The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

pophoto

New member
Hi Folks!

I wanted to ask about the simulated ISO performance and what this really means to image quality, pros and cons? (When would you choose to use and not use it.)

An example camera would be ISO 100–51200 native. ISOs 50, 102400 and 204800 simulated.

Would you use ISO 50 if it is simulated or ISO 100 native?
Please give constructive reasoning for your conclusion.

Thank you,
Po

PS. I know a lot of you are thinking, are you mad? Are you serious asking a low-ISO question? Yes :)
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Most non-native ISO settings crush dynamic range...avoid at all cost...ND filter is better.

Bob
 

Pingang

New member
With good lighting the modern sensor did a good job that I would usually not worry about saying going from 100 to 50, or to 160 or 200. I did that often when I shoot medium format digital with ISO 32 or 50 in studio and I keep one of two DSLR for some snap shots that I would not like to change lighting set up in anyway. Outside studio when lighting is not in such control may be very slight difference could be told but then doing so to get a desirable effect is still a lot more important to get scientically clean image.
To me, getting shot is more important than avoid it for less noisy images, often certain grains is not that bad for many mages.
We are in a time shooting ISO 800-1600 with cleaner image than all those masters in the past anyway.

BR,
Pingang



Hi Folks!

I wanted to ask about the simulated ISO performance and what this really means to image quality, pros and cons? (When would you choose to use and not use it.)

An example camera would be ISO 100–51200 native. ISOs 50, 102400 and 204800 simulated.

Would you use ISO 50 if it is simulated or ISO 100 native?
Please give constructive reasoning for your conclusion.

Thank you,
Po

PS. I know a lot of you are thinking, are you mad? Are you serious asking a low-ISO question? Yes :)
 

pophoto

New member
With good lighting the modern sensor did a good job that I would usually not worry about saying going from 100 to 50, or to 160 or 200. I did that often when I shoot medium format digital with ISO 32 or 50 in studio and I keep one of two DSLR for some snap shots that I would not like to change lighting set up in anyway. Outside studio when lighting is not in such control may be very slight difference could be told but then doing so to get a desirable effect is still a lot more important to get scientically clean image.
To me, getting shot is more important than avoid it for less noisy images, often certain grains is not that bad for many mages.
We are in a time shooting ISO 800-1600 with cleaner image than all those masters in the past anyway.

BR,
Pingang
Thanks Pingang, I don't worry about it, in fact I didn't give it much though until I read some online reviews about the Canon 1DX, and the spec sheet states it. I wondered why anyone would use ISO 50, when the results with native ISO 100 are so good in the first place, but I guess as Bob (docmoore) suggested, it's when you need that extra stop, but then again it seems rather redundant for the most part. I'm always happy when others can help fill gaps in my knowledge :)

Thanks
Po
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
With good lighting the modern sensor did a good job that I would usually not worry about saying going from 100 to 50, or to 160 or 200. I did that often when I shoot medium format digital with ISO 32 or 50 in studio and I keep one of two DSLR for some snap shots that I would not like to change lighting set up in anyway. Outside studio when lighting is not in such control may be very slight difference could be told but then doing so to get a desirable effect is still a lot more important to get scientically clean image.
To me, getting shot is more important than avoid it for less noisy images, often certain grains is not that bad for many mages.
We are in a time shooting ISO 800-1600 with cleaner image than all those masters in the past anyway.

BR,
Pingang
Not sure you quite understood the question. DSLR's are nothing like MFDB's and the question was due to the fact that iso 50 on Canon is not a real iso, it is iso 100 which is darkened with in camera software. Nothing to do with noise and a whole lot to do with losing significant DR, especially in the highlights.
 

emr

Member
Most non-native ISO settings crush dynamic range...avoid at all cost...ND filter is better.
Yet for example Pentax K-5's native low ISO is 100, but the expanded ISO 80 has even more dynamic range. I wonder how they do it?
 
Top