Difference in 100 vs. 200 ISO.

Is the difference in ISO 200 vs. 100 all that great? I'm looking at
Nikon vs. Canon entry-level DSLRs, and I'm concerned that the Nikons
only go to 200 ISO. I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,
so I'm guessing that being able to go to ISO 100 (as in the Canons)
would be advantageous, no?

Thanks for any help.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Is the difference in ISO 200 vs. 100 all that great? I'm looking at
Nikon vs. Canon entry-level DSLRs, and I'm concerned that the Nikons
only go to 200 ISO. I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,
so I'm guessing that being able to go to ISO 100 (as in the Canons)
would be advantageous, no?

Thanks for any help.


Marginally perhaps, mind you the Nikon D50 is apparently pretty good for
astronomical photography.

wrote:
Is the difference in ISO 200 vs. 100 all that great? I'm looking at
Nikon vs. Canon entry-level DSLRs, and I'm concerned that the Nikons
only go to 200 ISO. I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,
so I'm guessing that being able to go to ISO 100 (as in the Canons)
would be advantageous, no?

Thanks for any help.

Iso 200 is one stop faster than iso 100.
So in a situation where exposure time was 1 second at iso 200, would
require 2 seconds at iso 100 - or 1 second and 1 f stop wider aperture
setting.
As far as the Canon / Nikon question, it probably doesn't matter much -
get what you like best. Nikon d80 has a much nicer viewfinder than the
less expensive Nikons (D40/50/70) and all Canons until you get to Canon
full-frame models. That might matter for you in low light shooting.

wrote:
Is the difference in ISO 200 vs. 100 all that great?

Depends on how you want to define "great". The ISO rating is a
measure of the sensitivity, and twice as large a number means
twice as sensitive. That is, if you have the camera set to ISO
200 and make an exposure using f/8 at 1/250th of a second you can
double the exposure (to make the image lighter) in any of three
ways:

1) Change the ISO value to 400
2) Change the lense fstop to f/5.6
3) Change the shutter speed to 1/125

To cut the exposure in half (make the image darker),

1) Change the ISO value to 100
2) Change the lense fstop to f/11
3) Change the shutter speed to 1/500

I'm looking at
Nikon vs. Canon entry-level DSLRs, and I'm concerned that the Nikons
only go to 200 ISO.

You'll want to also compare the range of shutter speeds.
Cutting the shutter speed in half has the same effect as half
the ISO value.

I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,

Then you'll want *bigger* ISO settings!

so I'm guessing that being able to go to ISO 100 (as in the Canons)
would be advantageous, no?

You want to look at how *high* the ISO value can be set, not how
low. I'm not familiar with the entry level models from either
Canon or Nikon, so I can't quote you what they can do. But even
if I could, you'd need to do some research because the raw
values don't necessarily translate to best results.

It is a fairly safe bet that both Canon and Nikon models produce
acceptable images at ISO settings of 400, and probably at 800
too. The question is, how bad are they at 1600 (and 3200 if
they have that setting). Generally the noise at ISO 1600 is
seriously objectionable, and at 3200 is intolerable for most
purposes.

What you need to research is how the various models perform at
ISO's 800, 1600, and 3200 in the situations you expect to work
with.

Another consideration might also be the available lenses. The
availability and prices of lenses suitable for your purposes
might give the advantage to either manufacture. Zoom ranges,
stabilization, sharpness when wide open, and price are all
significant.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" schreef in bericht
...
wrote:
CUT

I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,

Then you'll want *bigger* ISO settings!
CUT

? Higher ISO setting will make the exposuretime shorter. OP wants -long-
exposures!

To OP.
If you want decent long-exposure shot, look at noiselevels with
long-exposure and the effect of noice reduction. (and the possibility to
turn it off) There's quite a difference between one brand and the other.

"Aad" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" schreef in bericht
...
wrote:
CUT

I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,

Then you'll want *bigger* ISO settings!
CUT

? Higher ISO setting will make the exposuretime shorter. OP wants -long-
exposures!

No he does not *want* long exposures, he simply cannot avoid
them in a low light situation. He certainly does not want to
make the exposures longer by using ISO 100 rather than a
*bigger* ISO setting.

To OP.
If you want decent long-exposure shot, look at noiselevels with
long-exposure and the effect of noice reduction. (and the possibility to
turn it off) There's quite a difference between one brand and the other.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Feb 21, 9:39 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
"Aad" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" schreef in bericht
...
wrote:
CUT

I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,

Then you'll want *bigger* ISO settings!
CUT

? Higher ISO setting will make the exposuretime shorter. OP wants -long-
exposures!

No he does not *want* long exposures, he simply cannot avoid
them in a low light situation. He certainly does not want to
make the exposures longer by using ISO 100 rather than a
*bigger* ISO setting.

To OP.
If you want decent long-exposure shot, look at noiselevels with
long-exposure and the effect of noice reduction. (and the possibility to
turn it off) There's quite a difference between one brand and the other.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

You're both guessing... but he did say he was PLANNING to do long
exposure, low light images. That sounds more to me that he is into
eerie moonlit landscapes or perhaps night seascapes, or star trails,
or night cityscapes. In which case he, like I do in those situations,
will probably dial in the lowest ISO deliberately to get the least
possible noise.

In which case, the Canon's probably have the edge, but there isn't
much to worry about either way.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Is the difference in ISO 200 vs. 100 all that great? I'm looking at
Nikon vs. Canon entry-level DSLRs, and I'm concerned that the Nikons
only go to 200 ISO. I'm planning to do long-exposure low-light shots,
so I'm guessing that being able to go to ISO 100 (as in the Canons)
would be advantageous, no?

Thanks for any help.


That is not a real variable.
CCD's photo elements have fixed gain and noise levels.
So, the performance will depend on lens aperture and the actual CCD used.


http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.co...sBrownInfo.htm

http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/

You're both guessing... but he did say he was PLANNING to do long
exposure, low light images. That sounds more to me that he is into
eerie moonlit landscapes or perhaps night seascapes, or star trails,
or night cityscapes. In which case he, like I do in those situations,
will probably dial in the lowest ISO deliberately to get the least
possible noise.

In which case, the Canon's probably have the edge, but there isn't
much to worry about either way.

If the intent is really to do long exposures, you've got the lens
aperture to play with if you really need that extra stop. Of course,
that extra stop is fifteen minutes if you want a 30-minute exposure,
so I know where you're coming from.

If that is your intent (you want exposures as long as you can afford),
then I can highly endorse the Canon 20d and 30d for this purpose. I do
some long exposure stuff myself when the evening light is inspiring.
You should know that noise builds up with long exposures, noise coming
from heat. I know that the Canon cameras offset this noise by
immediately exposing a second frame for the same duration with the
shutter closed to get an idea of what "just the noise" looks like,
then removes that noise from the first exposure. This works reasonably
well. The problems are, however, that this doubles the time it takes
for you to make an exposure (without doubling exposure time) and
because the camera is digital, you're just eating batteries this way.

Like I said, I love the 20d's performance, you should just be aware of
the need for extra batteries and the downtime that this performance
demands.

I have no experience with Nikon regarding this. I never did any long
exposure stuff when I had a D70, though I can say that I sold the D70
because it was too noisy. But Nikon's latest seem better in that
regard, so you'll want to look into that if you were planning on
buying a newer model.

Will

wiyum wrote:

You're both guessing... but he did say he was PLANNING to do long
exposure, low light images. That sounds more to me that he is into
eerie moonlit landscapes or perhaps night seascapes, or star trails,
or night cityscapes. In which case he, like I do in those situations,
will probably dial in the lowest ISO deliberately to get the least
possible noise.

In which case, the Canon's probably have the edge, but there isn't
much to worry about either way.

If the intent is really to do long exposures, you've got the lens
aperture to play with if you really need that extra stop. Of course,
that extra stop is fifteen minutes if you want a 30-minute exposure,
so I know where you're coming from.

If that is your intent (you want exposures as long as you can afford),
then I can highly endorse the Canon 20d and 30d for this purpose. I do
some long exposure stuff myself when the evening light is inspiring.
You should know that noise builds up with long exposures, noise coming
from heat. I know that the Canon cameras offset this noise by
immediately exposing a second frame for the same duration with the
shutter closed to get an idea of what "just the noise" looks like,
then removes that noise from the first exposure. This works reasonably
well. The problems are, however, that this doubles the time it takes
for you to make an exposure (without doubling exposure time) and
because the camera is digital, you're just eating batteries this way.

Like I said, I love the 20d's performance, you should just be aware of
the need for extra batteries and the downtime that this performance
demands.

I have no experience with Nikon regarding this. I never did any long
exposure stuff when I had a D70, though I can say that I sold the D70
because it was too noisy. But Nikon's latest seem better in that
regard, so you'll want to look into that if you were planning on
buying a newer model.

Agreed on all that and I'll just add that the D80/D200 with ISO 100 are
significantly better than a D70 and all 3 provide long exposure noise
reduction. I'm not sure about the D40 or D50 except that the D50 is
significantly better than the D70.