ISO Sweet Spot

Does anybody notice the difference in the quality of the images. I tried staring at ISO100 vs ISO200 pictures and I can't tell a thing.

ISO 400 though seems a bit grainier though, but I'd shooting with 300D

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2343982
Does anybody notice the difference in the quality of the images. I tried staring at ISO100 vs ISO200 pictures and I can't tell a thing.

ISO 400 though seems a bit grainier though, but I'd shooting with 300D

On my 400D, 1600 ISO brings out what almost look like dead pixels that just dont show at 100-200 ISO

cosworth wrote in post #2343973
Well on my camera it does (1Ds). I shoot on the beach all day long. My jpgs at ISO 50 look like crap and demand fill flash. Iso 200 and I can get the most from my metering system and require less fill flash.

Real world experience, not some guys testing one camera model against a wall.

Read your Cambridge colour link again:

"Note: In some digital cameras, there is an extended low ISO setting which produces less noise, but also decreases dynamic range. This is because the setting in effect overexposes the image by a full f-stop, but then later truncates the highlights-- thereby increasing the light signal. An example of this is many of the Canon cameras, which have an ISO-50 speed below the ordinary ISO-100. "

ISO 50 is no comparison as it is a fudged ISO nearly halfing the DR. I refer you to the other link.Its a little more scientific than a brick wall test but I am prepared to be proved wrong by some comparison pictures to ISO 100 with genuine Exifs

On my 30D I normally shoot 200, but I am playing around with 160...

siejones wrote in post #2344173
ISO 50 is no comparison as it is a fudged ISO nearly halfing the DR..... I am prepared to be proved wrong by some comparison pictures to ISO 100 with genuine Exifs

Well it's easy to just explain away ISO 50, but it is still a setting. And as you can read from man yothers testing, ISO 50 loses dynamic range. I've seen it.

If I can find time in my 80 hour work week to piss around and test what others already have confirmed for me, I'll let you know and post my results.

cosworth wrote in post #2344450
Well it's easy to just explain away ISO 50, but it is still a setting. And as you can read from man yothers testing, ISO 50 loses dynamic range. I've seen it.

If I can find time in my 80 hour work week to piss around and test what others already have confirmed for me, I'll let you know and post my results.

Oh dear he is upset again.

No don't compare ISO50 to ISO100 because there is no comparison for reasons I have already explained or the link has explained.

Others have already confirmed Where

Of coarse you wouldnt want to provide tests. They would prove nothing.

I can't imagine how long it would take you during your busy workload shooting ISO 200 that it would to take the same shot in ISO 100. Sorry I can't imagine what I was thinking!

Now please excuse me while I go cry for your 80 hour week of supposed work load....sigh!

siejones wrote in post #2344468
Oh dear he is upset again.

I can't imagine how long it would take you during your busy workload shooting ISO 200 that it would to take the same shot in ISO 100. Sorry I can't imagine what I was thinking!

Now please excuse me while I go cry for your 80 hour week of supposed work load....sigh!

There's no reason to be disrespectful, dude.

ISO 50 cuts the dynamic range. THere's no way around it.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2344612
There's no reason to be disrespectful, dude.

ISO 50 cuts the dynamic range. THere's no way around it.

Sorry but this guy got on his high horse before I did and I lost my rag.

I read about this almost a year ago and did my own tests comparing 100 vs 200 ISO. It was slight but I could visually tell that the pictures in the 200 ISO pictures were slightly cleaner and just better looking then the ISO 100 pics. This is on a 20D. YMMV

Something I read sometime ago and have to say I found to be true is that the actual noise in the higher ISO's give the impression of sharper images.

I find this thread interesting since most things read regarding digital photography say to shoot with the lowest ISO possible for the best IQ. Blasted...another digital photography quirk thrown into my already mumble jumbled head! Now the lowest ISO may not be the best choice! Oh well...at least I can sleep better tonight since I seem to do most of my shooting at ISO 200!

Elbee19 wrote in post #2346240
I find this thread interesting since most things read regarding digital photography say to shoot with the lowest ISO possible for the best IQ.......

Always has been! In the film days Pan F (50 ASA) was the favourite for high quality pictures because of it's exceptionally fine grain.

The following DPR link highlights (pun?) the difference in dynamic range for the 5D in comparison with a number of cameras and the effect of ISO settings.

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/canoneos5d/p​age22.asp

Summary is on the 5D you lose about 1 stop at ISO 50 against ISO 100. On the 5D I use ISO 100 and on the 20D ISO 200 as my base settings.

I will use the lowest ISO settings when required knowing I am giving up a stop of DR. A typical use of the lower ISO would be an outdoor portrait using strobes where I am restricted to a sync speed of 1/200. To get down to the sync speed with wide apertures I will use ND filters and the lowest ISO setting. Even though the use of the lowest ISO is not immediately obvious and is perhaps specialist in application it does have a use.

Go to:

http://www.clarkvision​.com …nsor.performanc​e.summary/

Read and understand the numbers. Take note that with 12 bit DNs, the max value is only a fraction of a 5D or 1SII full well.

RgB wrote in post #2343951
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1019&messag​e=19721647
160 ISO is the best for the 30D

Avoid 1/3 stop isos on the 30D and 5D. You'll be glad you did. You see from that chart that they are adjusted in-camera and are just full stop isos with compensation resulting in more noise. I wish there was an option to turn 1/3 stop isos off. There should be.