Optimum high ISO for D200

[DragonflyDM]

I have been VERy impressed with the D200 at higher ISO performance... but I am happy with the D1X with high ISO when you PROPERLY expose the image.

I find many DSLR meters tend to underexpose the overall image, because it usually hits hot on the reds very often. But when you post-produce that correct, you bring out some really horrible noise.

But the D200 is VERY good at the ISO production.

Here is the D1X at ISO 800

[diglloyd]

Originally Posted by Mike_Guilbault

Understood... was just curious if users found that, in low light, it was better to use a higher ISO and overexpose a little, or shoot at a lower ISO, but be underexposed? So in other words, does an accurate exposure at a higher ISO provide better results than a lower ISO that is underexposed.

VENDOR SUGGESTION: I explore this subject in detail in D2X vs D200. But briefly, massive underexposure (up to 4 stops) can still produce a surprisingly good result with many images.

MODERATOR HAS EDITED THIS POST SUBJECT LINE TO COMPLY WITH FORUM RULES:

Here's the vendor policy.

1) Please feel free to promote your product or service in any of the forums, either as a new post, or a relevant reply to an existing post.

2) You MUST put in parentheses in the SUBJECT LINE the following phrase- "(Vendor Suggestion)"

3) This label needs to be used if you have any vested interest in, or direct marketing relationship with said product or service.

4) Any posting that is deemed to fall into this category that is not labeled as such will be relabeled appropriately by Melissa, myself or another moderator.

5) Repeated failure to follow this policy will result in the individual user being restricted to posting only in the vendor forum.

We reserve the right to update this policy at anytime.

[DouglasUrner]

Interesting. If you shooting raw with a 12 bit camera (i.e. anything but a digital back or a Leica DMR) then underexposing by 4 stops would leave you with 8 bits of data. Which seems to be enough if you nail your exposure shooting JPEGs . . .

Doug

[diglloyd]

Originally Posted by DouglasUrner

Interesting. If you shooting raw with a 12 bit camera (i.e. anything but a digital back or a Leica DMR) then underexposing by 4 stops would leave you with 8 bits of data. Which seems to be enough if you nail your exposure shooting JPEGs . . .

Yes, I definitely meant RAW. Underexposing JPEGS with only 8 bits is a real problem.

[diglloyd]

MODERATOR EDIT:

To all, in order to respond to this and another thread that was deleted-- I have changed DigitalLloyd's previous thread to be in compliance with forum rules. So there is no further reason for people to distract from the topic of the thread I have removed the comments by all parties that are not relevant to the topic at hand.

DragonflyDM

[diglloyd]

Originally Posted by Mike_Guilbault

Understood... was just curious if users found that, in low light, it was better to use a higher ISO and overexpose a little, or shoot at a lower ISO, but be underexposed? So in other words, does an accurate exposure at a higher ISO provide better results than a lower ISO that is underexposed.

This is a good question.

While I've investigated "pushing" extensively, I haven't done truly explicit side-by-side "ISO 100 pushed 4 stops" vs "ISO 1600" testing, and then carefully compared the two. But I have done some casual comparisons, and I concluded that higher ISO was not much different from underexposure with pushing, provided that sensor values were not pinned to such low values (eg 0-10) that they could not be retrieved without banding.

In theory, the camera does have an opportunity at high ISO to gain-up the sensor electronically, and perform other electronic magic, which in theory should produce a better result. Testing suggests this offers some benefit, but the difference seems to be modest (and subjectively different too). I think it would require trying a variety of high-key and low-key subjects with fine detail and broad gamut to really get a definitive answer.

[DragonflyDM]

Mike,

It is better to shoot high ISO and ensure you have proper exposure (knowing that many people meter quickly and usually end up underexposing a bit) than it is to have a low ISO and be underexposed.

For example. To shoot the images I did with the Sigma 30mm look as good as they do because I made sure I used the right exposure settings. However, if I were to shoot the same image at ISO200 and was three stops underexposed (essentially ISO1600), you would see just horrible noise. This is because you improperly used the abilities of the camera to record the light and are trying to work the image digitally with bad information.