Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.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.
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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
Call it what you like.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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.
There's nothing like a begged question to start a "[Ahem] real discussion, is there? - Two such questions, in fact, the next one implied. /rolleyesIs 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.
This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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??? LoLIs 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.
so is iso a comparison to a gain control or volume control on a radio ? is it at the sensor or display ?This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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.
I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.Call it what you like.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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.
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
Even if you could manually select the ISO, using auto ISO, why would you choose 102,400?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.
If your subject and lighting with manual shutter speed + f/# requires very high ISO, auto ISO will select it automatically.I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.Call it what you like.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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.
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
The camera chooses the ISO setting.
Even if you could manually select the ISO, using auto ISO, why would you choose 102,400?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).
--That sounds ridiculous.
Other cameras and I have much lower limits and some I will only use base ISO.
Strictly speaking it is not a gain control but indirectly it is.so is iso a comparison to a gain control or volume control on a radio ? is it at the sensor or display ?This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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.
You've never seen or heard of a camera that allows you to manually limit the Auto ISO range?I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.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
The camera chooses within limits that can be imposed by the camera designers or the user.The camera chooses the ISO setting.
smith-jones can manually select the range in which Auto ISO operates (within some limits).Even if you could manually select the ISO, using 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).
To help ensure a result that's of satisfactory brightness when the situation requires it.why would you choose 102,400?
What sounds ridiculous to one person can be very useful to others. That happens a lot.That sounds ridiculous.
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).I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.Call it what you like.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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.
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
The camera chooses the ISO setting.
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.Even if you could manually select the ISO, using auto ISO, why would you choose 102,400?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).
That sounds ridiculous.
Other cameras and I have much lower limits and some I will only use base ISO.
Why is this of such concern to you?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 postIs 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 neither. There is no equivalent of ISO in a radio.so is iso a comparison to a gain control or volume control on a radio ? is it at the sensor or display ?This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.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".Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.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 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.
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.