Why still offer ISO 100 or even ISO 64 on digital cameras? Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are...

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

Who told you you can get "top quality" images at ISO 6400 or higher?

Don't confuse "top quality" with acceptable.

It's all about noise. Without opening a can of worms we've discussed images here at ISO 400 that were barely acceptable in the past, with noise and color fringing.

When you shot film did you think pics you took using grainy, high ISO (ASA in the day) film were comparable to images shot using Kodachrome 25 or 64?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

Troll. Don't feed the troll.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

Mostly because you can't get equivalent performance at ISOs 100 and 6400. If you look at the dynamic range charts on Photons to Photos, you can clearly see how you trade off dynamic range for sensitivity as ISO is increased. It is common lore here to say "shoot raw so that you will have 14 stops of dynamic range." A look at the chart for each camera shows that to be true only at the camera's base ISO. Most cameras may have something Iike 5 stops of dynamic range at ISO 6400. Some maybe less and so.e maybe more.

Incidentally, this is also why I never shoot using "Auto ISO." You cannot predict how much dynamic range your images will have captured if you can't predict what ISO will be used for the exposure.

So yes...we still need those lower ISOs and all the ones in between unless all we are doing is taking surveillance photographs.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

flip1948 wrote:

Who told you you can get "top quality" images at ISO 6400 or higher?

Don't confuse "top quality" with acceptable.

It's all about noise. Without opening a can of worms we've discussed images here at ISO 400 that were barely acceptable in the past, with noise and color fringing.

When you shot film did you think pics you took using grainy, high ISO (ASA in the day) film were comparable to images shot using Kodachrome 25 or 64?

______________________(reply)

You don't have to preach to the choir. But the main comparison factor with the wag critics at DPhoto has been claiming certain sensors are not great at high ISO compared to others and that modern technology allows, for instance---sports photogs to shoot at 6400 when flash is barred and high shutter speed are needed. My contention is that the improvements over this decade are largely synthetic algorithms and better micro-processors and memory speed. One still gets the highest real quality at ISO 100 or even slower, offered on some camera bodies.---------------(For the record---Polaroid had an ASA 6400 film of very fine grain offered as early as 1960 or thereabouts while there was no non-Polaroid film to match. It was in the roll-film format.)

Grahame Loc: Fiji

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

What your question does suggest is that either you are reading the wrong books and watching the wrong YouTube videos rather than getting out, taking pictures and learning.

Although I may be totally wrong and you're just looking for another opportunity to get the words, foveon, sigma, algorithm and synthetic promoted again?

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

For best quality im out using iso 64 all the time in my landscape work. Equating that to 6400 on a d850 is preposterous. Think about what you hear before buying into it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

You clearly don't understand anything about the relationship among ISO, dynamic range and image quality.

It's hard to believe that you would bring this up since you cannot post a full size image from your beloved Foveon sensors above ISO 100.

It's time for you to show us that you know anything at all about digital imaging. If you can't do that, just go away.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

I shoot ISO 64 as often as possible unless inside or too dark/cloudy outside.

BebuLamar

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

Like others have said. Who told you that you can get top quality from ISO6400? But that aside even when using ISO 64 in some camera means less quality than ISO100 it's still wanted sometime because someone wants to use f/1.2 lens wide open in bright sun.

agillot

On older dslr , it make a difference in pic sharpness .If i shoot birds that need some heavy cropping [ on a old D300 ], at iso 200 it look a lot better then 1 or 2000 .

doclrb

Ysarex wrote:

Troll. Don't feed the troll.

Bayou

OldSchool-WI wrote:

...if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher...

I've never seen or heard such a claim.

trinhqthuan Loc: gaithersburg

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------

User ID

selmslie wrote:

You clearly don't understand anything about the relationship among ISO, dynamic range and image quality.

It's hard to believe that you would bring this up since you cannot post a full size image from your beloved Foveon sensors above ISO 100.

It's time for you to show us that you know anything at all about digital imaging. If you can't do that, just go away.

He already went away ? Remember ?
He loves to post his stoopid schidt and attract more abuse, so he returned ... acoarst far be it from me to be caught taking the bait !

(Download)