ISO and noise, Canon the cleanest?

I haven't seen anything cleaner than ISO 50 on the G2. Then looking at a comparison of the G2 to a certain other camera the exposures where the same and the iso different:

Canon G2: ISO 50, F4.0, 1/6 sec,
Other Cam: ISO 100, F4.0, 1/6 sec,

Now its clear that what canon calls iso 50 is equal to what the other one is "calling" iso 100. There is no real incentive to underrate your iso, it just makes it look like you need more light. But there is a very obvious marketing reason to over-rate your iso. So you can draw your own conclusions about the truth of the matter.

There is also the logical follow-through that this relation also continues at higher iso ratings.

G2 100 = other 200
G2 200 = other 400
G2 400 = no equivalent.

In essence the other camera really has iso 50, 100 and 200, but claims to have a very clean 100, 200 and 400 instead.

Think about it. I now think I understand why the competition does not have an iso 50 mode. They do, but they just called it something else.

I am not mentioning other camera makes, so I won't be accussed of trolling. I am starting to think there are people searcing for "x vrs y" just so they can scrap.

Peter

Well Peter, aren't you the courageious one!! I like your theories, both about the ISO and about the "x vrs y" issue, or is it "c vrs s". I can't test the ISO for camera "s", but having a G1 an 18% neutral grey card and a Gossen LunaStar meter, as well as the meter in my EOS 3, I think I'll test the ISO on that and see whiat I find out that way. Certainly, if the light is exactly the same, though and the exposures are the same, the only conclusion one can draw is that the ISO is the same.

Peter G said:

I haven't seen anything cleaner than ISO 50 on the G2. Then looking
at a comparison of the G2 to a certain other camera the exposures
where the same and the iso different:

Canon G2: ISO 50, F4.0, 1/6 sec,
Other Cam: ISO 100, F4.0, 1/6 sec,

Now its clear that what canon calls iso 50 is equal to what the
other one is "calling" iso 100. There is no real incentive to
underrate your iso, it just makes it look like you need more light.
But there is a very obvious marketing reason to over-rate your iso.
So you can draw your own conclusions about the truth of the matter.

There is also the logical follow-through that this relation also
continues at higher iso ratings.

G2 100 = other 200
G2 200 = other 400
G2 400 = no equivalent.

In essence the other camera really has iso 50, 100 and 200, but
claims to have a very clean 100, 200 and 400 instead.

Think about it. I now think I understand why the competition does
not have an iso 50 mode. They do, but they just called it something
else.

I am not mentioning other camera makes, so I won't be accussed of
trolling. I am starting to think there are people searcing for "x
vrs y" just so they can scrap.

Peter

Click to expand...

Hey Dan,

I am just extrapolating from what Phil said. I guess it is also possible that they are both iso75. But I would trust Canons rating more simply because they are primarily a camera manufacturer.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/page16.asp

The first thing to note is that although both cameras shot the same exposure (1/6 sec, F4.0) the G2 was set to ISO 50...

I am becoming extremely leary of the marketing machine of any large corporation. It would be neat have someone test this "iso equivalence".

This x vrs y stuff shows the amazing emotional investment people place in their cameras and how partisan some people are. There are people in the S forum wondering how come the Dsc f7x7 only got a 9 for image quality, while in the nikon forum some guy is screaming that Phil must be on the take, because it recieved a number as high as 9. Go figure.

Personally I think Phil is totally unbiased. He has been critical of faults in all cameras ( from Nikon,Canon and Sony) that no one else even noticed.

The G2 and 7x7 have recieved almost entirely positive reviews everywhere, with only Phil really pointing out problems.

Frankly I am not even debating camera choice. Since in all likelyhood I will buy neither of these cameras (I want something smaller). I just get annoyed when I see puting down cameras with arguments that are flawed.

Frankly I think one camera has a better lens and sensor and the other has better colours (possibly lower noise as well). I guess I am a perfectionist in some ways, because the colours could be fixed with a simple firmware change and I find it frustrating that it wont happen.

Peter

Dan said:

Well Peter, aren't you the courageious one!! I like your theories,
both about the ISO and about the "x vrs y" issue, or is it "c vrs
s". I can't test the ISO for camera "s", but having a G1 an 18%
neutral grey card and a Gossen LunaStar meter, as well as the meter
in my EOS 3, I think I'll test the ISO on that and see whiat I find
out that way. Certainly, if the light is exactly the same, though
and the exposures are the same, the only conclusion one can draw is
that the ISO is the same.

Click to expand...

I agree, without testing both cameras against a Gossen, Minolta or Sekonic meter, I would hesitate to even guess which ISO is accurate, if either. However, it certainly looks to me that they are the same, assuming the light was the same on both shots.

I take marketing hype with a grain of salt, myself. I, too, would be somewhat more inclined to take Canon's word for the ratings, but its pretty easy to test it out for yourself, once the cameras are available in the stores.

Both of these cameras involve compromises - no doubt about that. What is interesting is that some people don't seem to want to acknowledge the weaknesses of their own preferences. And some of us occasionally, intentionally or not, fan the flames by pointing out our own observations and opinions.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a perfectionist. The only problem I see with that is that if we make perfection our criteria for buying any camera, digital or film, we're going to go a long time before we do any photography.

Peter G said:

I am just extrapolating from what Phil said. I guess it is also
possible that they are both iso75. But I would trust Canons rating
more simply because they are primarily a camera manufacturer.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/page16.asp
The first thing to note is that although both cameras shot the same
exposure (1/6 sec, F4.0) the G2 was set to ISO 50...

I am becoming extremely leary of the marketing machine of any large
corporation. It would be neat have someone test this "iso
equivalence".

This x vrs y stuff shows the amazing emotional investment people
place in their cameras and how partisan some people are. There are
people in the S forum wondering how come the Dsc f7x7 only got a 9
for image quality, while in the nikon forum some guy is screaming
that Phil must be on the take, because it recieved a number as high
as 9. Go figure.

Personally I think Phil is totally unbiased. He has been critical
of faults in all cameras ( from Nikon,Canon and Sony) that no one
else even noticed.
The G2 and 7x7 have recieved almost entirely positive reviews
everywhere, with only Phil really pointing out problems.

Frankly I am not even debating camera choice. Since in all
likelyhood I will buy neither of these cameras (I want something
smaller). I just get annoyed when I see puting down cameras with
arguments that are flawed.

Frankly I think one camera has a better lens and sensor and the
other has better colours (possibly lower noise as well). I guess I
am a perfectionist in some ways, because the colours could be fixed
with a simple firmware change and I find it frustrating that it
wont happen.

Peter

Dan said:

Well Peter, aren't you the courageious one!! I like your theories,
both about the ISO and about the "x vrs y" issue, or is it "c vrs
s". I can't test the ISO for camera "s", but having a G1 an 18%
neutral grey card and a Gossen LunaStar meter, as well as the meter
in my EOS 3, I think I'll test the ISO on that and see whiat I find
out that way. Certainly, if the light is exactly the same, though
and the exposures are the same, the only conclusion one can draw is
that the ISO is the same.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter G said:

I haven't seen anything cleaner than ISO 50 on the G2. Then looking
at a comparison of the G2 to a certain other camera the exposures
where the same and the iso different:

Click to expand...

Agreeably, the G2 is very clean at ISO 50 when compared to other digicams in its price range. There are, of course, other digicams that are cleaner (such as the Canon D30) but you pay a great deal more for it. In examing the sample photos, it appears to me that the G2 is slightly cleaner at ISO 50 than the 707 at ISO 100 (but the difference isn't great). If indeed they are using the same actual ISO (regardless of what they rate them as), then what does this mean?

Well, as you said, one usually assumes ISO 50 would need more light than ISO 100 so why would Canon actually rate their camera at ISO 50 if it's really 75 or 100? Likewise, why wouldn't the other brands simply re-rate their ISO's to 50 too so they can claim the advantage of "Cleaner" images? ISO 50 has been a considerable selling point on the G1/G2.

On the low end (ISO 50/100) then, it would appear that there isn't a great deal of difference. If the G2/707 are choosing the same shutter speed at ISO 50/100 respectively, then it probably is safe to assume their actual ISO's are pretty close.

However, at the high end, there appears to be a considerably greater difference. The 707 seems to keep noise under control even at ISO 400 (quite usable pictures), whereas the G2 seems quite noisy. With my G1, I've never gone above ISO 50 except on very rare ocassions. I could imagine using ISO 200 or even 400 more often on the 707 simply because the images still look decent. With inanimate objects and a tripod (or when you can use flash), ISO 50/100 would be fine all the time. But I've encountered quite a few situations where I couldn't (or didn't want to) use flash, but the subjects were not entiredly still. This is where the greater ISO's provide a great benefit. All my opinion, of course! ;-)

Travis

Travis said:

However, at the high end, there appears to be a considerably
greater difference. The 707 seems to keep noise under control even
at ISO 400 (quite usable pictures), whereas the G2 seems quite
noisy. With my G1, I've never gone above ISO 50 except on very
rare ocassions. I could imagine using ISO 200 or even 400 more
often on the 707 simply because the images still look decent. With
inanimate objects and a tripod (or when you can use flash), ISO
50/100 would be fine all the time. But I've encountered quite a
few situations where I couldn't (or didn't want to) use flash, but
the subjects were not entiredly still. This is where the greater
ISO's provide a great benefit. All my opinion, of course! ;-)

Click to expand...

Travis, once again, you express my sentiments exactly. One of the most attractive features for me of the F707 (lets' set aside the color-argument for awhile) is that it performs beautifully at ISO 400, something that on my G1 produces far from acceptable results. I take a great many hand-held indoor shots, and this would be something I'd love.

If the G2 would give acceptable results at ISO 400 and give superior sharpness and color definition (which I don't question having observed the photos of each for myself), I doubt that any of the features of the F707 would win out in the end. But that's just me.

Bryan

My point is that if 50 = 100
It remains likely that 100 = 200
and 200 = 400.

Thus the great performance at 400 is not so amazing since it is really only operating at 200 and over-rating the iso. It's ultra-clean 400 is marketing since it doesn't really do 400 iso.

If canon did away with its iso 400 and then uprated 50-100-200 to 100-200-400 would we all be surprised by how clean 200 and 400 are.

Since no-one is objectively measuring the iso equivalence, the number rating systems are meaningless.

Peter

Bryan Siverly said:

Travis said:

However, at the high end, there appears to be a considerably
greater difference. The 707 seems to keep noise under control even
at ISO 400 (quite usable pictures), whereas the G2 seems quite
noisy. With my G1, I've never gone above ISO 50 except on very
rare ocassions. I could imagine using ISO 200 or even 400 more
often on the 707 simply because the images still look decent. With
inanimate objects and a tripod (or when you can use flash), ISO
50/100 would be fine all the time. But I've encountered quite a
few situations where I couldn't (or didn't want to) use flash, but
the subjects were not entiredly still. This is where the greater
ISO's provide a great benefit. All my opinion, of course! ;-)

Click to expand...

Travis, once again, you express my sentiments exactly. One of the
most attractive features for me of the F707 (lets' set aside the
color-argument for awhile) is that it performs beautifully at ISO
400, something that on my G1 produces far from acceptable results.
I take a great many hand-held indoor shots, and this would be
something I'd love.

If the G2 would give acceptable results at ISO 400 and give
superior sharpness and color definition (which I don't question
having observed the photos of each for myself), I doubt that any of
the features of the F707 would win out in the end. But that's just
me.

Bryan

Click to expand...

You're right, Peter. It doesn't matter what the ISO rating is... it all comes down to what shutter speeds the camera is choosing. If the ratings higher than actual performance, then the shutter speeds will still be slower than we would expect and wouldn't offer as much benefit as we would hope.

I'm curious to see if the G2's ISO 400 would choose the same shutter speeds as the 707's ISO 400? If they DO choose the same shutter speed, then the 707 definitely has the advantage of less noise. But if the 707's ISO 400 is really the G2's equivalent of ISO 400, then the difference wouldn't be as much and it would also mean that the Sony 707 really doesn't even have an actual ISO 400. Of course, that is assuming Canon's figures are the accurate ones and that is not clear either...

Travis

Yes. Both cameras may be doing something like 70-350 with sony dividing it in 3 steps, while canon does 4. I agree direct comparisons of iso are meaningless. Its what they choose for an exposure (apt and shutter).

I had never really considered this before. My 950 had iso 80 and I will bet most cameras that said iso-100 were also closer to 80.

Hmmmm.... I would like to see iso measurements, but I think Phil is already overworked.

Peter

Travis said:

You're right, Peter. It doesn't matter what the ISO rating is...
it all comes down to what shutter speeds the camera is choosing.
If the ratings higher than actual performance, then the shutter
speeds will still be slower than we would expect and wouldn't offer
as much benefit as we would hope.

I'm curious to see if the G2's ISO 400 would choose the same
shutter speeds as the 707's ISO 400? If they DO choose the same
shutter speed, then the 707 definitely has the advantage of less
noise. But if the 707's ISO 400 is really the G2's equivalent of
ISO 400, then the difference wouldn't be as much and it would also
mean that the Sony 707 really doesn't even have an actual ISO 400.
Of course, that is assuming Canon's figures are the accurate ones
and that is not clear either...

Travis

Click to expand...

I was comparing the low light shots taken over at Imaging Resource between these two cameras, and although the aperature/shutter speeds were not identical in the different ISO groups of pictures, the numbers still tend to reflect that the G2s ISO 100 and 200 are far more equivalent to the 707s 200 and 400. It seems that maybe the G2 400 is more like 800 ISO.

I agree with you Peter, seems Canon is rating lower than actual ISO, and Sony is rating higher than actual ISO, otherwise the aperature/shutter would not be so close between the differnt ISO settings of the two cameras. Take a look at the various low light shots at the IR reviews and compare. Although the G2 is still just slightly noisier at ISO 200 compared to Sony's ISO 400, the Canon images are sharper and brighter at the various LUX settings. I think the Sony is performing some from of despeckle filter in camera (a despeckle in photoshop gives similar results on the G2 image). Hard to tell, interesting observations anyway.

Brent

Cool; I never thought to check that. Now I will have to check a few other
cameras.

Not only are they close, but if everything else is constant that means that Sony's iso 400 is really even lower than Canons iso 200. Sony doesn't really have an ISO 400.

At the same lowest lux ( 0.67lx ) the following exposure settings:

707 - iso400 F2.1 7 seconds
G2 - iso200 F2.2 5 seconds
G2 - iso400 F2.2 2.5 seconds

The G2 is using a shorter exposure at iso200 than the 707 at iso400. The theory holds.

The G2 is really 2 times as sensitive as the 707 at all ratings. So in the same light G2 can use iso 200 where the 707 uses 400. That evens the high iso playing field considerably.

Thanks for the pointer Brent,

Peter

At the lowest light level the

Brent S. said:

I was comparing the low light shots taken over at Imaging Resource
between these two cameras, and although the aperature/shutter
speeds were not identical in the different ISO groups of pictures,
the numbers still tend to reflect that the G2s ISO 100 and 200 are
far more equivalent to the 707s 200 and 400. It seems that maybe
the G2 400 is more like 800 ISO.
I agree with you Peter, seems Canon is rating lower than actual
ISO, and Sony is rating higher than actual ISO, otherwise the
aperature/shutter would not be so close between the differnt ISO
settings of the two cameras. Take a look at the various low light
shots at the IR reviews and compare. Although the G2 is still just
slightly noisier at ISO 200 compared to Sony's ISO 400, the Canon
images are sharper and brighter at the various LUX settings. I
think the Sony is performing some from of despeckle filter in
camera (a despeckle in photoshop gives similar results on the G2
image). Hard to tell, interesting observations anyway.

Brent

Click to expand...

Peter G said:

The G2 is really 2 times as sensitive as the 707 at all ratings. So
in the same light G2 can use iso 200 where the 707 uses 400. That
evens the high iso playing field considerably.

Click to expand...

I've looked at the tables, and can consistently see about a half-stop or more difference, but not really a full stop (even though some of the numbers were double on the F707).

Excited, I checked the photos at each comparable level. The F707 still won in noise and quality, but not by quite as much as before. Yet another thing to put into my "decision pipe" and smoke.

It's interesting stuff, however. I wonder which company is fudging the most? Canon down or Sony up?

Bryan

That's an interesting observation, Peter. Took a look for myself. For each of the series, you can almost match the G2 shutter/aperture combinations for the 707's at the next higher speed. Minor differences, but in some cases the G2 seems even a little more than one step more sensitive. Since these are low light exposures, however, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about normal shooting conditions. I don't know if CCD arrays have anything like to reciprocity failure of film at long exposures, but if so, that might account for what is happening here. I would really want to see a series of comparisons in brighter light before reaching any definitive conclusions. At this point, however, it does appear to change the equation. I do suspect that it is Canon that is rating their camera low, however. I don't have any more than one example to support that. I shot some flower petals for an ad for a florist a couple of weeks ago with my G1, using a Novatron 240 monolight. Without really thinking about it, I left my flash meter set to 100 and my camera set to 50. Exposed the image at the metered setting. If anything, the shot was just a bit bright and required just a slight curve adjustment in Photoshop. If I get a chance in the next day or two, I'm going to play around a bit with comparing meter readings between the G1, EOS and Gossen. Just curious - I think everyone knows my mind is closed about which is the better camera .

Peter G said:

Not only are they close, but if everything else is constant that
means that Sony's iso 400 is really even lower than Canons iso 200.
Sony doesn't really have an ISO 400.

At the same lowest lux ( 0.67lx ) the following exposure settings:

707 - iso400 F2.1 7 seconds
G2 - iso200 F2.2 5 seconds
G2 - iso400 F2.2 2.5 seconds

The G2 is using a shorter exposure at iso200 than the 707 at
iso400. The theory holds.

The G2 is really 2 times as sensitive as the 707 at all ratings. So
in the same light G2 can use iso 200 where the 707 uses 400. That
evens the high iso playing field considerably.

Thanks for the pointer Brent,

Peter

At the lowest light level the

Brent S. said:

I was comparing the low light shots taken over at Imaging Resource
between these two cameras, and although the aperature/shutter
speeds were not identical in the different ISO groups of pictures,
the numbers still tend to reflect that the G2s ISO 100 and 200 are
far more equivalent to the 707s 200 and 400. It seems that maybe
the G2 400 is more like 800 ISO.
I agree with you Peter, seems Canon is rating lower than actual
ISO, and Sony is rating higher than actual ISO, otherwise the
aperature/shutter would not be so close between the differnt ISO
settings of the two cameras. Take a look at the various low light
shots at the IR reviews and compare. Although the G2 is still just
slightly noisier at ISO 200 compared to Sony's ISO 400, the Canon
images are sharper and brighter at the various LUX settings. I
think the Sony is performing some from of despeckle filter in
camera (a despeckle in photoshop gives similar results on the G2
image). Hard to tell, interesting observations anyway.

Brent

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter G said:

Not only are they close, but if everything else is constant that
means that Sony's iso 400 is really even lower than Canons iso 200.
Sony doesn't really have an ISO 400.

Click to expand...

Though this is all really interesting, what makes us think that it's Sony that's fudging speeds here? After all, Canon gets a lot of mileage out of having an ISO50. Could it be that Canon's ISO50 is really closer to ISO100 and that Sony hasn't fudged at all?

Something to think about for all of us who would rather give Canon the benefit of the doubt.

Bryan

It could be. The only reason canon gets mileage out of ISO 50 is because its is so clean. If someone could do that at 100 it would be even better.
Its just another interesting data-point. I am still looking for a smaller cam.

Peter

Bryan Siverly said:

Peter G said:

Not only are they close, but if everything else is constant that
means that Sony's iso 400 is really even lower than Canons iso 200.
Sony doesn't really have an ISO 400.

Click to expand...

Though this is all really interesting, what makes us think that
it's Sony that's fudging speeds here? After all, Canon gets a lot
of mileage out of having an ISO50. Could it be that Canon's ISO50
is really closer to ISO100 and that Sony hasn't fudged at all?

Something to think about for all of us who would rather give Canon
the benefit of the doubt.

Bryan

Click to expand...

Bryan Siverly said:

Though this is all really interesting, what makes us think that
it's Sony that's fudging speeds here? After all, Canon gets a lot
of mileage out of having an ISO50. Could it be that Canon's ISO50
is really closer to ISO100 and that Sony hasn't fudged at all?

Click to expand...

Well, well, well... perhaps by assuming the opposite, somebody may have discovered something about Canon. Do go to the other camera reviews on imaging-resource.com and check out the low-light numbers for cameras from Toshiba, Fuji, and others. Isn't it interesting that the exposures more correctly match the Sony than the Canon at the various light levels?

I've been wondering why the G1 (and now the G2) seem to be the only cameras with an ISO50 setting. Why don't the others match Canon with this feat, I wondered.

The truth may be that the ISO50 is a LIE. It's much, much closer to ISO100. In fact, the G1 and G2 may be much better performers at ISO400 than everyone thought, since it's really the ISO200 setting that gives you that speed. And the ISO400 is really 800, which is understandably lousy.

And to think some here were blaming poor Sony for being the liar.

Hmm, this G1 user can't help being a bit miffed at this revelation. Was leaning back toward the G2, but now am not so sure.

Bryan

Well I don't really care whos maketing is fudging. If it is Canon, I think they really screwed up, since they were always getting dinged for having a bit more noise at iso 100 than everyone else.

If (still a big if )
iso 50 is really iso 100
iso 100 is really iso 200
iso 200 is really iso 400
iso 400 is really iso 800

This would mean that Canon has the cleanest iso 100 and 200 and an extremely good iso 400. ( and a noisy 800).

It would explain why their iso 100 has always been a bit behind everyone else (ie its actually a very nice iso 200).

It is interesting.

Peter

Bryan Siverly said:

Bryan Siverly said:

Though this is all really interesting, what makes us think that
it's Sony that's fudging speeds here? After all, Canon gets a lot
of mileage out of having an ISO50. Could it be that Canon's ISO50
is really closer to ISO100 and that Sony hasn't fudged at all?

Click to expand...

Well, well, well... perhaps by assuming the opposite, somebody may
have discovered something about Canon. Do go to the other camera
reviews on imaging-resource.com and check out the low-light numbers
for cameras from Toshiba, Fuji, and others. Isn't it interesting
that the exposures more correctly match the Sony than the Canon at
the various light levels?

I've been wondering why the G1 (and now the G2) seem to be the only
cameras with an ISO50 setting. Why don't the others match Canon
with this feat, I wondered.

The truth may be that the ISO50 is a LIE. It's much, much closer
to ISO100. In fact, the G1 and G2 may be much better performers at
ISO400 than everyone thought, since it's really the ISO200 setting
that gives you that speed. And the ISO400 is really 800, which is
understandably lousy.

And to think some here were blaming poor Sony for being the liar.

Hmm, this G1 user can't help being a bit miffed at this revelation.
Was leaning back toward the G2, but now am not so sure.

Bryan

Click to expand...

Dan said:

I agree, without testing both cameras against a Gossen, Minolta or
Sekonic meter, I would hesitate to even guess which ISO is
accurate, if either. However, it certainly looks to me that they
are the same, assuming the light was the same on both shots.

I take marketing hype with a grain of salt, myself. I, too, would
be somewhat more inclined to take Canon's word for the ratings, but
its pretty easy to test it out for yourself, once the cameras are
available in the stores.

Both of these cameras involve compromises - no doubt about that.
What is interesting is that some people don't seem to want to
acknowledge the weaknesses of their own preferences. And some of
us occasionally, intentionally or not, fan the flames by pointing
out our own observations and opinions.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a perfectionist. The
only problem I see with that is that if we make perfection our
criteria for buying any camera, digital or film, we're going to go
a long time before we do any photography.

Click to expand...

A lot of this hype is generated by us, but I have to admit, someone should get to the bottom of this, and soon

Yeah, I'd be pretty upset too if I could figure out what the devil the advantage is to Canon understating their cameras' ISO ratings. Yesterday, the big deal on this board was how great the Sony was at ISO 400, and how that made it superior to the G2. Now, all of a sudden, someone suggests that according to published review data, that maybe the G2 is a little better than it had appeared to be and you're upset with Canon for lying about it? I suppose that if your boss told you he was giving you a two dollar raise, and when you got your check it was for four dollars, you'd go looking for another job. What exactly is it that Canon has to gain here. I can handhold my camera in lower light than I though possible. That's bad?? I can stop action better than I was led to believe. Horrors!! Wait. Hold on a minute. I just got my tax rebate check. Uncle George told me it was going to be $200. Why that lying rascal. He sent me $400. That's it. I've had enough lies from Washington. I'm moving to Mexico.

Bryan Siverly said:

Bryan Siverly said:

Though this is all really interesting, what makes us think that
it's Sony that's fudging speeds here? After all, Canon gets a lot
of mileage out of having an ISO50. Could it be that Canon's ISO50
is really closer to ISO100 and that Sony hasn't fudged at all?

Click to expand...

Well, well, well... perhaps by assuming the opposite, somebody may
have discovered something about Canon. Do go to the other camera
reviews on imaging-resource.com and check out the low-light numbers
for cameras from Toshiba, Fuji, and others. Isn't it interesting
that the exposures more correctly match the Sony than the Canon at
the various light levels?

I've been wondering why the G1 (and now the G2) seem to be the only
cameras with an ISO50 setting. Why don't the others match Canon
with this feat, I wondered.

The truth may be that the ISO50 is a LIE. It's much, much closer
to ISO100. In fact, the G1 and G2 may be much better performers at
ISO400 than everyone thought, since it's really the ISO200 setting
that gives you that speed. And the ISO400 is really 800, which is
understandably lousy.

And to think some here were blaming poor Sony for being the liar.

Hmm, this G1 user can't help being a bit miffed at this revelation.
Was leaning back toward the G2, but now am not so sure.

Bryan

Click to expand...

Dan said:

Uncle George told me it was going to be $200. Why that
lying rascal. He sent me $400. That's it. I've had enough lies
from Washington. I'm moving to Mexico.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right on again, Dan. When you move to Mexico you can analyze the colors in the money. Is that 10 peso note Cyan, or is it Turquoise? Better ask the wife.

The point is that the Canon marketing machine has told us that it's the fact that they have an ISO50 setting (unlike all the others) that their default ISO gives such clean images. When in truth, the Nikon 99X and Oly 30XX are every bit the Canon's equal... their ISO100 settings are just as clean. The higher settings are never a selling-point of these cameras to most people.

Bryan