Same ISO Question

Matthew Roddy · July 9th, 2009, 11:42 AM

There is an ISO question buried deep in another thread and so I thought I'd bring it up out here.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were some ISO settings that were just better than others in regards to digital noise and compression?
I WISH I had bookmarked the thread, but I thought I read somewhere that 1600 was actually better than 1100 due to the way the software/hardware reacted to the setting???
The only reason I remember this is because I was surprised you could get a better picture by upping the ISO.

ARE there any "rules of thumb" to follow when choosing an appropriate ISO? Because if what I'm remembering is right, "lower is not always better."

Chris Barcellos · July 9th, 2009, 12:06 PM

Matt: Search Jon Fairhurst's threads, I think he did a post on that about a month past, when the issue came up. I think there was a discussion about some people representing that 1200 ISO was better than lets say 800, because of other technical issues. Haven't followed it, but I recall it.

Jon Fairhurst · July 9th, 2009, 01:04 PM

I posted something here as well, including links to 3rd party photos, but I don't recall the thread name...

Chris Hurd · July 9th, 2009, 01:54 PM

Was it this one?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-eos...ilters-5d.html

Specifically this post: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1156349-post11.html

Jon Fairhurst · July 9th, 2009, 02:41 PM

That's it! And this particular post has the link to the 3rd party photos...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1156349-post11.html

Nigel Barker · July 9th, 2009, 11:51 PM

Those tests were done by taking photos with the lens cap on & are of pretty much theoretical interest only. In practical use the difference in grain between say 100 & 2400 is all but imperceptible.

July 9th, 2009, 11:42 AM	#1
Matthew Roddy Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Riverside, Ca Posts: 307	Same ISO Question - Different Thread There is an ISO question buried deep in another thread and so I thought I'd bring it up out here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were some ISO settings that were just better than others in regards to digital noise and compression? I WISH I had bookmarked the thread, but I thought I read somewhere that 1600 was actually better than 1100 due to the way the software/hardware reacted to the setting??? The only reason I remember this is because I was surprised you could get a better picture by upping the ISO. ARE there any "rules of thumb" to follow when choosing an appropriate ISO? Because if what I'm remembering is right, "lower is not always better."

July 9th, 2009, 12:06 PM	#2
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Matt: Search Jon Fairhurst's threads, I think he did a post on that about a month past, when the issue came up. I think there was a discussion about some people representing that 1200 ISO was better than lets say 800, because of other technical issues. Haven't followed it, but I recall it. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

July 9th, 2009, 01:04 PM	#3
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	I posted something here as well, including links to 3rd party photos, but I don't recall the thread name... __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 9th, 2009, 01:54 PM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,369 Images: 513	Was it this one? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-eos...ilters-5d.html Specifically this post: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1156349-post11.html __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 9th, 2009, 02:41 PM	#5
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	That's it! And this particular post has the link to the 3rd party photos... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1156349-post11.html __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 9th, 2009, 11:51 PM	#6
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	Those tests were done by taking photos with the lens cap on & are of pretty much theoretical interest only. In practical use the difference in grain between say 100 & 2400 is all but imperceptible.