Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

    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
    ___________________
    Po-Ming Chu
    POPHOTO

  2. #2
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,803
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

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

    Bob

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

    That's what I wanted to know thanks!
    ___________________
    Po-Ming Chu
    POPHOTO

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

    Quote Originally Posted by docmoore View Post
    Most non-native ISO settings crush dynamic range...avoid at all cost...ND filter is better.
    +1 ... Exactly what I was going to say.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

    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



    Quote Originally Posted by pophoto View Post
    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 10051200 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

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pingang View Post
    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
    ___________________
    Po-Ming Chu
    POPHOTO

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pingang View Post
    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.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    325
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Simulated ISO 50, to use or not to use!

    Quote Originally Posted by docmoore View Post
    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?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •