ISO RANGE

kenyc

New member
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
It is dependent on what and why you shoot. Here is an example of a theatre shot with an ancient Nikon 6mp D100 from the very early 2000s which has a native ISO 200-1600 and has low dynamic range. I often shot at 6400 but rarely above. I never worry about noise. In some respects, it adds to the "mood". With modern cameras I never have a concern.

f8567b18b3154470b6d64a4578ed20eb.jpg

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
 
Last edited:
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

Perhaps "base" iso is the proper term for what I am thinking about even though a Google search seems to say that the term "native" also applies to that single number. So I am still confused about the proper term for that single number that is typically iso 100 for many cameras.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

Perhaps "base" iso is the proper term for what I am thinking about even though a Google search seems to say that the term "native" also applies to that single number. So I am still confused about the proper term for that single number that is typically iso 100 for many cameras.
Call it what you like.

Extended ISO to me has been the range not normally set or used and sometimes called boosted where you have to choose it to use it.

Some cameras do not let you use the extended range in auto ISO

With my main camera, I use auto ISO almost all the time with it set to 102,400 mostly (I would prefer to set a maximum of about 80,000 but it only uses intermediates when set to the next level).

Other cameras and I have much lower limits and some I will only use base ISO.
 
Last edited:
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
There's nothing like a begged question to start a "[Ahem] real discussion, is there? - Two such questions, in fact, the next one implied. /rolleyes

What do you expect to get? - More opinions like your own? :-|

Maybe bear that in mind for "next time".

Meantime, it's some introduction to the forum!

atom14.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".
This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

There are several types of 'gain' applied in a typical camera imaging chain. If 'no gain' is applied, the whole thing won't work.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
ISO is simply a guide to setting exposure. The real question to ask is what is the lowest exposure that you find acceptable on your camera. That will vary according to the specific shot, how much work you're willling to do on the image and so on. It will generally have very little correlation with the nominal exposure for the camera's highest ISO, whether it be 'extended' or 'normal'.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Here comes Big Foot and he's posing for you BUT you gotta use iso 102,000. You gonna just walk away...., or you gonna take the shot??? LoL

John
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".
This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

There are several types of 'gain' applied in a typical camera imaging chain. If 'no gain' is applied, the whole thing won't work.
so is iso a comparison to a gain control or volume control on a radio ? is it at the sensor or display ?

Ds
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

Perhaps "base" iso is the proper term for what I am thinking about even though a Google search seems to say that the term "native" also applies to that single number. So I am still confused about the proper term for that single number that is typically iso 100 for many cameras.
Call it what you like.

Extended ISO to me has been the range not normally set or used and sometimes called boosted where you have to choose it to use it.

Some cameras do not let you use the extended range in auto ISO
I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.

The camera chooses the ISO setting.
With my main camera, I use auto ISO almost all the time with it set to 102,400 mostly (I would prefer to set a maximum of about 80,000 but it only uses intermediates when set to the next level).
Even if you could manually select the ISO, using auto ISO, why would you choose 102,400?

That sounds ridiculous.


Other cameras and I have much lower limits and some I will only use base ISO.
 
It's not nearly as useless as the "Post" button in the hands of a trolling new DPR member.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

Perhaps "base" iso is the proper term for what I am thinking about even though a Google search seems to say that the term "native" also applies to that single number. So I am still confused about the proper term for that single number that is typically iso 100 for many cameras.
Call it what you like.

Extended ISO to me has been the range not normally set or used and sometimes called boosted where you have to choose it to use it.

Some cameras do not let you use the extended range in auto ISO
I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.

The camera chooses the ISO setting.
With my main camera, I use auto ISO almost all the time with it set to 102,400 mostly (I would prefer to set a maximum of about 80,000 but it only uses intermediates when set to the next level).
Even if you could manually select the ISO, using auto ISO, why would you choose 102,400?
If your subject and lighting with manual shutter speed + f/# requires very high ISO, auto ISO will select it automatically.
That sounds ridiculous.
Other cameras and I have much lower limits and some I will only use base ISO.
--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
 
Last edited:
Embrace the noise as part of your aesthetic. It can work especially well with black and white images with boosted contrast, having a look of reportage and a sense of immediacy.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".
This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

There are several types of 'gain' applied in a typical camera imaging chain. If 'no gain' is applied, the whole thing won't work.
so is iso a comparison to a gain control or volume control on a radio ? is it at the sensor or display ?
Strictly speaking it is not a gain control but indirectly it is.

As a raw shooter, I use it as an analog gain control. Only.

When people says that a sensor is ISOless, they use the same interpretation of ISO. It means there is no gain control anymore because the gain remains the same at every ISO.

ISO can be used as, depending on the use case :

An exposure indicator, an exposure control, a brightness control, a gain control..

If you read the standard, ISO has nothing to do with gain control but as a raw shooter ISO has everything to do with gain control.
 
Extended ISO to me has been the range not normally set or used and sometimes called boosted where you have to choose it to use it.

Some cameras do not let you use the extended range in auto ISO
I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.
You've never seen or heard of a camera that allows you to manually limit the Auto ISO range?
The camera chooses the ISO setting.
The camera chooses within limits that can be imposed by the camera designers or the user.
With my main camera, I use auto ISO almost all the time with it set to 102,400 mostly (I would prefer to set a maximum of about 80,000 but it only uses intermediates when set to the next level).
Even if you could manually select the ISO, using auto ISO,
smith-jones can manually select the range in which Auto ISO operates (within some limits).
why would you choose 102,400?
To help ensure a result that's of satisfactory brightness when the situation requires it.
That sounds ridiculous.
What sounds ridiculous to one person can be very useful to others. That happens a lot.
 
Last edited:
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

Perhaps "base" iso is the proper term for what I am thinking about even though a Google search seems to say that the term "native" also applies to that single number. So I am still confused about the proper term for that single number that is typically iso 100 for many cameras.
Call it what you like.

Extended ISO to me has been the range not normally set or used and sometimes called boosted where you have to choose it to use it.

Some cameras do not let you use the extended range in auto ISO
I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.

The camera chooses the ISO setting.
But in auto ISO I can not select the extended range with many cameras (even my A7s does not let me pick ISO 50, 64 or 80 in auto ISO though I can set everything up to ISO 409600 in full stops).

Others limit the maximum you can set so if you want to use the higher ISOs you have to set them manually.
With my main camera, I use auto ISO almost all the time with it set to 102,400 mostly (I would prefer to set a maximum of about 80,000 but it only uses intermediates when set to the next level).
Even if you could manually select the ISO, using auto ISO, why would you choose 102,400?

That sounds ridiculous.
Because ISO 102400 is actually not that bad with my A7s though again, I can only set full stops for auto ISO and I do not mind ISO 80,000 but can not put that as my max.

So I set 102400 instead and try and keep it just below that.

My A7s has greater DR at ISO 25600 than many cameras I have had not far off their base and not all cameras are the same.

For example, I will use my Canon 17mm TSE at light festivals with moving projections and the ISO can get up pretty fast.

Also live music with high energy bands in dimly lit pubs and clubs or musicians not under a spotlight.
Other cameras and I have much lower limits and some I will only use base ISO.
 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Clueless post

 
Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.
Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.
I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".
This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

There are several types of 'gain' applied in a typical camera imaging chain. If 'no gain' is applied, the whole thing won't work.
so is iso a comparison to a gain control or volume control on a radio ? is it at the sensor or display ?
'ISO' is neither. There is no equivalent of ISO in a radio.

The ISO control itself operates differently on different cameras. It may change different types of gain at different stages in the capture chain, but how each ISO particular ISO control works is not publicly documented and not mandated in the ISO standard.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top