 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Difference 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for any help. Marginally perhaps, mind you the Nikon D50 is apparently pretty good for astronomical photography. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. >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.  SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com 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. >CUT >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >? 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. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> screenacco...@gmail.com wrote: > >CUT [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) f...@apaflo.com 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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.com/shack3d/productinfo/jpsBrown/jpsBrownInfo.htm http://www.tyrell-innovations-usa.com/shack3d/ > 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? Nikon only go to 200 ISO ? What ? My Nikon D200 goes from 100 to 1600 ISO and i can boost it to 3200. Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is pure amplification. SignatureBest regards C.T.O. Søren Reinke www.Xray-Mag.com Your free online dive magazine Download it in PDF, just like a real magazine > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nikon only go to 200 ISO ? on the 6mp models, yes. pentax 6mp cameras also stop at 200. > What ? > > My Nikon D200 goes from 100 to 1600 ISO and i can boost it to 3200. that's not a 6mp model. > Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is > pure amplification. right - most are. not all. > Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is > pure amplification. not quite. Each fab method results in a sensitivity that lies somewhere in the region of 50 - 200, most sensors lie somewhere in the 100 - 200 range. It doesn't "land" on a nice round number. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is > > pure amplification. > > not quite. Each fab method results in a sensitivity that lies somewhere > in the region of 50 - 200, most sensors lie somewhere in the 100 - 200 > range. It doesn't "land" on a nice round number. I would look at the noise level, does it equate to an equal value for a film exposure? If not then perhaps film is the best choice for a given output size. I find 200 asa rather smooth but problematic in terms of opening shadow areas -jes lick da film mind ya\asa 400 seems to work best for me :) Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > > > Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is > > > pure amplification. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > opening shadow areas -jes lick da film mind ya\asa 400 seems to work > best for me :) That not completely accurate 2oo asa film seems to open the shadows much better than digital. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > I would look at the noise level, does it equate to an equal value for a > film exposure? If not then perhaps film is the best choice for a given > output size. I find 200 asa rather smooth but problematic in terms of > opening shadow areas Why so? (opening shaddow areas) (or are you referring to slide film?) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > I would look at the noise level, does it equate to an equal value for a > > film exposure? If not then perhaps film is the best choice for a given > > output size. I find 200 asa rather smooth but problematic in terms of > > opening shadow areas > > Why so? (opening shaddow areas) (or are you referring to slide film?) Well does it not stand to reason the noise level at a given ISO should be on par? I know I want equivalent exposures to match each other in terms of the noise (At the very least- and if they don't I would use the best tool for the job). Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is >> pure amplification. > > not quite. Each fab method results in a sensitivity that lies somewhere > in the region of 50 - 200, most sensors lie somewhere in the 100 - 200 > range. It doesn't "land" on a nice round number. I should add that it is not "pure amplification" as that does not exist in the real world. There is analog amplification at the A/D level, and then for the higher ISO's (800 or 1600 and up) digital amplification. Further, there is an ISO variance between various camera models of down/upwards of 2/3 of a stop. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as night cityscapes. And I was operating under the assumption that a 100 ISO would produce shots with less grain than would an ISO of 200. Based on the comments, it sounds like a Canon XT might be better for such shots -- which is unfortunate, because I really liked the D40's viewfinder compared to the XT's. I have considered the D80, but it's a little too pricey for me right now, at least for a starter camera. > Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I > am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such shots -- which is unfortunate, because I really liked the D40's > viewfinder compared to the XT's. There's an image comparison of the D40 at ISO 200 and Canon EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page21.asp SignatureWarren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA >> Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I >> am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page21.asp Forgot to add: the sample from the Canon is at ISO 100, so it's a direct comparison. SignatureWarren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA On Feb 21, 9:27 pm, screenacco...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I > am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > viewfinder compared to the XT's. I have considered the D80, but it's a > little too pricey for me right now, at least for a starter camera. Hi. If you're worried about noise in long exposures, it won't be a problem in either of these cameras. Here's a 5min exposure with a D200: http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/71856686 it's downsized; if you want, I can put up some full-size ones for you to see. [there is one in that gallery that's very noisy, at 30s and ISO 800; that's because the scene was basically lit by orange light, so I had to do extreme white balancing and basically invent the blue channel using NR programs; anyway, the D200 is not particularly low- noise, while the D50 is a lot better]. The D50 has at least the same performance as the D200 in such conditions (actually better, in fact); the D40 I would bet the same as the D50, and probably not worse. So it really isn't a problem. I am pretty sure it is also not a problem for the Canons either. Choose a camera based on other criteria, they're both ok for what you mention. One thing to keep in mind is that the D40 does not autofocus with lenses without internal motors, while all other Nikons do. One such lens is the 50mm f/1.8 which is very fast (good for low light handheld shooting) and cheap; I'd personally go for the D50 if I was in your place (and decided on the Nikons). > On Feb 21, 9:27 pm, screenacco...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > D200: > http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/71856686 Some very nice shots there. -- www.mattclara.com > <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Some very nice shots there. Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is there some trick I am missing? >> <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is > there some trick I am missing? No, you're right--Velvia isn't good for real long exposures--that shot was 30 seconds, and the longest I went was 90, and that blew out the buildings, regardless of ambient light. I know a guy who's using Kodak Ultra, or something--some saturated negative film from Kodak: http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys-separate.htm I purchased this one at the East Lansing Art Fair last year, where I met him: http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys/alley40windowfire.htm It was kinda funny, I started asking him about his technique, and he got real defensive and a bit hostile, said he feared I was trying to steal his shtick (not before he told me what film he used, and a hassy with cz lenses). I emailed him later that evening to express my puzzlement, and he explained that the art fair circuit could be very cut throat--apparently some people do this exclusively for a living and will steal any shtick they can to make a buck. He liked negative film better because--no surprise--it has more lattitude for exposure error. -- www.mattclara.com > <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > regardless of ambient light. I know a guy who's using Kodak Ultra, or > something--some saturated negative film from Kodak:http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys-separate.htm Some of these are stunning! Film has the decided advantage of not killing your battery after a couple of 30min exposures, but then again you have to make sure you got the right exposure without reviewing it, which is not trivial in these conditions. Plus you have to wait for it to be processed... >> <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > which is not trivial in these conditions. Plus you have to wait for it > to be processed... Yes, there are the batteries, and I'm not sure how valuable a review is if the exposure is several hours long or longer like Xavier's images are--little chance to do over that night, any way. -- www.mattclara.com > <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > the exposure is several hours long or longer like Xavier's images > are--little chance to do over that night, any way. The idea of the review is to set the ISO to 1600,shoot, determine exposure from the histogram, set ISO to 100 and take the real shot. Since for eg 30min exposures at ISO 100 we'd need 2 min at ISO 1600, which is too long, what I do is set the tone compensation (ie the curve) to a custom curve that is flat (I have downloaded this to my D200), set various jpeg settings to known values (these settings do affect the histograms even when shooting raw), and have marked on my histogram stops from saturation. So I can shoot a 3-stop underexposed test shot at ISO 1600, see that it is 3 stops below, and expose properly. It sounds very complicated, but it is really simple, and saves a lot of effort and battery power. > Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few > times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity > failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is > there some trick I am missing? I don't do long exposures (I might one day) but would like to note, that the new Velvia 100 handles long exposures better than the old Velvia 50. > achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk writes: > > Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that the new Velvia 100 handles long exposures better than > the old Velvia 50. Cool, I'll see if I can try it, thanks. > Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I > am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > viewfinder compared to the XT's. I have considered the D80, but it's a > little too pricey for me right now, at least for a starter camera. I love my D200, but don't forget Fuji Velvia--it's still a wonderful tool, and a used Pentax and a couple top notch prime lenses will set you back no more than $300: http://www.mattclara.com/chicago.html (shot with Velvia and the cheapo--relatively speaking--Nikon 18-35mm lens). -- www.mattclara.com > I love my D200, but don't forget Fuji Velvia--it's still a wonderful tool, > and a used Pentax and a couple top notch prime lenses will set you back no > more than $300: http://www.mattclara.com/chicago.html(shot with Velvia and > the cheapo--relatively speaking--Nikon 18-35mm lens). Okay Matt, you need to stop doing things like that. It isn't right and it isn't fair... I already miss Chicago too much as it is. On a more on-topic note, do you recall how long that exposure was and at what time of day (relative to the sunset) it was taken? Beautiful shot. Will >> I love my D200, but don't forget Fuji Velvia--it's still a wonderful >> tool, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Will That's a 30 second exposure at f22, taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset. And yeah, I get that feeling, too, especially this time of year. When I go (every summer at least once, if not twice) I take a train out of East Lansing, MI, and show up in Chicago 3.5 hours later having done nothing but napped, read, played eucher with my wife and friends, spent too much on a PB&J, and I arrive at Union Station ready to hit the town. No parking hassels, no exhaustion from the long drive. The whole train ride has become part of the over all "experience." And then, every evening from 8-10 is mine for nothing but photography. I scout out the areas during the day. Dinner at 7, drinks at 10:30, baby! You think you're missing Chicago?!? I've also recently discovered that webpage happens to be the number three return for a google image search for "downtown chicago." Number two for yahoo! -- www.mattclara.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.