Announcement

Collapse

December's CHALLENGE

The topic to inspire your creative juices this month is BOXES Please don't forget to vote on November's LEAVES challenge and please re-vote if you already did but before the recent forum upgrade.

See more
See less

"low" iso

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "low" iso

    Does LOW in the ISO settings equate to a particular value? The manual is opaque on this, as on so much else. Is it 'low', as in 'below 200' (and if so, what?), or 'low' as in 'the low end of 200-25600'? Why not just give the thing an actual value?
    Margaret

    my Website ; my Flickr ; my Facebook

  • #2
    Re: "low" iso

    I have found it to be an alternative way of indicating over exposure when I have been using Auto ISO.
    This space for rent

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "low" iso

      It's effectively ISO 100. You can get exactly the same result by leaving the camera at ISO 200, over-exposing by 1-stop and then pulling it back in PP (assuming you're using RAW of course!).
      Paul
      E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
      flickr
      Portfolio Site
      Instagram

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "low" iso

        OK, so ISO 100. Thanks. Why can't they just say that?!

        Since they don't go out of their way to make it clear, should I assume there's some reason for not
        Margaret

        my Website ; my Flickr ; my Facebook

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "low" iso

          Because the chip has an "optimal" speed of 200 ISO, the lower setting is really a bit of a fudge. It gives slightly lower dynamic range. However, it saves having to, as Paul says, fiddle around in PP and enables a wider f stop to be used. In the real world I find it useful and don't really notice much of a DR fall-off.
          Stephen

          A camera takes a picture. A photographer makes a picture

          Fuji X system, + Leica and Bronica film

          My Flickr site

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "low" iso

            Originally posted by StephenL View Post
            In the real world I find it useful and don't really notice much of a DR fall-off.
            Ditto.

            Steve
            Steve

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "low" iso

              Hi I have tested this theory. And could not produce an I so 100 to blow a highlight or lose shadow detail, of the same shot at I so 200, where if there was a loss of Dr it should have. But I so 100 gives an advantage when using my 75 f1.8 lens wide open in bright light conditions. Especially when in use with the em5 don't think that it would be a problem for the em1 as it has 1/8000th second shutter speed as a posed to 1/4000th.

              Dave
              My Published Book: http://www.blurb.com/my/book/detail/2771168

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "low" iso

                OK, thanks all. It sounds like it's worth trying, when I'm next attempting something 'serious'. That's what I needed to know!
                Margaret

                my Website ; my Flickr ; my Facebook

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: "low" iso

                  I did some controlled testing of ISO low on my E-M5 and used rawdigger to examine the output. There is definitely more clipping on highlights (raw values at max) using ISO low at the same EV exposure setting. Whether you'd notice this in anything other than extreme situations in the real world is another matter. Personally, I'm happy to use it if it means keeping the aperture wide for DOF control. However, whilst it does deliver lower noise, I don't think the difference for this reason makes the reduced DR worth it.
                  Paul
                  E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
                  flickr
                  Portfolio Site
                  Instagram

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X