Why does Nikon start at ISO 200???

Hi everyone,

I'm a long-time Canon P&S user considering my first DSLR. The Dxx series is appealing, but something I don't quite understand is why several Nikon DSLR's (including the D90) start at ISO 200.

Most Canon's have ISO's starting from 80 - 100 (including the XSi, which I'm also considering). We all know that lower ISO's = better image quality/lower noise; so why doesn't Nikon start at ISO 100?

Thank you kindly in advance.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thermal/

The short answer is that the sensor used in several Nikon DSLR's has a base ISO of 200.

See:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&message=27361884

--
'Life is a photo op'

Steve Simpkin

thermal1 said:

Hi everyone,

I'm a long-time Canon P&S user considering my first DSLR. The Dxx
series is appealing, but something I don't quite understand is why
several Nikon DSLR's (including the D90) start at ISO 200.

Most Canon's have ISO's starting from 80 - 100 (including the XSi,
which I'm also considering). We all know that lower ISO's = better
image quality/lower noise; so why doesn't Nikon start at ISO 100?

Thank you kindly in advance.

Click to expand...

Good point, it was my first question as well, and one that I can't answer. Seems bizarre on a camera costing this much (even compacts do 100 ISO), and far more important an issue for photographers than the inclusion of the new 'pets and families' movie mode gimmick.

Don't worry about image quality - DSLR at even ISO 400 is better than P&S at ISO50.

Regards,

colombiano said:

Don't worry about image quality - DSLR at even ISO 400 is better than
P&S at ISO50.

Click to expand...

Obviously so, but that's not the D90's competition. How does it compare to the Canon 450D, 40D and 50D?

Does anyone know why Nikon has released a "serious" DSLR incapable of shooting at ISO 100, let alone ISO 80? I don't recall Nikon ever releasing a 35mm SLR incapable of taking film below ISO 200! And if they had they would have been punished for it in the shops.

To me it’s a serious omission. The D90 has lots of bells and whistles on it but if the thing can’t shoot at ISO 100 they count for nothing! Nikon need to revisit their priorities

simon65 said:

Does anyone know why Nikon has released a "serious" DSLR incapable of
shooting at ISO 100

Click to expand...

The D90 can shoot at ISO 100:

Lo-1 (ISO 100 equivalent)

--
Mark
http://www.markamy.com

The OP is interested in nikon Dxx line, that includes D40, D60, ... and also D90. While D90 definitely is not comparable to P&S (in cost terms), the D40 is.
D40 cost in Europe a little more than P&S, while delivering much better photos.

I have it and I don't find base ISO 200 as a serious problem.

The only situation where I would like ISO 100 is when using really fast primes (F1.4) on sunny days, where it's too bright to use such big apertures with ISO 200. And even this can be solved with ND filter attached to the lens.

I rather have a sensor optimised for nice noise-less photos from ISO200-1600 (D40) than 100-800 (Pentax, Sony). In the low light, you will appreciate high ISO quality photos that Nikon makes (and Canon also, for the matter)

Regards,

simon65 said:

Does anyone know why Nikon has released a "serious" DSLR incapable of
shooting at ISO 100, let alone ISO 80? I don't recall Nikon ever
releasing a 35mm SLR incapable of taking film below ISO 200! And if
they had they would have been punished for it in the shops.

To me it’s a serious omission. The D90 has lots of bells and whistles
on it but if the thing can’t shoot at ISO 100 they count for nothing!
Nikon need to revisit their priorities

Click to expand...

Nikon's new sensor don't have 'normal' ISO 100 to have better HiISO performance which is far more important IMO. What do you need ISO100 for when ISO200 quality is as good? My old d40 starts from ISO200 and I never was in situation that I needed ISO100.

Note that d90/300/700/3 can shoot ISO 100,130,160. With 100 and 130 there are slight tendencies to blow highlights, that's true. But it's also true that these cameras are far better in recording highlights then Canons (in new Nikons DR is moved to record more highlights then previous cameras and other brands with the exception of Fuji). Also note that with active d-lighting function camera is protecting highlights to be blown. In effect Lo settings in these Nikons are perfect in 99% of cases. From my own experience ISO160 has no problems with highlights and looks as good as ISO200. But again - I don't recall situation when I wished for lower ISO.

--
Talkontar
equipment in profile...
http://picasaweb.google.pl/witosz

thermal1 said:

We all know that lower ISO's = better image quality/lower noise

Click to expand...

That's an assumption that is not necessarily true. It was most likely the case with film and remains the rule of thumb, but it is not a golden rule.

Sensor are complex device that are design to work within a certain range where all parameters are within their best working range and their base ISO is a compromise. ISO 200 on the nikon sensors you mention is the sensitivity that gives the best compromise between noise/dynamic range and probably other parameters. Going to ISO 100 could reduce the amount of noise at the expense of the dynamic range of other characteristics.

For instance the sigma dp1 has a sensor that has a base ISO of 100. It is also possible to use it at ISO 50. Sigma expressively mentioned that despite the lower amount of noise, ISO 50 will also noticeably reduce dynamic range.

--
Nicolas
http://dishio.eu

China Mark said:

simon65 said:

Does anyone know why Nikon has released a "serious" DSLR incapable of
shooting at ISO 100

Click to expand...

The D90 can shoot at ISO 100:

Lo-1 (ISO 100 equivalent)

Click to expand...

I've been reading Steve Simpkin's recommended link. One contributor adding this comment which you may find interesting:-

"The sensor was designed to a certain tolerance and when the first variation of that sensor was used in the D100 some other manufacturers (Read Fuji S1 Pro) had minimum ISO's of 400...

Ultimately though, they could've added a boost like they do with Hi-1 and Hi-2 but when others had done this (Canon 1D) the images lost Dynamic Range and Detail so it was best to just stick with what the sensor was designed for"

So yes it will do ISO 100, but only if you don't mind the loss of quality! It seems Sony/Nikon design their sensors to be optmized at ISO 200, and that straying below this is not advised. It's kind of a health warning "We take no responsibility for the output of this camera below ISO 200".

Well that’s a pretty big deal isn’t it?

I'm genuinely bemused by Nikonians lack of fuss over this issue. To me launching a DSLR which doesn’t do ISO 100 is like launching a car that doesn’t have a first gear! (just give it a running start, jump in, and you’ll barely notice!)

Two big problems spring to mind relating to a DSLR that can’t properly do ISO 100:-

1. IQ. As we know from numerous posts, IQ decreases with higher ISO. Lower ISOs make for finer pics and vice versa. So for those landscape photographers among us who are prepared to haul a tripod up a mountain to insure we can shoot at the lowest possible ISO, a camera that simply omits this option is a true contradiction as a photographic tool!

2. Equally galling is the loss of exposure control ie shooting at slow shutter speeds on bright sunny days (nice with waterfalls, seascapes etc) or shooting wide open to throw the background out of focus – a pretty basic requirement actually.

Ironically Nikon are touting one of the benefits of the D90 as its ability to shoot movies with the background out of focus!!! Wonderful Nikon, but what about us photographers?

The ISO(or ASA) number tells you about the film sensitive for light – not the image quality.

Lower ISO is good if you need a longer shutterspeed. Higher ISO don't mean worse IQ(but at some point it will introduce more ISO noise witch most think of as reduced IQ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

--

simon65 said:

Ironically Nikon are touting one of the benefits of the D90 as its
ability to shoot movies with the background out of focus!!! Wonderful
Nikon, but what about us photographers?

Click to expand...

No-one seems to be complaining about the D300's image quality with its base ISO 200 sensor. What's your point?

Talkontar said:

simon65 said:

Does anyone know why Nikon has released a "serious" DSLR incapable of
shooting at ISO 100, let alone ISO 80? I don't recall Nikon ever
releasing a 35mm SLR incapable of taking film below ISO 200! And if
they had they would have been punished for it in the shops.

To me it’s a serious omission. The D90 has lots of bells and whistles
on it but if the thing can’t shoot at ISO 100 they count for nothing!
Nikon need to revisit their priorities

Click to expand...

Nikon's new sensor don't have 'normal' ISO 100 to have better HiISO
performance which is far more important IMO. What do you need ISO100
for when ISO200 quality is as good?

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is Nikon have sacrificed proper ISO 100 in the name of improved performance high ISO performance. As you may gather from my last post, that’s not a trade off I’m happy with. A camera’s defining characteristic is the optimum results it can produce i.e. those at its lowest ISO. And I need low ISO for IQ AND exposure control reasons.

There is no way that Nikon have bent the rules of physics or run so far ahead of Canon that there ISO 200 is better than Canon’s ISO 100. So the Nikon D90 will never produce pics as fine as say the Canon 450D.

However its high ISO may (or may not) be better than the Canon's. It sounds like the D90 may be good for sports and concert photographers but not a tool for landscape photographers. As someone who does a lot of landscapes I would have preferred Nikon to have prioritized absolute quality, and exposure control, and then seen what they could do about high ISO IQ.

I disagree with you - I am also a landscape photographer and I don't need ISO100 if I have ISO 200 of the same quality.

In a landscape work, you use a polarizer (with it you loose 1-2 stops) and if you add some ND grad filters to equalize bright sky against dark foreground, you loose again 1-2 stops. All those lost stops + shooting landscapes at around F8-F13 makes ISO 100 unusable without tripod. Even 200 is not enough! So, do you carry with you all the time a tripod? Me, I prefer a quality output of high ISO and I use tripod only for longer exposures.

For waterfalls you need ND filters (ie. 3 stops) , ISO 100 doesn't help enough (you gain only 1 stop)

Examples:
NIKON D40 , ISO 200; Exposure: 1/40 sec; Aperture: f/11.0; Focal Length: 18mm

Handheld shot in the sunny morning (9-10am) , I used only polarizer here, no ND grads, and was already at 1/40 at ISO 200. With ISO 100 I would have to use a tripod for 1/20 second exposure.



Or this one:
NIKON D40; ISO 450; Exposure: 1/30 sec; Aperture: f/9.0; Focal Length: 18mm

It was a handheld shot, taken on a cloudy morning at 9 am, I used polarizer + ND grad. If using ISO 100, exposure would be 1/5 second...

simon65 said:

There is no way that Nikon have bent the rules of physics or run so
far ahead of Canon that there ISO 200 is better than Canon’s ISO 100.
So the Nikon D90 will never produce pics as fine as say the Canon
450D.

Click to expand...

Simon65, You mention the rules of physics, yet no references. To speak as if there is a magical value to ISO100 just shows your lack of perspective, or maybe just trolling. None of us writing so far know the detailed specifications of the sensor substrate, its base amplification and response curves, etc.

Is ISO 100 so much better for you? Your entitled to use it, even if there is no logic in your decision.

A 100 years ago, I bet everyone thought ISO 10 was amazingly fast. Life is relative. Catch up.

simon65 said:

So what you're saying is Nikon have sacrificed proper ISO 100 in the
name of improved performance high ISO performance. As you may gather
from my last post, that’s not a trade off I’m happy with. A camera’s
defining characteristic is the optimum results it can produce i.e.
those at its lowest ISO. And I need low ISO for IQ AND exposure
control reasons.

Click to expand...

That's so outdated thinking... Today's ISO 200 or even ISO400 gives you THE VERY SAME image quality as ISO100, so one of your reasons is clearly wrong. Secondly - exposure control - it's very very rare situation when large aperture can't be used with ISO200 combined with 1/8000 sec shutter speed. But it's still no problem because you can set ISO100 on Nikons with no loss in IQ in 99% of pics. Or you can just put ND filter on - you can't get better HiISO with filter so it's more then fair trade. Besides, in good light almost everyone will stop a little bit to get better sharpness.

Member said:

There is no way that Nikon have bent the rules of physics or run so
far ahead of Canon that there ISO 200 is better than Canon’s ISO 100.
So the Nikon D90 will never produce pics as fine as say the Canon
450D.

Click to expand...

That's idiotic. What matters is BASE ISO - Nikons base ISO is 200 and it's equal in quality to base ISO of Canons which is 100. Those sensors are optimized to different base sensitivities and base sensitivity is the one which offers ideal performance. Besides, with today's technology, if you can see difference in quality between dSLRs sensitivities of 100 and 200 you clearly have better vision then superman

Member said:

However its high ISO may (or may not) be better than the Canon's. It
sounds like the D90 may be good for sports and concert photographers
but not a tool for landscape photographers. As someone who does a
lot of landscapes I would have preferred Nikon to have prioritized
absolute quality, and exposure control, and then seen what they could
do about high ISO IQ.

Click to expand...

I shoot mostly cityscapes with my d300. Quality and control over exposure is state of the art. Lower base ISO would give me nothing. High ISO gives me many important things:

• better option for dawn and night handhold shooting;
• better dynamic range (which is most important factor for quality), because lower signal to noise ratio results in better DR especially in higher ISO;
• better chance for bringing up shadows in PP.

Besides, it's so very ironic that before d300 Canon funboys were so proud of hiISO capabilities while Nikon funboys were defending themselves with better IQ at low ISOs ;-)

Thing is, and I hope someday people will understand this and there will be no more funboys, that with today's technology much much much more depends on how you can use your equipment not what camera you own. And trying to see some differences in quality at lowest ISOs is extremely funny

--
Talkontar
equipment in profile...
http://picasaweb.google.pl/witosz

simon65 said:

So what you're saying is Nikon have sacrificed proper ISO 100 in the
name of improved performance high ISO performance. As you may gather
from my last post, that’s not a trade off I’m happy with. A camera’s
defining characteristic is the optimum results it can produce i.e.
those at its lowest ISO. And I need low ISO for IQ AND exposure
control reasons.

There is no way that Nikon have bent the rules of physics or run so
far ahead of Canon that there ISO 200 is better than Canon’s ISO 100.
So the Nikon D90 will never produce pics as fine as say the Canon
450D.

Click to expand...

You know, you need to be one heck of a photographer for your image quality to be limited by the D90 sensor at ISO200 (and apparently, the quality you got from your P&S cameras was fine so far, too, so I don't think your standards in that regard are higher than those of all the D300 shooters around here...).

And, as others have said, you can select ISO100 (= Lo-1 mode), at the cost of 1 stop of dynamic range. Or if you need exposure control and maximum DR (remember to shoot RAW all the time in this case...), use a 1 stop ND filter...

BG

Because dSLR sensors are quite large their sensibility to light is higher. Since recently Canon was also at ISO200 base ISO.

You must understand that ISO800 of a dSLR will be about as good as ISO100 of a P&S.

It's the same to have ISO200 and 1/4000 s than ISO100 and 1/2000 s. It would be hard to need so high speed since you need smaller apertures than a P&S (usually all around aperture is f/8 instead of f/4 thus you already have 2 stops disadvantage so ISO200 would already be like ISO50 for P&S but still dSLR quality at ISO200 will beat any P&S at ISO50).
In low light when you have f/1.4 ISO200 is better than ISO100.
ISO200 you have in mind is about the same as ISO1600 from a dSLR.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/

The D90 sensor (assuming it's the same sensor as D300) is designed to give its optimal output at ISO200 dynamic range wise. This means the ISO where the sensor reach full well capacity maximising the S/N ratio. You can't compare ISO sensitivity between different sensors and say a sensor has less noise because its base ISO is 100 or 50.

The reason compact digital cameras have such low base ISO is artificially set, to minimize shadow noise because of the tiny sensors, but the DR is reduced dramatically as a result.

The only problem with a base ISO of 200, is if you want low shutter speeds in outdoor daylight (flash, moving water). Though the D90 has possibility for setting LO 0.3 0.7 or 1.0 (ISO 160 125 and 100), where dynamic range probably gets reduced a tiny bit, but still giving better DR than the previous sensor generation. Alternatively a ND filter can be used to reduce exposure times.

Analysis of the D300 sensor indicate the base ISO is closer to ISO140 than ISO200.
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Investigations/Sensor_Characteristics.htm

Regards
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen

• OMNISCIENCE

Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

simon65 said:

Two big problems spring to mind relating to a DSLR that can’t
properly do ISO 100:-

1. IQ. As we know from numerous posts, IQ decreases with higher ISO.
Lower ISOs make for finer pics and vice versa. So for those landscape
photographers among us who are prepared to haul a tripod up a
mountain to insure we can shoot at the lowest possible ISO, a camera
that simply omits this option is a true contradiction as a
photographic tool!

Click to expand...

Cr@p. You purport to be a journalist. How about doing some research? The base ISO on the D40/D50/D70 AND the D300 AND the D700 AND the D3 is 200 ISO. Those sensors are designed to give of their best at that IQ. The D3 has the best IQ of any DSLR. One might equally say why ISO 100? Why not ISO 25 or ISO 12?

Member said:

2. Equally galling is the loss of exposure control ie shooting at
slow shutter speeds on bright sunny days (nice with waterfalls,
seascapes etc)

Click to expand...

Use a smaller aperture (or ND filter if it is a regular problem)

Member said:

or shooting wide open to throw the background out of
focus – a pretty basic requirement actually.

Click to expand...

Use a higher shutter speed - A pretty simple solution actually.

Member said:

Ironically Nikon are touting one of the benefits of the D90 as its
ability to shoot movies with the background out of focus!!! Wonderful
Nikon, but what about us photographers?

Click to expand...

I seem to recall last time I saw you in this forum it was to rubbish the launch of another new Nikon cam. Paid employment is it?

--
Chris Elliott

Nikon D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile

http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/