No, that is not what the poll is asking.
If your camera has an "ISOless" sensor and you're shooting in RAW, it will result with less blown highlights and no noise penalty when the proper tone curve is applied to the RAW conversion.
I think you've mistaken the point of this twunty thread and this twunty arguing with anybody who tries to make sense of him. It clearly isn't really about highlight headroom, so your perfectly sensible point is no good to him. Maybe it's really about isoless sensors and being an exposure nerd, or something. I don't think he cares if we usually have to underexpose one or two stops down from what the meter says on a CCD camera to hold detail in clouds.
Raw data is raw data. If the exposure settings (shutter speed & aperture) are unchanged between those ISO settings, how are you going to have a difference in blown highlights? Changing ISO is not going to change the data captured by the sensor in the raw file, it only tells the decoder how to prepare the default rendering.
Because the ISO setting will affect the digital numbers recorded in the RAW file.
The ISO setting does change the recorded values.
Start a thread on it in the Photographic Science and Technology forum. You might be surprised.
Not for a ISOless sensor. This is the very definition of how an ISOless camera is special. It does not apply any brightness to what is stored in the raw file. It leaves that to the decoder. It is traditional sensors that are not ISOless that affect the raw file levels.
Not in an ISOless camera.
If I see that I am actually wrong here, I will.
You have an incorrect understanding - at least for most cameras. There are a very few that simply record ISO as metadata, but for most cameras, the ISO setting does indeed affect the raw data.
--
Then why does every article on ISOless cameras disagree with this? Great Bustard is talking about ISOless cameras. If those cameras actually do change the raw file contents with ISO change, then virtually every article about them is wrong.
First, GB is not talking about ISO-invariant cameras. Second, the first article you site does not indicate the raw data are unaffected by ISO. Third, the the second article deals with one of the few cameras that I believe does indeed record ISO as metadata. But it is unusual. Most don't.
Please link and quote the portions from the article which disagree with what I stated. That said, why not start a thread on the topic in the Photographic Science and Technology forum where you can get answers from a broader spectrum of people who know a lot about this?
I almost always shoot at ISO 100, but not for less exposure, I simply adjust my exp. time accordingly. Then again I almost always shoot bracketed sets too. So I always end up with at least one nice, bright shot to work with as well.
Well, since it is about highlight headroom, but at higher ISO settings, I guess that makes you the twunt.
There's a thought.
Or caring about highlight headroom, or something.
My poll doesn't apply to situations where you can get the desired brightness at base ISO, regardless of whether you choose to expose lower than the meter recommends to preserve highlights. That's a different matter entirely.
This poll does not apply to situations where you can get the desired brightness at base ISO.
I think maybe you didn't read the conversation we were having before responding. Here is a direct quote from him:
It doesn't?
So, a truly ISO invariant camera behaves as I describe in response to a message from GB specifically about ISOless cameras? So when we talk about ISOless cameras, its really a lie unless it isn't? My opinion is that if a camera changes the raw data based on the ISO setting, then it does not qualify as ISOless or ISO-invariant.
So, I am not wrong, but I still have something to learn. Got it, thanks. You know this is really kind of a condescending tone? I am respectfully sharing what I am reading and having an adult conversation. You don't need to tell someone who disagrees or may not have the same understanding that they have something to learn. Perhaps you don't mean it disrespectfully, but it definitely comes off that way. I am letting you know in the case that it matters to you.
From http://improvephotography.com/34818/iso-invariance/
That is an issue that arises in the context of his OP, but it is not what his OP is "talking about."
This does NOT say that the raw data are invariant to ISO. Learn to read.
Your opinion isn't worth much. Particularly since it is wrong.
You'd do well to do the test I suggested. Get a copy of RawDigger and check out what happens with your own cameras.
I confess I'm not sure what gollywop was talking about there. I was, indeed, talking about cameras with "ISOless" sensors.
It doesn't.
That doesn't say or imply that the RAW data is unaffected by the ISO setting.
You would be mistaken.
Well, you are, really.
Indeed. Why you don't start a thread on the subject in the Photographic Science and Technology forum if you want to learn, however, is a bit of puzzle.
Let me say it directly: the ISO setting affects the RAW data (there are a few exceptions -- I think the Sigma cameras use the ISO setting as meta data, but they are the only exceptions I'm aware of). If you wish to learn about the subject, why do you avoid starting a thread in the Photographic Science and Technology forum where there are a great number of people knowledgeable on this subject who can explain it to you in as much detail as you like?
This is simply wrong. Indeed there are very, very few truly ISO-invariant cameras.
And this indicates that that indeed ISO can, and in most cases, does affect the raw data. As I say, learn to read.
Because what you're discussing is incorrect and corrosive to this thread.
Neither of the above says, or implies, that the RAW data is unaffected by the ISO setting.
Start another thread, not go to another thread.
Because the Photographic Science and Technology forum is frequented by numerous people knowledgeable on the subject and can answer any questions you have more thoroughly. Hell, some of them might even present you with the digital numbers of a RAW file taken at two different ISO settings with a camera that has an "ISOless" sensor (or very nearly "ISOless", at least) and demonstrate it to you.
