wilderness

I was reading a photography blog of professional photographer ( and one of my favorites) Tom Till. In it he said in spite of what people think, that both Canon and Nikon have less noise at ISO 200 than at 100. I believe the term he used was this was their native ISO. Does anyone out there know about this?

mtparker Loc: Cape Charles & Springfield, Virginia

Interesting.

I can't speak to Canon but base or native ISO generally refers to the lowest ISO setting available in a given camera, not to include Lo2, Lo2, etc.

I have several Nikon bodies and, over the years, every one of then performed best at base ISO. Today I shoot most often with a D800 and a D800E. I shoot at ISO 100 as much as possible.

In all fairness to Mr. Till, I have not done a lot of pixel peeping between ISO 100 and 200 but I will admit that I can't tell any difference when processing images. Still, I shoot at 100 out of habit and jump right to 400 when I need more. YMMV.

wisner Loc: The planet Twylo

I believe that what he meant by 'native' ISO is the lowest ISO any particular camera defaults to right out of the box. Some are 100, some 200. A camera with a better sensor would probably perform better at ISO 200 than a camera with an inferior sensor does at ISO 100; only a supposition on my part! With proper exposure and processing (RAW files) the differences (if any) might be hard to spot. It's easy to get caught up in 'pixel peeping' and forget the goal is an interesting image.
I visited Mr. Till's gallery in Moab, Utah: he is an amazing and passionate photographer!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Wild, I think Mr. Till is wrong(maybe).
BUT we could be talking apples and oranges.
"Natve ISO" is a cinematic term refuring to a specific ISO in cinematic cameras, referring to where the ISO and the dynamic range of the camera and where they meet(sort of) to give the best and cleanest picture quality.
In still cameras we usually use the term loosely if not incorrectly to mean the normal ISO range or the lowest normal ISO, hence Native. And at least for Canons, real Natve ISO's are not known, at least not to users.
That said, in a Canon camera the least noisy ISO is the lowest normal range iso.
There is no need for us to test this stuff as there are those that test in controlled conditions and we need to simply apply the results to our shooting styles.
At " The Digital Picture", Bryan tests every Canon Camera under controlled conditions at every normal ISO setting a camera has. In ALL of these tests ISO 200 ALWAYS has more noise than 100.
BUT, that is not necessarily where the camera will produce the best shot, as that may be where dynamic range and ISO meld to produce a combination of low noise and colors/shadows etc. For most of and Mr. Till's given shots, that may well be at 200.
Keep in mind that on any given shoot there is an ideal ISO. 100 too low and we need to raise the brightness in post, affecting the noise or 100 to high and we need to lower it.
Normally, Canons need to be at the lowest normal ISO to produce the least noise.
Not all pros know everything, they learn just as we do. And some are known loose Canons, just look a KR!! :lol:
SS

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

At least with the Nikon D800E he is wrong. ISO 100 gives both less noise and the greatest dynamic range.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I shoot a with a Canon D60 so this may not be appropriate for Nikon's, but I generally have it set for Auto ISO with a top limit of 400, and only reset it higher when necessary. I have not noticed 'noise' but I'm not looking at the pictures with a Pro's eye.

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

I guess I'm different then most people. I use whatever ISO I need to get the photo and I don't worry about noise since I (and that's a personal thing) believe a noisy photo is better then no photo. Maybe it's because may years ago I had to push film to get the photo and I was always glad I did. Like I said this is just my way of thinking....Rich

Leitz Loc: Solms

Ditto for the Nikon Df, though one has to look closely to discern the difference.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It's not a large difference, but there is a difference.

Paul Buckhiester Loc: Columbus, GA USA

In the 70's I shot for my college daily newspaper. Unless it was a very special situation I always went armed with Tri X at ASA 400. Some of my favorite shots were pushed way beyond that. I sure wish I had access to the negs today. We called it grain in those days and we often used it for effect. A noisy/grainy shot in photojournalism and family photography (my bent now) is certainly a whole lot better than a missed one.
Today, our equipment is so high quality we peep into minute deltas between ISO 100 and 200! Let's face it; most indoor snapshots will be 400 plus, especially with our non-pro bodies, slower lenses and need for a little depth of field.
I find that each of my cameras has its own "personality" that results in plusses and minuses that vary by situation and my skill level, as I'm still learning digital.
Sooooo, I wouldn't fret about small deltas in noise, especially if we don't plan on printing posters. My biggest challenges are focus, camera movement and stop-action, all helped by higher ISO.

Carl 383 Loc: Southampton UK

I guess those who cut their teeth on film grew up with grain (much nicer than noise) it was the price you paid to get a photo. Despite film being more expensive than pixels it was always "worth" it to push things a little, as you say, "a noisy photo is better than no photo"
Maybe we are a breed of pixel peepers nowadays, expecting too much from our cameras. I was glad when I hit 50% keepers back in the day but then with the price of film and developing we had to learn exposure / composition or get a better paying job.
I'm with you on this.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

You still have a D60 too ??
It is my first DSL and still use it as by second back up.

Getting back to topic, all of my EOS's have the best quality at 100 ISO. I only go higher as a last resort not to exceed 400 with my 50D's. My wife's T5i is a bit more forgiving and can go to 800 with the same noise as my 50D's at 400. I still get the shot at 800 or higher, but would never print them as a good pic.