The best ISO for Quality and low noise on a 7D?

After reading this thread, I did some tests on my 60D. Using the same aperture and shutter speed in manual mode, I took a photo with the lens cap on at every ISO.

I loaded the images into Lightroom and turned on the shadow clipping option. ISO 160 definitely has less noise than ISO 100 and ISO 320 has less noise than ISO 200.

The file sizes corroborate this, with the noisier images having bigger file sizes:

EDIT: Noise is shown as black in the images.

ISO100:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jazzy_jase/7772​754302/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jazzy_jase/7772​754002/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jazzy_jase/7772​753770/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jazzy_jase/7772​753472/

amfoto1 wrote in post #14848365
Basically, though, there is so little difference from 160 to 200, I'll just use 200.

THIS!

Any difference is of interest to measurebators only.

Here's a very good discussion on how to pick ISO and the differences between the ISO levels:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1081982
Here's his bottom line:
"For Canon, how I would put it is this: ETTR then ITTR (ISO to the right), avoid the +1/3 ISO (125, 250, 500, etc.), but the -1/3 ISO (160, 320, etc.) are fine and don't go over 1600 (on most Canons) -- use negative EC instead."

So clearly ISO 160 has the lowest noise, what about dynamic range and contrast though, does ISO 160 outperform ISO 100 for dynamic range as well?

Mornnb wrote in post #14851508
So clearly ISO 160 has the lowest noise, what about dynamic range and contrast though, does ISO 160 outperform ISO 100 for dynamic range as well?

Take a look at the thread I posted above your post. From that, you'll see that one of the "costs" involved in using higher ISOs is the drop in dynamic range headroom. I doubt, however, that there's a significant difference between ISO 100 and ISO 160 in that regard (considering ISO 160 as a "dropped" ISO 200).

I read the thread, was hoping for some experimental data to back it up. The lower noise at ISO 160 looks good but it would be handy to know exactly how much the cost if any to dynamic range for that is.

Mornnb wrote in post #14852072
I read the thread, was hoping for some experimental data to back it up. The lower noise at ISO 160 looks good but it would be handy to know exactly how much the cost if any to dynamic range for that is.

Perhaps you could do some controlled shooting and supply the empirical data and analysis?

Lowner wrote in post #14848078
Ian,

Very nice.

Thanks Richard