Camera suggestions

Discussion in 'Beginner Questions' started by storie, May 22, 2021.

  1. You're brain is still farting, cowboy.

    Lower ISO means more, not less, light is needed to record an image.

    Whether lower ISO results in better quality depends, and on what and how was correctly described by Alan.
     
  2. Yes, high minded on point responses such as this one will certainly encourage the OP to join the discussions more frequently..........
     
  3. Pointing out that this was still part of his self-confessed brain fart and that the correct info was given already by Alan, who this brain fart was in response to?
     
  4. I agree. The proof is in the pudding. You'd have to compare 100 ISO in one camera against this camera at 64. It would seem to me that 100 ISO in a medium format sensor is cleaner than 64 in a 35mm FF or other smaller sensor.
     
  5. If you're starting to get in to the realms of photon noise, as opposed to electronic noise, then yes, Joe's ND filter does actually have the same result as a lower ISO, allowing a longer shutter speed and thus more photons to be captured.

    Totally irrelevant to the original topic, but, hey, it's photo.net ;)
     
  6. Still wrong, though, because you will not capture less light, unless you use that filter or the lower ISO to get an underexposed image.

    And then there is that noise thing. Add a ND filter to increase exposure time on an already amplified signal will definitely add more noise.
     
  7. A lower sensor ISO generally equates to smaller photosites, which in turn mean less sensitivity to light. Not an ability to 'gather more light'. It's directly comparable to adding an ND filter to a more sensitive sensor.

    Also, the base ISO speed designation is based, among other things, on the best Signal-to-Noise ratio that can be attained from a sensor. Therefore a sensor that has its lowest S/N ratio at 100 ISO is actually better than one which is rated at 64 ISO for a similar S/N ratio. Therefore DPReview's conclusion makes no sense technically.

    There are many older digital cameras, and those with tiny sensors, that have a rated base ISO of 64 or lower, but nobody would claim that those cameras are better than a more modern camera, or one with a larger sensor and with a higher base ISO - simply because they need 'more light'.

    For example: I have a Nikon Coolpix P6000 from around 2008. It too has a base ISO of 64, but nobody would ever claim that its image quality was better than a 100 ISO rated camera with a sensor from 2021.

    Electronic sensors are not like film, where grain-noise decreases almost in directly inverse proportion to ISO, and a lower ISO almost always means better image quality. And even there, T-grain technology beats older cubic-grain technology at a similar speed rating.

    This in no way reflects on the image quality of Nikon's Z7 camera. Just on the half-baked write up that DP Review has given it.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2021
  8. Nobody equated lower base ISO to an ability to gather more light.
    Your windmills, Rodeo.

    Base ISO means less amplification than when capturing at higher ISO, using the same (!) photosites.
    At base ISO, you have to collect more photons to get your image, instead of adding noise while amplifying the too low/dim signal.

    So you're still wrong, Rodeo. Your spin is off mark, meaningless.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2021
  9. Except for that DPReview article linked to by Alan.
    You might take the time to read it before going into your default insult mode.
    Nobody is disputing that, and I never was comparing base ISO to a higher setting on the same camera. What was being discussed was the merit of a lower base ISO versus a higher base ISO across different cameras and sensors.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
  10. I might add to this if I knew what a "photosite" is. But isn't there a difference between "needed" and "allow"?
     

Share This Page