native ISO

[RalphLambrecht]

Does anybody know howto determine the native ISO for a digital camera? mine is a D800and I think it's native ISO is around '160if my tests are correct.

 

[indigo]

How did you do the testing?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

How did you do the testing?

by photographing a graycardat different ISO values and see wich one is closest to a target value in PS.

 

[OzJohn]

Common wisdom, as I'm sure you're aware, is that the "natural" ISO of most digital imaging chips is 200 but I have no idea how that is measured or in fact set during manufacture. What I do know from personal experiment is that dropping the ISO to 100 or lower offers no increase in image quality as would be the case with film. Your 160 may well be correct for a D800 and in a way it is significant because, again unlike film, a one third stop variation in exposure is quite noticable with digital but would be mostly overlooked using film. How many film cameras apart from the last SLRs produced towards the end of the film era even offered third stop settings of aperture and shutter speed? OzJohn

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don'yt know John but all my Nikon FMs from the 1970s do for ISO or ASA.

 

[Alan Klein]

Ralph Check out this article. Native, Pushed or Auto: What’s the Best ISO Setting? | explora

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph Check out this article. Native, Pushed or Auto: What’s the Best ISO Setting? | explora

thanks for the link Alan;not a bad article to test for your bestISO setting but it fails me in two points:
1.it makes the assumptionthatthe lowest possible ISO is always the best quality.
2.it doesn't look for the native ISO but the highest quality ISO.

 

[lenny]

Alan, et al,
Appreciate the link, but I hate these types of tests. I looked at the jpegs they included and couldn't tell the difference on my monitor, which is a fancy Eizo. They were correct about the artifacting being the issue. However, I would suggest someone do this test in a normal setting, the kind of image they will be shooting. Then look into the shadows to see if there is any noise, etc. There's nothing like a "real world" test.
Lennu

 

[L Gebhardt]

by photographing a graycardat different ISO values and see wich one is closest to a target value in PS.

Was this with JPEG or RAW? If JPEG the results are also factoring the JPEG engine into the results. If RAW, you need to consider the RAW converter. Both will apply some type of curve, so I wouldn't trust that as a test.

I'm pretty sure ISO 100 has the highest dynamic range and lowest noise combination, though that's just based on shooting the camera and not lab tests. To me that should be considered the native ISO.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Was this with JPEG or RAW? If JPEG the results are also factoring the JPEG engine into the results. If RAW, you need to consider the RAW converter. Both will apply some type of curve, so I wouldn't trust that as a test.

I'm pretty sure ISO 100 has the highest dynamic range and lowest noise combination, though that's just based on shooting the camera and not lab tests. To me that should be considered the native ISO.

I did the test and ISO160 is the clear winner for the Nikon D800;no noise11stops of dynamic range and beautifully saturated colors at the standard settingISO 100 was also good but not superiour to 160.Why give up 1/3 stop for no image quality improvement?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Alan, et al,
Appreciate the link, but I hate these types of tests. I looked at the jpegs they included and couldn't tell the difference on my monitor, which is a fancy Eizo. They were correct about the artifacting being the issue. However, I would suggest someone do this test in a normal setting, the kind of image they will be shooting. Then look into the shadows to see if there is any noise, etc. There's nothing like a "real world" test.
Lennu

the test was laborious and little fun but revealing.I'm glad I did itbut would be happier if Nikon just told us.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I do all image capturing in Raw.what elseis there?pinholes?

 

[indigo]

Ralph! I don't know how. There is an article form Kodak on how to rate the ISO of the sensor but that requires that you can measure the output voltage from the sensor.
John! The ISO or ASA settings on cameras were 1/3 stop increment for a long long time. I think it's at least before the 1940's.

 

[OzJohn]

Ralph! I don't know how. There is an article form Kodak on how to rate the ISO of the sensor but that requires that you can measure the output voltage from the sensor.
John! The ISO or ASA settings on cameras were 1/3 stop increment for a long long time. I think it's at least before the 1940's.

I know that but I didn't say anything about ASA/ISO - I referred only to shutter and aperture. Although you only minimally need one of the three to be able to shoot in third stops it is far more convenient to have all three and only a few modern film cameras, AFAIK, have the facility. Does a third stop make much difference with film? Except perhaps with reversal, I don't think so owing to exposure latitude, a commodity where digital comes up short and where the finer adjustment is valuable. OzJohn

 

[indigo]

I know that but I didn't say anything about ASA/ISO - I referred only to shutter and aperture. Although you only minimally need one of the three to be able to shoot in third stops it is far more convenient to have all three and only a few modern film cameras, AFAIK, have the facility. Does a third stop make much difference with film? Except perhaps with reversal, I don't think so owing to exposure latitude, a commodity where digital comes up short and where the finer adjustment is valuable. OzJohn

Yes 1/3 stop makes the same difference with film as with digital. With slide film you see about the same effect as with digital. With negative film, well the negative is the RAW, so it can be corrected just like the RAW file on digital.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I know that but I didn't say anything about ASA/ISO - I referred only to shutter and aperture. Although you only minimally need one of the three to be able to shoot in third stops it is far more convenient to have all three and only a few modern film cameras, AFAIK, have the facility. Does a third stop make much difference with film? Except perhaps with reversal, I don't think so owing to exposure latitude, a commodity where digital comes up short and where the finer adjustment is valuable. OzJohn

I've never seen aperture incrementsas low as 1/3 stop on anything but LF lensesand ddigital camerasbut if you use the 1/3 stop ISOincrements on a semi automatic camera such as a Nikon FEwhile having it set to aperture prioritythe camera needs to adjust the shutter speed in 1/3 stop increments as well,right?

 

[Pioneer]

If the camera has stepless shutter speeds than 1/3rd aperture stops are no problem. My Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM and Zeiss Planar 50/2 lenses both have 1/3rd stop apertures and I use them with the M9, which has stepless shutter speeds when set to Auto. I haven't tried with my M3 but it might be interesting.