Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 06 Apr 2013 (Saturday) 18:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best Raw Iso Speeds....?

 
Pagman
THREAD ­ STARTER
I just hold the thing :-)
Avatar
8,681 posts
Gallery: 1932 photos
Likes: 9065
Joined Dec 2011
     
Apr 06, 2013 20:35 |  #16

h4ppydaze wrote in post #15798395 (external link)
I've seen a chart for the 30D, and indeed there was an ISO setting (320 I think?) that was cleaner than 100.

Yes....Ive seen similar and If so Its uses would be great as to help that little bit with a walk around scenario where more of a point n shoot set up, would be advantagious, ie - where having a middle ground Iso speed set without gaining a noise penalty, as some time moving from one light enviroment to another quickly or In busy places, doesnt alays allow time to change camera settings or set things up for light/HDR etc.

P.


Some stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Pagman
THREAD ­ STARTER
I just hold the thing :-)
Avatar
8,681 posts
Gallery: 1932 photos
Likes: 9065
Joined Dec 2011
     
Apr 06, 2013 20:39 as a reply to  @ Pagman's post |  #17

As an example the other day I was out sightseeing and one moment I was outside countryside enviroment then very quickly Into a busy narrow street, then Inside an old building with less light, with 100 Iso this would not have been possible as the varing light would have ment upping the ss speed/Iso or tripod that I dont have, but 640 Iso gave me that extra room.

P.


Some stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rafromak
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Alaska
     
Apr 06, 2013 20:45 |  #18

Some more information about ISO settings:
http://shootintheshot.​joshsilfen.com …canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/ (external link)


7D, 5DII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nate42nd
Senior Member
Avatar
767 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: The Wild West
     
Apr 06, 2013 20:58 |  #19

I have heard arguments about shooting video with non native ISO but never stills. Unfortunately I can't remember what that argument was. Something about better results (with video)

I always use 320 and 640 with my 7D. Whatever works for the exposure I want when in manual, )or AV and want the shutter faster) Never noticed any issues.


7D - - 17-55 F/2.8 - 24-105 F/4L - 100mm F/2.8 - 50mm F/1.8 - S95 / To see all click here
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,785 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Likes: 755
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Apr 06, 2013 21:11 as a reply to  @ post 15798395 |  #20

OK, I finally just tested this for myself on my 5DII. Kept aperture the same and changed SS between 2s and 1/2s and my conclusion is......


I would test your own camera and raw converter.


In my test ISO160 was indeed less noisy than ISO100 in the deepest shadows. But in the mid shadows it was more noisy and ISO100 was the best. (seems like perhaps ISO200 with a tone curve applied ?)

In no way was ISO320 better than 100 or 160.

ISO160 had less 'dynamic range' than ISO100 (tested on the lightest part of the image, so not considering S/N of deepest shadows) and I couldn't tell the difference in highlights between ISO160 and ISO200 (which would suggest not just ISO200 reduced in exposure, otherwise I would have blown out the highlights a bit more with ISO160)

The same relationship existed between ISO320 and ISO200 - 320 better in the deepest shadows, 200 better elsewhere.

ISO100 seemed to give me more vertical striping than ISO160.

I've tested ISO50 before and the raw file is actually exactly the same as ISO100 - an exposure curve is applied in the .jpeg conversion in DPP (and I think in ACR). So the graph above is exactly what I'd expect for the shadows. The relationship between ISO100 and 160 (and 200 and 320) however does not show the same characteristics as between 100 and 50.

Personally the differences are not large enough for me to use 1/3 stop ISOs simply because I prefer to have 1 stop increments. I might try ISO160 for landscapes in the future though. Even if I do get a tad less DR, I do sometimes see banding in skies after increasing contrast significantly.

I wouldn't use ISOs 125, 250 etc.. though, they were definitely worse. Anything else, I don't think you can go wrong with using either 100,200,400 or 160, 320, 640.

Of course that's with the 5DII. I tested on ACR and Bibble as raw converters and although the outputs were slightly different, the conclusions held. The newest ACR is pretty clever at handling highlights, so that might be a reason to favor ISOs 160, 320 etc..

I can see why there is so much confusion actually and why the Magic Lantern team even has some difficulties in coming to a indicative conclusion on what is going on.


For video I would stay at the 160, 320 etc.. because you really don't want to ETTR or get close to blowing out highlights.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Audionut11
Member
112 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Apr 06, 2013 21:37 |  #21

ejenner wrote in post #15798538 (external link)
In my test ISO160 was indeed less noisy than ISO100 in the deepest shadows. But in the mid shadows it was more noisy and ISO100 was the best. (seems like perhaps ISO200 with a tone curve applied ?)

Did you over-expose the ISO 100 shot in camera (by a 1/3) and then reduce in post for compare?

If you didn't, then it's not an accurate test.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,785 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Likes: 755
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Apr 06, 2013 21:53 |  #22

Audionut11 wrote in post #15798623 (external link)
Did you over-expose the ISO 100 shot in camera (by a 1/3) and then reduce in post for compare?

If you didn't, then it's not an accurate test.

No, I shot them all at the same exposure with a scene that was beyond the DR of the camera. That's how I would shoot in practice - set the exposure and then choose the SS and ISO based on the aperture I wanted. So in that case I'm more likely to lose highlights with ISO160, but likely to do better in the shadows I guess.

I can see your point though - if I have my exposure set at ISO160 and I'm satisfied I haven't blown my highlights, then I can over-expose the ISO100 shot by 1/3 stop and bring it back in PP - at least I think that is what you are getting at?

So seeing your point I just tried that and I have to admit it make more of a difference than I would have thought. The differences now between ISO100 and 160 now look negligible.

So I tried 400 vs 640 using the same technique - overexposing the 400 by 1/3 stop, the ISO400 definitely looks a lot better. Err shouldn't I compare 640 with 800 overexposed by 1/3 stop? That looked essentially the same.

OK, I have now done enough testing and sufficiently confused myself that I'll just continue to do what I was doing - ISO100, 200 etc.. ETTR when possible. LOL. I knew there was a reason I avoided this sort of stuff - but then I get intrigued.

Meh, I guess I stand by my conclusion though - I wouldn't bother arguing with someone who insisted on using ISO160 instead of 100 and I would suggest to anyone to do controlled tests, especially if they think ISO320 or 640 is better than ISO100.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RogerC11
Senior Member
467 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
     
Apr 06, 2013 22:19 |  #23

The best ISO value is the one that gives you a proper exposure.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,727 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6393
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Apr 06, 2013 22:30 |  #24

Two pages and no ones linked to HAMSTTR?

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=8514882#p​ost8514882

OP, your findings are completely normal and in keeping with how sensors work. :)


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Audionut11
Member
112 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Apr 06, 2013 22:36 |  #25

ejenner wrote in post #15798664 (external link)
Also why would I over expose the ISO100 shot by 1/3 to compare with ISO160?

Because @ ISO 160, this is exactly what is happening, 'in camera'. Over expose by a third and reduce.

ejenner wrote in post #15798664 (external link)
No, I shot them all at the same exposure since I would always ETTR anyway. I disagree with your use of the word 'accurate'.

If you're aware of the benefits of ETTR, then you should be aware that mimicking what the camera is doing @ ISO 160 for the ISO 100 shots is the only true way to accurately determine noise levels at both ISO settings!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,785 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Likes: 755
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Apr 06, 2013 22:49 |  #26

Audionut11 wrote in post #15798762 (external link)
Because @ ISO 160, this is exactly what is happening, 'in camera'. Over expose by a third and reduce.

If you're aware of the benefits of ETTR, then you should be aware that mimicking what the camera is doing @ ISO 160 for the ISO 100 shots is the only true way to accurately determine noise levels at both ISO settings!

OK, I amended my post (was doing so while you posted). I do see your point.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,785 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Likes: 755
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Apr 06, 2013 22:51 |  #27

Pagman wrote in post #15798226 (external link)
Hi here Is a chart showing these settings..

P.

My 5DII definitely does not look like this shooting raw. No way is ISO320 that clean and no way is 400 close to 100 compared to the other ISOs as that graph would indicate.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Audionut11
Member
112 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Apr 06, 2013 23:32 |  #28

ejenner wrote in post #15798664 (external link)
Err shouldn't I compare 640 with 800 overexposed by 1/3 stop? That looked essentially the same.

Because that's what ISO 640 is, 800 overexposed and reduced in camera ;)

ejenner wrote in post #15798664 (external link)
My 5DII definitely does not look like this shooting raw. No way is ISO320 that clean and no way is 400 close to 100 compared to the other ISOs as that graph would indicate.

It's impossible!

The shadows are the key here. The further down the exposure (the further left of the histogram) we go, the lower the signal to noise ratio (the higher the noise).

.........

Take a look at the logarithmic Signal to Noise Ratio at DXO.
http://www.dxomark.com ….php/Cam...OS-5D-Mark-III (external link)

@ ISO 100, from 100% on the brightness scale to 10%, we went from 45dB to 38dB (approx), a 7dB reduction in Signal to Noise for a 90% drop in brightness.
Now look at 10% brightness (38dB) to 1% brightness (24dB). Only 9% brightness difference for a 14dB reduction in Signal to Noise. And that sucker just keeps getting worse the darker it gets! A further measly 0.9% reduction in brightness results in a whooping 18dB loss of Signal to Noise.
Conversely, looking at the SNR 18% results for ISO, we see that we only lose 3dB for an ISO bump of 1600 to 3200.

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15750104&po​stcount=25

Considering that the images earlier in the thread are showing the results from very low on the EV scale (where the Signal to Noise Ratio is piss poor anyway), comparing ISO's 160, 320, et al, to ISO's 100, 200, et al, without any compensation for what the camera is doing (cheating in this sense), it's easy to see how people can get confused. Remember, the camera is over exposing by 1 third of a stop (@ ISO 160 et al), this is massive when looking at the noise results at very low light levels. MASSIVE!

edit: For anyone having trouble understanding the above, I advise you to research the logarithmic scale. (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pagman
THREAD ­ STARTER
I just hold the thing :-)
Avatar
8,681 posts
Gallery: 1932 photos
Likes: 9065
Joined Dec 2011
     
Apr 07, 2013 09:32 as a reply to  @ Audionut11's post |  #29

Thanks for all the replies,

My objective was and Is to to see If It Is possible to find the eqv of a sweet spot of Iso that could be used as a digital eqv of higher ASA film speed aka-when kodak,fuji and ilford started producing 400 ASA films emulsions with the same clean noise and dr as 100 ASA, this Is what I was looking for with digital, to find an Iso speed that Is as clean as base yet allowing for higher shutter speeds as like I said sometimes I hav'nt got the time when In a crowded enviroment to mess about with camera settings like - change the Iso, Increse the Shutter Speed, Increse/decrese aperature.
This Is why when I saw Information saying that I could get the eqv noisless Images using 640 Iso with all Is Higher ss speed available, this made me think "great"


Some stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Audionut11
Member
112 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Apr 07, 2013 18:25 |  #30

It all depends on how much noise you're willing to have in your captures.

Contrary to some information in this thread, ISO 640 is not some magical, 'Wow I can use this high ISO with the same noise as ISO 100'.
With the same exposure, ISO 640 will always have more noise then ISO's 100, 160, 200, 320, 400.

If you don't want to overexpose yourself and reduce in post, and, you're shooting low dynamic range scenes, ISO 640 is a good choice.

Since you don't mind changing shutter and aperture and only want a fixed ISO, I would recommend you use ISO 800 instead. ISO 800 with + 1 third exposure compensation is the same as ISO 640 with the added benefit of 1 third of a stop better dynamic range. The dynamic range is the key here, it's going to give you a little more wiggle room when deciding if you want to make the highlights or the shadows priority.

The same applies for ISO's 160-200, 320-400, etc.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,252 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best Raw Iso Speeds....?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MandeepNayee
805 guests, 296 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.