Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 18, 2005, 4:24 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
KM_krazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
Default

This is kinda random, but I was looking, and most of the DSLRs only go down to ISO100 (whith the Nikon D70 stopping at 200) why not have 64 or ISO50? I think if your just going to be taking pics of a stationary object from a tripod, and you want super quality. . .ISO50 would be sweet:G. There must be a reasonable answer to this that I just don't know:-).
Is it just that the current DSLRs take such clean pics at ISO100 that there is no need to go lower?
I know many of the advanced compacts offer this, but thats kinda a different game.
Any ideas?
KM_krazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 18, 2005, 4:43 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

I suspect the choice of 100 is just to match the most popular film speeds. However, given current sensor technology, it takes larger pixel sites to have lower ISO speeds. So you either need a larger sensor, or fewer pixels.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 9:25 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 25
Default

Ewok wrote:
Quote:
I suspect the choice of 100 is just to match the most popular film speeds. However, given current sensor technology, it takes larger pixel sites to have lower ISO speeds. So you either need a larger sensor, or fewer pixels.
Ahem. Beg to difffer. I have had joyful results over the past 11 mos. with my Casio Exlim EX-P600. 6.0 mpxls, 50/100/200/400 ISO I can tripod it, ~f/7-f/11 and ISO50. OMan!

F2Guy,

PS: Plus, it's just a tiny thing, comparatively--doesn't shout, "Hey look, he's got a CAMERA!", when one points it.... :-)

F.
F2Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 12:18 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

The biggest reason is it isn't necessary. ISO 100 is incredibly clean.

I shot a Canon G5 for a while. It had an ISO 50 and it's a good thing it did, because noise pretty much was awful at any rating over ISO 100 and that's why many digicams with pinky-sized sensors have ISO 50- so users have at least two decent useable ISO ratings that don't need some sort of noise cleaning program applied in order to give good results. I used to say things like "OMan!" myself (actually, much worse) when I looked at images from my G5 at ISO 200 or 400.

Anything up to ISO 400 with either of my digital SLR's is cleaner and nicer looking than I was able to get with the G5 at ISO 100. Lower than ISO 100 is not necessary. I rarely even shoot at that rating- Nikon knew what they were doing in setting the D70 to a minimum rating of ISO 200.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 1:03 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
KM_krazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
The biggest reason is it isn't necessary. ISO 100 is incredibly clean.

I shot a Canon G5 for a while. It had an ISO 50 and it's a good thing it did, because noise pretty much was awful at any rating over ISO 100 and that's why many digicams with pinky-sized sensors have ISO 50- so users have at least two decent useable ISO ratings that don't need some sort of noise cleaning program applied in order to give good results. I used to say things like "OMan!" myself (actually, much worse) when I looked at images from my G5 at ISO 200 or 400.

Anything up to ISO 400 with either of my digital SLR's is cleaner and nicer looking than I was able to get with the G5 at ISO 100. Lower than ISO 100 is not necessary. I rarely even shoot at that rating- Nikon knew what they were doing in setting the D70 to a minimum rating of ISO 200.
I have always been fond of real long exposures with my advanced compacts, so I do like having super low ISOs for more of a sensitivity issue, rather than image quality. With a DSLR you just stop down your lens, or throw on a ND filter, but still, I think it would be sweet to have ISO 64 on a DSLR :lol:
I guess you can always dream. . .
(attached is an image from my DiMAGE 7Hi 5MP @ ISO 100)
I can't wait for my canon 350D!!! :G
Attached Images
 
KM_krazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 1:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

Point counter point.

This is a Digital Rebel shot at ISO 200.
Attached Images
 
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 1:28 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

... and here's a 100% crop from that image to show the detail and total lack of any noise at ISO 200, and the Rebel 350D you just bought will be BETTER.
Attached Images
 
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 2:58 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Default

F2Guy wrote:
Quote:
Ewok wrote:
Quote:
I suspect the choice of 100 is just to match the most popular film speeds. However, given current sensor technology, it takes larger pixel sites to have lower ISO speeds. So you either need a larger sensor, or fewer pixels.
Ahem. Beg to difffer. I have had joyful results over the past 11 mos. with my Casio Exlim EX-P600. 6.0 mpxls, 50/100/200/400 ISO I can tripod it, ~f/7- f/11 and ISO50. OMan!

F2Guy,

PS: Plus, it's just a tiny thing, comparatively--doesn't shout, "Hey look, he's got a CAMERA!", when one points it.... :-)

F.
Keep in mind ISO on the consumer cameras, are not exact representation, will actually say in some consumer cameras that 50 represents more or less film's 100. Also even at 50/100 theres more noise on the consumer models than say some of the DSLRs.
kb244 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 3:48 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

Ewok wrote:
Quote:
However, given current sensor technology, it takes larger pixel sites to have lower ISO speeds. So you either need a larger sensor, or fewer pixels.
I think I got that exactly backwards. To have higher ISO speed, you either increase the amplification (resulting in noise) or you increase the pixel size.

If you have noiseless photos at ISO 100, there's no benefit to decreasing the ISO to 50. If there is noise at 100, then decreasing it should be just a matter of less amplification.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 7:12 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
KM_krazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
Default

Ewok wrote:
Quote:
Ewok wrote:
If you have noiseless photos at ISO 100, there's no benefit to decreasing the ISO to 50.
I guess thats it. . .I just thought it might be nice :?
KM_krazy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:51 AM.