Nikon's ISO 200

I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent? Up until now I had resisted buying a Nikon,
thinking Nikon's 200 was equivalent to Canon's 200, but maybe I have to
reformulate my entire way of thinking about Nikons.

Thanks in advance!

In article , Brianm
wrote:

I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

nikon and canon use different sensor technology and the native iso is
different. also, nikon had iso 100 since the d2x and d200, which aren't
all that recent.

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent? Up until now I had resisted buying a Nikon,
thinking Nikon's 200 was equivalent to Canon's 200, but maybe I have to
reformulate my entire way of thinking about Nikons.

sometimes it's better, sometimes it's not. it depends which particular
nikon and canon cameras your talking about. not that you will easily be
able to tell the difference, even at 400.

Brianm wrote:
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent?

Nope. Different cameras, different technology. If you want a
comparison of noise then look up the camera reviews at
www.dpreview.com

(Short version: They're very similar)

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote:

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent?

Nope. Different cameras, different technology. If you want a
comparison of noise then look up the camera reviews at
www.dpreview.com

(Short version: They're very similar)

Slightly longer version: ISO 100 in theory should provide lower noise and a
higher dynamic range (those two actually mean the same thing) than ISO 200,
but circuit noise in the camera is usually too high for that to actually
happen. So I shoot my Canon cameras at ISO 200.

See figure 5a on this page. And in 5b, you can see that you might as well
shoot the 5D2 at ISO 800. Which means that while the 5D2 is great for
low-light/high ISO users, there's room for improvement at low ISOs (and this
isn't even considering the pattern noise problem, sigh), so Canon will have
an easy time (I hope!) getting more money from the landscape types when the
5D3 comes out.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ary/index.html

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent?
Nope. Different cameras, different technology. If you want a
comparison of noise then look up the camera reviews at
www.dpreview.com

(Short version: They're very similar)

Slightly longer version: ISO 100 in theory should provide lower noise and a
higher dynamic range (those two actually mean the same thing) than ISO 200,
but circuit noise in the camera is usually too high for that to actually
happen. So I shoot my Canon cameras at ISO 200.

See figure 5a on this page. And in 5b, you can see that you might as well
shoot the 5D2 at ISO 800. Which means that while the 5D2 is great for
low-light/high ISO users, there's room for improvement at low ISOs (and this
isn't even considering the pattern noise problem, sigh), so Canon will have
an easy time (I hope!) getting more money from the landscape types when the
5D3 comes out.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ary/index.html

Note that some of those comparison charts plot ISO 200 "native" cameras
alongside ISO 100. It might have been better to run a standard test at
ISO 200, but that's also not perfect, and neither is using "lo-1.0"
setting on a Nikon and plotting it tagged as real ISO 100.
FWIW, raw data analysis I've seen for Nikon's newer 12 and 24mp aps-c
and 35mm sensors shows native ISO at about 150, so closer to ISO 200
than ISO 100.
Doesn't matter much. You can sometimes see shot noise in skies if
sharpness, contrast and saturation is up and you've got "active
D-Lighting" on, but shadow detail is excellent and pattern noise
effectively absent. As usual, exposing correctly is very important.

"Brianm" wrote in message
...
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent? Up until now I had resisted buying a Nikon,
thinking Nikon's 200 was equivalent to Canon's 200, but maybe I have to
reformulate my entire way of thinking about Nikons.

See www.dxomark.com

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent?

Nope. Different cameras, different technology. If you want a
comparison of noise then look up the camera reviews at
www.dpreview.com

(Short version: They're very similar)

Slightly longer version: ISO 100 in theory should provide lower noise and a
higher dynamic range (those two actually mean the same thing) than ISO 200,

That is not necessarily true.

but circuit noise in the camera is usually too high for that to actually
happen. So I shoot my Canon cameras at ISO 200.

That is clearly not the case.

See figure 5a on this page. And in 5b, you can see that you might as well
shoot the 5D2 at ISO 800.

Which demonstrates that the above two statements are not valid.

Which means that while the 5D2 is great for
low-light/high ISO users, there's room for improvement at low ISOs (and this

That doesn't follow from the evidence at hand.

isn't even considering the pattern noise problem, sigh), so Canon will have
an easy time (I hope!) getting more money from the landscape types when the
5D3 comes out.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ary/index.html

Consider a given sensor (an analog device) with an
(arbitrary) output of 0 to 1 volt. The maximum voltage
represents "white" at the "native" ISO. That 1 volt
output is fed to an ADC that has a 1 volt maximum input,
via an amplifier that for the minimum ISO will have
something very close to 1x for gain. (If the actual
native ISO of the sensor is 180, at ISO 200 the
amplifier gain will be 1.111x, for example.)

Sources of "read" noise generated by the camera hardware
are the sensor, the amplifier input circuits (pre-gain),
the amplifier output circuits (post-gain), and the ADC.

The difference between ISO 200 and ISO 800 is the gain
of the amplifier, which for ISO 800 is set to 4.444x.
As a result of that change, at ISO 800 a sensor output
signal at 0.225 volts is amplified to be 1.0 volts at
the input to the ADC.

Now, consider the significance of the noise being
essentially the same from ISO 200 to ISO 800.

The point to make note of is that if the noise at ISO
800 is the same as it was a ISO 200 then there is
necessarily virtually *no* noise from the sensor or the
input stage of the amplifier (it is totally masked by
the amplifier output stage noise plus the noise internal
to the ADC) at ISO 200. At ISO 800 the sensor noise
necessarily is significantly less than half the total
noise (and probably is less that one quarter of it) if
it is not visible. And reducing it further will *not*
affect the image at all!

The above is not really surprising, given that the same
sensor signal is used for reasonable images at at least
4x times the ISO 800 gain! The dynamic range of the
sensor itself has to be *vastly* greater than that of
the ADC if it is to work over a large ISO range. For
example, if the minimum acceptable dynamic range is 10
stops, and the dynamic range at ISO 800 is 14 stops, it
would be reasonable to expect 4 stops of ISO range above
800 (at which point the amplified noise from the sensor,
that was not even visible at ISO 800, becomes too
great). Hence ISO 6400 has a significantly different
noise characteristic, and a lower dynamic range, than
ISO 800 and below.

Up to ISO 800 the sensor noise is totally irrelevant
because it is masked by amplifier and ADC noise that
does not change with the ISO setting.

Another way to look at it is that a sensor with a
slightly lower native ISO sensitivity is *not* going to
provide lower noise. Or, for lower noise images it does
*not* help to even have an ISO 100 setting (especially
if the actual native sensitivity of the sensor is higher
than that), or for that matter even an ISO 200 setting!
For noise (and there are other reasons, obviously, to
use lower ISO's) there is no point in setting ISO to
less than 800 for the unit described!

ISO 100 through ISO 400 provides the ability to use a
wider range of shutter speed and aperture combination,
but is not there to provide lower noise.

Higher ISO's are a function of the sensor's dynamic
range. Lower noise at low ISO's are a function of the
dynamic range of the amplifier and ADC.

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

Brianm wrote:
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

The "natural" ISO of many Nikon's based on Sony sensors is in the mid
100's region (around 150 more or less) AFAICT from the various graphs.
So setting the camera to ISO 100 (were it possible) would narrow the
dynamic range of the sensor (and probably have other effects).

On most of the Minolta/Sony's (using the same or similar sensors), ISO
100 is enabled by the user - eg: Sony recommend 200 as the slowest ISO.

Alan Browne wrote:
Brianm wrote:
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

The "natural" ISO of many Nikon's based on Sony sensors is in the mid
100's region (around 150 more or less) AFAICT from the various graphs.
So setting the camera to ISO 100 (were it possible) would narrow the
dynamic range of the sensor (and probably have other effects).

On most of the Minolta/Sony's (using the same or similar sensors), ISO
100 is enabled by the user - eg: Sony recommend 200 as the slowest ISO.

There's a slight reduction in contrast. Tests seem to show some models
have a slight reduction in DR, and others show a slight increase when
set at "Lo 1.0" (ISO 100), but the difference is only a fraction of a
stop either way, not IMO worth worrying about, probably just related to
ratio between read and shot noise. If you want to use a Nikon (and
probably Sony with similar sensor) at "forced" ISO 100, and you adjust
contrast etc in PP as a matter of course anyway, just use it and don't
worry.

OldBoy wrote:
"Brianm" wrote in message
...
I searched hi & low if this ? was asked, but haven't found it. Since
Nikon's lowest ISO setting has (until recently) been 200, I have always
thought Canons (or any camera with a "native" 100 ISO) had a noise
advantage (at 100). We all know 100 has less noise than 200 on a
camera. However, after having learned about "native" ISO's, Nikon's
"native" ISO continues to be 200. So, was I WRONG in my thinking?

Does this mean that Nikon's ISO 200 will have basically the SAME amount
of noise (or rather, lack of) as ISO 100 in a Canon? Are they
functionally equivalent? Up until now I had resisted buying a Nikon,
thinking Nikon's 200 was equivalent to Canon's 200, but maybe I have to
reformulate my entire way of thinking about Nikons.

See www.dxomark.com

They do some kind of calculation to indicate the 'true' ISO of various
cameras. I don't recall the details but the basic test would be to put
the same lens at the same aperture on different cameras and measure the
exposure time to achieve identical brightness from the raw files. But
there are other little fiddles that each manufacturer makes so it's
probably not that simple. DXO's calculations are probably not perfect
either but no doubt there is some similar variability in various cameras.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam