Which ISO should I use for the cleanest image?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?Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?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?
How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?
Is it a bad idea to plug the other end of ESD strap to wall ground?
Convert seconds to minutes
How obscure is the use of 令 in 令和?
How to coordinate airplane tickets?
Bullying boss launched a smear campaign and made me unemployable
Why didn't Boeing produce its own regional jet?
Blending or harmonizing
Send out email when Apex Queueable fails and test it
Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?
Implication of namely
Why was Sir Cadogan fired?
Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?
What are the G forces leaving Earth orbit?
Why is the sentence "Das ist eine Nase" correct?
What exactly is ineptocracy?
Sums of two squares in arithmetic progressions
GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?
What Exploit Are These User Agents Trying to Use?
Do Iron Man suits sport waste management systems?
What is an equivalently powerful replacement spell for Yuan-Ti's Suggestion spell?
Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?
Unlock My Phone! February 2018
How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?
Which ISO should I use for the cleanest image?
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?Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?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?
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 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
add a comment |
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 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
1
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
5 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
4
Possible duplicate of Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
– Michael C
4 hours ago
1
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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
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 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
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
exposure iso noise
asked 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
asked 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
asked 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
asked 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
asked 5 hours ago
confetticonfetti
403113
403113
1
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
5 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
4
Possible duplicate of Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
– Michael C
4 hours ago
1
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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
5 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
4
Possible duplicate of Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
– Michael C
4 hours ago
1
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
3 hours ago
1
1
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
5 hours ago
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
5 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
4
4
Possible duplicate of Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
– Michael C
4 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
– Michael C
4 hours ago
1
1
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
3 hours ago
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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the EOS 1Ds Mark III back in 2007.
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 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
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
4 hours ago
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 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106345%2fwhich-iso-should-i-use-for-the-cleanest-image%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the EOS 1Ds Mark III back in 2007.
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 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the EOS 1Ds Mark III back in 2007.
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 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the EOS 1Ds Mark III back in 2007.
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 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
Canon has been doing this with the +1/3 and -1/3 stop ISO settings since at least the EOS 1Ds Mark III back in 2007.
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 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
answered 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
answered 4 hours ago
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
134k7152380
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
4 hours 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
4 hours 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
4 hours 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
4 hours ago
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 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
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 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
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 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
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 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
answered 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
answered 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
answered 1 hour ago
LotharLothar
2493
2493
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106345%2fwhich-iso-should-i-use-for-the-cleanest-image%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The differences in that chart fall under the "... but really barely any different from the ISO 100 settings."
– Michael C
5 hours ago
@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
4 hours ago
4
Possible duplicate of Is it really better to shoot at full-stop ISOs?
– Michael C
4 hours ago
1
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
3 hours ago