ISO 100 vs. ISO 200 on D300 sharpening test

<p>I am trying to determine if using ISO 100 on the D300 is better than ISO 200. According to Thom Hogan, using ISO 200 on the D300 is the best option to avoid clipping highlights. Now, I was not testing if either set was clipping or not the highlights, but to test which one has better sharpening.</p>

<p>The two below picture were taken handheld with Nikon 70-300 mm VR ( VR ON ), at 125 mm f/5.6 in Aperture priority mode. I definitely can see the difference between the sharpness on both pictures, and the one shot at ISO 200, is sharper than the one shot at ISO 100. Did not want to use a tripod because without a tripod, would be my normal shooting condition. The pictures were cropped at 100% using Aperture 3. I can also see, that the difference between the shadows and highlights are much better defined at the shot taken with ISO 200. </p>

<p>Have you test it before ? What is your opinion in your own experience using the D300 using either ISO 100 or 200 ? Can you help please ? </p><div></div>

<p>Other shot .... </p><div></div>

<p>I think ISO200 is the baseline ISO of the sensor and that which will yield the greatest quality.</p>

<p>I think your lack of tripod totally invalidates your testing methodology.</p>

<p>Can you see a sharpness difference? I can't. I think you're putting way more thought into this than is warranted - you're not going to be able to find a difference when you're hand holding, no matter how many tests you do.</p>

<p>The best possible image quality in any DSLR will be at base ISO, not at "lo 1".</p>

<p>If you want to do proper tests, use a tripod and turn VR off... Sharpness is a ridiculous thing anyways; colour, perspective, and timing are much more important. </p>

<p>Without a tripod, you are just testing how steady you can hold the camera.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Thanks for your help. Will do that.</p>

<p>i never shoot at Lo.1. ever. that's one possible advantage the d7000 has over the d300, and one reason why the d200/d80 are just as good if not better than a d300 at base ISO, since they have ISO 100. also there are technical advantages to CCD over CMOS in terms of IQ, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.</p>

<p>I even think my D80, which starts at ISO 100, looks much better at ISO 200. I use ISO 200 so I can seamlessly move back and forth between my various Nikons in manual mode without having to mentally recalculate exposure settings.</p>

<p>I have made some noise comparisons, not for sharpness. I think noise test is more useful, because diference in sharpness is almost negligible (if any). In the worst light condition you ever can find I tested my D300 with native ISO 200 and Lo-1. The difference is minimal, difficult to see, but the results using Iso 200 were better. Anyway, I used a solid manfrotto and a shooter cable to get useful images.<br>

For the best quality, use baseline iso.</p>

<p>Using 'fake' ISOs you may as well shoot at ISO200 and then push or pull the exposure setting in post.</p>

<p>As others said, testing without tripod and VR off is nonsense. You will not find any (!) difference in sharpness (I tried this too), you will only get more unsharp pictures due to longer shutter times (with identical aperture, that is).</p>

<p>I found colours to be clearer (by an extremly small margine, though), but it's much easier to clip highlights. When using ISO 100 on my D300, I am very careful not to overexpose and rather stay 1/2 or 1 stop under the measured value.</p>

<p>For everyday photography, ISO 200 is the perfect compromise. ISO 100 is perfect for use in a controlled environment, i.e. tripod, perfect metering etc.</p>

<p>There is very fine difference in the pictures - but that doesn't seem to be in terms of sharpness, it is colors and I think the second picture is better - that turns out to be at ISO 200 ..... </p>

<p>So since Maurice would have to test his camera on a tripod without VR to find out whether there even is a difference in sharpness, but Maurice shoots handheld, is there any point at all in this endeavor?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So since Maurice would have to test his camera on a tripod without VR to find out whether there even is a difference in sharpness, but Maurice shoots handheld, is there any point at all in this endeavor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably not, let's look again at some of the OP's OP.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am trying to determine if using ISO 100 on the D300 is better than ISO 200. According to Thom Hogan, using ISO 200 on the D300 is the best option to avoid clipping highlights. Now, I was not testing if either set was clipping or not the highlights, but to test which one has better sharpening.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Listen to Thom is probably the best advice here... I thought it was common knowledge that a sensor's best performance, in every regard, will be at its base sensitivity, this is what Thom is no doubt mentioning this for. Clipping highlights is not the only issue, although it's the one he brings up that the OP remembered. The issue is that if you are taking the kind of critical photograph that requires the best possible image from the camera, you always always always shoot at the base ISO. Same is true for video cameras. as soon as you add gain to the sensor, you get a degraded image compared with the base ISO.</p>

<p>I have never heard of any camera, still or video, that operated at is best in any regard at anything but the sensor's base sensitivity.</p>

<p>Also, virtually every photo shot with a Nikon DSLR will benefit (if not need) sharpening in PP anyway. Probably something to keep in mind.</p>