edwardkaraa
New member
I totally agree with Ross and Jono. I have been shooting since I got the A900 at ISO 100 with excellent results. I only go higher when it is absolutely required. I have no convincing reason yet to do otherwise.
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!
Yes Terry, I think so. Based on this exploration, I see no practical real world advantage in using ISOs below 320 unless it is to control DOF or to decrease shutter speed for creative reasons.Marc,
Will this test now change your basic setting to 320? Based on the long thread this weekend and an email from Jono that is where I set it.
terry
Guy, from what I am seeing with full res screen shots, ISO 100 is a waste of time for my applications. Attempts to restore the micro detail that the Zeiss lenses deliver just increases the noise.Now that is a PITA to deal with. Must be a way to draw out a better base 100. Not so sure I am seeing the contrast lower in the ISO 100 shots. Can we not add some clarity to the 100 shots to draw out more detail. Seems to me this maybe a higher DR that is flattening out the file at 100 and the 320 shots we are seeing the contrast higher because it is shortening the DR. Has anyone actually measured the DR difference between these two ISO's. I have a tough time going with a base 320 on any cam. 200 is more reasonable
I tend to agree. I'm working in such hectic, hell-bent-for-leather environments that I need everything at my disposal. That said, this was useful in that it gave me a base range to gravitate to when possible. Prior to this I set 400 as a shooting base for most the work I do, knowing 320 may provide a touch better IQ makes it the base I will start at. And ISO 1000 becomes the top target unless absolutely necessary. Above that I'd probably opt for the D700.Hi There
Well, I think this is all extremely interesting, however, personally, after 6 months shooting at ISO 200 (which Sony say is native) I've found no problems with shadow areas, and I also find it convenient for most circumstances. (which, of course, is not to say that it is the best, just that it is okay).
Marc - I found your comparison between ISO 1000 and 1250 really useful
The nice thing about this is that I no longer have any qualms about using ISO 320, if I really couldn't shoot wide enough open with ISO200 I would use ISO100 without any worries either - using an ND filter adds all sorts of other variables into the mix anyway.
I know we all want the best out of our kit, but sometimes this gets dangerously close to angels dancing on the heads of pins - I'll settle for the lovely files out of the A900, and I'll use whatever ISO seems appropriate at the time (in the knowledge that the cameras only obvious compromise is that it's not a high ISO machine).
Thanks Marc you know I come from the old school still and we always want the lowest ISO to gain the most out of the film or sensor. I feel more comfortable at the ISO 200 mark than I do at the ISO320 mark. Obviously this maybe a mental thing and if I owned one which I hope to do someday i would just feel better at ISO 200. I know somewhat stupid but can't change my spots. LOLGuy, from what I am seeing with full res screen shots, ISO 100 is a waste of time for my applications. Attempts to restore the micro detail that the Zeiss lenses deliver just increases the noise.
However, ISO 200 is a different matter. It does retain enough micro detail to make it far less traumatic when sharpening. I'd say that for your applications the base would be 200 ... which I believe is the native resolution of this camera if I'm not mistaken.
Now, what hasn't been explored is really huge enlargements, and what happens with ISO 100, 125, and 160 shots using a really good sharpening program.
I know for your pro use you wouldn't go over 1000. I need to play around above ISO 1000 and see how high I can go for printing at smaller sizes (5x7 or at most 8x10). There were some real practical reasons for owning the D700 but to have this many pixels I should be able to get small things looking OK.I tend to agree. I'm working in such hectic, hell-bent-for-leather environments that I need everything at my disposal. That said, this was useful in that it gave me a base range to gravitate to when possible. Prior to this I set 400 as a shooting base for most the work I do, knowing 320 may provide a touch better IQ makes it the base I will start at. And ISO 1000 becomes the top target unless absolutely necessary. Above that I'd probably opt for the D700.
-Marc
Yeah, the higher ISO comparisons were of more value to me since the instances I get to use ISO 100 are almost nonexistent.Hi There
Well, I think this is all extremely interesting, however, personally, after 6 months shooting at ISO 200 (which Sony say is native) I've found no problems with shadow areas, and I also find it convenient for most circumstances. (which, of course, is not to say that it is the best, just that it is okay).
Marc - I found your comparison between ISO 1000 and 1250 really useful
The nice thing about this is that I no longer have any qualms about using ISO 320, if I really couldn't shoot wide enough open with ISO200 I would use ISO100 without any worries either - using an ND filter adds all sorts of other variables into the mix anyway.
I know we all want the best out of our kit, but sometimes this gets dangerously close to angels dancing on the heads of pins - I'll settle for the lovely files out of the A900, and I'll use whatever ISO seems appropriate at the time (in the knowledge that the cameras only obvious compromise is that it's not a high ISO machine).
HI MarcYeah, the higher ISO comparisons were of more value to me since the instances I get to use ISO 100 are almost nonexistent.
When I know I will be shooting in that kind of "fat light" I use the H3D-II/39 which walks away from A900 at a brisk pace
Well tell me about this - I live in California and know what sun is and I was also frustrated when discovered that 320 thing, but this is the digital reality and it's the same story for all kinds of digital cameras. Your scenario actually is rather interesting and it's a good subject for testing - somebody needs to check what actually works better with fill flash, plain ISO 100 or overexposed higher ISOs.Yes and no you still can't get past the 1/8000 shutter and that can cause problems with trying to shoot with a wide open aperture. Also it can relate to flash fill in getting to high in ISO will push the shutter beyond what it can sync at as well. Most camera's are 1/250 sync in bright sun that is F11 by our sunny rule at ISO 100 . Now just One stop at F16 ISO 200 we need to get a crap load of more juice out of a fill flash unit and a portable unit will not cut it. So besides the base we have a issue in two sectors that become extremely important and for a wedding shooter outdoors and fill flash a nightmare if the true base is 320. I have been up against this wall more times than I can count and pulling out a Ranger at 1200 watts of juice is not always a option. We still have to have a low ISO or fill flash we will stop running out of F stops with a high ISO
There are many problems one on top of another with this test. Most obvious to me f.e. - RD is not doing good job with pushing shadows and makes noise worse than it actually is and those Raw files are compressed ARWs (lossy),Shooting at ISO 320 vs 200 sounded counter intuitive to me since the purported base ISO is 200 on the A900 and things logically would only go downhill from there. This seems to be backed up by DXO.
I was curious what the differences might be so I pulled a couple of RAW file examples from imaging resource and processed them with Raw Developer by pushing up the shadows. Below are crops from 400 and 200 ISO examples. Don't have ISO 320 examples so maybe that is significantly different (I doubt it but willing to be proven wrong).
These examples show pretty much what you would expect. You are giving up dynamic range (i.e. we are losing detail in the shadows) by bumping the ISO...
Not sure Sony has this feature , can someone let us know but even so with other systems there is very little power output to do this for like a group at 15 ft or soGuy, does High Speed Sync with the Sony flashes help in this scenario?
For those that are not familiar - with HSS you can use flash at higher than the max shutter sync speed. I appreciate that the flash has to run a burst of small flashes as the shutter slit traverses the frame to do this and it will take more juice to do that.
Yes, it has HSS. Same limitations as any HSS... more or less depending on the power of the unit.Not sure Sony has this feature , can someone let us know but even so with other systems there is very little power output to do this for like a group at 15 ft or so
When I've run into that so far, I just use ISO 100 so I can use the flash at or below normal sync speeds. Use the 85/1.4 like that a lot. It's not like 100 sucks or anything. I carry a polarizer with me in case I run out of options ... I've used it like that exactly zero times.Well tell me about this - I live in California and know what sun is and I was also frustrated when discovered that 320 thing, but this is the digital reality and it's the same story for all kinds of digital cameras. Your scenario actually is rather interesting and it's a good subject for testing - somebody needs to check what actually works better with fill flash, plain ISO 100 or overexposed higher ISOs.