5D back in late 2005. The last EOS DSLR that did not appear to do it was the APS-H EOS 1D Mark IIN introduced in mid-2005. The next 1-series cameras, the APS-H EOS 1D Mark III as well as the FF EOS 1Ds Mark III that were introduced in 2007 both demonstrated this as well.
There's an extended answer regarding how all of this works out in the accepted answer and the comments following it at:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
Rather than copy/paste that entire answer here, I'm voting to close this question as a duplicate. Although the questions aren't exactly the same, the answer to both is.
The only additional information that might be relevant is about ISO 50. It is a "virtual" ISO that uses the sensor amplification set at ISO 100 and then "pulls" the exposure one full stop when the raw file is converted, just like ISO 160, ISO 320, ISO 640, etc. "pull" exposure by one-third (1/3) stop from the sensor amplified for ISO 200, ISO 400, ISO 800, etc. Even if you use a third party raw conversion application, the EXIF info attached to the raw file will let the app know to apply the exposure adjustments.
With ISO 50, the effect of the "pull" in development is to reduce the brightness of the entire picture, including the shadows where noise tends to be most noticeable, by one full stop. It also reduces the highlights by one full stop. So any areas that are right at the clipping point in the raw file (which is probably a stop or two brighter than what could fit into a jpeg with typical gamma and contrast curves applied) are also reduced by one full stop.
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the original 5D back in late 2005. The last EOS DSLR that did not appear to do it was the APS-H EOS 1D Mark IIN introduced in mid-2005. The next 1-series cameras, the APS-H EOS 1D Mark III as well as the FF EOS 1Ds Mark III that were introduced in 2007 both demonstrated this as well.
There's an extended answer regarding how all of this works out in the accepted answer and the comments following it at:
Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
Rather than copy/paste that entire answer here, I'm voting to close this question as a duplicate. Although the questions aren't exactly the same, the answer to both is.
The only additional information that might be relevant is about ISO 50. It is a "virtual" ISO that uses the sensor amplification set at ISO 100 and then "pulls" the exposure one full stop when the raw file is converted, just like ISO 160, ISO 320, ISO 640, etc. "pull" exposure by one-third (1/3) stop from the sensor amplified for ISO 200, ISO 400, ISO 800, etc. Even if you use a third party raw conversion application, the EXIF info attached to the raw file will let the app know to apply the exposure adjustments.
With ISO 50, the effect of the "pull" in development is to reduce the brightness of the entire picture, including the shadows where noise tends to be most noticeable, by one full stop. It also reduces the highlights by one full stop. So any areas that are right at the clipping point in the raw file (which is probably a stop or two brighter than what could fit into a jpeg with typical gamma and contrast curves applied) are also reduced by one full stop.
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
edited Apr 3 at 7:59
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
answered Apr 2 at 19:03
Michael CMichael C
134k7153381
134k7153381
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that other question. It does explain most of the questions I had though, but just to make sure I'm not missing anything: That means I can basically take a shot at ISO 640 (which will be overexposed by 2 2/3 stops but no clipped highlights), bring the exposure down later in post by 2 2/3 stops and have the same image but cleaner and with less noise than if I would've taken the same shot at ISO 100 to begin with?
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:23
1
@confetti Not exactly. If your 6DII is set to ISO 640, the sensor is actually being amplified at ISO 800, with an instruction to the raw developer to initially pull exposure 1/3 stop and call that '0'. You can then reduce it an additional 2 2/3 stops. If you use the exact same aperture and exposure time at ISO 640 that you use at ISO 100 and then reduce the ISO 640 exposure by 2 2/3 stops you'll have pretty much the same picture as long as you didn't blow the highlights when shooting at ISO 640. But that means nothing in your ISO 100 shot is within three stops of full brightness.
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:31
1
There may be slightly less noticeable read noise in the ISO 640 shot after reduction by 2 2/3 stops. But you could get an even cleaner result by using ISO 100, using a three stops longer shutter time or a three stops wider aperture and then reducing the ISO 100 shot by three stops in post. This is because you would actually increase the amount of light recorded by the sensor in this case, and ultimately noise is about how much signal (i.e light) there is in ratio to the noise .
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:36
Thank you for that last explanation, it's so obvious yet I didn't even consider that. Even though changing Av/Tv of course comes with changes other than just the light gathered too.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:22
You can't change the light gathered without changing either the Tv or Av (unless you change the light itself). Changing the ISO only changes the analog amplification of the the signal from the same amount of light.
– Michael C
2 days ago
add a comment |
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that other question. It does explain most of the questions I had though, but just to make sure I'm not missing anything: That means I can basically take a shot at ISO 640 (which will be overexposed by 2 2/3 stops but no clipped highlights), bring the exposure down later in post by 2 2/3 stops and have the same image but cleaner and with less noise than if I would've taken the same shot at ISO 100 to begin with?
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:23
1
@confetti Not exactly. If your 6DII is set to ISO 640, the sensor is actually being amplified at ISO 800, with an instruction to the raw developer to initially pull exposure 1/3 stop and call that '0'. You can then reduce it an additional 2 2/3 stops. If you use the exact same aperture and exposure time at ISO 640 that you use at ISO 100 and then reduce the ISO 640 exposure by 2 2/3 stops you'll have pretty much the same picture as long as you didn't blow the highlights when shooting at ISO 640. But that means nothing in your ISO 100 shot is within three stops of full brightness.
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:31
1
There may be slightly less noticeable read noise in the ISO 640 shot after reduction by 2 2/3 stops. But you could get an even cleaner result by using ISO 100, using a three stops longer shutter time or a three stops wider aperture and then reducing the ISO 100 shot by three stops in post. This is because you would actually increase the amount of light recorded by the sensor in this case, and ultimately noise is about how much signal (i.e light) there is in ratio to the noise .
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:36
Thank you for that last explanation, it's so obvious yet I didn't even consider that. Even though changing Av/Tv of course comes with changes other than just the light gathered too.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:22
You can't change the light gathered without changing either the Tv or Av (unless you change the light itself). Changing the ISO only changes the analog amplification of the the signal from the same amount of light.
– Michael C
2 days ago
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that other question. It does explain most of the questions I had though, but just to make sure I'm not missing anything: That means I can basically take a shot at ISO 640 (which will be overexposed by 2 2/3 stops but no clipped highlights), bring the exposure down later in post by 2 2/3 stops and have the same image but cleaner and with less noise than if I would've taken the same shot at ISO 100 to begin with?
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:23
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that other question. It does explain most of the questions I had though, but just to make sure I'm not missing anything: That means I can basically take a shot at ISO 640 (which will be overexposed by 2 2/3 stops but no clipped highlights), bring the exposure down later in post by 2 2/3 stops and have the same image but cleaner and with less noise than if I would've taken the same shot at ISO 100 to begin with?
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:23
1
1
@confetti Not exactly. If your 6DII is set to ISO 640, the sensor is actually being amplified at ISO 800, with an instruction to the raw developer to initially pull exposure 1/3 stop and call that '0'. You can then reduce it an additional 2 2/3 stops. If you use the exact same aperture and exposure time at ISO 640 that you use at ISO 100 and then reduce the ISO 640 exposure by 2 2/3 stops you'll have pretty much the same picture as long as you didn't blow the highlights when shooting at ISO 640. But that means nothing in your ISO 100 shot is within three stops of full brightness.
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:31
@confetti Not exactly. If your 6DII is set to ISO 640, the sensor is actually being amplified at ISO 800, with an instruction to the raw developer to initially pull exposure 1/3 stop and call that '0'. You can then reduce it an additional 2 2/3 stops. If you use the exact same aperture and exposure time at ISO 640 that you use at ISO 100 and then reduce the ISO 640 exposure by 2 2/3 stops you'll have pretty much the same picture as long as you didn't blow the highlights when shooting at ISO 640. But that means nothing in your ISO 100 shot is within three stops of full brightness.
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:31
1
1
There may be slightly less noticeable read noise in the ISO 640 shot after reduction by 2 2/3 stops. But you could get an even cleaner result by using ISO 100, using a three stops longer shutter time or a three stops wider aperture and then reducing the ISO 100 shot by three stops in post. This is because you would actually increase the amount of light recorded by the sensor in this case, and ultimately noise is about how much signal (i.e light) there is in ratio to the noise .
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:36
There may be slightly less noticeable read noise in the ISO 640 shot after reduction by 2 2/3 stops. But you could get an even cleaner result by using ISO 100, using a three stops longer shutter time or a three stops wider aperture and then reducing the ISO 100 shot by three stops in post. This is because you would actually increase the amount of light recorded by the sensor in this case, and ultimately noise is about how much signal (i.e light) there is in ratio to the noise .
– Michael C
Apr 3 at 7:36
Thank you for that last explanation, it's so obvious yet I didn't even consider that. Even though changing Av/Tv of course comes with changes other than just the light gathered too.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:22
Thank you for that last explanation, it's so obvious yet I didn't even consider that. Even though changing Av/Tv of course comes with changes other than just the light gathered too.
– confetti
Apr 3 at 14:22
You can't change the light gathered without changing either the Tv or Av (unless you change the light itself). Changing the ISO only changes the analog amplification of the the signal from the same amount of light.
– Michael C
2 days ago
You can't change the light gathered without changing either the Tv or Av (unless you change the light itself). Changing the ISO only changes the analog amplification of the the signal from the same amount of light.
– Michael C
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
Apr 2 at 18:55
@MichaelC Yeah but to me, especially because of the "excellent DR", it sounds like he is trying to say that 50 is better than 100, while other answers and that chart suggest it is worse, even though just by a little.
– confetti
Apr 2 at 19:03
2
I agree with the suggested dupe (specifically, the accepted answer there, as @MichaelC points out). But addressing the statement, "I was always under the impression the lower the ISO the cleaner the image...", see the following questions: What is “ISO” on a digital camera?, Is it better to shoot with a higher ISO, or use lower ISO and raise the exposure in post-processing?, and Should higher ISOs really be preferred (all other things being equal)?
– scottbb
Apr 2 at 20:02