DxOMark's measured ISOs vs. manufacturer ISOs

Started Mar 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,988
Re: DxOMark's measured ISOs vs. manufacturer ISOs

Mjankor wrote:

Well you would generally have more tonal range, less noise, and therefore a better image, yes? How is that a bad thing, as a photographer? First time I've heard of a photographer running a higher iso than needed for the purpose of "photographic intent". Tell me more.

Of course you are right in general. And now we are no longer comparing cameras, but discussing exposure strategy with one single camera in a real world situation.

You are shooting indoor sports and you have determined that shutter speed could not be any slower than you set it because of blur, and you could not make aperture any wider because of your desired dof. You also could not raise ISO above 3200 because otherwise you would clip in the Raw data certain highlights that you would instead like to retain some detail in.  Keeping Exposure (ss and f/n) fixed, could you lower the ISO?

The answer is camera specific (reread the link in my last post), keeping in mind that in some cameras (Canon's for instance) lowering ISO in such a situation and fixing brightness in post will result in an overall noisier final image*.

Jack
* That's not the case for your EM-5, though, with which you could easily dial back to ISO 800 in such a situation (or even 400) and recover it in post with a tiny noise penalty in the final image (1/6 of a stop at 400) but with the greatly added benefit of 2-3 stops better highlight headroom. Take a llook at this great chart by Bill Claff to figure out how to set ISO .

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
tko
tko
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow